United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 841-B-05-005
October 2005
Disclaimer
This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, local
governments, watershed organizations, and the public regarding technical tools
and sources of information for developing watershed based plans to improve and
protect water quality. This document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions
that contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for
those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not
impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes,
local governments, watershed organizations, or the public and may not apply to a
particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, state, territory, local
government, and authorized tribe decision makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance.
Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the
appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a situation, and EPA will
consider whether or not the recommendations in this guidance are appropriate in
that situation. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Contents
Draft i
Contents
Acronyms ................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................1-1
1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Handbook? ...................................................1-2
1.1.1 How Is This Handbook Different from Other Guides? .................................1-3
1.1.2 Who Should Use This Handbook? .................................................1-3
1.1.3 What if We Already Have a Watershed Plan? ........................................1-3
1.2 What’s Inside?.......................................................................1-4
1.2.1 Chapter Summaries ..............................................................1-4
1.2.2 Appendices and Back Matter .......................................................1-6
1.3 How to Use This Handbook ............................................................1-6
Chapter 2. Overview of Watershed Planning Process ..............................................2-1
2.1 Why Use a Watershed Approach to Manage Water Resources? ................................2-2
2.2 Common Features of the Watershed Planning Process ........................................2-2
2.2.1 Watershed Planning Is an Iterative and Adaptive Process ...............................2-3
2.2.2 Watershed Planning Is a Holistic Process ...........................................2-4
2.2.3 Watershed Planning Is Geographically Defined ......................................2-4
2.2.4 Watershed Planning Should Be Integrated with Other Planning Efforts ....................2-5
2.2.5 Watershed Planning Is a Collaborative and Participatory Process .........................2-5
2.3 Steps in the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process ..................................2-5
2.4 Watershed Planning for Impaired Waters ..................................................2-6
2.4.1 What Are the Most Common Impairments? .........................................2-8
2.4.2 Watershed Planning Where a TMDL Has Been Developed ............................2-11
2.4.3 Watershed Planning in the Absence of a TMDL .....................................2-11
2.5 Including Water Quality Standards in Goal Setting .........................................2-12
2.5.1 What Are Water Quality Standards and Why Are They Important? .....................2-13
2.5.2 How Are Water Quality Standards Set? ............................................2-13
2.6 Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan for Impaired Waters
Funded Using Incremental Section 319 Funds ......................................2-16
Chapter 3. Build Partnerships .................................................................3-1
3.1 Why Do I Need Partners? ..............................................................3-2
3.2 Identify Driving Forces................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Regulatory Issues ..............................................................3-3
3.2.2 Government Initiatives ..........................................................3-3
3.2.3 Community-Driven Issues .......................................................3-4
3.3 Identify and Engage Relevant Stakeholders ................................................3-4
3.3.1 Identify Categories of Stakeholders ................................................3-5
3.3.2 Determine Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities ...................................3-6
3.3.3 Provide a Structure to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation ..............................3-6
3.3.4 Identify Stakeholders’ Skills and Resources .........................................3-7
3.3.5 Encourage Participation and Involvement ...........................................3-7
3.3.6 Initiate Outreach Activities to Build Awareness and Gain Partners .......................3-9
3.4 Integrate Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Programs into Your Watershed Planning Effort ..........3-10
3.4.1 Local Programs ..............................................................3-11
3.4.2 State and Regional Programs ....................................................3-14
Contents
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
ii Draft
3.4.3 Tribal Programs and Organizations .............................................. 3-17
3.4.4 Federal Programs and Organizations ............................................. 3-18
Chapter 4. Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort ............................................ 4-1
4.1 Why Define the Scope of Your Watershed Planning Effort? .................................. 4-2
4.2 Ask Stakeholders for Background Information ............................................. 4-2
4.3 Identify Issues of Concern ............................................................. 4-3
4.3.1 Draw a Picture ............................................................... 4-4
4.3.2 Take Stakeholders Out into the Watershed.......................................... 4-6
4.4 Define the Geographic Extent of the Watershed ............................................ 4-6
4.5 Develop Preliminary Goals ............................................................ 4-8
4.6 Select Indicators to Measure Environmental Conditions ...................................... 4-9
4.6.1 Select Quantitative Indicators ................................................... 4-10
4.6.2 Select a Combination of Indicators............................................... 4-11
4.7 Link Concerns with Goals and Indicators ................................................ 4-16
Chapter 5. Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory ......................................... 5-1
5.1 How Do I Characterize My Watershed? .................................................. 5-2
5.2 Focus Your Data Gathering Efforts...................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Build on Earlier Scoping Efforts ................................................. 5-3
5.2.2 Consider Stakeholder Goals and Concerns.......................................... 5-3
5.3 Who Has the Data and What Types of Data Do You Need? ................................... 5-4
5.3.1 Local Sources of Information .................................................... 5-5
5.3.2 State Sources of Information .................................................... 5-6
5.3.3 Tribal Sources of Information ................................................... 5-6
5.3.4 Federal Sources of Information .................................................. 5-7
5.3.5 Data Types .................................................................. 5-7
5.4 Physical and Natural Features .......................................................... 5-9
5.4.1 Watershed Boundaries ......................................................... 5-9
5.4.2 Hydrology.................................................................. 5-12
5.4.3 Topography ................................................................. 5-14
5.4.4 Soils ...................................................................... 5-15
5.4.5 Climate .................................................................... 5-16
5.4.6 Habitat .................................................................... 5-16
5.4.7 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................ 5-18
5.5 Land Use and Population Characteristics ................................................ 5-18
5.5.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data ................................................. 5-19
5.5.2 Land Management Practices.................................................... 5-23
5.5.3 Demographics............................................................... 5-25
5.6 Waterbody and Watershed Conditions .................................................. 5-26
5.6.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................... 5-27
5.6.2 Water Quality Reports ........................................................ 5-27
5.6.3 Watershed-Related Reports .................................................... 5-28
5.7 Pollutant Sources ................................................................... 5-30
5.7.1 Point Sources ............................................................... 5-31
5.7.2 Nonpoint Sources ............................................................ 5-32
5.8 Waterbody Monitoring Data .......................................................... 5-35
5.8.1 Water Quality and Flow Data ................................................... 5-36
5.8.2 Biological Data ............................................................. 5-38
5.8.3 Geomorphological Data ....................................................... 5-39
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Contents
Draft iii
5.9 Selected Tools Used to Gather, Organize, and View Assessment Information ....................5-40
5.9.1 Geographic Information Systems.................................................5-40
5.9.2 Remote Sensing Techniques to Collect Land Use/Land Cover Information ................5-45
5.10Create a Data Inventory...............................................................5-51
Chapter 6. Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data if Needed ................................6-1
6.1 How Do I Know if I Have Enough Data to Start My Analysis? .................................6-2
6.2 Conduct a Data Review ................................................................6-2
6.2.1 Identify Data Gaps .............................................................6-3
6.2.2 Determine Acceptability of Data ..................................................6-4
6.3 Determine Whether New Data Collection Is Essential ........................................6-6
6.4 Design a Sampling Plan for Collecting New Data ...........................................6-7
6.4.1 Select a Monitoring Design ......................................................6-8
6.4.2 Develop Data Quality Objectives .................................................6-11
6.4.3 Develop Measurement Quality Objectives and Performance Characteristics ...............6-12
6.4.4 Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan .........................................6-13
6.4.5 Develop Plan for Data Management ..............................................6-14
6.5 Collect New Data ...................................................................6-16
6.5.1 Watershed Overview/Visual Assessment ...........................................6-16
6.5.2 Physical Characterization.......................................................6-18
6.5.3 Geomorphic Assessment .......................................................6-18
6.5.4 Hydrological Assessments ......................................................6-20
6.5.5 Water Quality Assessment ......................................................6-21
6.5.6 Assessment of Habitat Quality ...................................................6-22
6.5.7 Biological Assessment .........................................................6-23
Chapter 7. Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed and Pollutant Sources ........................7-1
7.1 Analyze Data to Identify Pollutant Sources ................................................7-2
7.1.1 Focus Your Analysis Efforts .....................................................7-2
7.1.2 Use a Combination of Analysis Types..............................................7-3
7.1.3 Consider Geographic Variations ..................................................7-4
7.1.4 Incorporate Stakeholders’ Concerns and Observations .................................7-4
7.2 Analyze Instream and Watershed Data ....................................................7-5
7.2.1 Confirm Impairments and Identify Problems.........................................7-7
7.2.2 Summary Statistics.............................................................7-8
7.2.3 Spatial Analysis ...............................................................7-9
7.2.4 Temporal Analysis ............................................................7-10
7.2.5 Other Trends or Patterns .......................................................7-11
7.2.6 Stressor Identification .........................................................7-13
7.2.7 Visual Assessments and Local Knowledge .........................................7-14
7.3 Evaluate Data Analysis Results to Identify Causes and Sources ...............................7-15
7.3.1 Grouping Sources for Further Assessment ..........................................7-16
7.3.2 Time Frame for Source Assessment ...............................................7-18
7.4 Summarize Causes and Sources ........................................................7-19
Chapter 8. Estimate Pollutant Loads ............................................................8-1
8.1 How Do I Estimate Pollutant Loads? .....................................................8-2
8.2 Using Monitoring Data or Literature Values to Estimate Pollutant Loads .........................8-4
8.2.1 Using Monitoring Data to Estimate Loads...........................................8-4
8.2.2 Using Literature Values to Estimate Loads ..........................................8-6
Contents
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
iv Draft
8.3 Watershed Modeling ................................................................. 8-8
8.3.1 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Model ....................................... 8-9
8.3.2 Using Watershed Modeling Tools to Evaluate Loads ................................ 8-13
8.3.3 Model Selection and Application Process ......................................... 8-15
8.3.4 What Models Are Available? ................................................... 8-17
8.3.5 Capabilities of the Selected Models .............................................. 8-26
8.4 Model Application Process for the Selected Models ........................................ 8-29
8.4.1 Watershed Delineation ........................................................ 8-30
8.4.2 Land Use Assignment......................................................... 8-31
8.4.3 Parameter Selection .......................................................... 8-32
8.4.4 Model Testing............................................................... 8-34
8.4.5 Estimation of Exising Conditions and Baseline Scenarios............................. 8-38
8.5 Presenting Pollutant Loads ........................................................... 8-39
8.5.1 Consider Spatial Scales........................................................ 8-39
8.5.2 Consider Time Scales ......................................................... 8-40
8.5.3 Next Steps in the Development of the Watershed Plan ............................... 8-41
Chapter 9. Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions .............................................. 9-1
9.1 How Do I Link the Watershed Analysis to Management Solutions? ............................ 9-2
9.2 Translate Watershed Goals into Management Objectives ..................................... 9-3
9.3 Select Environmental Indicators and Targets to Evaluate Management Objectives ................. 9-4
9.4 Determine Load Reductions to Meet Environmental Targets .................................. 9-5
9.4.1 Qualitative Linkages Based on Local Knowledge or Historical Conditions ................ 9-7
9.4.2 Mass Balance Approach ........................................................ 9-7
9.4.3 Empirical Relationships ........................................................ 9-8
9.4.4 Statistical or Mathematical Relationships........................................... 9-9
9.4.5 Reference Watershed Approach .................................................. 9-9
9.4.6 Receiving Water Models ...................................................... 9-10
9.5 Focus the Load Reductions ........................................................... 9-12
9.6 Summarize Watershed Targets and Necessary Load Reductions .............................. 9-14
Chapter 10. Identify Possible Management Strategies ............................................ 10-1
10.1How Do I Link My Management Strategies to My Goals?................................... 10-2
10.2Overview of Types of Management .................................................... 10-3
10.2.1 Nonpoint Source Management Practices .......................................... 10-4
10.2.2 Regulatory Approaches to Manage Pollutant Sources ................................ 10-6
10.3Steps to Select Management Practices.................................................. 10-10
10.3.1 Identify Existing Management Efforts in the Watershed ............................. 10-11
10.3.2 Quantify Effectiveness of Current Management Measures ........................... 10-13
10.3.3 Identify New Management Opportunities ........................................ 10-14
10.3.4 Identify Critical Areas in the Watershed Where Additional Management Efforts
Are Needed ................................................................ 10-14
10.3.5 Identify Possible Management Practices ......................................... 10-15
10.3.6 Identify Relative Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies ................................. 10-19
10.3.7 Develop Screening Criteria to Identify Opportunities and Constraints .................. 10-20
10.3.8 Rank Alternatives and Develop Candidate Management Opportunities ................. 10-23
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Contents
Draft v
Chapter 11. Evaluate Options and Select Final Management Strategies .............................11-1
11.1How Do I Select the Final Management Strategy? ..........................................11-2
11.2Factors that Influence the Selection of Approaches Used to Quantify Effectiveness................11-3
11.2.1 General Types of Management Practices...........................................11-3
11.2.2 Identify the Types of Indicators You’re Using to Measure Performance ..................11-4
11.2.3 Consider the Scale of Your Watershed ............................................11-4
11.2.4 Consider the Synergistic Effects of Multiple Practices ................................11-5
11.3 Select an Approach to Quantify the Effectiveness of the Management Strategies ..................11-6
11.3.1 Using Literature Values .......................................................11-7
11.3.2 Using Models to Assess Management Strategies .....................................11-8
11.3.3 Example Model Applications to Assess Management Strategies .......................11-21
11.4 Identify Costs and Compare Benefits of Management Practices ..............................11-26
11.4.1 Identify Cost Considerations ...................................................11-26
11.4.2 Compare Costs and Effectiveness of Management Practices ...........................11-31
11.5Select Final Management Strategies ....................................................11-33
11.5.1 Decision Process ............................................................11-34
11.5.2 Example Procedures for Selecting Final Management Strategies .......................11-36
Chapter 12. Design Implementation Program and Assemble Watershed Plan .........................12-1
12.1What Do I Need to Design My Implementation Program?....................................12-2
12.2 Develop Information/Education Component ..............................................12-2
12.2.1 Integrate I/E Activities into the Overall Watershed Implementation Program ..............12-2
12.2.2 Develop an I/E Program........................................................12-3
12.3Establish an Implementation Schedule ...................................................12-7
12.4 Develop Interim Measurable Milestones .................................................12-8
12.5 Establish a Set of Criteria to Measure Progress toward Meeting Water Quality Standards
and Other Goals.....................................................................12-9
12.5.1 Schedule for Implementation of Management Measures ..............................12-11
12.5.2 Nature of Pollutants to Be Controlled ............................................12-11
12.6 Develop a Monitoring Component .....................................................12-12
12.6.1 Directly Relate Monitoring Efforts to the Management Objectives .....................12-13
12.6.2 Incorporate Previous Sampling Designs ..........................................12-14
12.6.3 Monitor Land Use Changes in Conjunction with Water Quality Monitoring ..............12-14
12.6.4 Use an Appropriate Experimental Design .........................................12-15
12.6.5 Conduct Monitoring for Several Years Before and After Implementation ................12-16
12.6.6 Build In an Evaluation Process .................................................12-16
12.7 Estimate Financial and Technical Assistance Needed and the Sources/Authorities that Will
Be Relied on for Implementation ......................................................12-17
12.7.1 Identify Funding Sources ......................................................12-17
12.7.2 Leverage Existing Resources ...................................................12-18
12.7.3 Estimating Costs.............................................................12-18
12.7.4 Identify Technical Assistance Needs .............................................12-22
12.7.5 Identify the Relevant Authorities Needed for Implementation .........................12-23
12.8Develop the Implementation Plan Basics ................................................12-23
12.9Develop an Evaluation Framework.....................................................12-25
12.9.1 What Parts of Your Program Should You Evaluate? .................................12-25
12.9.2 Using a Logic Model to Develop an Evaluation Framework...........................12-28
12.9.3 Evaluation Methods ..........................................................12-29
12.9.4 Timing of Evaluation .........................................................12-30
Contents
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
vi Draft
12.10 Devise a Method for Tracking Progress ............................................... 12-30
12.11 Putting It All Together............................................................. 12-32
12.11.1The Final Review ........................................................... 12-34
12.11.2 Make the Plan Accessible to Various Audiences .................................. 12-35
Chapter 13. Implement Watershed Plan and Measure Progress ................................... 13-1
13.1What Do I Do Once I've Started to Implement the Watershed Plan? ........................... 13-2
13.2Create an Organizational Structure for Implementation ..................................... 13-2
13.3 Implement Activities ................................................................ 13-4
13.4Prepare Work Plans ................................................................. 13-4
13.5Share Results ...................................................................... 13-6
13.6Evaluate Your Program .............................................................. 13-8
13.6.1 Track Progress Against Your Work Plans ......................................... 13-9
13.6.2 Analyze Monitoring Data ...................................................... 13-9
13.7Make Adjustments ................................................................. 13-12
13.7.1 Not Meeting Implementation Milestones ......................................... 13-12
13.7.2 Not Making Progress Toward Reducing Pollutant Loads ............................ 13-13
13.8A Final Word ..................................................................... 13-15
Appendix A: Resources
Appendix B: Worksheets
Glossary
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Contents
Draft vii
Figures
Figure 2-1. Steps in the watershed planning process. .................................................2-7
Figure 2-2. Potential relationships between TMDLs and watershed plans. ...............................2-12
Figure 2-3. Incorporating the nine minimum elements into your watershed plan...........................2-17
Figure 4-1. Simplified conceptual model. ..........................................................4-4
Figure 4-2. A simple conceptual model involving logging road construction effects on stream aquatic life
(adapted from USEPA 1998). .........................................................4-4
Figure 4-3. Draft conceptual model for Greens Creek, North Carolina. ...................................4-5
Figure 4-4. Evolution of goals throughout the watershed planning process. ...............................4-9
Figure 5-1. Example of NRCS watershed delineations within a USGS 8-digit cataloging unit. ...............5-10
Figure 5-2. Examples of medium-resolution and high-resolution NHD. .................................5-13
Figure 5-3. Example map projections.............................................................5-42
Figure 5-4. Example of GIS datasets at different scales. ..............................................5-43
Figure 5-5. Example fields in a data inventory. ....................................................5-53
Figure 6-1. Excerpt from Spa Creek Proposed Sampling Plan. ........................................6-15
Figure 7-1. Example graph of observed aluminum concentrations compared to water quality criteria. ...........7-8
Figure 7-2. Commonly used summary statistics......................................................7-9
Figure 7-3. Example map of average total dissolved solids concentration throughout a watershed. ............7-10
Figure 7-4. Example graph of monthly statistics for fecal coliform bacteria. ..............................7-11
Figure 7-5. Example load duration curve. .........................................................7-12
Figure 7-6. Stressor identification process. ........................................................7-13
Figure 7-7. Long-term turbidity levels at two stations in Lake Creek, Idaho. .............................7-15
Figure 8-1. Example of an application of export coefficients to calculate pollutant loads. ....................8-7
Figure 8-2. Typical model evaluation points. ......................................................8-35
Figure 8-3. Sample calibration tests for hydrologic simulation. ........................................8-36
Figure 8-4. Sample model testing graphics. .......................................................8-37
Figure 8-5. Presentation of annual sediment loads (lb/ac) by subwatershed, San Jacinto, California. ...........8-39
Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform bacteria loads. ..................................................8-40
Figure 8-7. Total sediment load and percentages associated with each source. ............................8-40
Figure 9-1. Process for identifying final watershed goals and targets. ....................................9-2
Figure 10-1. Process to identify candidate management practices. ......................................10-2
Figure 10-2. Percentage of buffer area disturbed and impaired waters in the Troublesome Creek watersheds. . . . 10-15
Figure 11-1. Evaluate candidate management practices to select final strategies. ..........................11-2
Figure 11-2. Using a spreadsheet analysis to evaluate one management practice at a single site. ..............11-9
Figure 11-3. Analysis of multiple management practices using multiple indicators. .......................11-22
Figure 11-4. Quantifying the effectiveness of stabilization practices in reducing sediment loads. .............11-23
Figure 11-5. Quantifying the effectiveness of management practices in improving aquatic habitat. ...........11-24
Figure 11-6. Cost comparison of alternative treatment trains to meet specific water quality and detention
performance standards. ............................................................11-28
Contents
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
viii Draft
Figure 11-7. Example comparing construction cost and pollutant loading for different urban land use types
with decreasing levels of imperviousness. ............................................. 11-32
Figure 11-8. Example showing increased cost per pound of total phosphorus removed for urban land
uses with highest levels of imperviousness. ............................................ 11-33
Figure 11-9. Evaluation of stormwater management options for the Town of Cary. ...................... 11-39
Figure 12-1. Logic model components. ......................................................... 12-28
Figure 12-2. Sample logic model. ............................................................. 12-29
Figure 12-3. Table of contents from White Oak Creek, Ohio, watershed plan............................ 12-33
Figure 13-1. Watershed report card for Clermont County, Ohio. ...................................... 13-7
Figure 13-2. Example adaptive management approach using a logic model. ............................. 13-8
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Contents
Draft ix
Tables
Table 1-1. Relationship of Chapters to the Watershed Planning Process .................................1-4
Table 2-1. Top Ten 303(d) List Impairments in the United States (August 1, 2005) ........................2-8
Table 2-2. Summary of Common Pollutants and Sources............................................2-10
Table 4-1. Coal Creek Sediment Loading Indicators and Target Values .................................4-9
Table 4-2. Use of Indicators Throughout the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process ..............4-10
Table 4-3. Example Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and
Environmental Conditions ...........................................................4-12
Table 4-4. Example Indicators Used throughout Watershed Plan Development and Implementation ..........4-15
Table 4-5. Examples of Performance Indicators That Can Be Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in
Meeting Watershed Goals ...........................................................4-16
Table 5-1. Data Typically Used for Watershed Characterization .......................................5-8
Table 5-2. Sources of GIS Data Available on the Internet ...........................................5-41
Table 5-3. Sample Costs for Purchasing Remote Sensing Products ....................................5-50
Table 6-1. Sources and Associated Pollutants .....................................................6-21
Table 7-1. Examples of the Types of Data-related Activities Conducted Throughout the Watershed
Planning Process ...................................................................7-3
Table 7-2. Examples of the Level of Detail and Effort for Typical Types of Data..........................7-5
Table 8-1. Example Approaches Used for Estimating Watershed Loads .................................8-3
Table 8-2. Various Levels of Detail for Simulating Runoff ..........................................8-14
Table 8-3. Levels of Detail in Watershed Models..................................................8-14
Table 8-4. Overview of Several Available Watershed Models........................................8-18
Table 8-5. Water Quality Endpoints Supported by the Selected Watershed Models .......................8-27
Table 8-6. Land and Water Features Supported by the Selected Watershed Models .......................8-28
Table 8-7. Application Considerations of the Selected Watershed Models ..............................8-29
Table 8-8. Typical Data Needs for Example Models ...............................................8-30
Table 8-9. Examples of Number and Size of Subwatersheds in Modeling Applications ....................8-31
Table 8-10. Example Land Use Categories for Watershed Models .....................................8-32
Table 8-11. Typical Calibration Options for Selected Example Models..................................8-36
Table 8-12. Typical Loading Presentation Categories and Types .......................................8-39
Table 9-1. Sample Goals Linked to the Sources and Impacts to Define Management Objectives ..............9-3
Table 9-2. Examples of Indicators and Targets to Meet Management Objectives ..........................9-5
Table 9-3. Example Approaches for Linking Indicators and Sources....................................9-6
Table 9-4. Overview of Various Receiving Water Models ...........................................9-11
Table 9-5. Examples of Different Scenarios to Meet the Same Load Target .............................9-13
Table 10-1. Examples of Structural and Nonstructural Management Practices ............................10-5
Table 10-2. Existing Programs and Policies Identified in the Mill Creek Subwatershed Communities .........10-12
Table 10-3. Commonly Used Management Practices for Salinity, Sediment, and Total Dissolved Solids ......10-17
Table 10-4. Example Management Practice Screening Matrix ........................................10-20
Table 10-5. Example Ranking Table to Identify Candidate Management Practices........................10-23
Contents
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
x Draft
Table 11-1. Summary of Management Practice Representation Capabilities of the Selected Models ......... 11-11
Table 11-2. Summary of Management Practice Simulation Techniques of the Selected Models ............. 11-12
Table 11-3. Data Needs for Management Strategy Modeling ........................................ 11-14
Table 11-4. Summary of Other Specialized Models for Management Analysis .......................... 11-16
Table 11-5. Considerations for Applying Management Practice Unit Cost Measures ..................... 11-27
Table 11-6. Example of Discounting Management Practice Cost for Comparison Purposes ................ 11-31
Table 11-7. Selected Management Techniques for the Muddy Creek Subwatershed, Virgin River TMDL
Implementation.................................................................. 11-37
Table 11-8. Summary of Load Reduction Requirements and Expected Removal Efficiencies for Selected
Management Practices: Muddy Creek Subwatershed .................................... 11-37
Table 12-1. Example Indicators to Measure Progress in Reducing Pollutant Loads ....................... 12-11
Table 12-2. Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices from Chesapeake Bay
Installations .................................................................... 12-20
Table 13-1. Comparison of Example Parameters in a Hypothetical Watershed Plan and 319 Work Plan ....... 13-5
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Acronyms
Draft xi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
There are dozens of acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this handbook. Refer back to this list to help you navigate
through the alphabet soup.
ADB: Assessment Database
ADID: advance identification
AFO: animal feeding operation
AGNPS: Agricultural Non-Point Source model
AnnAGNPS: Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source model
AIEO: American Indian Environmental Office
ARS: Agricultural Research Service
ASIWPCA: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
AU: assessment unit
AVIRIS: airborne visible/infrared imaging spectrometer
AVS: acid-volatile sulfide
BASINS: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources
BEACH: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
BEHI: Bank Erosion Hazard Index
BLM: [U.S.] Bureau of Land Management
BMP: best management practice
BOR: [U.S.] Bureau of Reclamation
CADDIS: Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System
CAEDYM: Computational Aquatic Ecosystem Dynamics Model
CAFO: concentrated animal feeding operation
CBOD: carbonaceous biological oxygen demand
C-CAP: Coastal Change Analysis Program
CCMP: comprehensive conservation and management plan
cfs: cubic feet per second
CH3D-IMS: Curvilinear-grid Hydrodynamics 3D— Integrated Modeling System
CH3D-SED: Curvilinear Hydrodynamics 3D—Sediment Transport
CN: curve number
CNE: curve number equation
CNMP: conservation nutrient management plan
COD: chemical oxygen demand
CRC: Cooperative Research Center
CREM: Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling
CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CRM: crop residue management
CRP: Conservation Reserve Program
CSC: Coastal Services Center
CSO: combined sewer overflow
CSP: Conservation Security Program
Acronyms
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
xii Draft
CSREES: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
CSTR: continuously stirred tank reactor
CTG: composite theme grid
CTIC: Center for Technology Information Center
CWA: Clean Water Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DEM: digital elevation model
DIAS/IDLMAS: Dynamic Information Architecture System/Integrated Dynamic Landscape Analysis and Modeling System
DLG: digital line graphs
DO: dissolved oxygen
DOI: [U.S.] Department of the Interior
DOT: [U.S.] Department of Transportation
DQO: data quality objective
DRG: digital raster graphic
ECOMSED: Estuary and Coastal Ocean Model with Sediment Transport
EDAS: Ecological Data Application System
EDNA: Elevation Derivatives for National Application
EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code
EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EMC: event mean concentration
EPA: [U.S.] Environmental Protection Agency
EPIC: Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator
EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ETM: enhanced thematic mapper
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGDC: Federal Geographic Data Committee
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FSA: Farm Service Agency
GAP: Gap Analysis Project
GIRAS: Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System
GIS: geographic information system
GISPLM: GIS-Based Phosphorus Loading Model
GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems
GLLVHT: Generalized, Longitudinal-Lateral-Vertical Hydrodynamic and Transport
GPS: global positioning system
GRP: Grasslands Reserve Program
GSSHA: Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis
GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions
HBI: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
HCP: habitat conservation plan
HEC-6: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs
HEC-6T: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Sedimentation in Stream Networks
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Acronyms
Draft xiii
HEC-HMS: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
HSCTM-2D: Hydrodynamic, Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model
HSPF: Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran
HUC: hydrologic unit code
IBI: index of biotic integrity
IDEAL: Integrated Design and Evaluation Assessment of Loadings
I/E: information/education
IMP: integrated management practices
IPM: integrated pest management
kg/ha/yr: kilograms per hectare per year
kg/yr: kilograms per year
KINEROS2: Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model, v2
lb/d: pounds per day
LID: low impact development
LIDAR: light detection and ranging
LSPC: Loading Simulation Program in C++
LULC: land use/land cover
MDC: minimal detectable change
mg/L: milligrams per liter
MINTEQA2: Metal Speciation Equilibrium Model for Surface and Ground Water
MQO: measurement quality objective
MRLC: Multi-resolution Land Characteristics
MS4: municipal separate storm sewer systems
MSGP: multi-sector general permit
MUIR: map unit interpretation record
MUSIC: Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization
MVUE: Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAWQA: National Water-Quality Assessment
NCDC: National Climatic Data Center
NDVI: normalized difference vegetation index
NED: National Elevation Dataset
NEIPCC: New England Interstate Pollution Control Commission
NEMI: National Environmental Methods Index
NEP: National Estuary Program
NGO: non-governmental organization
NHD: National Hydrography Dataset
NIR: near-infrared
NLCD: National Land Cover Dataset
NLFA: National Listing of Fish Advisories
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Acronyms
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
xiv Draft
NPS: nonpoint source
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRI: National Resources Inventory
NSFC: National Small Flows Clearinghouse
NSI: National Sediment Inventory
NTTS: National TMDL Tracking System
NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory
NWIS: National Water Information System
O&M: operation and maintenance
OMB: [U.S.] Office of Management and Budget
ORSANCO: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
OSM: Office of Surface Mining
P8-UCM: Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and Ponds - Urban Catchment Model
PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBMS: Performance-Based Methods System
PCS: Permit Compliance System
PGC-BMP: Prince George’s County Best Management Practice Module
POTW: publicly owned treatment works
PSA: public service announcement
QAPP: quality assurance project plan
QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control
QHEI: Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
QUAL2E: Enhanced Stream Water Qaulity Model
RBP: Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
REMM: Riparian Ecosystem Management Model
RF1: Reach File Version 1
RF2: Reach File Version 2
RF3-Alpha: Reach File Version 3 - Alpha
RMP: resource management plan
RPD: relative percent difference
RSAT: Rapid Stream Assessment Technique
RUSLE: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
SAMP: Special Area Management Plan
SAP: sampling and analysis plan
SAR: synthetic aperture radar
SCS: Soil Conservation Service
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SED3D: Three-dimensional Numerical Model of Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport in Lakes and Estuaries
SEM: simultaneously extracted metals
SET: Site Evaluation Tool
SLAMM: Source Loading and Management Model
SOP: standard operating procedure
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Acronyms
Draft xv
SPARROW: Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes
SRF: State Revolving Fund
SSO: sanitary sewer overflow
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
STEPL: Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load
STORET: Storage and Retrieval
STORM: Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model
SVAP: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
SWA: source water assessment
SWAP: Source Water Assessment Program
SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool
SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District
SWCP: soil and water conservation plan
SWMM: Storm Water Management Model
SWP: source water protection
SWPP: source water protection plan
SWPPP: stormwater pollution prevention plan
TCEQ: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TDS: total dissolved solids
TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
TKN: total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TM: thematic mapper
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC: total organic carbon
TP: total phosphorus
TSI: Carlson’s Trophic Status Index
TSP: technical service provider
TSS: total suspended solids
USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
μS/cm: microsiemens per centimeter
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
USLE: Universal Soil Loss Equation
UTM: universal transverse mercator
VAFSWM: Virginia Field Scale Wetland Model
VFSMOD: Vegetative Filter Strip Model
VSAP: Visual Stream Assessment Protocol
WAMView: Watershed Assessment Model with an ArcView Interface
WARMF: Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework
WASP: Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program
WATERS: Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System
Acronyms
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
xvi Draft
WATERSHEDSS: WATER, Soil, and Hydro- Environmental Decision Support System
WBD: watershed boundary dataset
WCS: Watershed Characterization System
WEPP: Water Erosion Prediction Project
WHP: wellhead protection
WinHSPF: Interactive Windows Interface to HSPF
WMS: Watershed Modeling System
WQS: water quality standard
WRAS: Watershed Restoration Action Strategy
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WWTP: wastewater treatment plant
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 1
Introduction
Draft 1-1
1. Introduction
Read this chapter if...
? You want to know if this handbook is intended for you
? You want an overview of all the chapters
? You want tips on how to skip around to various sections in the handbook
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Purpose of handbook
< Intended audience
< Chapter summaries
< Tips for using the handbook
Chapter 1
Introduction
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
1-2 Draft
A watershed is the land area that drains to a
common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary,
wetland, or ultimately the ocean.
Watershed plans are a means to resolve and
prevent water quality problems that result from both
point source and nonpoint source problems.
Although the primary focus of this handbook is on
waters listed as impaired under section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act, watershed plans are intended
to provide both an analytic framework to restore
water quality in impaired waters and to protect
water quality in other waters adversely affected or
threatened by point source and nonpoint source
pollution.
1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Handbook?
This handbook provides information on developing and implementing watershed
plans that help to restore and protect water quality. Experience over the past decade
has shown that effective watershed management includes active
participation from stakeholders, analysis and quantification of the
specific causes and sources of water quality problems,
identification of measurable water quality goals, and specific
actions needed to solve those problems.
Don’t be daunted by the size of this handbook. Although it is
comprehensive in terms of providing resources and tools for each step of the
watershed planning process, it is laid out in an easy-to-read format with shortcuts and
road maps along the way so you can flip to specific sections for more in-depth
information. You might not need to read all the sections if you
have already completed some stages of the watershed planning
process. Read the highlights at the beginning of each chapter to
determine whether you can skip to the next section.
This handbook is intended to serve as the basis for developing
and implementing watershed plans to meet water quality
standards and protect water resources. Although watershed plans
are useful for all watersheds to protect and restore water
resources, as well as to meet other community resource goals,
they are critical for impaired or threatened waterbodies. The most
recent national water quality assessment (2000) reported that 40
to 50 percent of the nation’s assessed waterbodies are impaired
or threatened. This handbook is designed to provide a framework to help you develop
a scientifically defensible plan that will lead to measurable results and an overall
improvement in the water quality and watershed conditions that are important to your
community.
Developing watershed plans does not have to be an exhaustive, expensive endeavor.
This handbook shows you how to effectively and efficiently collect the information
you need to answer the right questions. The level of effort you expend preparing a
watershed plan will depend on several factors, such as the available
information, the size of the watershed, and the pollutants of concern.
Federal, state, and local organizations have developed many watershed
guides. EPA intends for this handbook to supplement, rather than
replace, those guides. KAppendix A includes a list of some of the
watershed planning guides for your reference.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 1
Introduction
Draft 1-3
A waterbody is impaired if it does not attain state
water quality standards. Threatened waters are
those that meet standards but exhibit a declining
trend in water quality such that they will likely
exceed standards.
1.1.1 How Is This Handbook Different from Other Guides?
This handbook is more rigorous and goes into greater detail than most watershed
planning guides. It provides tools to quantify existing pollutant loads, develop
estimates of the load reductions designed to meet water quality standards, and
identify reductions associated with the management measures expected to achieve
load reductions to meet water quality standards. Using these tools enables you to then
develop effective management measures to reduce the loads. The handbook also
provides tools to track progress once the plan is implemented to ensure that the
management measures are helping to improve water quality.
1.1.2 Who Should Use This Handbook?
We have designed this handbook to be used by agencies and organizations that
develop watershed plans. It is specifically intended for those working in a watershed
where there are impaired or threatened waters. To use this handbook effectively, you
should have a basic level of understanding about watersheds, their processes, and the
major components to be included in a watershed plan. You might have to enlist the
support of experienced professionals such as engineers, hydrologists, statisticians,
biologists, and database managers to provide specific information for your watershed
plan.
The primary audiences that will benefit from this handbook are the following:
Watershed organizations that are developing new plans, updating existing plans to
meet funding requirements, or considering other watershed issues.
Local agencies that are developing or updating a watershed plan or need references
to research a particular subject related to watershed planning.
State and tribal environmental agencies that are developing
and reviewing watershed plans, participating as stakeholders on
watershed planning committees, or providing guidance to
watershed associations.
Federal environmental agencies that have similar planning
programs to help identify overlapping activities, provide sources
of data, and offer other kinds of financial and technical
assistance.
1.1.3 What if We Already Have a Watershed Plan?
EPA recognizes that many states and local groups already have in place or are
developing watershed plans and strategies at varying levels of scale, scope, and
specificity that might contribute significantly to the process of developing and
implementing watershed plans using the approach outlined in this handbook.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
1-4 Draft
Table 1-1. Relationship of Chapters to the
Watershed Planning Process
Chapter
Steps in Watershed
Planning and
Implementation
Process
1 Introduction
2Overiew of
Watershed Planning
Process
3 Build Partnerships Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of
Watershed Planning
Effort
Characterize the
Watershed
5 Gather Existing Data
and Create an
Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps
and Collect Additional
Data if Needed
7 Analyze Data to
Characterize the
Watershed and
Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant
Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Set Goals and
Identify Solutions
10 Identify Possible
Management
Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and
Select Final
Management
Strategies
12 Design
Implementation
Program and
Assemble Watershed
Plan
Design
Implementation
Program
13 Implement Watershed
Plan and Measure
Progress
Implement
Watershed Plan
Measure Progress
and Make
Adjustments
The existing plans and strategies should be adapted as
appropriate or used as building blocks for developing and
implementing watershed plans that contain the nine
minimum elements that EPA recommends including in
watershed plans that address impaired or threatened
waterbodies. This can be accomplished by adapting existing
plans to include the omitted components, incorporating by
reference existing assessments or other information in a
newly developed plan, or merging existing information into
an updated plan that includes all the basic components.
Where existing plans and strategies have been developed at
a basin-wide or other large geographic scale, they will
usually need to be refined at the smaller watershed scale to
provide the information needed to develop a watershed plan.
The assessment, monitoring, and other data collection
requirements for larger basin studies typically are not as
detailed as those for watershed plans or assessments
generated for site-level work plans.
1.2 What’s Inside?
The handbook is divided into 13 chapters that move through
the watershed planning and implementation process (table
1-1). Each chapter includes information that addresses the
key issues for each step, along with highlights to illustrate
how to apply these concepts to your own situation. In
addition, the appendices provide more detailed information
on additional resources and worksheets that can be used as
part of your watershed planning efforts.
1.2.1 Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1: Introduction includes the purpose of the
handbook, intended audiences, and guidelines on how to use
the information provided.
Chapter 2: Overview of Watershed Planning Process
provides an overview of the watershed planning process and
highlights common features of typical watershed planning
processes.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 1
Introduction
Draft 1-5
Chapter 3: Build Partnerships provides guidance on initial activities to organize and
involve interested parties, such as identifying stakeholders, integrating other key
programs, and conducting outreach.
Chapter 4: Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort discusses the preliminary
activities you undertake to start scoping out your planning effort. It includes
information on defining issues of concern, developing preliminary goals, and
identifying indicators to assess current conditions.
Chapter 5: Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory discusses the first step in
watershed characterization—gathering existing information and creating a data
inventory. It includes the collection of information from existing reports and datasets.
Chapter 6: Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data if Needed discusses
how to identify data gaps and collect additional data if needed. This chapter includes
a discussion on quality assurance/quality control procedures and the development of
sampling plans.
Chapter 7: Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed and Pollutant Sources
discusses the primary data analyses needed to identify problems and support
development of the plan. It includes information on the types of data analyses that
can be conducted and the tools used. It also discusses how to link the impairments to
the causes and sources of pollutant loads.
Chapter 8: Estimate Pollutant Loads provides guidance on using watershed models
and other tools to estimate pollutant loads. It discusses computer models, identifies
the types of models available, and tells how to select appropriate models for your
watershed study.
Chapter 9: Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions discusses how to set
management and water quality goals, develop management objectives, and determine
the load reductions needed to meet the goals. It provides guidance for identifying
critical areas to which management efforts can be targeted.
Chapter 10: Identify Possible Management Strategies gives an overview of various
management measures that might be selected, discusses how to identify existing
management efforts in the watershed, and provides considerations for selecting
management options.
Chapter 11: Evaluate Options and Select Final Management Strategies discusses
how to screen and research candidate management options, evaluate possible
scenarios, and select the final management measures to be included in your
watershed management plan.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
1-6 Draft
You can download a pdf version of this document at
Kwww.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
Chapter 12: Design Implementation Program and Assemble Watershed Plan
provides guidance on establishing milestones and implementation schedules and
identifying the technical and financial resources needed to implement the plan,
including information/education (I/E) activities and monitoring and evaluation
components. It discusses how to use various analyses and products to assemble and
document the watershed plan.
Chapter 13: Implement Watershed Plan and Measure Progress provides guidance
on using adaptive management techniques to make changes to your watershed plan
and on analyzing the monitoring data to determine whether milestones are being met.
It also provides guidance on using a watershed plan to develop annual work plans.
1.2.2 Appendices and Back Matter
Appendix A: Resources is an expanded list of resources provided to guide you to
more detailed information on various aspects of the watershed planning process.
Appendix B: Worksheets provides a complete set of all the
worksheets and checklists included in the handbook as full-size
sheets that you can photocopy and use with your planning
group.
A Glossary is provided after appendix B to define key terms
used in the handbook.
A Bibliography that lists the sources used to prepare the handbook is included.
1.3 How to Use this Handbook
Although there is no cookie-cutter approach to developing a watershed plan, plans
that seek to identify and address threats or impairments to water quality have some
common elements. This handbook provides various tools for you to consider when
developing your watershed plan and includes many Web links for more in-depth
information on particular topics. The document is structured so you can proceed step
by step through the watershed planning process or can go directly to a section that
highlights a specific technical tool for use in your watershed planning effort.
Some common themes are repeated throughout the handbook to reinforce the
concepts presented, provide shortcuts, and help you to focus your efforts. These tips
are identified by the following icons:
Nine Elements of Watershed Plans. One of the purposes of this handbook is to
show how the nine elements presented in the Clean Water Act section 319 guidelines
are used to develop effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 1
Introduction
Draft 1-7
Many organizations already have plans that include some of these elements but might
require additional information on other elements. Note that most of the nine elements
are presented in chapters 10–13.
7 Targeting Your Efforts. Although the handbook includes various options to be
considered in each step of the watershed planning process, planners must target their
efforts to move the process forward to achieve measurable progress in reducing
specific pollutant loads. You might already have a good idea of the problems in your
watershed and want to identify targeted management measures to address them. Or
perhaps your watershed has only one pollutant of concern. The 7 icon highlights
places in the planning process where it makes sense to target your efforts so you can
focus your resources to identify the most likely problems and solutions for your
watershed.
Watershed planning is not an exact science. Often we have to make
decisions based on our best professional judgment to move the process
forward. However, there are several places along the way where you should stop and
assess what you know, what information you have, and what additional information
you need. If you see the stop sign, take a minute to read the information to make sure
you’re going down the right path with the right information.
KThis icon indicates where the topic is discussed elsewhere in the document, or
where more information is provided in the text, the Resources appendix (appendix
A), other documents or the Internet.
O Worksheets and Checklists. Worksheets and checklists are provided throughout
the handbook to help you work through the watershed planning process with the
stakeholders. The worksheets are noted with a O. A complete set is provided in
appendix B to facilitate photocopying.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
1-8 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-1
2. Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Read this chapter if...
? You are unfamiliar with watershed planning concepts
? You want to know more about water quality standards
? You don’t know the most common water quality impairments in the United
States
? You want a list of the nine minimum elements to be included in section 319-
funded watershed plans
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Using a watershed approach
< Common features in watershed
planning
< Steps in the watershed planning
process
< Watershed planning for impaired
waters
< Common watershed impairments
< Summary of nine minimum elements
to be included in a watershed plan
for impaired waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-2 Draft
EPA defines an impaired waterbody as a waterbody
that does not meet criteria that support its designated
use. The criteria might be numeric and specify
concentration, duration, and recurrence intervals for
various parameters, or they might be narrative and
describe required conditions such as the absence of
scum, sludge, odors, or toxic substances.
If the waterbody is impaired, it is placed on the section
303(d) list. For each pollutant listed, the state or tribe
must develop a restoration target called a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
KAppendix A includes a selected list of
watershed guides published by various state
and federal agencies. These guides might
help you to fulfill state-specific requirements
or provide more in-depth information on
specific issues.
2.1 Why Use a Watershed Approach to Manage Water
Resources?
Since the late 1980s, watershed organizations, tribes, and federal and state agencies
have moved toward managing water quality by using a watershed approach. A
watershed approach is a flexible framework for managing water resource quality and
quantity within specified drainage areas, or watersheds. This approach includes
stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and
appropriate technology. The watershed planning process works within this
framework by using a series of cooperative, iterative steps to characterize existing
conditions, identify and prioritize problems, define management objectives, develop
protection or remediation strategies, and implement and adapt selected actions as
necessary. The outcomes of this process are documented or
referenced in a watershed plan. A watershed plan is a strategy
that provides assessment and management information for a
geographically defined watershed, including the analyses,
actions, participants, and resources related to developing and
implementing the plan.
Using a watershed approach to restore impaired waterbodies is
beneficial because it addresses the problems in a holistic
manner and the stakeholders in the watershed are actively
involved in selecting the management strategies that will be
implemented to solve the problems. Nonpoint source pollution
poses the greatest threat to water quality and is the most
significant source of water quality impairment in the nation.
Therefore, EPA is working with states, tribes, and watershed
groups to realign its programs and strengthen support for
watershed-based environmental protection programs. Such programs feature local
stakeholders joining forces to develop and implement watershed-based plans that
make sense for the conditions found in local communities. Specific features of the
watershed approach are explained below.
2.2 Common Features of the Watershed Planning Process
Although each watershed plan emphasizes different issues and reflects
unique goals and management strategies, some common features are
included in every watershed planning process. The watershed planning
process is iterative, holistic, geographically defined, integrated, and
collaborative.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-3
Although watershed plans are
recommended to implement TMDLs,
they should be developed holistically
to consider other impairments and
threats in the watershed. TMDLs
might focus on specific waterbody
segments, sources, or pollutants,
whereas the watershed plan should
incorporate the pollutant- and site-
specific TMDL into the larger context
of the watershed, including
? Additional water quality threats
? Additional pollutants
? Additional sources
? Threatened waterbodies
? Synergistic effects
? Water quantity issues
? Development pressures
? Habitat protection
? Wetland restoration/creation
? Source water protection
2.2.1 Watershed Planning Is an Iterative and Adaptive Process
EPA recognizes that the processes
involved in watershed assessment,
planning, and management are iterative
and that targeted actions might not result
in complete success during the first or
second cycle. It is expected, however, that
through adjustments made during the
management cycles, water quality
improvements can be documented and
continuous progress toward attaining
water quality standards can be achieved.
Watershed plans should address all the
sources and causes of waterbody
impairments and threats; that is, the plans
should address not only the sources of the immediate water quality impairment but
also any pollutants and sources of pollutants that need to be addressed to ensure the
long-term health of the watershed.
EPA recognizes the difficulty in obtaining watershed-related information
with precision and acknowledges that a balanced approach is needed to
address this concern. On one hand, it is absolutely critical that watershed
planners make a reasonable effort to identify significant pollutant sources,
specify the management measures that will most effectively address those
sources, and broadly estimate the expected load reductions that will result.
Without this analytic framework to provide focus and direction, it is much
less likely that projects implemented under the plan can efficiently and
effectively address the nonpoint sources of water quality impairments.
On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even if reasonable steps are taken to
obtain and analyze relevant data, the information available during the
planning stage (within reasonable time and cost constraints) might be limited.
Preliminary information and loading estimates might need to be updated over
time, accompanied by midcourse corrections in the watershed plan and the
activities it promotes. In many cases, several years of implementation may be
needed for a project to achieve its goals. EPA fully intends that the watershed
planning process described in this handbook be implemented in a dynamic
and adaptive manner to ensure that implementation of the plan can proceed
even though some of the information in the watershed plan is imperfect and
might need to be modified over time as better information becomes available.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-4 Draft
The Center for Watershed Protection conducted a broad
assessment of the value of planning documents in
protecting water resources and identified a number of
reasons why some plans had failed:
? Planning activities were conducted at too great a scale.
? The plan was a one-time study rather than a long-term
management process.
? Stakeholder involvement and local ownership were
lacking.
? The plan skirted land use/management issues in the
watershed.
? The document was too long or complex.
? The recommendations were too general.
2.2.2 Watershed Planning Is a Holistic Process
EPA supports the implementation of holistic watershed plans because this approach
usually provides the most technically sound and economically efficient means of
addressing water quality problems and is strengthened through the involvement of
stakeholders that might have broader concerns than solely attainment of water quality
standards (e.g., water supply, aesthetics). This approach will help to expedite
cooperative, integrated water resource planning and successful implementation of
needed management, thereby facilitating the restoration of water quality. It will also
help to ensure that watersheds are addressed in a holistic manner that accounts for the
broad variety of stressors and resource protection concerns in the watershed.
2.2.3 Watershed Planning Is Geographically Defined
By definition, watershed planning focuses on a watershed,
a geographic area that is defined by a drainage basin. A
watershed plan should address a geographic area large
enough to ensure that implementing the plan will address
all the major sources and causes of impairments and threats
to the waterbody under review. Although there is no
rigorous definition or delineation of this concept, the
general intent is to avoid a focus on single waterbody
segments or other narrowly defined areas that do not
provide an opportunity for addressing watershed stressors
in a rational, efficient, and economical manner. At the same
time, the scale should not be so large that it hampers the
ability to conduct detailed analyses or minimizes the
probability of involvement by key stakeholders and
successful implementation. If you select a scale that is too
broad, you might be able only to conduct cursory
assessments and will not be able to accurately link the
impacts back to the sources and causes.
Plans that bundle subwatersheds with similar sets of problems or address a common
stressor (e.g., sediment, nutrients) across multiple related watersheds can be
particularly useful in terms of planning and implementation efficiency and the
strategic use of administrative resources. KChapters 4 and 7 provide more specific
guidance on defining the geographic extent of your planning effort.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-5
? Source water assessments
? TMDL implementation plans
? Stormwater management plans
? Master plans
? Facility plans
? Wetland assessments
2.2.4 Watershed Planning Should Be Integrated with Other Planning
Efforts
It is likely that many federal, state, tribal, and local planning efforts
are occurring simultaneously with your watershed planning effort. At
a minimum, you should be aware of these programs; ideally, you
should integrate these planning activities into your watershed planning
effort through stakeholder participation, data sharing, and
implementation of management measures. KChapter 3 provides a
summary of specific programs that have a planning component or
conduct related activities that you might want to integrate with your
watershed planning effort. You might also want to include staff from
these programs as partners in the development of your watershed plan.
This approach can help in gaining additional technical expertise,
leveraging resources, and sharing responsibilities for implementation.
2.2.5 Watershed Planning Is a Collaborative and Participatory Process
One of the key characteristics of the watershed planning process is that it is
participatory. The Center for Watershed Protection conducted research that showed
that implementation of a watershed plan has the greatest chance of success when
stakeholders are brought into the process at the very beginning of the watershed
planning effort (CWP 1996). This finding is supported by the fact that
implementation of the plan usually rests with members of the community, and if they
are involved up front and see that their concerns are addressed, they will be more
likely to participate in developing management options and supporting plan
implementation. KChapter 3 discusses how to involve stakeholders to enhance the
watershed planning process and implementation of the plan.
2.3 Steps in the Watershed Planning and Implementation
Process
The parts of the watershed planning process can be illustrated in a number of ways,
such as steps, phases, or portions of a circle. In general, all watershed planning
efforts follow a similar path from identifying the problems to, ultimately,
implementing actions to achieve the established goals.
This handbook organizes the watershed planning process into the following major
steps:
1. Build partnerships.
2. Characterize the watershed to identify problems.
3. Set goals and identify solutions.
4. Design an implementation program.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-6 Draft
The term pollutant load refers to the amount of
pollutants entering a waterbody. Loads are usually
expressed in terms of a weight and a time frame, such
as pounds per day (lb/d).
Much of this handbook focuses on how to identify
pollutant loads and how to determine the load
reductions needed to meet water quality goals.
5. Implement the watershed plan.
6. Measure progress and make adjustments.
Within each step, several activities are
conducted before moving on to the next
step. Many of these activities are
repeated in different steps. For example,
information/education (I/E) activities
occur in the first step when building
partnerships but also occur throughout
the process, especially when
implementing the plan.
Figure 2-1 shows some of the activities
and tools used in each step of the
watershed plan development and
implementation process. The figure
provides a road map for the watershed
planning process, as well as a road map for this document. You might want to refer
back to it from time to time to find out where you are in the process and where you
need to go. Note that steps 1 through 4 feed into the development of the plan, but the
watershed planning process continues with plan implementation. Once the plan is
implemented, annual work plans are prepared, monitoring activities are conducted to
quantitatively measure progress toward meeting water quality goals, and plan
adjustments based on evaluation information received (and other inputs, such as
changes in resources or watershed conditions) are continually made.
2.4 Watershed Planning for Impaired Waters
EPA recognizes the need to focus on developing and
implementing watershed plans for waters that are impaired in
whole or in part by nonpoint sources. For these waterbodies it
is imperative to select on-the-ground management measures
and practices that will reduce pollutant loads and contribute in
measurable ways to the restoration of impaired waters to meet
water quality standards.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-7
Figure 2-1. Steps in the watershed planning process.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
1
Data were accessed on August 1, 2005, and are based on a review of the most recent state data available. The
state lists included in the national summary range from 1998 to 2002. The national summary of 303(d) listings is
available at http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control.
2-8 Draft
2.4.1 What Are the Most Common Impairments?
Waterbodies can be impaired by one source or a combination of sources. Across the
country, a wide variety of waters are listed as impaired by a range of pollutants.
Based on the most recent state 303(d) lists, there are approximately 34,000 impaired
waters in the United States and more than 59,000 associated impairments.
1
Pathogens, metals, nutrients, and sediment are the most common pollutants included
on state lists, and the top 10 listed impairments account for over 75 percent of the
total listings in the nation (table 2-1). Since January 1, 1996, EPA has approved
almost 15,000 TMDLs, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the nationwide
listings.
Table 2-1. Top Ten 303(d) List Impairments in the United States (August 1, 2005)
General Impairment
a
Number
Reported
Percent
Reported
Cumulative
Percent
Metals 11,526 19.2 19.2
Pathogens 7,896 13.2 32.4
Nutrients 5,585 9.3 41.7
Sediment/siltation 5,045 8.4 50.1
Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen 4,406 7.3 57.4
Fish consumption advisories 3,178 5.3 62.7
pH 2,904 4.8 67.6
Other habitat alterations 2,389 4.0 71.6
Thermal modifications 2,200 3.7 75.2
Biological impairment 2,116 3.5 78.7
a
“General impairment” might represent several associated pollutants or impairment listings.
For example, the metals category includes 30 specific pollutants or related listings (e.g., iron,
lead, contaminated sediments).
Source: EPA’s National Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet
(http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control)
Most watershed plans will address some combination of these major pollutants:
pathogens, metals, nutrients, sediment, and thermal impacts. The next several
chapters of the handbook highlight various types of data and analysis tools that you
can use to support watershed plan development. 7Knowing the major impairments
might help you to focus your data collection efforts and determine what types of
analyses to conduct.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-9
If a waterbody is impaired, it is placed on the 303(d)
list. For each impaired waterbody, a state or tribe must
develop an accounting of loads that would result in the
waterbody’s meeting water quality standards. This is
called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
A TMDL is the amount, or load, of a specific pollutant
that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the
water quality standards. The “load” is allocated among
the current pollutant sources (point, nonpoint, and
background sources), a margin of safety, and
sometimes future growth.
The typical steps for developing a TMDL include the
following:
1. Identify linkages between water quality problems
and pollutant sources
2. Estimate total acceptable loading rate that achieves
water quality standards
3. Allocate acceptable loading rates between sources
4. Package the TMDL for EPA approval
To provide a better understanding of the major pollutants
contributing to waterbody impairments, the typical sources of
pollutants and the associated impacts on waterbodies and their
designated uses are summarized in table 2-2. This summary
provides a starting point for you to think about the types of
data you’ll collect and analyses you’ll conduct to characterize
watershed conditions.
When collecting and analyzing your data, it’s also important
to keep in mind the entire watershed and the general problems
and goals. For example, some of the watershed problems
might not be those officially recognized as impairments on the
303(d) lists. Broader issues like wetland degradation and
adequate water supply could also be priorities in your
watershed.
Although watershed plans should be holistic and include
information on the broad array of attributes, problems, and
protection strategies needed in a watershed, plans that include
impaired waters should also contain quantified estimates of
current (and sometimes future) problem pollutant loads and
reductions designed to achieve water quality standards and
other watershed goals. Nonpoint source TMDLs and
watershed plans that address quantifiable loading estimates and load reduction
strategies provide the analytic link between actions on the ground and attainment of
water quality standards. To strengthen this link, the load reductions should be
separated by source category to enable you to identify the specific actions and
locations of management strategies as part of your implementation efforts. In the
absence of such a framework, it’s difficult to develop and implement a watershed
plan that can be expected to achieve water quality standards or other environmental
goals, or to determine the causes of failure when nonpoint source projects do not
result in expected water quality improvements.
The watershed planning process described in this handbook emphasizes the
restoration (and, in some cases, protection) of nonpoint source-affected waters
through the development of an analytic framework that accommodates waters with or
without approved TMDLs.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-10 Draft
Table 2-2. Summary of Common Pollutants and Sources
Pollutant
Potential Sources
Impacts on Waterbody Uses
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Pathogens
? WWTPs
? CSOs/SSOs
? Permitted
CAFOs
? Discharges from
meat processing
facilities
? Landfills
? Animals (domestic, wildlife, livestock)
? Malfunctioning septic systems
? Pastures
? Boat pumpout facilities
? Land application of manure
? Land application of wastewater
? Primarily human health risks
? Risk of illness from ingestion or from
contact with contaminated water
through recreation
? Increased cost of treatment of drinking
water supplies
? Shellfish bed closures
Metals
? Urban runoff
? WWTPs
? CSO/SSOs
? Landfills
? Industrial
facilities
? Mine discharges
? Abandoned mine drainage
? Hazardous waste sites (unknown or
partially treated sources)
? Marinas
? Aquatic life impairments (e.g., reduced
fish populations due to acute/chronic
concentrations or contaminated
sediment)
? Drinking water supplies (elevated
concentrations in source water)
? Fish contamination (e.g., mercury)
Nutrients
? WWTPs
? CSOs/SSOs
? CAFOs
? Discharge from
food- processing
facilities
? Landfills
? Cropland (fertilizer application)
? Landscaped spaces in developed areas
(e.g., lawns, golf courses)
? Animals (domestic, wildlife, livestock)
? Malfunctioning septic systems
? Pastures
? Boat pumpout
? Land application of manure or
wastewater
? Aquatic life impairments (e.g., effects
from excess plant growth, low DO)
? Direct drinking water supply impacts
(e.g., dangers to human health from
high levels of nitrates)
? Indirect drinking water supply impacts
(e.g., effects from excess plant growth
clogging drinking water facility filters)
? Recreational impacts (indirect impacts
from excess plant growth on fisheries,
boat/swimming access, appearance,
and odors)
? Human health impacts
Sediment
? WWTPs
? Urban
stormwater
systems
? Agriculture (cropland and pastureland
erosion)
? Silviculture and timber harvesting
? Rangeland erosion
? Excessive streambank erosion
? Construction
? Roads
? Urban runoff
? Landslides
? Abandoned mine drainage
? Stream channel modification
? Fills pools used for refuge and rearing
? Fills interstitial spaces between gravel
(reduces spawning habitat by trapping
emerging fish and reducing oxygen
exchange)
? When suspended, prevents fish from
seeing food and can clog gills; high
levels of suspended sediment can
cause fish to avoid the stream
? Taste/odor problems in drinking water
? Impairs swimming/boating because of
physical alteration of the channel
? Indirect impacts on recreational fishing
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-11
In some cases, stakeholders might want to protect
waters that are affected by nonpoint source
pollution but are not included on the 303(d) list. Of
particular concern are high-quality waters that are
threatened by changing land uses when unique
and valuable aquatic resources (e.g., habitat for
salmon migration, spawning, and rearing) are at
serious risk of irreparable harm. Watershed project
sponsors can use the tools presented in this
handbook to develop watershed plans for waters
that are not impaired by nonpoint source pollution
to ensure that they remain unimpaired.
Table 2-2. (continued)
Pollutant
Potential Sources
Impacts on Waterbody Uses
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Temperature
? WWTPs
? Cooling water
discharges
(power plants
and other
industrial
sources)
? Urban
stormwater
systems
? Lack of riparian shading
? Shallow or wide channels (due to
hydrologic modification)
? Hydroelectric dams
? Urban runoff (warmer runoff from
impervious surfaces)
? Sediment (cloudy water absorbs more
heat than clear water)
? Abandoned mine drainage
? Causes lethal effects when
temperature exceeds tolerance limit
? Increases metabolism (results in higher
oxygen demand for aquatic organisms)
? Increases food requirements
? Decreases growth rates and DO
? Influences timing of migration
? Increases sensitivity to disease
? Increases rates of photosynthesis
(increases algal growth, depletes
oxygen through plant decomposition)
? Causes excess plant growth
Note: WWTP = wastewater treatment plant; CSO = combined sewer overflow; SSO = sanitary sewer overflow;
CAFO = concentrated animal feeding operation; DO = dissolved oxygen.
2.4.2 Watershed Planning Where a TMDL Has Been Developed
States may use a portion of the funding they receive under section 319 of the Clean
Water Act to develop TMDLs and to develop and implement watershed plans that are
consistent with those TMDLs. In addition, states may develop and implement
watershed plans in advance of TMDLs where none exist. In cases where a TMDL for
affected waters has already been developed and approved or is being developed, the
watershed plan should be crafted to achieve the load reductions called for in the
TMDL.
2.4.3 Watershed Planning in the Absence of a TMDL
If a TMDL has not yet been developed, the plan should be
designed to attain water quality standards if possible, in
addition to other environmental goals. EPA encourages states
to include in their watershed plans all the significant sources
and causes of impairments and threats to the waterbodies of
concern. Therefore, watershed plans should address not only
the sources of water quality impairment but also any
pollutants and sources of pollution that need to be addressed
to ensure the long-term health of the watershed. If a TMDL is
later completed and approved, the plan might need to be
modified to make it consistent with the TMDL. EPA
continues to encourage the development of TMDLs or, where
applicable, sets of such TMDLs on a watershed basis. Figure
2-2 illustrates the potential relationships between TMDLs and
watershed plans.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-12 Draft
Figure 2-2. Potential relationships between TMDLs and watershed plans.
2.5 Including Water Quality Standards in Goal Setting
Each watershed management plan will address different issues and include unique
goals and site-specific management strategies to achieve those goals. All plans
should also include attainment of water quality standards for surface waters in the
management area. Because water quality standards are the foundation of EPA’s water
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-13
? Growth and propagation of fish
? Water contact recreation
? Drinking water
? Agricultural water supply
? Industrial supply
? Wildlife
? Swimming
quality protection efforts, this handbook includes a brief description of what they are
and how they’re used in watershed management programs.
2.5.1 What Are Water Quality Standards and Why Are They Important?
An important cornerstone of the Clean Water Act is the requirement that states,
tribes, and territories adopt water quality standards to protect public health, support
wildlife, and enhance the quality of life within their jurisdictions. Water quality
standards set the goals, pollution limits, and protection requirements for each
waterbody. Meeting these limits helps to ensure that waters will remain
useful to both humans and aquatic life. Standards also drive water
quality restoration activities because they help to determine which
waterbodies must be addressed, what level of restoration is required,
and which activities need to be modified to ensure that the waterbody
meets its minimum standards.
Standards are developed by designating one or more beneficial uses for
each waterbody, establishing a set of measurable criteria that protect
those uses, and implementing policies and procedures that keep higher-
quality waters from degrading.
2.5.2 How Are Water Quality Standards Set?
Water quality standards are composed of three elements:
? Designated (beneficial) uses
? Numeric and narrative criteria
? Antidegradation policies and procedures
Designated Uses
Designated or beneficial uses are descriptions of water quality
expectations or water quality goals. A designated use is a legally
recognized description of a desired use of the waterbody, such as aquatic
life support, body contact recreation, fish consumption, or public drinking
water supply. These are uses that the state or authorized tribe wants the
waterbody to be healthy enough to fully support.
The Clean Water Act requires that waterbodies attain or maintain the
water quality needed to support designated and existing uses. State and
tribal governments are primarily responsible for designating uses of
waterbodies within their jurisdictions. Some water quality agencies have
many use designations and differentiate among various categories of uses for aquatic
life support, irrigation, and even cultural uses for tribal waters. Other agencies
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-14 Draft
It’s important to note that numeric criteria
are invaluable when setting specific,
measurable goals for waterbody cleanup
plans because they provide a very clear
indication of when water quality meets the
criteria. However, federal, state, and tribal
numeric criteria development is complex
and expensive in terms of time and
resources. Narrative criteria provide a
means to convey the context, conditions,
and full intent of water quality protection
efforts in the absence of numeric criteria
development and monitoring efforts.
designate uses by broad categories or classes, with uses requiring similar water
quality conditions grouped under each class.
Criteria
Criteria define minimum conditions, pollutant limits, goals, and other requirements
that the waterbody must attain or maintain to support its designated use(s). Criteria
describe physical, chemical, and biological attributes or conditions as measurable
(e.g., parts per million of a certain chemical) or narrative (e.g., no
objectionable odors) water quality components. Together, the various
criteria for a particular designated use paint a picture of the water
quality necessary to support the use.
EPA and states establish water quality criteria for various waterbody
uses as part of their water quality standard programs. In general, states
and tribes must adopt the minimum federal criteria for uses such as
aquatic life support, human health, and contact recreation unless they
can demonstrate that site-specific, time-sensitive, or other criteria are
appropriate to reflect the unique conditions or uses of a waterbody.
Numeric Criteria
EPA, states, and tribes have set numeric criteria or limits for many
common water quality parameters, such as concentrations of bacteria,
suspended sediment, algae, dissolved metals, minimum/maximum
temperatures, and so on. Numeric criteria for protecting aquatic life are
often expressed as a concentration minimum or maximum for certain
parameters and include an averaging period and a frequency or recurrence interval.
For example, a criterion for a parameter of concern might state that concentrations of
the parameter must not exceed 5 parts per million, averaged from five samples
collected within a 30-day period, and recurring more than once in a 3-year period.
Criteria for protecting human health are derived from epidemiological studies and
laboratory studies of pollutant exposure involving species like rats and mice.
Numeric criteria established to prevent acute conditions are more strict than those
focusing on chronic exposure to parameters of concern.
Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria are nonnumeric descriptions of desirable or undesirable water
quality conditions. An example of a narrative criterion is “All waters will be free
from sludge; floating debris; oil and scum; color- and odor-producing materials;
substances that are harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life; and nutrients in
concentrations that may cause algal blooms.”
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-15
(a) The State shall develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing such policy pursuant to this subpart.
The antidegradation policy and implementation methods shall, at a minimum,
be consistent with the following:
(1) Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.
(2) Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water,
that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after
full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation
provisions of the State's continuing planning process, that allowing lower
water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social
development in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the State shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully. Further, the State shall assure that
there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for
all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable
management practices for nonpoint source control.
(3) Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource,
such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters
of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall
be maintained and protected.
(4) In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated with
a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and implementing
method shall be consistent with section 316 of the Act.
www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-D.htm
Biocriteria
A comprehensive assessment of a waterbody might include a description of its
biological characteristics. Biological criteria, or “biocriteria,” have been developed to
quantitatively describe a waterbody with a healthy community of fish and associated
aquatic organisms. Components of biocriteria include the presence and seasonality of
key indicator species; the abundance, diversity, and structure of the aquatic
community; and the habitat conditions required for these organisms. Monitoring of
these biological indicators provides a simple and often inexpensive way to screen
waters that are supporting their uses without a lot of expensive chemical and other
testing. In addition, biological assessments can capture the impacts of intense, short-
term pollution that might go undetected under conventional chemical testing. Even if
states have not yet adopted official biocriteria for their waters, biological sampling
can be an important part of watershed monitoring to show progress in meeting load
reductions and attaining narrative criteria.
Antidegradation
The antidegradation requirements cited in
federal, state, and tribal water quality
standards provide an excellent and widely
used approach for protecting waters
threatened by human activities that might
cause a lowering of water quality. Under
these provisions, which are required under
the Clean Water Act, a public agency
designated as the federally delegated water
quality authority must adopt both an
antidegradation policy and methods for
implementing the policy. The policy must
protect existing waterbody uses, i.e.,
ensure that water quality is sufficient to
meet narrative and numeric criteria for all
designated uses (Tier I). There are two
other parts or “tiers” of the antidegradation
policy. Under Tier II, waters that exceed
quality levels necessary to support existing
uses must be protected unless the
delegated water quality agency
(1) determines that there are important
economic or social justifications for
lowering water quality, and (2) meets
relevant public participation and
intergovernmental coordination provisions
of the state or tribal continuing planning
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-16 Draft
Shows you where one or more of the nine
minimum elements are specifically discussed.
process. The antidegradation policy must also ensure that the quality of all
outstanding national resource waters is maintained and protected (Tier III).
Implementation methods or procedures for antidegradation policies generally include
antidegradation reviews for all new and expanded regulated activities that might
lower water quality, such as wastewater treatment, stormwater, CAFO, and other
effluent discharges subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits; activities governed by Clean Water Act section 404 “dredge and
fill” permits; and other activities regulated by federal, state, tribal, or other
authorities. In the past, permit approval processes for these activities mostly focused
on whether they would maintain water quality to meet existing uses, i.e., ensure that
water quality criteria were met (the Tier I level). However, the Tier II antidegradation
provisions require that higher-quality waters be protected unless there is a
demonstration of important economic or social development in the area in which the
waters are located, and public participation and intergovernmental coordination
requirements are met. States often include, as a part of the “Tier II” review,
requirements to examine possible alternatives to proposed activities that would lower
water quality, and an analysis of the costs associated with the alternatives.
KFor more in-depth descriptions of water quality standards and criteria, go to
www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/.
2.6 Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed
Plan for Impaired Waters Funded Using Incremental
Section 319 Funds
Although many different components may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has
identified a minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in
water quality. (KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html for a copy of the FY
2004 Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and
Territories).
EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for watershed
plans funded using incremental section 319 funds and strongly
recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans that
are intended to remediate water quality impairments. Figure 2-3
highlights where the nine elements fit into the overall watershed
planning process. Once the plan has been developed, plan sponsors
can select specific management actions included in the plan to develop work plans
for nonpoint source section 319 support and to apply for funding to implement those
actions (chapter 12).
The nine elements are provided below, listed in the order in which they appear in the
guidelines. Although they are listed as a through i, they do not necessarily take place
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-17
Figure 2-3. Incorporating the nine minimum elements into
your watershed plan.
sequentially. For example, element d asks
for a description of the technical and
financial assistance that will be needed to
implement the watershed plan, but this can
be done only after you have addressed
elements e and i.
Explanations are provided with each
element to show you what to include in
your watershed plan. In addition, chapters
where the specific element is discussed in
detail are referenced.
Nine Elements
a. Identification of causes of impairment
and pollutant sources or groups of similar
sources that need to be controlled to
achieve needed load reductions, and any
other goals identified in the watershed
plan. Sources that need to be controlled
should be identified at the significant
subcategory level along with estimates of
the extent to which they are present in the
watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle
feedlots needing upgrading, including a
rough estimate of the number of cattle per
facility; Y acres of row crops needing
improved nutrient management or
sediment control; or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing remediation).
(Chapters 5, 6, and 7.)
What does this mean?
Your watershed plan should include a map of the watershed that locates the major
sources and causes of impairment. Based on these impairments, you will set goals
that will include (at a minimum) meeting the appropriate water quality standards for
pollutants that threaten or impair the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the
watershed covered in the plan.
b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.
What does this mean?
You will first quantify the pollutant loads for the watershed. Based on these pollutant
loads, you’ll determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-18 Draft
You will then identify various management measures (see element c below) that will
help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a
result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in
precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time.
Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope
component in paragraph a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle
feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks). For waters for which EPA has approved
or established TMDLs, the plan should identify and incorporate the TMDLs.
Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water delivered to
a downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the
pollutant of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for
reductions in pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL
as necessary to attain the applicable water quality standards. (Chapters 8 and 9.)
c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be
implemented to achieve load reductions in paragraph 2, and a description of the
critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.
What does this mean?
The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to
achieve the load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any
additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan. It should also
identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the
plan. This can be done by using a map or a description. (Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.)
d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated
costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this
plan.
What does this mean?
You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the
entire plan. This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance
of management measures, I/E activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You
should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing
the plan. Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private
funds or resources that might be available to assist in implementing the plan.
Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed
in the plan. (Chapter 12.)
e. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of
the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting,
designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be
implemented.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Draft 2-19
What does this mean?
The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach
activities or actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may
support the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management
practices and support stakeholder involvement efforts. (Chapters 3 and 12.)
f. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in
this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
What does this mean?
You need to include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined
in your watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g.
(Chapter 12.)
g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint
source management measures or other control actions are being implemented.
(Chapter 12.)
What does this mean?
You’ll develop interim, measurable milestones to measure progress in implementing
the management measures for your watershed plan. These milestones will measure
the implementation of the management measures, such as whether they are being
implemented on schedule, whereas element h (see below) will measure the
effectiveness of the management measures, for example, by documenting
improvements in water quality.
h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are
being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining
water quality standards.
What does this mean?
Using the milestones you developed above, you’ll develop a set of criteria (or
indicators) with interim target values to be used to determine whether progress is
being made toward reducing pollutant loads. These interim targets can be direct
measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load
reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You must also indicate how you’ll
determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not
met and what process will be used to revise the existing management approach.
Where a nonpoint source TMDL has been established, interim targets are also needed
to determine whether the TMDL needs to be revised. (Chapters 12 and 13.)
i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts
over time, measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above.
Chapter 2
Overview of Watershed
Planning Process
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
2-20 Draft
What does this mean?
The watershed plan must include a monitoring component to determine whether
progress is being made toward attainment or maintenance of the applicable water
quality standards. The monitoring program must be fully integrated with the
established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring
component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is
being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of
multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have
to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly
relevant to the project. (Chapters 6, 12, and 13.)
The remainder of this handbook proceeds through the watershed planning process,
addressing these elements in detail to show you how to develop and implement
watershed plans that will achieve water quality and other environmental goals.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-1
3. Build Partnerships
Read this chapter if...
? You want to find out what kinds of stakeholders should be involved in the
development of your watershed plan
? You want to get stakeholders involved early in the process
? You don’t know what kinds of programs you should integrate into your planning
efforts
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Identifying driving forces
< Identifying stakeholders
< Keeping stakeholders engaged
< Integrating with key local, state, tribal,
and federal programs
< Initiating outreach activities
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-2 Draft
3.1 Why Do I Need Partners?
Bringing together people, policies, priorities, and resources through a watershed
approach blends science and regulatory responsibilities with social and economic
considerations. The very nature of working at a watershed level means you should
work with at least one partner to improve watershed conditions. In addition,
watershed planning is often too complex and too expensive for one person or
organization to tackle alone. Weaving partners into the process can strengthen the
end result by bringing in new ideas and input and by increasing public understanding
of the problems and, more important, public commitment to
the solutions. Partnerships also help to identify and eliminate
redundant efforts. For example, a watershed organization
might be interested in developing a volunteer monitoring
program but is unaware that the local parks department is
working on a similar program. Researching and identifying
partners can help to avoid reinventing the wheel or wasting
time and money.
Budgets can be unpredictable, and resources for watershed
improvement efforts, such as fencing cows out of streams, are
limited. Resources like technical assistance, mapping abilities,
and funding are always strained, but working with partners
might provide some of the resources that can get your effort
closer to its goals more efficiently.
Before you begin to identify and recruit potential partners,
you should ask yourself, “Why are we developing a watershed plan?” To answer that
question, you should identify the driving forces behind the need for the watershed
plan.
3.2 Identify Driving Forces
Watershed plans can be initiated for various reasons and by various organizations.
For example, a local agency might want to develop a watershed plan to comply with
new federal and state water quality regulations. Or perhaps a watershed organization
wants to develop a watershed plan to help coordinate future land-use planning efforts
to protect sensitive environmental areas in the community. It’s important to identify
the driving forces that are motivating you to develop a watershed plan. These driving
forces will set the foundation for the development of your plan’s goals and
objectives. The typical watershed planning drivers are described below.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-3
3.2.1 Regulatory Issues
Water resource or other regulations sometimes require a planning or management
document that contains some or all of the elements required in a watershed plan.
Communities pursuing efficient, effective approaches to planning often initiate a
comprehensive watershed planning effort to streamline multiple planning tasks, such
as the following:
? Clean Water Act section 303(d) requirements for development
of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
? Clean Water Act section 319 grant requirements
? Federal and state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater permit regulations
? NPDES discharge permit requirements
? National Estuary Program (NEP) and coastal zone
conservation/management plan requirements
? Federal and state source water assessment and protection
program regulations
? Baseline and monitoring studies to implement federal and
state antidegradation policies
? Endangered Species Act requirements
3.2.2 Government Initiatives
Dozens of federal, state, and local initiatives target geographic areas like the
Chesapeake Bay or the Great Lakes, or attempt to focus on one aspect of a
management program, such as the following:
? EPA-supported, geographically targeted programs (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes)
? U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiatives (e.g., 2002 Farm Bill
program, Forest Service planning)
? Other federal water resource initiatives (e.g., those sponsored by the Bureau of
Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration)
? Stream or river restoration planning (e.g., by cities, counties, states)
? River authority and other state-enabled (or required) watershed planning
initiatives
? State initiatives like Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program or Michigan’s
Clean Michigan Initiative
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-4 Draft
The Pajarito Plateau Watershed Partnership (PPWP) began in 1998
in response to a draft watershed management plan prepared by the
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The development of LANL's
plan did not initially include the stakeholders in the hydrologic
watershed. Instead, the plan was for LANL's property. LANL decided
to work with the stakeholders, including tribes, Los Alamos County,
the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and others, to develop
a complete watershed plan. As the plan was developed, however,
the partnership began to have trouble keeping the group engaged.
Some stakeholders lost interest, and others limited their
participation.
It wasn't until after a controlled burn went out of control in May 2000
and burned almost 50,000 acres of the watershed that the group
found a common purpose—post-fire rehabilitation. The group has
received section 319 grant money for rehabilitation activities, such as
seeding, reforestation, and trail maintenance, throughout the
watershed. A watershed assessment was completed, and the group
has shifted its focus to sediment erosion issues in one
subwatershed. KFor more information, see the PPWP Web site at
www.ppwatershed.org.
Before you start identifying stakeholders, find
out if your state has developed a watershed
planning guide. You might find useful
information that will help you to identify the relevant
stakeholders and programs for your watershed
planning effort.
3.2.3 Community-Driven Issues
Often the decision to develop a watershed plan
comes from within the community. People have a
desire to protect what they have or to restore
water resources for future generations. Some
compelling issues include the following:
? Flood protection
? Increased development pressures
? Recreation/aesthetics (e.g., river walks,
boating, fishing, swimming)
? Protection of high-quality streams or wetlands
? Post-disaster efforts
? Protection of drinking water sources
If you’re reading this document, you might be
part of the group that is leading the development
of a watershed plan. In general, the leader’s role
involves identifying and engaging other
stakeholders who should be participating in plan
development and implementation. Section 3.3
discusses the importance of stakeholder
involvement and provides some information on
how to identify and involve stakeholders.
3.3 Identify and Engage Relevant Stakeholders
Successful development and implementation of the watershed plan will depend
primarily on the commitment and involvement of community
members. Therefore, it is critical to build partnerships with key
interested parties at the outset of the watershed planning effort.
People and organizations that have a stake in the outcome of
the watershed plan are called stakeholders. Stakeholders are
defined as those who make and implement decisions, those
who are affected by the decisions made, and those who have
the ability to assist or impede implementation of the decisions.
It is essential that all of these categories of potential
stakeholders are identified and included, not just those who volunteer to participate.
Key stakeholders also include those who can contribute resources and assistance to
the watershed planning effort and those who are working on similar programs that
can be integrated into a larger effort. Keep in mind that stakeholders are more likely
to get involved if you can show them a clear benefit to their participation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-5
The staff of the American Samoan Coastal Program
created a Religious Consciousness Project to help
spread the word about the islands' environmental
problems. For years, program staff had tried
unsuccessfully to get village mayors involved in efforts
to protect coastal water resources. Through the project,
program staff offered to present information on water
quality, population growth, and nonpoint source
pollution during church gatherings. As a result of the
church partnership, a village mayors workshop was
held, ultimately leading to the start of a new water
3.3.1 Identify Categories of Stakeholders
It is daunting to try to identify all the players that could be involved in the watershed
planning effort. The makeup of the stakeholder group will
depend on the size of the watershed (to ensure adequate
geographic representation), as well as the key issues or
concerns. In general, there are at least five categories of
participants to consider when identifying stakeholders:
? Stakeholders that will be responsible for implementing the
watershed plan
? Stakeholders that will be affected by implementation of
the watershed plan
? Stakeholders that can provide information on the issues
and concerns in the watershed
? Stakeholders that have knowledge of existing programs or
plans that you might want to integrate into your plan
? Stakeholders that can provide technical and financial
assistance in developing and implementing the plan
As a starting point, consider involving these entities:
? Landowners
? County or regional representatives
? Local municipal representatives
? State and federal agencies
? American Indian tribes
? Business and industry representatives
? Citizen groups
? Community service organizations
? Religious organizations
? Universities, colleges, and schools
? Environmental and conservation groups
? Soil and water conservation districts
? Irrigation districts
The development of the stakeholder group is an
iterative process. Don’t worry about whether you have
complete representation at the outset. Once the
stakeholders convene, you can ask them if there are any gaps in representation.
KSection 3.4 provides more detailed information on possible local, state, tribal, and
federal program partners that you might want to include in your stakeholder group.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-6 Draft
Ohio has adopted a program philosophy that strong and
effective local watershed stakeholder groups are necessary
to develop and implement integrated watershed plans.
According to Ohio, the key to watershed organization
capacity-building is active stakeholders that provide
technical knowledge, financial ability, networking ability,
organizational skills, and legitimacy (decisionmakers with
the authority to implement and support problem and solution
statements and recommended action items).
Additional information about Ohio’s philosophy for strong
and effective watershed groups is available at
www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/NPSMP/WAP/
WAPccsustainable.html.
3.3.2 Determine Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities
Before contacting potential stakeholders, you should ask yourself the following
questions and have at least a rough idea of the answers. This exercise will help you to
determine the level of effort needed for the stakeholder process and will provide
initial guidance to stakeholders.
? What is the role of the stakeholders?
? How will decisions be made?
? Are stakeholders expected to develop any work products?
? What is the estimated time commitment for participation?
Begin by contacting the people and organizations that have an interest in water
quality or might become partners that can assist you with the watershed planning
process. Consider who would be the most appropriate person to contact the potential
partner. Those who might have a stake in the watershed plan should be encouraged to
share their concerns and offer suggestions for possible solutions. By involving
stakeholders in the initial stages of project development, you’ll increase the
probability of long-term success through trust, commitment, and personal investment.
3.3.3 Provide a Structure to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation
Once you’ve identified and contacted relevant
stakeholders, you’ll organize them to help prepare and
implement a watershed plan. Stakeholder groups range
from informal, ad hoc groups to highly organized
committees. The method you choose will likely depend
on the makeup of the stakeholders willing to participate,
the time and financial resources available, and your
capabilities with respect to facilitating the plan
development effort. The following examples provide
some indication of the range of options available for
stakeholder participation:
Decisionmakers. The governing boards of some state
river authorities require representation from a broad array
of public agencies and private entities, including business
interests, recreational organizations, and environmental
groups. Giving decisionmaking power to stakeholders
often increases the amount of analysis and time needed to
make decisions, but it can provide a venue for generating
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-7
KTo find more detailed information on forming
watershed stakeholder groups, keeping a group
motivated, conducting outreach, resolving conflict, and
making decisions using consensus, download a pdf
version of Getting In Step: Engaging and Involving
Stakeholders in Your Watershed from
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents.
KThe Center for Technology Information Center (CTIC)
has developed a series of documents to help you know
your watershed. This information clearinghouse for
watershed coordinators helps to ensure measurable
progress toward local goals. The clearinghouse is
available at www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW.
O WORKSHEET 3-1
Skills in Stakeholder Group
? Accounting
? Graphic design
? Computer support
? Fund-raising
? Public relations
? Technical expertise (e.g., geographic
information systems, water sampling)
? Facilitation
Resources Available
? Contacts with media
? Access to volunteers
? Access to datasets
? Connections to local organizations
? Access to meeting facilities
? Access to equipment (please describe)
? Access to field trip locations
needed support and resources for watershed planning and
management activities.
Advisors. Many watershed planning initiatives involve stakeholders
as part of a steering committee or advisory group. Although
stakeholders do not have the power to make and enforce decisions,
they can create momentum and support for moving the process
forward in the directions they choose if they are somewhat united
and cooperative in their approach.
Supporters. Sometimes stakeholders are invited to participate
because of their ability to provide technical, financial, or other
support to the watershed planning process. Under this approach,
watershed planners will seek out stakeholders that have assessment
data, access to monitoring or project volunteers, educational or
outreach networks, or other assets that can be used to enhance the
watershed plan. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
might be invited to provide water quality monitoring data, such as
flow data from the many gauging stations across the country.
3.3.4 Identify Stakeholders’ Skills and Resources
For the group of stakeholders that have agreed to participate in the
planning effort, determine what resources and skills are collectively
available to support the planning phases. Stakeholders might have
access to datasets, funding sources, volunteers, specialized technical
expertise, and communication vehicles. Use O Worksheet 3-1 to
determine your stakeholders’ skills and resources. KA full-
size worksheet is provided in appendix B.
3.3.5 Encourage Participation and Involvement
As stakeholders begin to show an interest, you will likely
note that the type and degree of effort that individuals or
organizations are willing to put forth will vary. Some
stakeholders will want to be directly involved in the detailed
technical process of planning, whereas others will simply
want to be periodically updated on progress and asked for
feedback. Still others won’t want to plan at all, but instead
will want to know what they can do now to take actions that
will make a difference. In other words, you will likely be
faced with managing planners, advisors, doers, and watchers.
A key step, therefore, will involve organizing the effort to
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-8 Draft
At Home
? Reading brochures
? Visiting a Web site
? Completing a survey
? Adopting practices that conserve water and protect
water quality at home or at work
Out in the Community
? Management practice tours and watershed fairs
? Coffee shop discussions
? Educational presentations
Action-oriented Activities
? Storm drain stenciling
? Volunteer monitoring
? Stream cleanups
At the first stakeholder meeting, give each person a blank sheet of paper. Tell
everyone to “draw a map of your community.” Many will want more guidance on
what to do, but just repeat the initial instructions.
When the participants are finished, ask them to exchange papers with each other.
Then ask the group the following questions:
? What does this map tell you about this person’s community?
? What appears to be the “center” of the community? What are its boundaries?
? What does this map suggest about this person’s perception of the
environmental character of the community?
? Who included people, water resources, roads, trees, administrative buildings?
This exercise helps the stakeholders to get to know each other and to start getting
a feeling of their values and how they use the resources in the community.
—Adapted from KCommunity and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a
help stakeholders plug in at the level that is most comfortable
for them and taps their strengths.
If you’re not talking about issues that are important to the
stakeholders, they’ll be less likely to participate in the process.
Here are some tips to remember when working with
stakeholders to help ensure their long-term participation and
support.
Focus on issues important to the stakeholders. If they can’t
see how their issues will be addressed in the watershed plan,
you need to change the plan or clearly show them where their
issues are addressed.
Be honest. Much of the process is about trust, and to build
trust you must be honest with the stakeholders. That’s why
it’s important to tell them how decisions will be made. If their
role is advisory, that’s OK, but they should know up front that
they will not be involved in the decisionmaking process.
Start early. Involve stakeholders as soon as possible in the
watershed planning process. This approach also helps to build
trust by showing them that you have not developed a draft document and just want
them to review it. They will help to shape goals, identify problems, and develop
possible management strategies for the watershed.
Recognize differences early in the
process. It’s OK if everyone does not
agree on various issues. For example,
not all data compiled by some
stakeholders, such as tribes, will be
shared with a group if there are
cultural concerns to be considered. If
you ignore these differences, you’ll
lose credibility and any trust that the
stakeholders had in the process.
Communicate clearly and often.
The watershed planning process is
long and complex. Don’t leave
stakeholders behind by failing to
communicate with them using terms
familiar to them. Regular
communication and updates can be
done through Web sites, newsletters,
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-9
fact sheets, and newspaper inserts. Also remember that sometimes it will take time
before reluctant stakeholders come to the table, so you need to have a means of
communicating with them and keeping them up-to-date. When they do decide to
participate in the process, they’ll already be well informed.
3.3.6 Initiate Outreach Activities to Build Awareness and Gain Partners
Information/education (I/E) activities are key to building support for the watershed
planning effort as well as helping to implement the plan. I/E activities (also called
outreach) are needed at the very beginning of the watershed planning effort to make
potential partners and stakeholders aware of the issues, recruit them to participate,
and educate them on the watershed planning process. Often a separate outreach and
education committee is created under the umbrella of the watershed planning team.
This committee can help develop related materials and a strategy for integrating I/E
into the overall watershed planning effort. Eventually, outreach will be most
successful if individual stakeholders reach out to their constituents or peer groups
about actions that need to be taken to improve and maintain water quality. The
education committee can help support this effort by developing materials for
stakeholders to use to educate their constituents. KChapter 12 provides more detail
on the I/E component.
Developing and distributing effective messages through outreach materials and
activities is one the most important components of getting partners and stakeholders
engaged in the watershed planning and implementation processes. Outreach materials
and activities should be designed to raise public awareness, educate people on wise
management practices, and motivate people to participate in the decisionmaking
process or in the implementation of actions to restore and protect water quality. To
achieve these objectives, you should communicate effectively with a wide range of
audiences or groups. At the outset of your watershed planning effort, you might
consider developing an informational brochure and a slide presentation for your
stakeholder group that explains current issues in the watershed and the need to
develop a watershed plan. Once the stakeholder group convenes, it can tailor these
materials and determine the preferred formats for disseminating information to
various audiences. Remember that your I/E activities should be targeted to specific
audiences and will change over time as you develop and implement your watershed
plan.
Watershed plan organizers might need to sponsor a broad spectrum of activities to
engage and involve most of the stakeholders effectively. People differ widely in how
much time and energy they’re willing to expend on community-based activities.
Some people might want simply to be informed about what’s going on in their
community, whereas others might want a voice in the management decisions made
and how they’re implemented. By offering many different types of participation
opportunities that involve varying levels of effort, the program is likely to attract
more willing participants.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-10 Draft
? Stormwater management programs
? Parks and recreation departments
? Local elected officials and councils
? Planning and zoning programs
? Soil and water conservation districts
? Cooperative extension
? Solid waste programs
3.4 Integrate Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Programs into
Your Watershed Planning Effort
Because the development and implementation of watershed plans will most likely
involve a combination of at least some local, state, tribal, and federal partners, it’s
important to identify any potential programs and activities that
might be relevant to your watershed planning effort and
determine whether representatives from these programs should
participate in your stakeholder group. Many such programs
have planning components, collect monitoring data, implement
controls, or develop regulations that you might want to
incorporate into your watershed plan. In addition, some states
have developed multiagency partnerships for the support of
monitoring and management practice implementation, which
local groups can access. Including partners from these
organizations in the watershed management process can help to
ensure that any available datasets are identified and that any
potential funding opportunities are noted.
The various local, state, tribal, and federal programs that might
provide personnel and resources to strengthen your stakeholder group, as well as
technical assistance in the development of your watershed plan, are briefly described
below. KChapter 5 provides more detail on specific datasets that might be available
from these programs.
You’re not expected to involve all of these programs, but you should be aware of
them if they address issues and concerns that are
important to your planning effort.
7 Start at the local level and then broaden your
search to include state and tribal programs. Then
research which federal programs are relevant to
your watershed planning effort. Most likely, the
federal programs will already be represented to
some extent at the state level. If these programs
exist at both the state and local levels, they are
included here under the Local Programs heading
because the local offices probably have the
information most relevant to your watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-11
3.4.1 Local Programs
Because implementation of the watershed plan will largely rest with local
communities, it’s critical that they be involved from the beginning. They usually
have the most to gain by participating and the most up-to-date information on the
structure of the community. In addition, some of the most powerful tools for
watershed implementation, such as zoning and regional planning, reside at the local
level. “Local” might mean city, county, or township; some states have all three. It’s
important to learn how the various local governments assign responsibility for
environmental protection.
Local Elected Officials
Local elected officials and local agency staff should be closely involved in the plan
development and implementation process. Although responsibilities vary among
localities, most local government officials are responsible for establishing priorities
for local programs and services, establishing legislative and administrative policies
through the adoption of ordinances and resolutions, establishing the annual budget,
appropriating funds, and setting tax rates. There are also opportunities to make others
aware of the watershed management planning process through local government
newsletters and presentations at board meetings, which are often televised on local
cable television networks.
Local Cooperative Extension Offices
The county cooperative extension offices are part of a state cooperative extension
network run through academic institutions. Extension agents conduct research,
develop educational programs, and provide technical assistance on a broad range of
problems from traditional agricultural management and production issues to farm
business management, soil and water conservation, land and water quality, the safe
use of pesticides, integrated pest management, nutrient management, models, forestry
and wildlife, and commercial and consumer horticulture. KA link to local extension
offices is available from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service at www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html.
Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Most rural counties have local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs),
sometimes referred to simply as conservation districts. These districts are established
to provide leadership, technical assistance, information, and education to the counties
on proper soil stewardship, agricultural conservation methods, water quality
protection, nonpoint source pollution, streambank stabilization, stream health,
conservation planning (e.g., developing conservation plans), and various other topics
related to watershed planning. Local SWCDs also offer volunteer opportunities for
citizens, and they can often provide topographic, aerial, and floodplain maps;
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-12 Draft
established erosion and sediment control programs; educational programs;
information on the installation and maintenance of management practices; and
financial assistance for installing management practices. KGo to www.nacdnet.org
for a directory of all SWCD locations.
Parks and Recreation Department
Local parks and recreation departments are responsible for maintaining recreational
facilities and parks in a locality. They manage recreational facilities such as boat
ramps, nature trails, and swimming pools. They often have support groups that focus
on a particular park or topic, such as the development of trails or bird-watching
activities. These groups can provide insight as to the values of the community in
terms of natural resources.
Planning and Zoning Programs
Among the most effective tools available to communities to manage their water
resources are planning and zoning. For example, local or regional planning and
zoning programs can play a particularly significant role in establishing critical
watershed protection areas through overlay zoning; identifying critical water resource
areas (e.g., wetlands, springs); and designating protective vegetated buffer areas.
Professionals in these local programs can provide valuable information on the
economic development plans of the region and help to identify current policies to
manage growth. The zoning programs are usually linked to a community’s overall
master plan, so be sure to obtain a copy of the master plan.
Be sure to use local resources to find helpful information about planning and zoning
programs for your community. KChapter 5 provides information on developing
ordinances as part of your management program, including model language, and
information included in master plans.
Regional Planning Councils
Many urban areas have regional councils represented by the participating local
governments. These organizations focus on various issues, such as land use planning
and the environment. For example, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
represents seven counties, and staff work to support local environmental planning
initiatives like watershed management. Kwww.semcog.org. These organizations can
provide valuable resources and expertise useful in your watershed planning effort.
Solid Waste Programs
Many local governments have solid waste programs that address the disposal of solid
waste and yard waste. They might also handle the recycling, illegal dumping, and
household hazardous waste programs that you might want to incorporate into your
outreach activities during the plan implementation phase.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-13
Stormwater Management Programs
The NPDES stormwater permitting program for Phase I and Phase II cities provides
one of the most direct links between local government activities and watershed
planning/management. Under the stormwater program, communities must comply
with permit requirements for identifying and addressing water quality problems
caused by polluted urban runoff from sources such as streets and parking lots,
construction sites, and outfall pipes. Watershed planning programs can provide
important guidance to constituent cities on what types of pollutants or stressors need
to be addressed by their stormwater programs, what resources are available, and what
other cities are doing. KAdditional information about the two phases of the NPDES
stormwater program is available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphases.cfm.
Volunteer Monitoring Programs
Across the country, volunteers monitor the condition of streams, rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and wells. Volunteer monitoring
programs are organized and supported in many different ways. Projects might be
entirely independent or associated with state, interstate, local, or federal agencies;
environmental organizations; or schools and universities. If there is an active
volunteer monitoring program in your community, it can be a valuable resource in
terms of data collection and a means to educate others about watershed issues and
concerns. To find out if your community has a volunteer monitoring program, refer
to KEPA’s Directory of Environmental Monitoring Programs at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer.
Water and Sewer Programs
Most local governments provide water supply and wastewater treatment services for
residents. They can help determine whether there are source water protection areas in
the watershed and locate water supply and wastewater discharges. They might have a
water conservation program that you could incorporate into your watershed outreach
program.
Watershed Organizations
Across the country there are thousands of watershed organizations, which have
varying levels of expertise and involvement. These organizations will be a valuable
resource in your watershed planning efforts if you can harness their members for
problem identification, goal setting, and implementation of the watershed plan. If
you’re not sure about the organizations in your community, start by looking at
KEPA’s database of watershed organizations at www.epa.gov/adopt/network.html.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-14 Draft
? Statewide watershed or basin planning
frameworks
? State water protection initiatives
? Coastal zone management programs
? Source water assessment and
protection programs
? State cooperative extension programs
3.4.2 State and Regional Programs
Most watershed groups draw on local organizations and resources to
develop and implement their projects, and some have effectively
involved state programs in their efforts. In states that have adopted a
statewide watershed management framework, watershed plans should be
integrated into the larger watershed or basin plans sponsored under the
state framework. Likewise, nonpoint source work plans for local or site-
level projects funded under section 319 must be derived from the
applicable watershed plan. In cases where there are no larger basin or
subbasin plans, the plan under consideration should seek to integrate the
full range of stressors, sources, and stakeholders that are likely to emerge
as important during or after the planning and implementation process.
The following are some key state and regional programs and resources that can also
be tapped to develop and implement watershed plans.
Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs
State and local drinking water utilities develop SWAP programs under the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect sources of drinking water,
including ground water sources. Many of these waters are affected by nonpoint
source pollution. SWAP assessments delineate protection areas for the source waters
of public drinking water supplies, identify potential sources of contaminants within
the areas, determine the susceptibility of the water supplies to contamination from
these potential sources, and make the results of the assessments available to the
public. Partnering with state SWAP programs and local drinking water utilities to
develop joint watershed assessments provides an excellent opportunity for both
watershed groups and utilities to pool funds, produce better assessments, and
consider surface water and groundwater interactions. KFor a list of state source
water protection contacts, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/source/contacts.html.
State and Interstate Water Commissions
Several interstate water commissions, such as the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) and the New England Interstate Pollution Control
Commission (NEIPCC), address both water quality and water quantity issues. The
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) is a national organization representing the officials responsible for
implementing surface water protection programs throughout the nation. KFor a
listing of state, tribal, and interstate water agencies, go to www.asiwpca.org and click
on the links.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-15
State Coastal Zone Management Programs
These programs address nonpoint source pollution under section 6217 of the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). These programs can
provide a venue for developing or consolidating watershed plans in coastal areas.
Under CZARA, states are required to identify and adopt management measures to
prevent and control nonpoint source pollution, ensure that enforceable mechanisms
exist, enhance cooperation among land and water use agencies, identify land uses that
might cause degradation of coastal waters, identify and protect “critical coastal
areas,” provide technical assistance, provide opportunities for public participation,
and establish a monitoring program to determine the extent and success of
management measure implementation. Projects within the approved 6217
management area will use the EPA management measures guidance to provide
planning objectives for sources covered in the 6217 program. KCoastal zone
management measures guidance documents are available at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
State Departments of Transportation
In recent years state DOTs have placed new emphasis on environmental performance
related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities. In the past DOTs
focused mainly on environmental compliance, but agencies across the country now
take a more holistic approach to meeting environmental stewardship goals.
Incorporating stewardship priorities into construction and maintenance helps DOTs
achieve continuous improvement in environmental performance.
State Fish and Wildlife Programs
Most states have agencies responsible for issuing hunting and fishing permits,
maintaining wildlife protection areas, protecting and managing wetlands, and
protecting threatened and endangered species. These agencies develop management
plans for invasive species control, wildlife management, and habitat protection. They
often have very active volunteer programs that you might be able to access to help
identify community values and concerns and to help with locating key datasets as
part of the characterization process.
State Health Departments
Many state health departments have an environmental health division that manages
information on source water protection programs, septic system management
programs, well testing and monitoring, and animal feeding operation permits. Some
state programs provide online information and maps with fish consumption
guidelines instituted because of pollutant (often mercury) contamination.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-16 Draft
Refer to A Guide for Local Governments:
Wetlands and Watershed Management, which
was developed by the Institute for Wetland
Science and Public Policy of the Association of
State Wetland Managers. The document
provides recommendations for integrating
wetlands into broad watershed management
efforts and more specific water programs.
Kwww.aswm.org/propub/pubs/aswm
wetlandswatershed.pdf.
State Nonpoint Source Programs
State nonpoint source programs help local governments, nonprofit entities, and
numerous other state, federal, and local partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution
statewide. State nonpoint source programs provide technical assistance, as well as
funding sources, to develop watershed management plans to implement nonpoint
source activities. KA directory of state nonpoint source coordinators is available at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts.html.
State Water Protection Initiatives
Many states have initiated statewide or region-specific watershed management
programs or have aligned management and water quality monitoring activities around
a watershed framework. You should coordinate with these programs and try to
integrate their framework with your goals and objectives; they should be aware of
your watershed planning issues and concerns. For example, Minnesota’s Adopt-a-
River program encourages Minnesota volunteers to “adopt” a section of a lake, river,
wetland, or ravine to ensure its long-term health through annual cleanups. To find out
whether your state has any of these initiatives, go to the environmental department
section of your state’s Web site (e.g., Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental
Protection).
State Wetland Programs
Many states and counties have developed wetland protection
programs. These programs offer a variety of services, including
developing educational and training materials, working to reduce loss
of wetlands, providing landowners with the tools and means to
manage wetlands on their property, and coordinating monitoring of
wetlands. Some programs propose the use of grants to help share the
costs of wetland restoration and help reduce taxes on wetland
property and other conservation lands. Some states, such as
Wisconsin, require decisions on federal wetland permits to meet state
wetland water quality standards.
Regional Geographic Watershed Initiatives
In addition to statewide watershed protection programs, there are several large-scale
initiatives that focus on specific regions of the country. These programs collect
substantial data that you might use to help characterize your watershed. The
programs include the following.
The Columbia River Initiative is a proposed water management program for the
Columbia River. In 2004 the former Governor of Washington (Gary Locke) proposed
this program to allow the basin's economy to grow and maintain a healthy watershed.
The program would offer a plan to secure water for new municipal, industrial, and
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-17
irrigation uses and to improve stream flows for fish. The proposal also provides for
funding. Work on the Columbia River Initiative is on hold until further review by the
legislature. For more information on the Columbia River Initiative, visit
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cri/crihome.html.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership that has directed the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. Partners of the program include the
states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; EPA representing the
federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups. An overview of the
Chesapeake Bay Program is available at www.chesapeakebay.net/overview.htm. For
additional information about the program, visit www.chesapeakebay.net.
Since 1970 much has been done to restore and protect the Great Lakes. Although
there has been significant progress, cleaning up the lakes and preventing further
problems has not always been coordinated. As a result, in May 2004 President Bush
created a cabinet-level interagency task force and called for a “regional collaboration
of national significance.” After extensive discussions, the group now known as the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was convened. The Collaboration includes the
EPA-led federal agency task force, the Great Lakes states, local communities, tribes,
non-governmental organizations, and other interests in the Great Lakes region. The
Collaboration has two components: the conveners (mostly elected local and regional
officials) and the issue area strategy teams. The ambitious first goal of the
Collaboration is to create within 1 year a workable strategy to restore and protect the
Great Lakes. More information about the Regional Collaboration is available at
www.epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration.
Another collaborative effort for the Great Lakes is the Great Lakes Initiative, which
is a plan agreed upon by EPA and the Great Lake states to restore the health of the
Great Lakes. Also called the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System, the Great Lakes Initiative started in 1995 to provide criteria for the states’
use in setting water quality standards. The plan addresses 29 pollutants and prohibits
mixing zones for bioaccumulative chemical of concern. For more information on the
Great Lakes Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/waterscience/gli.
3.4.3 Tribal Programs and Organizations
If your watershed planning effort includes, or might affect, tribal lands or waters, or
if you are a member of a tribe and are developing a watershed management plan, you
should be aware of the various policies and initiatives regarding Indian Country.
There are currently 562 federally recognized tribes. The sovereign status of American
Indian tribes and special provisions of law set American Indians apart from all other
U.S. populations and define a special level of federal agency responsibility. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs administers and manages 55.7 million acres of land held in
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-18 Draft
trust by the United States for American Indians and Alaska Natives. KFor more
information go to www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.
In addition, EPA’s American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) coordinates the
Agency-wide effort to strengthen public health and environmental protection in
Indian Country, with a special emphasis on building the capabilities of tribes so they
can administer their own environmental programs. The AIEO provides contact
information for all federally recognized tribal governments, maintains a list of tribes
that have developed water quality standards, and provides lists of resources. KGo to
www.epa.gov/indian for more information.
EPA’s Tribal Nonpoint Source Program provides information on techniques and
grant funding for tribes to address nonpoint source pollution. The program’s Web site
(www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal.html) includes guidelines for awarding section 319
grants to American Indian tribes, as well as the Tribal Nonpoint Source Planning
Handbook. EPA also conducts training workshops for tribes interested in becoming
involved in tribal nonpoint source programs and obtaining funding.
3.4.4 Federal Programs and Organizations
Various federal programs and agencies are involved in watershed protection activities
like data collection, regulation development, technical oversight, and public
education. In addition, federal land and resource management agencies sponsor or
participate in watershed planning and management processes.
Most federal agencies have regional or state liaisons to help administer their
programs. For example, EPA divides the country into 10 regions. Each region is
responsible for selected states and tribes and provides assistance for all of its
programs. KTo find the EPA regional office associated with your watershed, go to
www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm and click on a region.
Abandoned Mines Programs
The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of Surface Mining (OSM) works with
states and tribes to protect citizens and the environment during mining and
reclamation activities. OSM manages the Clean Streams Program, which is a broad-
based citizen/industry/government program working to eliminate acid mine drainage
from abandoned coal mines. If your watershed includes abandoned mines, contact
OSM. KFor more information on the Clean Streams Program, go to
www.osmre.gov/acsihome.htm.
Agricultural Conservation Programs
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is an important partner for
many water resource projects. It provides valuable support for funding the
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-19
implementation of agricultural management practices, wetland restoration, land
retirement, and other projects associated with watershed plans. NRCS has local
offices established through partnerships with local conservation districts. KGo to
www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/organization/regions.html#regions to find state and local
contact information.
As part of its watershed protection effort, NRCS administers the USDA Watershed
Program (under Public Law 83-566). The purpose of the program is to assist federal,
state, and local agencies; local government sponsors; tribal governments; and other
program participants in protecting watersheds from damage caused by erosion,
floodwater, and sediment; restoring damaged watersheds; conserving and developing
water and land resources; and solving natural resource and related economic
problems on a watershed basis. The program provides technical and financial
assistance to local people or project sponsors, builds partnerships, and requires local
and state funding contributions. KFor more information on this program, go to
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed.
Agricultural Support Programs
USDA’s Farm Services Agency (FSA) has several programs that support watershed
protection and restoration efforts. Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
farmers receive annual rental payments, cost sharing, and technical assistance to plant
vegetation for land they put into reserve for 10 to 15 years. The Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) targets state and federal funds to achieve
shared environmental goals of national and state significance. The program uses
financial incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily protect soil,
water, and wildlife resources. The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) uses 30-year
easements and rental agreements to improve management of, restore, or conserve up
to 2 million acres of private grasslands. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is
a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the
conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and
other conservation purposes on tribal and private working lands. KFor more
information about FSA, go to www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp. KFor more
information on other conservation programs, go to www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs.
Coastal Programs
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 by amendments to the
Clean Water Act that seek to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant
estuaries of the United States. There are currently 28 active NEPs along the nation’s
coasts. NEP programs have identified a number of nonpoint source stressors as
sources of estuary degradation, and they can provide valuable assistance in working
with local governments and other partners to develop and implement watershed
plans. KTo find out if your watershed is in an NEP-designated area, go to
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-20 Draft
Federal Transportation Programs
Two offices in the Federal Highway Administration, a part of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, focus on environmental protection and enhancement—the Office of
Natural and Human Environment and the Office of Project Development and
Environmental Review. Kwww.fhwa.dot.gov.
Natural Resources
The USGS maintains vast resources of information on physical processes and
features such as soil and mineral resources, surface and ground water resources,
topographic maps, and water quality monitoring programs. Regardless of whether
you include representatives from USGS in your stakeholder group, USGS will most
likely be a valuable resource in the characterization phase. KGo to www.usgs.gov to
find state contacts.
Public Lands Management
The Forest Service, an agency within USDA, manages the 195 million acres of public
lands in national forests and grasslands. Each national forest and grassland in the
United States has its own management plan. The plans establish the desired future
condition for the land and resources and set broad, general direction for management.
Most plans for the national forests were approved in the 1980s, and, by law, national
forests revise their plans every 15 years or sooner. KYou can reach your local Forest
Service managers and their resource staff through the Forest Service Web site at
www.fs.fed.us. DOI’s Bureau of Land Management manages 261 million surface
acres of America’s public lands, primarily in 12 western states. KFor more
information go to www.blm.gov.
Threatened and Endangered Species Protection Programs
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration jointly administer the federal Endangered Species Act. USFWS has a
program called Endangered Species Program Partners, which features formal or
informal partnerships for protecting endangered and threatened species and helping
them to recover. These partnerships include federal partners as well as states, tribes,
local governments, nonprofit organizations, and individual landowners. KGo to
http://endangered.fws.gov/partners.html.
Water Quantity Issues
The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is a water management agency within DOI that
works with western states, American Indian tribes, and others to meet new water
needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. If your
watershed planning effort is in one of these states and water quantity is likely to be a
key issue, consider involving BOR. KFor more information go to www.usbr.gov.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Draft 3-21
Wetland Protection Programs
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the dredging and filling of wetlands.
This program is jointly administered by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In addition, USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource
agencies have important advisory roles. If your watershed includes wetlands, you
might want to contact representatives from one of these agencies to identify what
management programs exist or what data are available. KGo to
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands for links to laws, regulations, guidance, and scientific
documents addressing wetlands; state, tribal, and local initiatives; landowner
assistance and stewardship; water quality standards and section 401 certification for
wetlands; monitoring and assessment; wetlands and watershed planning; restoration;
education; and information about wetland programs across the country.
Advance Identification (ADID) and Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are
two types of wetland/watershed planning efforts that EPA and other stakeholders use
to enhance wetland protection activities. ADID is a process that involves collecting
and distributing information on the values and functions of wetland areas so that
communities can better understand and protect the wetlands in their areas. EPA
conducts the process in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in
consultation with states or tribes. Because ADID efforts are usually based on
watershed planning, they are extremely compatible with geographic and ecosystem
initiatives like the watershed approach.
SAMPs are developed to analyze potential impacts at the watershed scale, to identify
priority areas for preservation and potential restoration areas, and to determine the
least environmentally damaging locations for proposed projects. SAMPs are designed
to be conducted in geographic areas of special sensitivity under intense development
pressure. These efforts require the participation of multiple local, state, and federal
agencies. The Corps of Engineers initiated the development of SAMPs and works
with EPA. KTo find out if a SAMP has been conducted in your watershed, go to
www.spl.usace.army.mil/samp/samp.htm.
Chapter 3
Build Partnerships
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
3-22 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-1
4. Define Scope of
Watershed Planning Effort
Read this chapter if...
? You want to engage stakeholders in identifying issues of concern
? You want to take stakeholders out into the watershed
? You want to develop a conceptual model that links sources of pollution to
impairments
? You’re unsure of the extent of the watershed boundaries for your project
? You want to develop preliminary goals for the watershed plan
? You want to select indicators that will be used to assess current environmental
conditions in the watershed
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Identifying issues of concern
< Using conceptual models
< Setting preliminary goals
< Developing quantitative indicators
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-2 Draft
4.1 Why Define the Scope of Your Watershed Planning Effort?
To ensure that your watershed planning effort remains focused, effective, and
efficient, defining the scope of the effort is critical. The term scope is used to
describe the boundaries of a program or project, which can be defined in terms of
space (the area included in the watershed plan) or other parameters. This handbook
defines the scope of your watershed planning effort as not only the geographic area to
be addressed but also the number of issues of concern and the types (and breadth) of
the goals you want to attain. If your scope is too broad, it will be difficult to “keep it
all together” and make the best use of your financial and human resources as you
develop and implement the watershed plan. It might also hamper your ability to
conduct detailed analyses or minimize the probability of involvement by key
stakeholders and, ultimately, successful plan implementation. A scope that is too
narrow, however, might preclude the opportunity to address watershed stressors in a
rational, efficient, and economical manner. If you define your scope and set
preliminary goals early in the planning process, you’ll find it easier to work through
the later steps in the process.
The issues in your watershed and the geographic scope will also affect the temporal
scope of the implementation of the watershed plan. Although there are no hard and
fast rules, watershed plans are typically written for a time span of 5 to 10 years. Even
if you do not achieve your watershed goals in 10 years, much of the information
might become out-of-date, and you’ll probably want to update the watershed plan.
The stakeholders will provide critical input into the watershed planning process that
will help identify issues of concern, develop goals, and propose management
strategies for implementation. Information from the stakeholders will help shape the
scope of your watershed planning effort.
4.2 Ask Stakeholders for Background Information
The stakeholders will likely be a source of vast historical knowledge of activities that
have taken place in the watershed. Ask them for any information they might have on
the watershed, including personal knowledge of waste sites, unmapped mine works,
eroding banks, and so on. They might have information on historical dump sites,
contaminated areas, places experiencing excessive erosion, and even localized water
quality sampling data. Stakeholders might be aware of existing plans, such as
wellhead or source water protection plans. 7 Collecting this background information
will help focus your efforts to identify the issues of concerns and solutions. Use
OWorksheet 4-1 to work with your stakeholders to determine what information is
already available. A blank copy of the worksheet is provided in appendix B.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-3
O
[Hand out to stakeholders at the beginning of a meeting, or use as a guide to work through each question as a group]
1. What are the known or perceived impairments and problems in the watershed?
2. Do we already know the causes and sources of any water quality impairments in the watershed? If so, what are they?
3. What information is already available, and what analyses have been performed to support development of a TMDL,
watershed plan, or other document?
4. Have the relative contributions from major types of sources of the pollutant or stressor causing impairment been
estimated?
5. Are there any historical or ongoing management efforts aimed at controlling the problem pollutants or stressors?
6. Are there any threats to future conditions, such as accelerated development patterns?
7. Have any additional concerns or goals been identified by the stakeholders?
4.3 Identify Issues of Concern
One of the first activities in developing a watershed management plan is to talk
with stakeholders in the watershed to identify their issues of concern. These
issues will help to shape the goals and to determine what types of data are
needed. As a project manager you might think you already know the problems,
such as not meeting designated uses for swimming and fishing. The issues of
concern are different in that these are the issues that are important to the
community. For example, stakeholders frequently list trash in the streams as an
issue even though it doesn’t necessarily affect water quality.
Set up a meeting with the stakeholders to gather their input as to what they
believe are the major concerns in the watershed, and begin to identify possible causes
and sources of these concerns. The stakeholders might provide anecdotal evidence,
such as “There aren’t any fish in the stream anymore (impact) because the
temperature is too warm (stressor) and there is too much dirt going into the stream
(stressor) since they removed all the trees along the streambank (source).” This
information provides an important “reality check” for watershed plan sponsors, who
might have very different notions regarding problems, and it serves as the starting
point for the characterization step described in chapter 5.
At this stage you can even start to link problems seen in the watershed with their
possible causes or sources. For example, stakeholders might say they are concerned
about beach closures, which could lead to a discussion of sources of bacteria that led
to the closures. As you move through the process and gather more data, these links
will become more discernible. Understanding the links between the pollutants or
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-4 Draft
Figure 4-1. Simplified conceptual model.
Figure 4-2. A simple conceptual model involving logging
road construction effects on stream aquatic life (adapted
from USEPA 1998).
“stressors” and the impacts in the watershed is key to successful
watershed management. In the initial stages of watershed planning,
many of the links might not be thoroughly understood; they will more
likely be educated guesses that generate further analyses to determine
validity.
4.3.1 Draw a Picture
It is often useful to diagram these links as you move through the
watershed planning process and present them as a picture, or a
conceptual model (figure 4-1). These diagrams provide a graphic
representation that you can present to stakeholders, helping to guide the
subsequent planning process. In many cases, there will be more than
one pathway of cause and effect. You can also present this concept to
stakeholders verbally, as if-then links. For example, “If the area of
impervious surface is increased, then flows to streams will increase.
If flows to streams increase, then the channels will become more
unstable.” Figure 4-2 shows a simple conceptual model based on the
construction of logging roads.
The conceptual model can be used to start identifying relationships
between the possible causes and sources of impacts seen in the
watershed. You don’t have to wait until you have collected additional
information. In fact, the conceptual model can help to
identify what types of data you need to collect as part
of the characterization process. Figure 4-3 illustrates a
conceptual model that was developed for a watershed
planning effort in Greens Creek, North Carolina. The
Greens Creek watershed covers approximately 10
square miles in the southwestern part of the state.
Greens Creek is classified as a C-trout habitat stream,
typical of most of the mountain streams in the region.
The watershed is subject to considerable development
pressure from vacation homes and has highly erodible
soils and steep slopes. Locals have observed
significant problems related to road construction and
maintenance.
To facilitate the identification of problems and their
probable causes, an initial conceptual model of
impairment in the Greens Creek watershed was
developed. The conceptual model was presented to
stakeholders for discussion at a meeting, at which
they identified upland loading of sediment and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-5
Figure 4-3. Draft conceptual model for Greens Creek, North Carolina.
subsequent impacts on water clarity (turbidity) as the key risk pathway for support
of uses in Greens Creek. KFor more information on the development of conceptual
models as part of the watershed planning process, refer to EPA’s Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment, which can be downloaded at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460&partner=ORD_NCEA.
Build your own conceptual model using Oworksheet 4-2, provided in appendix B.
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-6 Draft
4.3.2 Take Stakeholders Out into the Watershed
Conducting visual watershed assessments with the stakeholders, such as stream
walks, “windshield surveys,” or flyovers, can provide them with a unique perspective
about what’s going on in the watershed. They’ll be able to make visual connections
between sources, impacts, and possible management approaches. Visual assessments
show stakeholders the watershed boundaries, stream conditions, and potential sources
contributing to waterbody impairment.
Stream surveys can be used at several points in the watershed planning process.
Visual assessments might be conducted initially to help stakeholders develop a
common vision of what needs to be done in a watershed. Later, they might be used to
help identify areas where additional data collection is needed, identify critical areas,
or select management measures.
Stream surveys can provide an important means of collecting data for identifying
stressors and conducting a loading analysis. For example, streambank erosion can be
a considerable source of sediment input to a stream and illegal straight pipes can
discharge a variety of pollutants. Both sources might be identifiable only through a
visual inspection of the stream or through infrared photography.
In addition to visual assessments, photographic surveys can be used to document
features like the courses of streams, the topography of the land, the extent of forest
cover and other land uses, and other natural and human-made features of the
watershed. Photographs provide valuable pre- and post- implementation
documentation. You can make arrangements to take photos, or you might be able to
obtain aerial photographs (current and historical) from
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), or other sources.
K Several protocols for conducting visual assessments
are discussed further in section 6.5.1 and are listed in
appendix A.
4.4 Define the Geographic Extent of the
Watershed
As the stakeholders identify concerns in the watershed,
their findings will help to define the geographic extent of
the watershed that the plan will address. The plan might
address a small urban watershed with wide-ranging
stressors and sources or a large river basin with only a
few problem parameters. If your plan addresses a small
drainage system within a watershed covered by a
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-7
Watershed Boundary Definition Example
A region, the largest drainage basin,
contains the drainage area of a major
river or the combined drainage areas of
several rivers.
Mid-Atlantic (02)
Subregions divide regions and include
the area drained by a river system.
Chesapeake Bay
watershed (0207)
Basins divide or may be equivalent to
subregions.
Potomac River
watershed
(020700)
Subbasins divide basins and represent
part or all of a surface-drainage basin, a
combination of drainage basins, or a
distinct hydrologic feature.
Monocacy
watershed
(0207009)
Watersheds divide subbasins and
usually range in size from 40,000 to
250,000 acres.
Monocacy River
watershed
(0207000905)
Subwatersheds divide or may be
equivalent to watersheds and usually
range in size from 10,000 to 40,000
acres.
Double Pipe Creek
subwatershed
(020700090502)
If you’re confused by the new numbering, don’t worry. The Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) released the Federal Standards
for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries in October 2004 to
delineate hydrologic unit boundaries consistently, modify existing
hydrologic units, and establish a national Watershed Boundary Dataset
(WBD). The guidelines establish a new hierarchy for hydrologic units,
including six levels and superseding previous number schemes. Go to
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed for more
information.
separate plan, make sure your planned
activities are integrated with those broader-
scale efforts.
One way to identify the geographic extent of
your watershed planning effort is to consult
the USGS map of hydrologic units. A
hydrologic unit is part of a watershed mapping
classification system showing various areas of
land that can contribute surface water runoff to
designated outlet points, such as lakes or
stream segments. USGS designates drainage
areas as subwatersheds (including smaller drainages) numbered with 12-digit
hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), nested within watersheds (10-digit HUCs). These are
combined into larger drainage areas called subbasins (8 digits), basins (6 digits), and
subregions (4 digits), which make up the large regional drainage basins (2 digits).
Another way to identify watershed boundaries more precisely is to use a topographic
map. These maps are available at USGS map centers and outdoor supply stores and at
K http://topomaps.usgs.gov. When working in very small watersheds of just a few
square miles, it’s better to obtain more detailed
topographic information from city or county
planning departments. From these maps lines can
be drawn following the highest ground between
the waterways to identify the watershed
boundaries, or ridge lines. In areas with storm
sewers, maps that show how this “plumbing”
might have changed watershed boundaries are
often available from local or municipal
government offices.
Most watershed planning efforts to implement
water pollution control practices occur at the 10-
or 12-digit HUC level, although smaller drainage
areas within subwatersheds might be used if they
represent important water resources and have a
significant variety of stressors and sources. It is
still helpful to factor in large-scale basin planning
initiatives for strategic planning efforts that
address interjurisdictional planning and solutions
to widespread water quality problems. The key to
selecting the geographic scope of your planning
effort is to ensure that the area is small enough to
manage but large enough to address water quality
impairments and the concerns of stakeholders.
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-8 Draft
KMore information on delineating watershed boundaries is provided in
section 5.4.1.
4.5 Develop Preliminary Goals
After stakeholders provide information on issues of concern, they will begin
to identify the vision or goals for the watershed that they would like to see
addressed in the watershed plan. Getting this input is critical to ensuring that
you address the issues important to them and keep them involved in the
planning and implementation effort. In some cases you’ll also incorporate
goals from other watershed planning activities. For example, if a TMDL has
already been developed in your watershed, you can include the goals
outlined in the TMDL, such as the required loading targets to be achieved.
These goals are very specific.
Often stakeholders will recommend very broad goals such as “Restore lake water
quality,” “Protect wetlands,” or “Manage growth to protect our water resources.”
These goals might start out broad, but they’ll be refined as you move through the
watershed characterization process (chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8). For each goal identified,
specific management objectives should be developed (chapter 9). The objectives
should include a measurable target needed to achieve the goals and specific
indicators that will be used to measure progress toward meeting the objectives.
The more specific you can make your goals at this stage, the easier it will be to
develop concrete objectives to achieve the goals. You should also set goals and
objectives to guide the process of engaging and informing
those who contribute to water quality degradation and
motivating them to adopt more appropriate behaviors. For
example, a goal for a river might be to restore recreational
uses (fishing and swimming). This goal might be further
defined as improving cold-water fisheries by reducing
sediment in runoff, increasing dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and reinstating swimming by lowering
bacteria counts during the summer. A wide range of specific
objectives should be developed and implemented to support
each aspect of the goal. Make sure that the goals link back to
the issues of concern.
As you move through the watershed planning process you
should build onto your goals, developing indicators to
measure progress toward achieving your goals, developing specific management
objectives to show how you will achieve your goal, and finally, developing
measurable targets to determine when you have achieved your goals (figure 4-4).
? Meet water quality standards for dissolved oxygen.
? Restore aquatic habitat to meet designated uses for
fishing.
? Protect drinking water reservoir from excessive
eutrophication.
? Manage future growth.
? Restore wetlands to maintain a healthy wildlife
community.
? Protect open space.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-9
Targets
Objectives
Indicators
Indicators
Goals Goals
ID causes
and sources
Set targets
ID load
reductions
Objectives
Indicators
Goals
Figure 4-4. Evolution of goals throughout the watershed planning process.
4.6 Select Indicators to Measure Environmental Conditions
The stakeholders will help to select indicators that will be used to measure the current
health of the watershed and to provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the
watershed goals. Indicators are direct or indirect measurements of some valued
component or quality in a system. Indicators are also extremely useful for assessing
and communicating the status and trends of the health of a watershed. Indicators,
however, do not tell you the cause of the problem. For example, you might use a
thermometer to measure stream temperature. An elevated temperature might indicate
a problem, but it does not specifically tell you what the problem is, where it is, or
what caused it. Your stakeholder group will begin by identifying the indicators that
will be used to quantify existing conditions in the watershed.
Indicators are selected, refined, added to, and modified throughout the watershed
planning and implementation process. As you complete the characterization phase
and develop goals and management objectives, you’ll shift your indicators from those
which assess current conditions to those which quantitatively measure progress
toward meeting your goals. For example, in the Coal Creek watershed, the goal is to
reduce sediment loadings to meet water quality standards and support all beneficial
uses. Table 4-1 shows the indicators used and the target values for measuring
progress toward reducing the sediment load. You’ll learn how to develop these target
values in chapter 9.
Table 4-1. Coal Creek Sediment Loading Indicators and Target Values
Sediment Loading Indicator Target Value
5-year mean McNeil core percent subsurface fines < 6.35 mm 35 percent
5-year mean substrate score > 10
Percent surface fines < 2 mm < 20 percent
Clinger richness > 14
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-10 Draft
Validity
? Is the indicator related to your goals and objectives?
? Is the indicator appropriate in terms of geographic and
temporal scales?
Clarity
? Is the indicator simple and direct?
? Do the stakeholders agree on what will be measured?
? Are the methodologies consistent over time?
Practicality
? Are adequate data available for immediate use?
? Are there any constraints on data collection?
Clear Direction
? Does the indicator have clear action implications
depending on whether the change is good or bad?
Be aware that you might have to refer back to this section as you develop your
watershed plan to develop additional indicators to measure performance and the
effectiveness of plan implementation. Table 4-2 illustrates where indicators are used
to develop and implement your watershed plan.
Table 4-2. Use of Indicators Throughout the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process
Planning Step Description of How Indicators are Used
Assess Current Conditions Indicators are used to measure current environmental conditions, e.g., water quality, habitat,
aquatic resources, land use patterns
Develop Goals Indicators are used to determine when the goal will be achieved, e.g., reducing nutrient loads to
meet water quality standards
Develop Pollution Load
Reduction Targets
Indicators are used to measure the targets for load reductions, e.g., phosphorus concentration
Select Management
Strategies
Indicators are used to track the implementation of the management measures, e.g., number of
management practices installed
Develop Monitoring
Program
The monitoring program measures the indicators that have been developed as part of the
management strategies and information/ education program
Implement Watershed Plan Indicators are used to measure the implementation of the watershed plan, tracking dollars spent,
resources expended, management practices implemented, and improvements in water quality
4.6.1 Select Quantitative Indicators
In developing the watershed plan, you’ll conduct
watershed assessments and analyses to quantify source
loads, characterize impacts, and estimate the load
reductions needed to meet your goals and objectives.
Sometimes the source loads and load reductions will be
expressed in slightly different terms, such as the number
of miles of eroded banks and the miles of vegetated
buffers needed to address the problem. Regardless of the
approach, the important point to remember is that
quantification is the key to remediation. If you can’t
somehow measure the problems you’re facing, it will be
almost impossible to know whether you’re making any
headway in addressing them.
For watershed planning purposes, indicators should be
quantitative so that the effectiveness of management
measures can be predicted. For example, if one of the
goals identified by stakeholders is “restore aquatic habitat
to meet designated uses,” and you believe the habitat has
been degraded because of elevated levels of nutrients
entering the waterbody, what indicators will be used to
measure progress toward achieving that goal? A specific
value should be set as a target for the indicator,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-11
Regardless of the approach, the important point to
remember is that quantification is the key to remediation.
If you can’t somehow measure the problems you’re
facing, it will be almost impossible to know if you’re
making any headway in addressing them.
representing desired levels. For example, phosphorus can be used as an indicator to
directly measure the reduction in loadings. Table 4-3 provides examples of
environmental indicators and possible target values, or endpoints. Targets can be
based on water quality standards or, where numeric water quality standards do not
exist, on data analysis, literature values, or expert examination of water quality
conditions to identify values representative of conditions supportive of designated
uses. KChapter 9 goes into more detail on how to develop targets for your goals and
objectives.
If a TMDL exists, important indicators have already been
defined and you can incorporate them when selecting
appropriate management actions to implement the load
reductions cited in the TMDL. If no TMDL exists, select
indicators that are linked to your water quality restoration or
protection goals, such as pollutant concentrations or other
parameters of concern (e.g., channel instability, eroding
banks, channel flow, flow cycles). The indicators selected should consider the
impacts, impairments, or parameters of concern in the waterbody and the types and
pathways of watershed stressor sources that contribute to those impacts.
4.6.2 Select a Combination of Indicators
You’ll use different types of indicators to reflect where you are in the watershed
management process and the audience with which you are communicating. You’ll
first select environmental indicators to measure the current conditions in the
watershed and help to identify the stressors and the sources of the pollutants. As you
develop your management objectives and actually assemble your watershed plan
(chapter 12), you’ll add performance indicators, such as social and programmatic
indicators, to help measure progress toward meeting your goals. Table 4-4 provides
examples of indicators used throughout the watershed plan development and
implementation effort.
The Audience
Keep in mind that indicators provide a powerful means of communicating to various
audiences about the status of the watershed, as well as demonstrating the progress
being made toward meeting goals. Select indicators that will help to communicate
these concepts to nontechnical audiences. For example, using a 30-day geometric
mean for E. coli bacteria to demonstrate reduction in pathogens to the waterbody
won’t mean much to most people. But using the number of shellfish beds that have
been reopened because of the reduction of pathogen inputs is easier to understand. Or
being able to count the number of failing septic systems that have been located and
repaired shows people how the sources of pathogens are being reduced.
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-12 Draft
Table 4-3. Example Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and
Environmental Conditions
Issue Indicator
Example Target
Value Why You Would Use It
Sediment Pebble counts (%
surface fines < 2
mm)
< 20% Pebble counts provide an indication of the type and distribution of bed
material in a stream. Too many fines can interfere with spawning and
degrade the habitat for aquatic invertebrates.
Stream channel
stability
No significant
risk of bank
erosion
Channel stability uses a qualitative measurement with associated
mathematical values to reflect stream conditions.
Total suspended
solids (TSS)
Monthly avg.
concentration
< 40 mg/L
Solids can adversely affect stream ecosystems by filling pools,
clogging gills, and limiting the light penetration and transparency
critical to aquatic flora.
Turbidity < 25 NTU Turbidity measures the clarity of water and can also be used as an
indirect indicator of the concentration of suspended matter.
Eutrophication Chl-a (benthic) Maximum < 100
mg/m
2
In flowing streams, most algae grow attached to the substrate. Too
much benthic algae can degrade habitat; alter the cycling of oxygen,
nutrients, and metals; and result in unaesthetic conditions.
Chl-a (water
column)
Geometric mean
< 5 ug/L
Chlorophyll-a is an indirect measure of algal density. Excess levels
may result in harmful swings in dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations, decrease water clarity, and alter the natural food
chain of a system.
Nitrate + nitrite Monthly average
< 1.5 mg/L
Elevated levels of nitrate + nitrite are good indicators of runoff from
irrigation, residential lawn care fertilizers, and effluent waste streams.
These parameters can indicate leaching from septic systems and
erosion of natural deposits. Nitrogen is a limiting nutrient to algal
production in many estuarine and arid freshwater systems.
Orthophosphate Monthly average
< 0.05 mg/L
Orthophosphate measures the form of phosphorus that is readily
available to aquatic systems. Too much phosphorus can often cause
excessive aquatic vegetation growth in freshwater systems.
Total nitrogen Monthly average
< 5 mg/L
Total nitrogen (often measured as the sum of nitrate + nitrite and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen) measures the total ability of the waterbody to supply
nitrogen to support algal growth after microbial processing.
Ammonia < 15 mg/L Excess ammonia can cause toxicity in fish. The toxicity of ammonia is
dependent on pH and temperature.
Total phosphorus Monthly average
< 0.10 mg/L
Total phosphorus includes phosphorus that is bound to sediment
particles or in organic compounds, some of which can become
available in the water column. It is often the limiting nutrient for growth
of aquatic vegetation in freshwater systems.
Pathogens Fecal coliform
bacteria
30-day
geometric mean
of < 200/100 mL
This bacterial indicator is often used to monitor for the presence of
human/animal waste in a waterbody, which might lead to sickness in
human populations. It also indicates compromised sanitary discharge
and septic systems.
E. coli bacteria 30-day
geometric mean
of < 125/100 mL
This bacterial indicator is often used to monitor for the presence of
human/animal waste in a waterbody, which might lead to sickness in
human populations. It also indicates compromised sanitary discharge
and septic systems.
Metals Copper < 7.3 μg/L Many metals are toxic to various forms of aquatic life, and water
quality criteria have been developed. Criteria for most metals vary
with the hardness of the water.
Lead < 82 μg/L
Zinc < 67 μg/L
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-13
Table 4-3. (continued)
Issue Indicator
Example Target
Value Why You Would Use It
Habitat Temperature Instantaneous
< 33 oC, daily
avg. < 29 oC
Many aquatic organisms are adapted to survive and prosper within
specific temperature ranges.
Physical habitat
quality
Rapid
Bioassessment
Protocol (RBP)
value
The assessment of physical habitat quality can be used to determine
the potential of waterbodies to sustain healthy aquatic systems.
General Water
Quality
Total dissolved
solids (TDS)
700 mg/L TDS is a direct measurement of the dissolved mineral content in
stream ecosystems. High TDS can be harmful to aquatic organisms
and can restrict the beneficial use of water (e.g., for irrigation).
Conductivity < 1,000 μS/cm Conductivity is a good indicator of the dissolved mineral content in
stream ecosystems. It is also a good measure of salinity in the water.
DO > 5.0 mg/L DO is an important measure of the quality of the habitat and overall
health of the ecosystem. Oxygen depletion can indicate a number of
undesirable physical, chemical, and biological activities in the
watershed.
pH 6 < pH < 9 pH is a measure of the acidity (hydrogen/hydroxide ion concentration).
Most aquatic organisms have a preferred pH range, usually pH 6 to 9.
Beyond that range aquatic organisms begin to suffer from stress,
which can lead to death. High pH levels also force dissolved ammonia
into its toxic, un-ionized form, which can further stress fish and other
organisms.
Oil and grease Minimize Oil and grease indicate impacts from general vehicular impervious
surfaces and illicit disposal activity.
Flow Dry weather flows 95% of daily
flows > 5 cfs
As impervious surface area increases, often stream base flow
decreases, resulting in decreased aquatic habitat and exacerbating
problems with high temperature and low dissolved oxygen.
Frequency of
overbank flood
events
< 1 in 2 years The frequency and magnitude of flood events is influenced by
increased urbanization and can affect channel stability. This indicator
is also easily understood by the public.
Peak flow Achieve pre-
development
conditions for
response to
2-year storm
Urbanization often leads to increased storm flow peaks, which in turn
set off instability in the stream channel.
Biology Biological indexes Varies by index,
assemblage,
stream size,
ecoregion
Several indexes under various acronyms (IBI, ICI, SCI, RIVPACS)
have been developed to directly measure the health of fish,
macroinvertebrate, and periphyton assemblages. See Barbour et al.
(1999) for an introduction to the use of these indexes.
EPT richness Varies by stream
type and
ecoregion
This metric is the richness of the sample in taxa that are mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), or caddisflies (Trichoptera).
Invertebrates that are members of these groups are generally
understood to be sensitive to stressors in streams, whether the
stressors are physical, chemical, or biological. Consequently, these
taxa are less common in degraded streams. Component of most
macroinvertebrate biological indexes.
DELT anomalies < 0.1% The percentage of fish in a sample with external deformities, fin
erosion, lesions, or tumors. These anomalies increase with both
conventional organic pollution and toxic pollution. Component of some
fish biological indexes.
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Table 4-3. (continued)
Issue Indicator
Example Target
Value Why You Would Use It
4-14 Draft
Beck’s Biotic Index > 11.0 A weighted sum of the number of pollution-sensitive
macroinvertebrate species in a standardized sample. Highly sensitive
taxa receive 2 points; sensitive taxa receive 1 point. Similar to EPT
richness, but more appropriate in low-gradient streams. Component of
some macroinvertebrate biological indexes.
Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (HBI)
< 3.8 The abundance-weighted average tolerance of all taxa in a
macroinvertebrate sample. The HBI score increases with pollution and
degradation as tolerant taxa replace intolerant (sensitive) taxa. See
Barbour et al. (1999). Component metric of many macroinvertebrate
biological indexes.
Observed taxa/
expected taxa (O/E)
> 0.8 This is the measurement endpoint of what are termed RIVPACS, or
predictive model indexes. This indicator measures the
macroinvertebrate taxa actually observed at a site in relationship to
those expected to occur under undisturbed conditions, adjusted for
site-specific features (e.g., stream size, elevation). See Wright et al.
2000.
Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators are a direct measure of the environmental conditions that
plan implementation seeks to achieve. The indicators should be directly related to the
indicators selected for your management objectives. By definition, the indicators are
measurable quantities used to evaluate the relationship between pollutant sources and
environmental conditions. Targets goals are defined by the values of the selected
indicators. Frequently these targets reflect water quality standards for designated
uses. In other cases, qualitative standards for water quality and habitat protection
need to be interpreted to establish the criteria. For example, if the indicator was
phosphorus, the target could be a reduction of the instream concentration value or a
total allowable load that is expected to protect the resource.
Programmatic Indicators
Programmatic indicators are indirect measures of resource protection or restoration
(e.g., the number of management practices or the number of point source permits
issued). These don’t necessarily indicate that you’re meeting your load reductions,
but they do indicate actions intended to achieve a goal. When you develop the
implementation plan (chapter 12), look for important programmatic actions that can
be tracked over time. Programmatic indicators include measures such as recording
the number of people attending workshops, the number of projects approved, the
number of monitoring samples taken, and dollars spent.
G43G68G81G71G69G82G82G78G3G73G82G85G3G39G72G89G72G79G82G83G76G81G74G3G58G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71G3G51G79G68G81G86
G87G82G3G53G72G86G87G82G85G72G3G68G81G71G3G51G85G82G87G72G70G87G3G50G88G85G3G58G68G87G72G85G86
G38G75G68G83G87G72G85G3G23
G39G72G73G76G81G72G3G54G70G82G83G72G3G82G73G3G58G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71
G51G79G68G81G81G76G81G74G3G40G73G73G82G85G87
G39G85G68G73G87 4-15
G58G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71G3G51G79G68G81
G44G80G83G79G72G80G72G81G87G68G87G76G82G81
G54G82G70G76G68G79G3G44G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86
G54G82G70G76G68G79G3G76G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86G3G80G72G68G86G88G85G72G3G70G75G68G81G74G72G86G3G76G81G3G86G82G70G76G68G79G3G82G85G3G70G88G79G87G88G85G68G79G3G83G85G68G70G87G76G70G72G86G15G3G86G88G70G75G3G68G86G3G76G81G70G85G72G68G86G72G71
G68G90G68G85G72G81G72G86G86G3G82G81G3G90G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71G3G76G86G86G88G72G86G15G3G68G81G71G3G69G72G75G68G89G76G82G85G3G70G75G68G81G74G72G86G3G87G75G68G87G3G79G72G68G71G3G87G82G3G76G80G83G79G72G80G72G81G87G68G87G76G82G81G3G82G73
G80G68G81G68G74G72G80G72G81G87G3G80G72G68G86G88G85G72G86G3G68G81G71G3G86G88G69G86G72G84G88G72G81G87G3G90G68G87G72G85G3G84G88G68G79G76G87G92G3G76G80G83G85G82G89G72G80G72G81G87G86G17G3G44G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86G3G80G68G92
G76G81G70G79G88G71G72G3G87G75G72G3G83G72G85G70G72G81G87G3G82G73G3G79G68G81G71G82G90G81G72G85G86G3G68G79G82G81G74G3G87G75G72G3G86G87G85G72G68G80G3G70G82G85G85G76G71G82G85G3G87G75G68G87G3G78G81G82G90G3G90G75G68G87G3G68
G90G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71G3G76G86G3G82G85G3G87G75G72G3G81G88G80G69G72G85G3G82G73G3G75G82G80G72G82G90G81G72G85G86G3G87G75G68G87G3G86G76G74G81G3G68G3G83G79G72G71G74G72G3G87G82G3G85G72G71G88G70G72G3G73G72G85G87G76G79G76G93G72G85G3G88G86G72G17
G38G82G81G86G76G71G72G85G3G87G75G72G3G80G72G87G75G82G71G86G3G92G82G88G182G79G79G3G88G86G72G3G87G82G3G70G82G79G79G72G70G87G3G87G75G76G86G3G76G81G73G82G85G80G68G87G76G82G81G15G3G86G88G70G75G3G68G86G3G83G85G72G16G3G68G81G71G3G83G82G86G87G16
G86G88G85G89G72G92G86G15G3G73G82G70G88G86G3G74G85G82G88G83G86G15G3G68G81G71G3G82G81G72G16G82G81G16G82G81G72G3G76G81G87G72G85G89G76G72G90G86G17G3G55G68G69G79G72G3G23G16G24G3G83G85G82G89G76G71G72G86G3G86G72G89G72G85G68G79
G72G91G68G80G83G79G72G86G3G82G73G3G76G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86G3G87G75G68G87G3G70G68G81G3G69G72G3G88G86G72G71G3G87G82G3G80G72G68G86G88G85G72G3G83G85G82G74G85G72G86G86G3G82G85G3G83G72G85G73G82G85G80G68G81G70G72G17
G53G72G74G68G85G71G79G72G86G86G3G82G73G3G87G75G72G3G87G92G83G72G3G82G73G3G76G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86G3G68G81G71G3G87G68G85G74G72G87G86G3G92G82G88G3G71G72G89G72G79G82G83G15G3G92G82G88G3G86G75G82G88G79G71G3G72G86G87G68G69G79G76G86G75
G86G82G80G72G3G80G72G68G81G86G3G73G82G85G3G87G85G68G70G78G76G81G74G15G3G86G87G82G85G76G81G74G3G11G72G17G74G17G15G3G71G68G87G68G69G68G86G72G12G15G3G68G81G71G3G85G72G83G82G85G87G76G81G74G3G83G85G82G74G85G72G86G86G3G68G74G68G76G81G86G87G3G87G75G72G86G72
G89G68G79G88G72G86G17G3G46G54G72G70G87G76G82G81G3G20G21G17G20G19G3G71G72G86G70G85G76G69G72G86G3G89G68G85G76G82G88G86G3G87G85G68G70G78G76G81G74G3G86G92G86G87G72G80G86G3G87G75G68G87G3G70G68G81G3G69G72G3G88G86G72G71G3G87G82
G80G68G81G68G74G72G3G87G75G76G86G3G76G81G73G82G85G80G68G87G76G82G81G17
G55G68G69G79G72G3G23G16G23G17G3G40G91G68G80G83G79G72G3G44G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86G3G56G86G72G71G3G87G75G85G82G88G74G75G82G88G87G3G58G68G87G72G85G86G75G72G71G3G51G79G68G81G3G39G72G89G72G79G82G83G80G72G81G87G3G68G81G71
G44G80G83G79G72G80G72G81G87G68G87G76G82G81
G38G82G81G70G72G85G81: No fish in stream due to heavy sedimentation
G42G82G68G79: Reduce sedimentation into stream to meet designated uses
G50G69G77G72G70G87G76G89G72: Install management practices streamside to reduce sedimentation by 15 percent
G55G92G83G72G3G82G73G3G44G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85 G40G91G68G80G83G79G72G3G44G81G71G76G70G68G87G82G85G86 G48G72G87G75G82G71G86
Environmental
(baseline conditions)
Turbidity, flow, total suspended
solids (TSS), channel stability
Direct water quality measurements,
photographs, watershed surveys
Programmatic # brochures mailed for
management practice workshop
Mailing lists
Programmatic # participants at management
practice workshop
Attendance lists
Social # follow-up phone calls requesting
information
Phone records
Social Increased awareness of watershed
issues
Pre- and post- surveys, focus groups
Social # landowners requesting assistance
to install management practices
Phone records
Social # landowners aware of technical
and financial assistance available
for management practice
installation
Pre- and post- surveys, interviews
Programmatic # management practices installed Tracking database
Environmental (measure
implementation progress)
Turbidity, flow, TSS, channel
stability
Direct water quality measurements,
photographs, watershed surveys
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-16 Draft
Table 4-5. Examples of Performance Indicators That Can Be Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in
Meeting Watershed Goals
Environmental Programmatic Social
? Number (or percentage) of
river/stream miles, lake acres, and
estuarine and coastal square miles
that fully meet all water quality
standards
? Number (or percentage) of
river/stream miles, lake acres, and
estuarine and coastal square miles
that come into compliance with one or
more designated uses
? Number (or percentage) of
river/stream miles, lake acres, and
estuarine and coastal square miles
that meet one or more numeric water
quality standards
? Demonstrated improvement in water
quality parameters (e.g., DO, pH,
TSS)
? Demonstrated improvement in
biological parameters (e.g., increase
in numbers or diversity of
macroinvertebrates)
? Demonstrated improvement in
physical parameters (e.g., increased
riparian habitat)
? Reduction in the number of fish
consumption advisories, beach
closures, or shellfish bed closures
? Number of river/stream miles, lake
acres, and estuarine and coastal
square miles removed from the
“threatened” list
? Reduction in pollutant loadings from
nonpoint sources
? Reductions in frequencies of peak
flows in developing areas
? Increase in the number of acres of
wetlands protected or restored
? Reduction in the amount of trash
collected in stormwater drains
? Number of management measures
implemented in a watershed (e.g.,
number of stream miles fenced,
number of riparian buffers created)
? Number of approved or certified plans
(e.g., sediment and erosion control
plans, stormwater plans, nutrient
management plans)
? Number of ordinances developed
? Number of hits on watershed Web
site
? Number of residents requesting to
have their septic systems serviced
? Number of illicit connections identified
and corrected
? Number of permits reissued
? Elapsed time from permit violation
reports to compliance
? Number of public water systems with
source water protection plans
? Reduction in the amount of
impervious surface area directly
connected to buildings
? Participation rates in education
programs specifically directed to
solving particular nonpoint source
pollution problems
? Increase in awareness, knowledge,
and actions designed to change
behavior patterns
? Participation rates in various nonpoint
source activities such as citizen
monitoring and watershed restoration
activities
? Increase in participation at watershed
stakeholder meetings
? Increase in the number of residents
signing watershed stewardship
pledge
? Number of homeowners requesting
an inspection of their septic systems
4.7 Link Concerns with Goals and Indicators
It’s important to help stakeholders to link their concerns with goals. It’s also
important to develop indicators that measure the current conditions in the watershed,
as well as to identify possible indicators to measure progress once the watershed plan
is implemented. Work with the stakeholders to fill out worksheet O 4-3 to link the
concerns with the goals they have identified. For each of the concerns they identify,
ask them to write down the potential causes of the problem. Ask them how they
would measure the current conditions in the watershed. Then for each goal selected,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Draft 4-17
O
What are the
problems/concerns
in the watershed?
What do you
think caused the
problems?
How can we assess
current conditions?
(Indicators)
What would you like
to see for your
watershed? (Goals)
How will we measure
progress toward meeting
those goals? (Indicators)
No more fish in the
stream
Sedimentation
from eroding
streambanks
Visual assessment of
eroding banks,
turbidity
Meet designated uses
for fishing
Turbidity, TSS, fish
assemblages
E. coli contamination Failing septic
systems
Fecal coliform
concentrations
Meet water quality
standards for
pathogens
30-day geometric mean
concentration of fecal
coliforms, number of failing
septic sytems repaired
Trash in the stream Stormwater runoff,
people littering
Photographs of trash Reduce trash found in
stream
Pounds of trash removed,
comparison of photographs
taken before and after
implementation
they should develop indicators that they want to use to measure progress in meeting
those goals. The more specific you can be at this stage, the more focused your data-
gathering efforts will be in the next phase. KA blank copy of the worksheet is
provided in appendix B.
Chapter 4
Define Scope of Watershed
Planning Effort
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
4-18 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-1
5. Gather Existing Data
and Create an Inventory
Read this chapter if...
? You’re not sure where to look for data on your watershed
? You don’t know what types of data you need to develop the watershed plan
? You want to know where to obtain maps of your watershed
? You want to know how to use GIS and remote sensing to help characterize your
watershed
? You want to know how to create a data inventory
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Determining data needs
< Identifying available data
< Locating the information
< Gathering and organizing necessary
data
< Creating a data inventory
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-2 Draft
Before you start searching for and gathering data,
revisit the conceptual model developed during the
scoping process (chapter 4). The watershed
problems, potential sources, and goals illustrated in
the conceptual model will focus your data
gathering, as well as the subsequent analyses
5.1 How Do I Characterize My Watershed?
Once you’ve formed partnerships, you’ll begin to characterize the watershed to
develop an understanding of the impacts seen in the watershed, identify possible
causes and sources of the impacts, and subsequently quantify the pollutant loads.
Characterizing the watershed, its problems and pollutant sources provides the basis
for developing effective management strategies to meet watershed goals.
Because it’s rare for any watershed planning effort to require starting from scratch,
the challenge is to understand and build on existing information. The characterization
and analysis process is designed to help you focus the planning efforts strategically to
address the most pressing needs and target your data collection and analyses to your
specific watershed.
The next four chapters focus on the characterization process:
? Gather existing information and create a data inventory (chapter 5)
? Identify data gaps, and collect new data, if needed (chapter 6)
? Analyze data (chapter 7)
? Estimate pollutant loads (chapter 8)
Although these phases are presented sequentially, several iterations of gathering data,
identifying gaps, and analyzing data might be needed within each phase. This chapter
focuses on gathering existing information to create a data inventory.
Gathering and organizing data is a major part of developing a
successful watershed plan. You’ll gather data and conduct data
analyses to characterize the condition of your watershed and its
waterbodies, identify pollutant sources, and support quantification
of the pollutant loads. Estimates of source loads are often a
component missing from past and current planning efforts, and
filling this gap is critical to successfully controlling sources,
restoring watershed health, and meeting watershed and water
quality goals. Without an understanding of where pollutants are
coming from, it’s almost impossible to understand their impact on
watershed resources and to target your control efforts effectively. This section
provides information on how to target your data-gathering efforts and explains what
types of data and information are useful in developing a watershed plan.
5.2 Focus Your Data Gathering Efforts
Although the data-gathering and analysis phases of the watershed planning process
are very important in estimating source loads, they can also be very challenging. The
types and amount of data available vary by watershed, and there is often a variety of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-3
data, making it difficult to decide which data (and analyses) are necessary. You
should decide which types of data and how much data you need to complete your
watershed plan. 7To make these decisions easier, your data-gathering efforts should
be guided by your earlier scoping efforts, during which you developed a conceptual
model, identified preliminary watershed goals, and listed stakeholder concerns
(chapter 4).
5.2.1 Build on Earlier Scoping Efforts
The conceptual model, discussed in section 4.3, is a graphic representation of the
watershed processes and problems. The conceptual model allows you to visualize the
pollutants causing impairment, their potential sources and pathways, and interactions
between pollutants, related stressors, and impairments.
7The information and links depicted in the conceptual model will help you to
determine what information to collect for analysis and also prioritize the information.
Data compilation can be an almost endless process—there’s always something more
to find out about your watershed. You should decide what you need and tailor your
data gathering efforts accordingly. It is often time-consuming to gather data and to
analyze and make sense of them. You’ll want to be careful not to spend your budget
on compiling data and information that you don’t need—data that will not help you
understand the watershed problems and meet your goals. For example, if the primary
concern in your watershed is elevated bacteria posing human health risks and
prohibiting recreational opportunities, you will probably not need to gather extensive
information on vegetation types in the watershed or habitat and biological data (e.g.,
fish populations, macroinvertebrate data). Instead, your data compilation and analysis
efforts will focus on data that will help to characterize the likely sources of bacteria
loads to the streams, such as livestock operations, wildlife populations and their
distribution, and septic systems. In addition, because bacteria are not typically related
to other water quality parameters, you won’t need to gather extra monitoring data.
Alternatively, some water quality impairments are related to several parameters and
affected by many factors, requiring more data and analyses to understand the
dynamics of the problem. For example, excess nutrients can increase algal growth
(chlorophyll a) and lead to processes that deplete dissolved oxygen, lower pH, and
produce ammonia at potentially toxic levels. These parameters are interrelated: when
evaluating one, you must often evaluate all of them. Therefore, identifying these
types of relationships and interactions in your conceptual model is crucial to
efficiently gathering data and conducting useful analyses.
5.2.2 Consider Stakeholder Goals and Concerns
7Another factor that will focus your data gathering is the goals and concerns
identified by the stakeholders during the initial phases of the watershed planning
process. The conceptual model relates to the watershed goals identified with the
stakeholders by identifying potential watershed sources causing the problems and,
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-4 Draft
Remember to check first for the availability of local
data and ground-truth other datasets if possible.
State and federal data can provide a broad set of
information but might be coarse or out-of-date.
Check for recent changes, especially changes in
land use and land management that might not be
reflected in available datasets. Consider the date
when the data were originally generated and
processed and compare the data what you and the
stakeholders know about the watershed.
Much of the data you need for characterizing your watershed
might have been partially compiled and summarized in
existing reports, including
? TMDL reports
? Watershed Restoration Action Strategies
? Source water assessments
? CWA section 208 plans
? Clean Lake Plans (CWA section 314)
Although some of these plans might be outdated and
represent historical conditions, they can provide a valuable
starting point for gathering data and characterizing historical
and current conditions in your watershed.
therefore, the sources that must be controlled to meet the goals.
For example, if a perceived problem in the watershed is the
degradation of fisheries, the conceptual model will identify
possible causes of that problem (e.g., low dissolved oxygen) and
the associated pollutant sources (e.g., increased nutrient inputs
from fertilizer application and subsequent runoff). Similarly, if
the stakeholders identified development pressures as a concern,
you’ll want to collect information on land use patterns, building
permits, and current zoning practices. If they identified the
protection of wetlands as a goal, you should identify the
wetlands in the watershed and any current protection strategies
in place.
5.3 Who Has the Data and What Types of Data Do You Need?
Building from the information provided by the stakeholders, you’ll identify existing
reports, plans, studies, and datasets from various sources that can be used to help
characterize the watershed. These sources include various local, state, tribal, and
federal programs and organizations.
Many of the data types discussed in this section might
already be summarized or available through existing
programs, reports, and plans. For example, TMDLs
completed for the watershed might include information
on water quality, land use, and sources in the watershed.
It’s helpful to identify environmental studies that have
already been conducted in your watershed because they
might provide information on several different data
types and guide you toward important stakeholders or
sources of additional data. This section provides a
variety of information that might help you identify
existing plans and studies in your watershed. Another
way to find them is an Internet search on your watershed
or waterbodies—a broad search through a general
browser or more specific searches through relevant state
or federal environmental agencies.
Before you begin to identify the types of data you need, it’s helpful to have an
understanding of the different data sources. The following descriptions are meant to
familiarize you with these various sources and provide context for the discussions of
specific data types in the subsequent sections.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-5
Because local governments are organized differently,
sometimes it’s difficult to find the information you need. The
best approach is to start with the local planning or
environmental department and ask them to steer you in the
right direction for other types of information. Local
governments typically provide the following services:
? County and city planning offices: master plans, zoning
ordinances
? Environmental departments: recycling policies, water
quality monitoring program
? Soil and water conservation districts: agricultural land use
information, topographic maps, soil surveys, erosion
control information
? Departments of economic development: census data, tax
records, demographic data
? Water and sanitation department: stormwater plans, maps
of water intakes and sewer lines
? Public health department: septic system inventories,
records of outbreaks of illness or ailments from poor water
quality
? Transportation department: transportation master plans,
permits, road and bridge construction information
5.3.1 Local Sources of Information
Identifying existing information at the local level is critical to supporting the
development of a watershed plan that is based on local current or future planning
efforts (e.g., information on zoning, development guidelines and restrictions, master
planning, wastewater plans, transportation plans, future land use plans). This
information will not only support the characterization of the watershed but also
identify any major changes expected to occur in the watershed (e.g., new
development, addition of point sources, change from septic systems to city sewer).
The sources for local information will depend on the kinds of land uses in your
community (urban or rural).
To know what is available and how to get county-level
information, it is necessary to become familiar with
state-, county-, and city-level agencies. It’s important to
understand the authority and jurisdictions of the
agencies in the watershed. This understanding facilitates
the search for information and also provides valuable
insight into the activities most likely to be implemented
in the watershed. For example, it’s important that the
watershed plan identify control actions or management
practices that people or agencies in the watershed have
the authority and jurisdiction to implement. This will
help you select the management strategies that you
know can be adopted at the local level with existing
authorities. KGo to section 3.4.1 for a description of
various local and regional programs and organizations.
Other “local” sources of watershed data include
universities and environmental non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Although a university or NGO
might not be located in or near your watershed, it might
be active in the watershed and hold relevant local data.
Universities can be important sources for demographic,
climate, or spatial data. Many state climatology offices
are associated with universities. In addition, university
faculty or students regularly conduct environmental research related to their field of
study or expertise, sometimes providing data and information relevant to local
watershed planning efforts (e.g., water quality, soils, land use changes). However, it
might be difficult to identify any relevant studies and data without already knowing
the specific project or contact. Universities have a variety of schools and
departments, and no two are likely to be organized in the same way. Hopefully, if a
university has conducted research in your watershed, one or more of the key
stakeholders will be aware of it and can lead you in the right direction.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-6 Draft
Before you start gathering data check to see if your state has
developed guidance or support materials for watershed
planning. Whether comprehensive technical manuals or
introductory brochures, these documents can provide
information on available data sources, state and local
government organizations, and various state-specific issues
(e.g., laws, unique environmental conditions). For example,
the California Watershed Assessment Manual
(http://cwam.ucdavis.edu) was developed to help watershed
groups, local agencies, and private landowners evaluate the
condition of their watershed. The manual discusses the
watershed assessment process and includes discussions of
California-specific agencies, data types and sources, and
environmental concerns. Check with your state environmental
agency to see if they have programmatic or technical
documents on watershed planning.
NGOs (e.g., Trout Unlimited, Issak Walton League) often have information on
stream conditions, habitat and long-term changes in watershed characteristics (e.g.,
habitat, water quality). As with university information, it’s difficult to identify NGOs
active in your watershed and relevant data without already knowing they exist.
Typically, if an NGO has an active interest in your watershed or has collected data,
you or one of the involved stakeholders will know about it.
5.3.2 State Sources of Information
State environmental agencies routinely collect
biological, hydrological, and water quality information
for the waters in the state. State environmental agencies
include several divisions and offices, many of which
might be useful in characterizing your watershed and
some of which might be irrelevant. Environmental
agencies typically have a division or office dedicated to
watershed or water quality issues. A variety of other
offices deal with environmental issues (e.g., wastewater,
mining, air quality) and will likely have information
relevant to your watershed. 7It’s useful to go to your
state’s environmental agency’s Web site to learn what
types of offices work in your state and identify potential
sources of relevant information.
In addition to state environmental agencies, several
other state agencies might be useful in characterizing
your watershed and potential sources. For example, the
Division of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Game can provide
information on wildlife habitats and populations, and the Department of Agriculture
can provide agricultural statistics for counties in your state. KGo to
section 3.4.2 for a description of various state programs and organizations.
5.3.3 Tribal Sources of Information
In watersheds that include tribal lands, tribal sources of watershed
information can be important. Often, data and information for lands and
waterbodies within reservation boundaries are limited at the state level and
you must rely on tribal contacts for monitoring or anecdotal information.
Watershed characterization for tribal lands can be obtained from a variety
of sources. First search the Web to see if the specific tribe has a Web site
with historical data or background information or reports. KGo to section
3.4.3 for a description of various tribal programs and organizations.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-7
Physical and Natural Features
? Watershed boundaries
? Hydrology
? Topography
? Soils
? Climate
? Habitat
? Wildlife
Land Use and Population Characteristics
? Land use and land cover
? Existing management practices
? Demographics
Waterbody Conditions
? Water quality standards
? 305(b) report
? 303(d) list
? TMDL reports
? Source Water Assessments
Pollutant Sources
? Point sources
? Nonpoint sources
5.3.4 Federal Sources of Information
Several federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, and USGS, generate information
that will be useful in characterizing your watershed. With the various offices,
divisions, and agencies in the federal government, there are likely several federal
sources of every type of data used in watershed characterization. KGo to section
3.4.4 for a description of various federal programs and organizations. The remainder
of this chapter identifies these data types and their corresponding sources.
5.3.5 Data Types
In general, there are five broad categories of data used to adequately
characterize the watershed:
? Physical and natural features
? Land use and population characteristics
? Waterbody conditions
? Pollutant sources
? Waterbody monitoring data
Within these categories are dozens of reports and datasets that you can
access to populate your data inventory. Table 5-1 identifies the types
of data typically needed for watershed characterization and describes
how the data might be used. Each data type is discussed in the
following sections. Be careful not to collect existing information just
because it’s available. The data should help to link the impacts seen in
the watershed to their sources and causes.
The data discussed in this section come in a variety of forms,
including tabular data and databases, documents and reports, and
geographic information system (GIS) data. Tabular data include water
quality and flow monitoring data consisting of a series of numeric
observations. Documents and reports include TMDLs or previous
watershed studies that provide background information and summaries
of watershed characteristics and conditions. They might address
specific topics such as fisheries habitats or particular pollutants, or
they might cover a range of watershed topics. GIS data are available
for a wide range of watershed characteristics, such as land use,
locations of monitoring stations or flow gauges, vegetation, and population
distribution.
Many of the data discussed below can be gathered, organized, and viewed using
various tools. The two most popular tools, GIS and remote sensing, are specifically
discussed in Ksection 5.9 to provide guidance on how to use these tools, highlight
their limitations, and identify the most common datasets.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-8 Draft
Table 5-1. Data Typically Used for Watershed Characterization
Data Type Typical Uses of Data
Physical and Natural Features
Watershed
boundaries
? Provide geographic boundaries for evaluation and source control
? Delineate drainage areas at desired scale
Hydrology ? Identify the locations of waterbodies
? Identify the spatial relationship of waterbodies, including what segments are connected and how
water flows through the watershed
Topography ? Derive slopes of stream segments and watershed areas (e.g., to identify unstable areas, to
characterize segments and subwatersheds in watershed modeling)
? Evaluate altitude changes (necessary when extrapolating precipitation from one area to another)
Soils ? Identify potential areas with higher erosion rates, poor drainage, or steep slopes
? Use to delineate subwatersheds and develop input data for models
Climate ? Provide information about loading conditions when evaluated with instream data (e.g., elevated
concentrations during storm events and high flow)
? Drive simulation of rainfall-runoff processes in watershed models
Habitat ? Describe area’s ability to support aquatic life, and identify areas at risk of impairment
? Support defining stressors that could be contributing to impairment
? Identify shading or lack of riparian cover
? Support identification of potential management or protection areas
Wildlife ? Identify special wildlife species to be protected
? Identify potential sources of bacteria and nutrients
Land Use and Population Characteristics
Land use and land
cover
? Identify potential pollutant sources (e.g., land uses, pervious vs. impervious surfaces)
? Provide basis for evaluation of sources, loading, and controls
? Provide unit for simulation in watershed models
Existing land
management
practices
? Identify current control practices and potential targets for future management
? Identify potential watershed pollutant sources
Demographics ? Provide information on demographics, employment statistics, educational levels
? Provide information on growth rates and potential future growth
Waterbody and Watershed Conditions
Water quality
standards
? Identify protected uses of the waterbody and associated water quality standards
305(b) report ? Identify the status of designated use support in watershed waterbodies
? Identify potential causes and sources of impairment
303(d) list ? Identify known pollutant impairments in the watershed
? Identify geographic extent of impaired waterbody segments
? Identify potential causes and sources of impairment
Existing TMDL reports ? Provide information on watershed characteristics, waterbody conditions, sources, and pollutant loads
(for specific waterbodies and pollutants)
Source Water
Assessments
? Identify water supply areas to be protected
? Identify potential sources of contamination to the water supply
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-9
? USGS 8-digit watersheds:
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service 14-digit watersheds:
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/
datasets/watershed
Table 5-1. (continued)
Data Type Typical Uses of Data
Pollutant Sources
Point sources ? Characterize potential point sources for quantifying loads
Nonpoint sources ? Characterize potential nonpoint sources for quantifying loads
Waterbody Monitoring Data
Water quality and flow ? Characterize water quality and flow conditions throughout the watershed
? Provide information on critical conditions, temporal trends, spatial variations, impairment magnitude,
etc.
Biology ? Provide information on general health of the watershed, considering long-term effects
Geomorphology ? Describe river/stream pattern, profile, and dimension
? Characterize drainage basin, channel/bank morphology
? Classify river/stream type, based on morphology
? Assess changes to morphology over time
Many of the datasets discussed in the following sections are provided as GIS
data. GIS data can be critical in developing your watershed plan, but they can
be often misinterpreted by first-time or novice users unfamiliar with the data types
and their application. You might need to do some research or attend training to learn
how to use GIS effectively before gathering the associated data—data that could be
useless or misleading without the knowledge to use them properly. KFor more
information on using GIS and what information to gather when compiling GIS data,
go to section 5.9.1.
5.4 Physical and Natural Features
This section discusses information on the physical and natural features of
your watershed, including what data are available, why they are
important, and where you can find them. Information on the physical and
natural characteristics of your watershed will define your watershed
boundary and provide a basic understanding of the watershed features
that can influence watershed sources and pollutant loading.
5.4.1 Watershed Boundaries
Defining the geographic boundaries of your watershed planning effort is the first step
in gathering and evaluating data. Up to this point, the watershed boundary might
have been a theoretical boundary. You know for what watershed you are writing a
plan, but you might not have documentation of its physical boundary and the
waterbodies contained in it. Depending on the size of your watershed, its boundary
might already have been delineated by a state or federal agency.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-10 Draft
Watershed Boundary Dataset
8-digit Cataloging Unit (14060004)
Reach File, v1
NHD waterbody, medium resolution
NHD flowline, medium resolution
10 0 10 Miles
Figure 5-1. Example of NRCS watershed delineations within a
USGS 8-digit cataloging unit.
USGS Hydrologic Units
Major watersheds throughout the country were previously
classified according to the USGS system into four
levels—regions, subregions, accounting units, and cataloging
units. The hydrologic units were arranged within each other,
from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions).
Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit
code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four
levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system.
Although the nomenclature for hydrologic units has been
revised based on an interagency effort (see section 4.4), the
delineation of major watersheds and their hydrologic unit
codes remain. There are 2,150 cataloging units (now called
“subbasins”) in the United States. GIS coverages of the cataloging units are available
by EPA region in EPA’s BASINS modeling system (www.epa.gov/ost/basins).
KThe coverages can also be downloaded from USGS at
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.
Most likely, your watershed is smaller than the USGS-designated cataloging units.
(Most of the cataloging units in the nation are larger than 700 square miles.) It’s
important, however, to know what cataloging unit includes your watershed because
many sources of data are organized or
referenced by HUC.
NRCS Watershed Boundary Dataset
During the late 1970s the USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
initiated a national program to further
subdivide USGS’s 8-digit cataloging units
into smaller watersheds for water resources
planning (figure 5-1). By the early 1980s this
11-digit hydrologic unit mapping was
completed for most of the United States.
During the 1980s several NRCS state offices
starting mapping watersheds into
subwatersheds by adding 2 or 3 digits to the
11-digit units. By the late 1980s and early
1990s, the advent of GIS made the mapping
of digital hydrologic unit boundaries feasible.
Through an interagency initiative in the early
1990s, NRCS used GIS to start delineating
and subdividing hydrologic units into smaller
units for the entire United States.
Although most watershed planning efforts focus on
areas much smaller than an 8-digit hydrologic unit
(subbasin), it’s useful to know in what cataloging unit
your watershed is included. Many databases (e.g.,
monitoring, GIS) are organized or referenced by HUC.
To find your data and navigate through data
repositories and search engines, it’s necessary to know
the HUC for your watershed.
KIf you don’t know your HUC, visit EPA’s “Surf Your
Watershed” Web site (www.epa.gov/surf) to find it.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-11
A goal of this initiative is to provide the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)—a
hydrologically correct, seamless, and consistent national GIS database of watersheds
at a scale of 1:24,000. The new levels are called watershed (fifth level, 10 digits
[formerly 11 digits]) and subwatershed (sixth level, 12 digits [formerly 14 digits]).
The size at the watershed level is typically 40,000 to 250,000 acres; at the
subwatershed level, it is typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres, with some as small as
3,000 acres. An estimated 22,000 watersheds and 160,000 subwatersheds will be
mapped to the fifth and sixth levels.
GIS coverages of the WBD are publicly available through the Internet
(www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed); however, because the
mapping is ongoing, there is limited availability of the subwatershed coverage. As of
January 2005, NRCS had completed the coverages for Alabama, Georgia, Utah,
Montana, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Maryland. KTo check the status of the 12-digit subwatershed
coverages and availability for your watershed, go to
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/status-maps.html.
The WBD is also available through USGS’s Elevation Derivatives for National
Application (EDNA) database and interactive map (http://edna.usgs.gov). EDNA
uses the USGS’s National Elevation Dataset (NED) and National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD) to derive and provide nationwide hydrologic data layers at a scale of
1:24,000. EDNA includes the WBD, as well as tools and data to delineate watersheds
for any point in the United States.
Regional, State, and Site-specific Watershed Boundaries
In addition to the USGS and NRCS classification, many states have created their own
watershed or planning unit delineations that break the USGS cataloging units into
smaller watersheds. For example, California has delineated watersheds with a
hierarchy of watershed designations that has six levels of increasing specificity.
These state watersheds are generally much smaller than the national 8-digit HUCs
and are better suited for local watershed planning activities.
An example of a regional dataset or tool for watershed delineation is the Digital
Watershed Mapper (www.iwr.msu.edu/dw) from the Institute of Water Research at
Michigan State University. The Digital Watershed Mapper delineates a watershed
based on an address or a selected point on a map. It also provides land use, soils, and
curve number coverages for the delineated watershed.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-12 Draft
If your state does not have watershed boundaries available or your watershed is not specified in the state coverages, you might
have to create your own watershed boundary based on coverages of the stream network and elevation or topography,
discussed in K section 5.4.3. There are also tools available to delineate watersheds automatically. For example, BASINS
includes an Automatic Watershed Delineation tool that segments watersheds into several hydrologically connected
subwatersheds. (KBASINS software is free from EPA and available for download at www.epa.gov/ost/basins.) The Automatic
Watershed Delineation is used in ArcView and requires that the Spatial Analyst (version 1.1 or later) and Dialog Designer
(version 3.1 or later) ArcView extensions be installed on your computer. The delineation process also requires a Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) in ArcInfo grid format and optionally a stream network coverage (e.g., RF3 or NHD) in ArcView shape
format. In addition, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Web site provides several applications for using NHD data,
including NHD Watershed, an ArcView (3.x) extension that enables users to delineate a watershed from any point on any NHD
reach. The ArcView 3.x Spatial Analyst extension (version 2.0) is required to delineate watersheds from any point. Without
Spatial Analyst, watershed delineation can be performed only upstream from an NHD reach confluence. Delineating watersheds
using this tool also requires National Elevation Dataset (NED) data in the 8-digit HUC of interest. (KNED data can be
downloaded from USGS’s Seamless Data Distribution System at http://seamless.usgs.gov.) In addition, 10-meter DEMs can be
used in place of NED data, where they are available. (KYou can check the availability of 10-meter DEMs at
http://geography.usgs.gov/www/products/status.html.)
Web Sites for Downloading Waterbody
Coverages
? USGS’s NHD: http://nhd.usgs.gov
? EPA BASINS RF1 and RF3 by HUC:
www.epa.gov/waterscience/ftp/basins/gis_data/huc
5.4.2 Hydrology
Information on the hydrology of your watershed is necessary to visualize and
document the waterbody network, including the locations of all the waterbodies and
how they are connected to one another. When water flows through the stream
network, it carries pollutant loads, and therefore the conditions of upstream segments
can significantly affect the conditions of downstream segments.
When evaluating source impacts on watershed conditions, it is
crucial to understand the hydrologic network of a watershed.
Not only is this information important for characterizing your
watershed and evaluating sources and waterbody conditions,
but it is also necessary input when modeling the watershed.
Reach File
The EPA Reach Files are a series of national hydrologic databases that uniquely
identify and interconnect the stream segments or “reaches” that compose the
country’s surface water drainage system. The three versions of the Reach File
currently available are known as RF1, RF2, and RF3-Alpha, and they were created
from increasingly detailed sets of digital hydrography data produced by USGS. RF1,
at a scale of 1:500,000, contains only major waterbody features in the country,
providing too broad a scale to be useful at the watershed planning level. RF2 and
RF3 are at a scale of 1:100,000, a scale useful for watershed planning. However, RF3
has been superseded by USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), which
provides more waterbody features (e.g., ponds, springs).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-13
A map's scale is expressed as a ratio
between a distance on the map and a
distance on Earth. For example, a scale of
1:100,000 means that 1 unit of measure
on the map represents 100,000 of the
same units on Earth.
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
NHD flowline, high resolution
#S NHD springs/wells, high resolution
NHD waterbody, high resolution
NHD flowline, medium resolution
NHD waterbody, medium resolution
Figure 5-2. Examples of medium-resolution and high-resolution NHD.
KReferences documenting the content, production, and history of the Reach Files are
available at www.epa.gov/waters/doc/refs.html. KThe GIS coverages of the Reach
Files are available free for download through EPA’s BASINS modeling system at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm.
National Hydrography Dataset
The NHD is a comprehensive set of digital spatial data for the entire
United States that contains information about surface water features such
as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, springs, and wells. In the NHD, surface
water features are combined to form reaches, which provide the
framework for linking water-related data to the NHD surface water
drainage network. The NHD is based on USGS’s Digital Line Graph
(DLG) hydrography data, integrated with reach-related information from
EPA’s RF3. The NHD supersedes DLG and RF3 by incorporating them,
not by replacing them.
The full national coverage of the NHD is currently based on 1:100,000 scale data, but
the NHD is designed so that it can incorporate higher-resolution data. It is also
designed so that improvements and corrections to the dataset by individual users can
be incorporated into the national dataset. A 1:24,000 scale NHD is being developed
for many parts of the country. The 1:100,000-scale NHD is referred to as the
“medium-resolution NHD”; finer scales such as 1:24,000 are referred to as “high-
resolution NHD” (figure 5-2). The attribute information for each waterbody feature is
the same in medium- and high-
resolution NHD; however,
because of the finer scale,
high-resolution NHD contains
more waterbodies, including
smaller-order streams and
additional springs. KTo check
the status of the 1:24,000 NHD
and download coverages for
your watershed at no cost, go
to http://nhd.usgs.gov. This
Web site also includes more
information on the NHD, its
contents, and related tools.
Specifically, the Concepts and
Contents technical reference
(Khttp://nhd.usgs.gov/techref.
html) identifies and describes
NHD contents and features.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-14 Draft
? USGS's EROS Data Center:
http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata
? GIS Data Depot: http://data.geocomm.com
USGS has been the primary civilian mapping agency of the
United States since 1879. The best-known USGS maps are the
1:24,000-scale topographic maps, also known as 7.5-minute
quadrangles. More than 55,000 7.5-minute maps were made to
cover the 48 conterminous states. This is the only uniform map
series that covers the entire area of the United States in
considerable detail. The 7.5-minute map series was completed
in 1992. To order hard-copy USGS topographic maps, Kgo to
http://topomaps.usgs.gov/ordering_maps.html. USGS primary
series topographic maps (1:24,000, 1:25,000, 1:63,360 scales)
cost $6.00 per sheet, with a $5.00 handling fee for each order.
They are also available through a variety of other sources, such
as TopoZone (www.topozone.com). Electronic versions of
topographic maps, called Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs), are
also available (http://topomaps.usgs.gov/drg). USGS distributes
DRGs on CDs, and there is a base charge of $45.00 per order,
plus $5.00 shipping and $1.00 for each DRG quadrangle
purchased.
In addition, many state environmental agencies might have created state-specific
hydrography coverage, whether based on NHD, aerial photos, or other sources. For
example, the Utah Division of Water Quality has a coverage of waterbodies for the
state that includes irrigation diversions and canals—features that might not be
captured in the national datasets. Check your state environmental department’s Web
site to see if your watershed has already-created GIS coverages.
Floodplain Maps
To address flooding and control water quality, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) requires municipalities to perform floodplain mapping and develop
management plans to receive federal flood insurance. This information is also
relevant to water quality protection and restoration activities because floodplains,
when inundated, serve many functions and provide important habitats for a variety of
fish and wildlife. Floodplains are important for spawning and rearing areas.
Floodplain wetlands act as nutrient and sediment sinks, which can improve water
quality in streams. They also provide storage that can decrease the
magnitude of floods downstream, which can benefit fish and
landowners in riparian areas. In addition, streams that are actively
connected to their floodplains are less prone to severe downcutting
and erosion. Therefore, it’s important to incorporate protection of
these benefits of floodplain areas into watershed management
planning. Check with your local government planning office to see if
floodplain maps are available, or search the FEMA map store at
www.store.msc.fema.gov.
5.4.3 Topography
Characterizing the topography or natural features of
the watershed can help determine possible sources of
pollution. For example, steep slopes might contribute
more sediment loads to the waterbody than flat
landscapes. Topographical information is also needed
in many watershed models to route movement of
runoff and loading across the land and to the
waterbody. Digital elevation models (DEMs) are
grid-based GIS coverages that represent elevation.
They can be displayed in a GIS and are used for
delineating watersheds and displaying topography.
One DEM typically consists of thousands of grid cells
that represent the topography of an area. DEMs are
available with 10-meter, 30-meter, and 90-meter cell
sizes. The smaller cell sizes represent smaller areas
and provide more detailed and accurate topographic
data. However, GIS coverages with small grid cell
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-15
Local conservation districts can provide
information on soils in your watershed and how
they affect sources and pollutant delivery.
KTo see if your conservation district is online, visit
www.nrcs.usda.gov/partners/districts.html or the
National Association of Conservation Districts,
www.nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html.
sizes often have large file sizes and can be difficult to work with over large areas.
The 30-meter and 10-meter DEMs are appropriate for smaller watersheds, such as a
single 8-digit cataloging unit or smaller.
5.4.4 Soils
Soils can be an important factor in determining the amount of erosion and stormwater
runoff that occurs in your watershed. Soils have inherent characteristics that control
how much water they retain, how stable they are, or how water is transmitted through
them. Understanding the types of soils in your watershed and their characteristics
helps to identify areas that are prone to erosion or areas more likely to experience
runoff.
Historically, USDA and the local soil and water conservation
districts have been instrumental in carefully mapping and
classifying soils at the county level. Soils are also grouped into
hydrologic soil groups according to their runoff potential. These
datasets are essential to the development of input data for models
that predict runoff and erosion and for the evaluation of land
management techniques and alternatives.
NRCS is the principal source of soil data across the nation, and
you can access that information through the Soil Data Mart at
Khttp://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. NRCS’s Soil Data Mart
includes more than 2,000 soil surveys with spatial and tabular information and
another 800 soil surveys with tabular (soil attribute) data only. The spatial data on the
Soil Data Mart are available for download at no charge and include the following:
? State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. Soil maps for the STATSGO
database are produced by generalizing the detailed soil survey data. The mapping
scale for STATSGO is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is
1:1,000,000). The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning and
management uses covering state, regional, and multistate areas.
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo
? Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Mapping scales for SSURGO
generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360, making them the most detailed level
of soil mapping done by NRCS. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil
survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, township
personnel, and county natural resource planners and managers.
www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-16 Draft
5.4.5 Climate
Local climatological data are often needed in a watershed characterization to help
understand the local water budget for the region and also for modeling purposes.
Current and historical climate data can be obtained from the National Climatic Data
Center (NCDC), maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). KThe NCDC data are available online at
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html and include information such as precipitation,
wind speed, temperature, and snow and ice cover at multiple stations throughout the
United States. Stations within or near a watershed can be found in the NCDC
database by using a variety of search tools, and data are provided (for a fee) in a raw
format that can be read by a word processing or spreadsheet program.
Hourly or daily precipitation data, as well as temperature, evaporation, and wind
speed, are necessary for simulating rainfall-runoff processes in watershed models.
However, if weather data are being used only to generally characterize weather
patterns in the watershed, daily or monthly averages are sufficient. Daily and
monthly temperature and precipitation data are available online at no cost. The data
are available by station through the regional climate centers and often through state
climate offices. KThe Western Regional Climate Center provides a map of regional
climate centers with links to their Web sites: www.wrcc.dri.edu/rcc.html.
Climatological data can be organized relatively easily to provide insight into wet and
dry seasons, which can be important considerations in characterizing watershed
problems and sources. Elevation can have an important impact on precipitation;
therefore, in watersheds with significant differences in topography, it is
recommended that data be presented from at least two locations (upper and lower).
5.4.6 Habitat
When characterizing your watershed, it’s important to gather data not only to identify
potential pollutant sources but also to identify areas for protection. Maintaining high-
quality wildlife and aquatic habitat is typically an important goal when developing
watershed plans. This section discusses information and programs available to help
you identify and characterize critical habitats—terrestrial and aquatic—in your
watershed.
National Wetlands Inventory
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of
the nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. The NWI
has a new feature, Wetlands Mapper, that allows you to map wetland habitat data.
KGo to www.nwi.fws.gov. Identifying wetlands is crucial to protecting natural
habitats in your watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-17
Wetland Assessments
Many programs use a wetland assessment or survey to serve as a baseline for future
management activities. The survey might include global positioning system (GPS)
coordinates of sample plots, a general plot description and condition assessment (land
use impacts), canopy information or measurements, and digital pictures of sampling
areas. In addition, the survey might document flora and fauna diversity observations.
These datasets can be used to help characterize the watershed and identify wetland
areas. In addition, State Wetland Conservation Plans are strategies for states to
achieve no net loss and other wetland management goals by integrating regulatory
and nonregulatory approaches to protecting wetlands. For more information on
state wetland conservation planning activities, go to
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact27.html.
EPA’s Web site for state, tribal, and local wetland initiatives
(www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative) provides links to a variety of wetland
information, including state/tribal regulatory programs; state/tribal watershed
planning; local initiatives; and state, tribal, and local partners. The Web site also
provides a link to the Association of State Wetland Managers’ Web site, which
provides links to state and local wetland programs. EPA also provides a link to
wetland efforts throughout the EPA regions at
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regions.html.
National Wetlands Status and Trends Report
The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 requires the USFWS to conduct
status and trend studies of the nation’s wetlands and report the results to Congress
each decade. The report provides the most recent and comprehensive estimates of the
current status and trends of wetlands in the United States on public and private lands.
KTo download a copy of the most recent report, go to http://wetlands.fws.gov.
Natural Heritage Program
The NHP is a nonprofit program operated in every state under cooperative
agreements with many state and federal agencies, such as the National Park Service,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Defense, and USFWS, to monitor the status of
the state’s rare, threatened, and endangered plants. State NHPs are part of a network
established by The Nature Conservancy and currently coordinated by NatureServe,
an international nonprofit organization. All NHP programs use a standard
methodology for collecting, characterizing, and managing data, making it possible to
combine data at various scales to address local, state, regional, and national issues.
State NHP programs provide a variety of information, including statewide lists of
tracked species and communities, plant atlases and maps, rare plant field guides, lists
of rare plants (including rarity status, counties of occurrence, and flowering and
fruiting times), synonyms for the scientific names of rare plants, and descriptions of
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-18 Draft
how rare plants are treated under federal and state laws. Go to
www.natureserve.org/visitLocal/usa.jsp to find local programs and datasets for your
area.
Habitat Conservation Plans
Private landowners, corporations, state or local governments, and other non-federal
landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harm
(or “take”) wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened must first obtain an
incidental take permit from the USFWS. To obtain this permit, the applicant must
develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), designed to offset any harmful effects
the proposed activity might have on the species. HCPs describe the impacts expected
from the proposed operations or activities (e.g., timber harvesting) and detail the
measures to mitigate the impacts. HCPs can provide valuable information on critical
habitat in your watershed and also identify stakeholders and current management
measures to be integrated into the watershed planning process. KGo to
http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp for more information on the HCP program.
5.4.7 Fish and Wildlife
Identifying the types of wildlife in your watershed can help to identify areas for
protection in your watershed plan. Previous watershed reports might provide
information on wildlife in your watershed. In addition, local and state fish and
wildlife offices can provide you with information on wildlife species and distribution
in their jurisdictions. KGo to http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html for a list of and
links to state and territorial fish and wildlife offices. It’s especially important to
consider wildlife habitat in your watershed plan when endangered or threatened
species occur in your watershed. KTo find out more about endangered species, go to
http://endangered.fws.gov. That page also includes links to endangered species
contacts in your area (http://endangered.fws.gov/contacts.html).
Understanding the types of wildlife in your watershed can not only identify critical
habitat areas to protect but sometimes also identify pollutant sources affecting water
quality. For example, waterfowl can be a significant source of bacteria and nutrients
to reservoirs and lakes. Although wildlife are an important component of the
watershed ecology and should be protected, it’s important to understand their impact
on waterbody conditions when developing a watershed plan.
5.5 Land Use and Population Characteristics
This section discusses data and information for determining the distribution of land
use and population in your watershed. Land uses are an important factor influencing
the physical conditions of the watershed, as well as an indicator of the types of
sources active in the watershed. Together with land use characteristics, population
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-19
GIS coverages
? MRLC/NLCD data:
www.mrlc.gov/index.asp
? USGS's LULC data:
http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata
Survey-based land use data
? U.S. Census of Agriculture:
www.nass.usda.gov/census
? National Resources Inventory:
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI
Many of the land use datasets discussed in this section are
products of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
consortium. Because of the escalating costs of acquiring
satellite images, in 1992 several federal agencies agreed to
operate as a consortium to acquire satellite-based remotely
sensed data for their environmental monitoring programs. The
original members of the MRLC consortium were USGS, EPA,
NOAA, and the Forest Service. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) joined the consortium later.
During the 1990s the MRLC created several mapping
programs, including (1) the Coastal Change Analysis Project
(C-CAP) administered by NOAA; (2) the Gap Analysis Project
(GAP) directed by the Biological Resources Division of USGS;
and (3) the National Land Cover Data (NLCD) project directed
by USGS and EPA. The data developed by these projects are
available publicly through download or by contacting the
agencies involved.
For more information on the MRLC and its data products, go to
www.epa.gov/mrlc.
can help you to understand the potential growth of the area and possible
changes in land uses and sources.
5.5.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data
Evaluating the land uses of a watershed is an important step in understanding
the watershed conditions and source dynamics. Land use types (together with
other physical features such as soils and topography) influence the
hydrologic and physical nature of the watershed. In addition, land use
distribution is often related to the activities in the watershed and, therefore,
pollutant stressors and sources. Sources are often specific to certain land
uses, providing a logical basis for identifying or evaluating sources. For
example, sources of nutrients such as grazing livestock and fertilizer
application associated with agricultural land uses would likely not contribute
to loading from other land uses such as urban or forest land uses. Likewise,
urban land uses typically have specific pollutants of concern (e.g., metals, oil
and grease) different from those associated with rural land uses. Evaluating land use
distribution and associated sources also facilitates identifying future implementation
efforts because some management practices are most effective when applied to a
certain land use.
This section discusses some of the most common
sources of land use data. Typically, land use and land
cover data are obtained from aerial photographs,
satellite images, and ground surveys. Because in some
areas land uses continually change, it’s important to
keep in mind the type and date of available land use
data when reviewing the sources of land use data for
use in developing your watershed plan.
National Land Cover Data
Satellite data from the early 1990s are available for the
entire United States as part of the National Land Cover
Data (NLCD) program, made available by the
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
(MRLC). The NLCD data are classified using a
standard land use classification system and are
available as 30-meter grid cell GIS coverages that can
be displayed and queried in a GIS. The NLCD includes
21 land use classifications within the following broad
categories:
? Water
? Developed
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-20 Draft
NLCD 1992 was derived from the early to mid-1990s
Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite data purchased
under MRLC 92. Currently, the entire United States is
being mapped through NLCD 2001 using imagery
acquired circa 2000 from Landsat-7's enhanced TM
(ETM). This project entails re-mapping the lower 48
states, as well as covering Hawaii and Alaska for the first
time. Classification schemes for the two rounds of
classification are similar but not identical. For a list and
definitions of the classifications, go to
www.epa.gov/mrlc/classification.html.
NLCD 2001 is a Landsat-based land cover database that
has several independent data layers, thereby allowing
users a wide variety of potential applications. Primary
components in the database include
? Normalized imagery for three time periods
? Ancillary data, including a 30-m DEM, slope, aspect,
and a positional index
? Per-pixel estimates of percent imperviousness and
percent tree canopy
? 21 classes of land-cover data derived from the imagery,
ancillary data, and derivatives using a decision tree
? Classification rules, confidence estimates, and
metadata from the land cover classification
KTo check the status of NLCD 2001 and determine
whether it is available for your watershed, go to
www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_overall_status.asp.
? Barren
? Natural Forested Upland (non-wet)
? Natural Shrubland
? Non-natural Woody
? Herbaceous Upland Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation
? Herbaceous Planted/Cultivated
? Wetlands
KDefinitions of the land use classifications are included at
http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.asp.
KThe NLCD data can be downloaded from the NLCD
Web site at www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html or through
USGS’s Seamless Data Distribution Center
(http://seamless.usgs.gov). The entire United States is
being mapped using imagery acquired circa 2000 as part of
the MRLC 2001 land use project. KTo check the status of
NLCD 2001 and whether it is available for your watershed,
go to www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_overall_status.asp.
Land Use and Land Cover Data
USGS’s Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data consist of
historical land use and land cover classification data based
primarily on the manual interpretation of 1970s and 1980s
aerial photography. Secondary sources include land use
maps and surveys. Along with the LULC files, associated
maps that provide additional information on political units,
hydrologic units, census county subdivisions, and federal
and state land ownership are included. LULC includes 21
possible categories of cover type within the following
Anderson Level I codes:
? Urban or Built-up
? Agricultural
? Rangeland
? Forest
? Water
? Wetland
? Barren
? Tundra
? Perennial Snow or Ice
LULC data are available for the conterminous United States and Hawaii, but
coverage is not complete for all areas. The data are based on 1:100,000- and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-21
1:250,000-scale USGS topographic quadrangles. The spatial resolution for all LULC
files depends on the format and feature type—GIRAS (Geographic Information
Retrieval and Analysis System) or CTG (Composite Theme Grid). Files in GIRAS
format have a minimum polygon area of 10 acres with a minimum width of 660 feet
(200 meters) for man-made features. Non-urban or natural features have a minimum
polygon area of 40 acres (16 hectares) with a minimum width of 1,320 feet (400
meters). Files in CTG format have a resolution of 30 meters.
KAll LULC data are available for free by download at http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata.
LULC data in ArcInfo export format are also available from EPA in 1:250,000 scale
only (www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/spdata/EPAGIRAS).
State and County Land Use Databases
In addition to national coverages, several states and counties have statewide or local
land use and land cover information available. Specialized local land use or land
cover sets might include land parcel or land ownership, impervious surfaces, wetland
or forest coverage, sewer areas, land use zoning, or future land use projections. For
example, King County, Washington’s GIS Center (www.metrokc.gov/gis) has an
online database of available GIS data for the area, including 2001 Landsat land cover.
Regional examples of land use datasets include land use data for southern California
counties available from the San Diego Association of Governments
(www.sandag.cog.ca.us) and Southern California Association of Governments
(www.scag.ca.gov/index.htm). The Internet is an excellent tool for locating land use
data available from local and regional agencies.
Many GIS Web sites, including KGeography Network
(www.geographynetwork.com), have links to local, state, and federal GIS sources
and provide query engines to identify available GIS data by geographic location or
content. In addition, states often have GIS groups as part of their environmental
agencies and provide access to the data on the Internet. KExamples of state GIS Web
pages are included in section 5.9.
Survey-based Data
In addition to GIS coverages and databases of land use distribution, there are several
survey-based inventories of land use information. Two examples are the USDA
National Resources Inventory (NRI) and the USDA Census of Agriculture. Be
careful when using NRI and Census of Agriculture data to evaluate land use in your
watershed because these inventories are built on a more gross scale than is typically
needed for watershed planning. The NRI is based on data collected at thousands of
sites across the country to evaluate state, regional, and national trends in resources.
The Census of Agriculture includes county-level data on agriculture characteristics
that might or might not reflect the characteristics of your watershed. If these data are
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-22 Draft
evaluated for your watershed, they should be used to gain a general sense of the
sources and conditions, not as hard facts on the watershed.
USDA National Resources Inventory (NRI)
Survey-based land use data are available from the KUSDA’s NRI
(www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI). The NRI is a statistical survey of information on
natural resources on non-federal land in the United States that captures data on land
cover and land use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity,
selected conservation practices, and related resource attributes. The NRI includes
inventories such as highly erodible lands, land capabilities, and land uses.
With data collected during each survey from the same 800,000 sample sites in all 50
states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific Basin locations, the
NRI is designed to assess conditions and long-term trends of soil, water, and related
resources. Previously, data were collected every 5 years, with information available
at each sample point for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997. Since 2001 the NRI has been
updated continually with annual releases of NRI data. The NRI provides information
for addressing agricultural and environmental issues at the national, regional, and
state levels.
NRI data are provided on a county or cataloging unit level. Therefore, at the smaller
watershed level they are likely useful mainly for providing “big picture” information
on trends in land use over the years. However, NRI data are useful at the watershed
level when evaluating the erodibility of agricultural land in your watershed. When
developing watershed models, for example, NRI can be an important source of
information on site-specific soil characteristics for agricultural lands (e.g., cropland,
pastureland) in your area. It’s also important to note that the NRI data are provided as
inventories and are not in GIS format.
USDA Census of Agriculture
Additional survey-based land use data are available from KUSDA’s Census of
Agriculture (www.nass.usda.gov/census). Prepared by the USDA’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service, the census includes comprehensive data on
agricultural production and operator characteristics for each U.S. state and county,
including area of farmland, cropland, and irrigated land; livestock and poultry
numbers; and acres and types of crops harvested.
Unfortunately, Census of Agriculture information is provided at the county
level—often a more gross scale than is useful for watershed planning. The Census of
Agriculture information is also provided as inventories and is not in GIS format,
preventing you from isolating data for only your watershed. You must be careful
about using county-level information to evaluate your watershed because farming
practices can vary widely across a county.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-23
Specialized Land Use Datasets
In addition to the national datasets discussed previously in this section, there are
several specialized datasets on land use focusing on specific regions (e.g., coastal
areas, forested areas) or on specific types of land uses (e.g., mineral areas).
The following are examples of these types of data. KYou can find more examples at
the following MRLC Web site: www.epa.gov/mrlc/data.html.
The NOAA Coastal Services Center is developing a nationally standardized database
of land cover within the coastal regions of the United States as part of the Coastal
Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). C-CAP includes land cover and change data for
the nation’s coastal zone, designed to assist coastal resource managers in their
decisionmaking processes. These land cover products inventory coastal intertidal
habitats, wetlands, and adjacent uplands with the goal of monitoring changes in these
habitats on a 1- to 5-year cycle. KFor more information on the C-CAP and related
data, go to www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca.
Another type of specialized land use dataset is the BLM’s Land and Mineral Use
Records. The Land and Mineral Use Records Web site allows users to search, locate,
and map the BLM’s land and mineral use authorizations and mining claims on public
lands throughout the United States. Land and mineral use authorizations include such
things as oil and gas leases, right-of-ways, and mineral leases. KTo search the Land
and Mineral Use Records, go to
www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/lsis_home/home/index.html.
5.5.2 Land Management Practices
Information on how the land is managed in a watershed is helpful to identify both
current control practices and potential targets for future management This
information not only will support the characterization of the watershed but also will
be important in identifying current watershed sources, future management efforts,
and areas for additional management efforts.
Nonpoint Source Projects
Under Clean Water Act section 319, states, territories, and tribes receive grant money
to support a wide variety of activities, including implementation of BMPs to improve
water quality. To find out if there are any current nonpoint source projects in your
watershed, contact your state environmental department. KEPA’s Web site for
nonpoint source pollution (www.epa.gov/nps) provides a variety of links, including
section 319 information, publication and information resources, background on the
state-EPA nonpoint source partnership, and outreach information. KA list of state
nonpoint source coordinators is available at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-24 Draft
Conservation districts are local units of government
responsible for the soil and water conservation work within
their boundaries. A district’s role is to increase voluntary
conservation practices among farmers, ranchers, and other
land users. Depending on the location of the districts, their
programs and available information vary. For example,
districts in agricultural areas can provide assistance with
erosion control, agriculture-related water quality projects,
and nutrient and pesticide management plans. Districts in
suburban or urban areas might focus on protection of
streams from impacts of urban activities and erosion control
for construction activities.
Local conservation districts can be a good source of
information on potential watershed sources, as well as
restoration activities in your watershed. KTo see if your
conservation district is online, visit
www.nrcs.usda.gov/partners/districts.html or the National
Association of Conservation Districts,
www.nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html.
Local Ordinances
Local ordinances that establish construction-phase erosion
and sediment control requirements, river corridors and
wetland buffers, and other watershed protection provisions
are often included as part of a watershed plan
implementation strategy. Check to see what current
ordinances are in place for your community through the
planning or environmental department. KGo to CWP’s
Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center, which provides
examples of real-world and model ordinances
(www.stormwatercenter.net/intro_ordinances.htm) that can
be used to guide future growth while safeguarding local
natural resources. The intent is to provide language and
ideas that communities and stormwater managers can
incorporate when writing an ordinance for their local area.
The Web site includes a sampling of ordinances from
across the nation and can help watershed managers
understand what ordinances might exist in their watershed.
KOther references for model ordinances are provided in
appendix A.
Master Plans
Economic development plans for counties or multi-county regions often have
significant impacts on water resources. The designation of future development areas,
sewer service districts, and drinking water sources should address how water
resources will be protected through watershed planning/management, antidegradation
policy implementation, and other measures. Integrating watershed planning with
economic development master planning builds efficiencies and effectiveness in both
processes and ensures compatibility among activities that might have competing
objectives. In addition, master planning studies might provide information on future
land uses and growth projections. Contact your local government planning
department to find out if your community has a master plan.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans
Federal regulations require many industrial facilities and most construction sites
disturbing more than 1 acre of land to obtain a stormwater permit. Each covered
industrial facility or construction site is required to develop and implement a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that describes the activities that will
be conducted to prevent stormwater pollution. If you’re interested in how a certain
industrial facility or construction site plans to control stormwater pollution, you can
often obtain a copy of the SWPPP from your state environmental agency, EPA
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-25
regional office, or local municipality. KAdditional information is available at
www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater.
BLM Resource Management Plans
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 262 million surface acres of
America’s public lands, primarily in 12 western states, and 700 million acres of
mineral estate. The BLM’s 162 resource management plans (RMPs) form the basis
for every action and approved use on public lands throughout the country. The RMPs
typically establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for public
lands administered by the BLM and might address a combination of the following
issues:
? Air quality
? Cultural resources
? Soil and water resources
? Vegetation
? Grazing and rangeland
? Lands and realty management
? Wildlife habitat
? Fisheries management
? Mineral and mining resources
? Oil and gas resources
? Recreation and off-highway
vehicle use
? Visual resource management
? Special management designations
? Soil and water resources
? Hazardous materials
An RMP in your watershed could provide information on potential sources, as well
as general background information on watershed activities and conditions.
KThe BLM’s national planning Web site (Planning, Assessment, and Community
Support Group) allows you to search for BLM management plans by state—
www.blm.gov/planning/plans.html.
5.5.3 Demographics
Demographic data include information on the people in the watershed,
such as the number of persons or families, commuting patterns, household
structure, age, gender, race, economic conditions, employment, and
educational information. This information can be used to help design
public outreach strategies, identify specific subpopulations to target during
the implementation phase, or help determine future trends and needs of the
populations.
Local governments usually include demographic information on their
communities through the planning or economic departments. KThe
primary database for demographic, social, and economic data is the U.S.
Census Bureau (www.census.gov). Within the database you can search
county population estimates.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-26 Draft
Population Statistics
Population can provide insight into the distribution of pollutant sources in a
watershed and into future growth patterns. In developing areas, it’s important to
consider future growth when evaluating sources of impairment and identifying
potential management options. GIS data for mapping human population are provided
by the U.S. Census Bureau through the TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic
Encoding and Referencing) program. KGo to www.esri.com/data/download/
census2000_tigerline/index.html. TIGER data consist of man-made features (such as
roads and railroads) and political boundaries. Population data from the 2000 census
can be linked to the TIGER data to map population numbers and density for small
areas (census blocks) and large areas like counties and states. Information from the
1990 Census includes data on household wastewater disposal methods (e.g., sewer,
septic systems, other), but similar information was not collected as part of the 2000
Census. Cultural data are also available through many of the states’ GIS Web sites.
Land Ownership
Many watersheds contain land owned by a variety of parties, including private
citizens and federal, state, and county government agencies. Although information on
land ownership in a watershed might not help to characterize the physical nature of
the area, it can provide insight into sources of information for characterizing the
watershed or identifying pollutant sources. It can also be very useful in identifying
implementation opportunities. For example, federal parks can cover large expanses of
land, comprising large portions of the watershed, and the managing agency (e.g.,
National Park Service, USDA Forest Service) can be a valuable source of
information on watershed and waterbody characteristics and potential sources (e.g.,
wildlife populations). State and federal agencies owning and managing land in the
watershed should also be contacted to identify any previous studies conducted in the
watershed that might support watershed or instream characterization. Keep in mind
that local county or city agencies often maintain parcel maps as GIS coverages.
GIS coverages of managed lands in the country are available through EPA’s BASINS
modeling system. KTo download data for your cataloging unit, go to
www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm. Many states and counties also
have coverages of land ownership by parcel or census block.
5.6 Waterbody and Watershed Conditions
Several sources can provide helpful information on the current condition of the
waterbodies in your watershed, including whether they meet water quality standards
and support designated uses. This section discusses where to find water quality
standards for your waterbody, how to identify impaired waters and use support in
your watershed, and how to find any TMDLs that have already been completed in
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-27
In November 2001 EPA released guidance recommending that
states develop an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Report to satisfy requirements for both the 305(b)
report and the 303(d) list. The Integrated Report includes the
following:
? Delineation of water quality assessment units (AUs) based on
the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
? Status of and progress toward achieving comprehensive
assessments of all waters; water quality standard attainment
status for every AU
? Basis for the water quality standard attainment determinations
for every AU
? Additional monitoring that may be needed to determine water
quality standard attainment status and, if necessary, to
support development of TMDLs for each pollutant/AU
combination
? Schedules for additional monitoring planned for AUs
? Pollutant/AU combinations still requiring TMDLs
? TMDL development schedules reflecting the priority ranking of
each pollutant/AU combination
EPA recommended that states use the Integrated Report for the
2002 303(d) lists and 305(b) reports and subsequent listing
cycles. Most, if not all, states should now be using the Integrated
Report format rather than individual 303(d) lists and 305(b)
reports. However, the reports are discussed individually in this
handbook to provide background on their content and purpose.
KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2002wqma.html to learn more
about the Integrated Report. (EPA is currently developing a new
version of the Integrated Report guidance. For more information
go to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/index.html.
your watershed. This information provides general information on the health of the
waterbodies in your watershed and what uses should be supported.
5.6.1 Water Quality Standards
You’ll need to obtain the current water quality standards for the waterbodies in your
watershed to understand for what uses they should be protected and to compare
instream monitoring data with standards to evaluate impairment. You should also
document the designated uses for the waterbodies and any relevant criteria for
evaluating waterbody conditions. KThis information can be obtained from EPA’s
Web site at www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase. KTribal water quality standards can be
found at http://epa.gov/waterscience/tribes.
5.6.2 Water Quality Reports
State water quality reports produced to meet federal
requirements provide data on the status of
waterbodies, designated uses, known impairments,
and potential sources of the stressors. Local
municipalities or counties may also produce
individual reports on the status of water quality in
their jurisdictions.
Biannual 305(b) State Water Quality Report
Under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, states
are required to prepare a report describing the status
of their water quality every 2 years. EPA compiles
the data from the state reports, summarizes them, and
transmits the summaries to Congress along with an
analysis of the nationwide status of water quality.
The 305(b) reports evaluate whether U.S. waters
meet water quality standards, what progress has been
made in maintaining and restoring water quality, and
the extent of remaining problems. Check your state’s
report to see if your watershed has been monitored or
assessed. If so, you should find information like the
following:
? Status of use support with descriptions of
significant water quality impairments
? Identification of problem parameters for
impaired waters, along with potential sources of
the stressors
? Priority for TMDL development
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-28 Draft
KGo to www.epa.gov/OWOW/305b for information on your state’s 305(b) report.
303(d) List of Impaired Waters
Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized
tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are those
which do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have
installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law
requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and
develop TMDLs for these waters.
Reviewing your state’s 303(d) lists will help you identify any impaired waterbodies
in your watershed. If there are impairments that have not been addressed through
TMDLs, you might want to consider coordinating with your state’s TMDL program
to develop TMDLs concurrently with your watershed plan. The 303(d) list may
identify the schedule for TMDL development, highlighting TMDLs already done,
currently under way, or scheduled for coming years. The list may identify potential
sources of the impairment and include notes on why the waterbody was
listed—information that can guide your source assessment and search for
information.
KTo review your state’s most recent 303(d) list, go to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
5.6.3 Watershed-Related Reports
In addition to state or local water quality reports, there might be existing watershed-
related studies produced for all or a portion of your watershed under various state,
local, or federal programs. These studies might have a narrower focus than your
watershed plan (e.g., source water, specific pollutant) or be out-of-date, but they can
provide information on available data, potential pollutant sources, and historical
water quality and watershed conditions. This section provides a few examples of
current or recent programs that might provide relevant watershed information. This is
not a comprehensive list of the programs or reports that could be available for a
watershed, but it does highlight commonly used plans that can provide information
relevant to watershed planning.
Existing TMDL Reports
If a TMDL has been developed for all or part of your watershed, the supporting
documents can often provide much of the information needed to support watershed
plan development, such as
? Descriptions of the stressors causing water quality impairment
? The extent (length of stream, area of watershed) and magnitude of the
impairment
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-29
Do not limit your watershed planning effort strictly to
the information provided in the TMDL. You’ll need to
review the TMDL and determine the following:
Pollutants and Sources. TMDLs are developed
specifically to address the pollutants included on the
state’s 303(d) list. The watershed planning effort
should consider all pollutants causing problems in the
watershed.
Availability of Information. Since the TMDL was
completed, has more information that would change
or refine the source assessment become available?
Scale/Resolution. What was the scale of the TMDL
source assessment? Does it fit the needs of the
watershed plan? Generally, the resolution of your
watershed plan will need to provide more detail for
developing and implementing specific control
strategies.
Resources Available. Was the TMDL completed with
limited resources? Are there sufficient resources to
refine the original source assessment?
? Sources of impairment and relative contributions for
parameters causing impairment
? Loading targets for watershed and water quality protection
? Overall load allocations for point and nonpoint sources
KTo find a link to your state’s TMDL program Web site, go to
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/links.html.
In addition, the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS)
houses the 303(d) lists and tracks TMDL approvals. The NTTS
stores information necessary to track the performance of state
and regional TMDL programs and to ensure that TMDLs are
being calculated at an adequate pace for waters currently listed
as impaired. The database includes numerous Web-based
reports. The NTTS is mapped to the NHD through the EPA
WATERS (Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental
Result) system. KData files and GIS shapefiles with
information on segments listed for one or more pollutants and
listed waters for which TMDL loading reduction targets have
been established are available for download at
www.epa.gov/waters/data/prog.html.
Source Water Assessments
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
require states to develop and implement Source Water Assessment Programs
(SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public
drinking water throughout the state. Every state is moving forward to implement
assessments of its public water systems through the SWAPs. Assessments were
required to be completed by 2003 for every public water system—from major
metropolitan areas to the smallest towns, including schools, restaurants, and other
public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies. (Assessments are not
conducted for drinking water systems that have fewer than 15 service connections or
that regularly serve fewer than 25 people because these are not considered public
water systems.)
The SWAPs created by states differ because they are tailored to each state’s water
resources and drinking water priorities. However, each assessment must include four
major elements:
? Delineating (or mapping) the source water assessment area
? Conducting an inventory of potential sources of contamination in the delineated
area
? Determining the susceptibility of the water supply to those contamination sources
? Releasing the results of the determinations to the public
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-30 Draft
The assessments are available through the local utility in its annual consumer
confidence reports. Many local water utilities provide this information online, and it
can be found by searching the Internet. KGo to EPA’s Local Drinking Water
Information Web page (www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/index.html) to find links to
many online water quality reports and specific information about local drinking water
supplies, including information about the state’s drinking water program and source
water protection program. KGo to www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html to
find links to regional and state contacts for source water protection. KAdditional
information about SWAPs is available at www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/swap.html.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies
In 1998 EPA and USDA released the Clean Water Action Plan (USEPA and USDA
1998) as a means toward fulfilling the original goal of the Clean Water Act—fishable
and swimmable waters for all Americans. A key component of the plan was the
development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) to
comprehensively address watershed restoration, including a balance between
discharge control for specific chemicals and prevention of broader, water-related
problems such as wetland loss and habitat degradation. The plan proposed that states
and tribes develop a WRAS for those watersheds identified as having the greatest
need for restoration.
The development and implementation of WRASs were a focus of EPA guidelines for
awarding section 319 funds in Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001. Because of this,
many states developed WRASs for priority watersheds, and some might continue to
do so. If a WRAS has been completed for your watershed, it can be an important
source of information about water quality conditions, available data, land uses and
activities, threats to water quality, restoration priorities, key stakeholders, and sources
of funding. KBrowse your state environmental agency’s Web site to see if a WRAS
is available for your watershed.
5.7 Pollutant Sources
Pollutants can be delivered to waterbodies from various point and nonpoint sources.
The identification and characterization of sources are critical to the successful
development and implementation of a watershed plan and the control of pollutant
loading to a stream. Characterizing and quantifying watershed pollutant sources can
provide information on the relative magnitude and influence of each source and its
impact on instream water quality conditions. Watershed-specific sources will
typically be identified and characterized through a combination of generation,
collection, and evaluation of GIS data, instream data, and local information.
However, some common types of pollutant sources might be contributing to
watershed problems, and this section discusses information available to characterize
them.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-31
KTo find out more about NPDES and what
discharges are subject to NPDES permitting
requirements, go to EPA’s NPDES Web page
at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm.
5.7.1 Point Sources
Pollutant sources permitted to discharge at specific locations from
pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels are point sources, and they
are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. Check with state agencies for the most
recent and accurate point source discharge information. Be sure to
verify actual monitored discharges and future discharge projections
or capacity because often not all of the water quality parameters that
you might be interested in are monitored.
Permits
Existing dischargers that discharge into waterbodies from specific point sources
should be identified. These include wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities,
and concentrated animal feeding operations. All point sources that discharge
pollutants into waterbodies are required to have a permit under the NPDES program.
Information on major facilities is stored in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS).
PCS is an online database of information regarding permitted point sources
throughout the United States (Kwww.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html). Data
from major NPDES permits must be included in PCS; PCS also includes information
from certain minor NPDES permits as well. Included in the database is information
about facility location, type of facility, receiving stream, design flow, and effluent
pollutant limits. PCS also contains Discharge Monitoring Report data on effluent
monitoring and recorded violations. Data are continuously added to the database so
that the most recent point sources can be tracked. Geographic information is included
with each point source so that data can be plotted and analyzed in a GIS.
Wastewater Permits
Many communities have a wastewater treatment plant that uses a series of processes
to remove pollutants from water that has been used in homes, small businesses,
industries, and other facilities before discharging it to a receiving waterbody. All
facilities that discharge wastewater into waterbodies are required to have a permit
under the NPDES program. KInformation about wastewater treatment facilities is
available in EPA’s “Envirofacts” data system for water
(http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water). Search for facilities in your area by
entering your ZIP Code, city, or county. Envirofacts will then display a list of
permitted facilities in your area, including the facility name, permit number, location,
and discharge information.
Stormwater Permits
Federal regulations require certain municipalities, generally those in urban areas, to
obtain municipal stormwater permits. These permits require each municipality to
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-32 Draft
Livestock information is summarized by county. Make
sure to check how your watershed overlaps
county/municipal boundaries. This will be important if
you need to estimate how many livestock are located
within your watershed.
develop a stormwater management plan that describes how the municipality will
prevent stormwater pollution. Copies of the permits are available from your state
environmental agency or EPA regional office. The stormwater management plans
written to comply with the requirements in the permit typically include activities to
educate the public about stormwater impacts, control stormwater runoff from new
developments and construction sites, identify and eliminate illicit discharges, and
control stormwater runoff from municipal operations. Contact your local
municipality’s environmental agency or public works department to find out whether
it addresses stormwater runoff. You should also be able to obtain a copy of the
municipality’s current stormwater management plan to see what activities are
planned. KAdditional information can be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater.
5.7.2 Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from industrial facilities and treatment
plants, typically comes from many diffuse sources, not specific pipes or conveyances.
Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground, carrying natural and man-made pollutants and finally depositing
them into surface waters. Surface water runoff represents a major nonpoint source in
both urban and rural areas. Runoff from urban watersheds can deliver a variety of
pollutants from roadways and grassed areas, and rural stormwater runoff can
transport significant pollutant loads from cropland, pastures, and livestock
operations. Natural background sources such as wildlife or geology (e.g., soils high
in iron) can also contribute loadings and might be particularly important in forested
or less-developed areas of the watershed. Additional nonpoint sources include on-site
wastewater systems (septic tanks, cesspools) that are poorly installed, faulty,
improperly located, or in close proximity to a stream and illicit discharges of
residential and industrial wastes. This section discusses some common nonpoint
sources characterized in watershed plans.
Livestock Sources
In watersheds with extensive agricultural operations, livestock
can be a significant source of nutrients and bacteria and can
increase erosion. If available, site-specific information on
livestock population, distribution, and management should be
used to characterize the potential effects from livestock
activities. Local USDA officials are typically the best source
of livestock information. If local information is not available,
you can use the Census of Agriculture to find information
about the number and type of animal units per county. The
census is conducted every 5 years; the most recent census was conducted in 2002.
Data from the census are available online at K www.nass.usda.gov/census, and data
can be analyzed at the county level in a GIS. You should consult local USDA
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-33
Extension offices are a valuable source of information
on local agricultural practices and can provide
information on types and distribution of livestock, crops,
and management practices. The national Cooperative
Extension System works in six major areas:
? 4-H youth development
? Agriculture
? Leadership development
? Natural resources
? Family and consumer sciences
? Community and economic development
Although the number of local extension offices has
declined over the years and some county offices have
consolidated into regional extension centers,
approximately 2,900 extension offices remain
nationwide.
KTo find your local extension office, go to
www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html
officials to determine whether conditions in the watershed are
accurately reflected in the census. You should also obtain
local information on additional agricultural sources, such as
land application of manure.
Cropland Sources
Depending on crop type and management, croplands are a
potentially significant source of nutrients, sediment, and
pesticides to watershed streams. Cropland can experience
increased erosion, delivering sediment loads and attached
pollutants to receiving waterbodies. Fertilizer and pesticide
application to crops increases the availability of these
pollutants to be delivered to waterbodies through surface
runoff, erosion (attached to sediment), and ground water. If
cropland is an important source of pollutants in your
watershed, it’s useful to determine the distribution of
cropland as well as the types of crops grown. Land use
coverages for your watershed can identify the areas of
cropland in your watershed. For more information on the
types of crops and their management, contact local extension
offices or conservation districts. The USDA Census of
Agriculture can also provide information on crop types and
fertilizer and chemical applications. However, census data are
presented at the county level and might not reflect cropland characteristics in your
watershed. The USDA’s Spatial Analysis Research Section has developed a coverage
of the distribution of crop types (e.g., soybeans, corn, potatoes, cotton) called the
Cropland Data Layer (www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm).
Currently, the Cropland Data Layer is available for Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Mississippi, Missouri Boot Heel, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Some
states have data available annually since 1997, and some have only recent (i.e.,
2003–2004) data available. In addition, NRCS offices in agricultural regions often
take annual aerial photos to track crop usage.
Literature values for pollutant generation by crop type are often used in modeling and
other loading analyses to estimate loads from cropland sources. NRI data also
provide information on cropland characteristics by county and cataloging unit.
Urban Sources
Impervious coverage information is typically used to characterize the density of and
potential loading from urban areas. Impervious coverages are developed from direct
photointerpretation and delineation or estimated by relating imperviousness to land
use and land cover. Because urban or developed areas have higher percentages of
impervious area, they typically experience greater magnitudes of stormwater runoff
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-34 Draft
Having a local understanding of your watershed and
the activities that take place is critical to accurately
identifying and characterizing sources. If you need
help identifying sources, the information in this
section should guide you in the right direction, but
it’s also very important to involve local “experts” that
can help you through the process. Without input
from local agencies (e.g., conservation districts),
you might miss important sources that are unique to
your area.
than do more rural areas. Runoff from developed areas can wash off and transport
pollutants, and urban pollutant loads can be a significant source when the watershed
is predominantly developed, with little or no agricultural area. In addition to the
larger areas of impervious surfaces, urban areas typically have pollutant sources
unique to the urban and residential environment (e.g., pet wastes, lawn fertilizers,
pollutants from car maintenance) that are often difficult to identify. These sources are
usually collectively represented by stormwater runoff. Literature values of urban
accumulation or stormwater loading rates can be used to characterize the urban land
uses in source analyses and model applications.
On-site Wastewater Disposal
Septic systems can contribute significant nutrient and bacteria loads to receiving
waterbodies because of system failure and surface or subsurface malfunctions. Local
agencies can provide estimates of the total number of septic systems in a specific area
or county. For example, the Panhandle Health District in Idaho has an online
searchable database of septic system permits, geographically identified by Census
block. Also, county-level population, demographic, and housing information,
including septic tank use, can be retrieved from the KU.S. Census Bureau
(http://quickfacts.census.gov). To evaluate septic systems as a source of pollutants,
however, you’ll want to know the distribution of malfunctioning or failing systems.
In some cases, local health departments can provide information on failing septic
systems (e.g., location, frequency, failure rates), but in many watersheds the specific
incidence and locations of malfunctioning systems are unknown. Literature values
and local or county statistical information can be used to estimate the number of
failing septic systems in a watershed. KFor example, the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) surveyed approximately 3,500 local and state public health
agencies about the status of on-site systems across the country (NSFC 1993) and
provides the number of reported failing septic systems in the United States by county.
(Go to Kwww.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_index.htm.) Using the county-specific
estimates from NSFC (1993), the number of failing septic systems in a county can be
extrapolated to the watershed level based on county and watershed land use
distribution. The number of failing systems can also be estimated
by applying some appropriate failure rate, from literature or from
local sanitation personnel, to the total number of septic systems
in a watershed.
Silviculture Sources
Silviculture can be a significant source of sediment and other
pollutants to a waterbody. The primary silviculture activities that
cause increased pollutant loads are road construction and use,
timber harvesting, site preparation, prescribed burning, and
chemical applications. Without adequate controls, forestry
operations can cause instream sediment concentrations and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-35
accumulation to increase because of accelerated erosion. Silviculture activities can
also cause elevated nutrient concentrations as the result of prescribed burns and an
increase in organic matter on the ground or in the water. Organic and inorganic
chemical concentrations can increase because of harvesting and fertilizer and
pesticide applications. Harvesting can also lead to instream accumulation of organic
debris, which can lead to dissolved oxygen depletion. Other waterbody impacts
include increased temperature from the removal of riparian vegetation and increased
streamflow due to increased overland flow, reduced evapotranspiration, and runoff
channeling.
The BLM administers millions of acres of commercial forests and woodlands in the
western United States. KFor a list of BLM state offices, visit
www.blm.gov/nhp/directory/index.htm. Local BLM personnel can help you identify
areas of silvicultural activity in your watershed.
Wildlife Sources
Although wildlife inputs typically represent natural background sources of pollutants,
they can be an important source of bacteria or nutrients in forested or less-developed
areas of a watershed. In addition, animals that inhabit area waters (e.g., waterfowl)
represent a direct source to receiving waters. Although wildlife sources are often
uncontrollable, it’s important to consider their potential impact on water quality and
their importance relative to other pollutant sources when characterizing your
watershed. State or local wildlife agencies (e.g., Department of Fish and Game) or
relevant federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) can be contacted for estimates of
wildlife populations in your area. KGo to http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html for
links to state and territorial fish and wildlife offices.
5.8 Waterbody Monitoring Data
A number of federal, state, local, and private entities monitor waterbodies across the
nation. These data might represent specialized data collected to answer a specific
question about waterbody conditions, or the data might be collected regularly as part
of a fixed network of long-term monitoring to assess trends in water quality.
Monitoring data, including chemical, physical, and biological data, are critical to
characterizing your watershed. Without such data, it is difficult to evaluate the
condition of the waterbodies in your watershed. Waterbody data that will be gathered
and evaluated for the watershed characterization typically include flow, water quality
(e.g., chemical concentrations), and biological data. Other specialized datasets might
also be available for your waterbodies, such as physical stream assessments or
ground water studies, but this section discusses the most common sources of
waterbody data available to the public.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-36 Draft
Much of the nation’s hydrology, water quality, and
biological data resides in national datasets accessible
on the Internet. Many of the databases include several
datasets and analysis tools. The following sections
describe the major databases that contain waterbody
monitoring data.
5.8.1 Water Quality and Flow Data
This section discusses a variety national databases
containing water quality and flow monitoring data.
STORET
STORET is EPA’s database for the storage and
retrieval of ground water and surface water quality
data. In addition to holding chemical and physical
data, STORET supports a variety of types of
biomonitoring data on fish, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and habitats. Currently, there are
two versions of the STORET database. Legacy
STORET contains historical data from the early 1900s
through 1998, and new data are no longer input to the
Legacy STORET database. Modernized STORET has
data from 1999 to the present. New data are input into
the Modernized STORET database as they become
available. KSTORET data can be downloaded online
from www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.
STORET includes data for the following topics:
? Station descriptions
? Non-biological physical and chemical results
(“regular results”)
? Biological results
? Habitat results
Data can be queried through several search options, including by geographic
location, organization, and station ID. You can also browse STORET data using
mapping tools available through STORET’s main page.
Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a
watershed characterization is only as good as the data it is
based on. It’s important to understand the quality and quantity
of your instream monitoring data when using the data for
watershed planning and associated decisions. Common factors
that can affect the usefulness of data include the following:
? Data quality: Data quality represents a variety of aspects of
the data, including accuracy, precision, and
representativeness. For more information on data quality, go
to section 6.2.2.
? Spatial coverage: The number of locations with relevant
data can determine the detail of your watershed analysis.
Without instream data collected throughout the watershed,
you can’t evaluate the spatial differences in water quality
conditions or identify areas of greater impairment.
? Temporal coverage: Without watershed data covering a
long period of time or a variety of environmental conditions,
it’s difficult to understand the typical instream conditions of
your waterbody. Because most instream data consist of
occasional (e.g., monthly) grab samples, monitoring data
often represent only a snapshot of the waterbody—a picture
of the waterbody at the moment of sampling.
Often, data are limited and you don’t have the luxury of daily
samples collected over a 10-year period. If the amount of data
is too insufficient to continue with watershed plan development,
it might be necessary to initiate additional monitoring (Ksee
chapter 6). Otherwise, having limited data should not stop the
watershed planning process; it needs to continue with an
understanding that the data might not fully represent or
characterize waterbody conditions and that future monitoring
should be used to update the plan as necessary.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-37
National Listing of Fish Advisories
The NLFA database includes information describing state-, tribe-, and federally-
issued fish consumption advisories in the United States for the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and four U.S. territories. The information is provided to EPA by the
states, tribes, and territories. The advisories recommend limiting or avoiding
consumption of specific fish species or limiting or avoiding consumption of fish from
specific waterbodies. The NLFA Web site lists 3,089 advisories in 48 states through
the end of 2003. The Web site can generate national, regional, and state maps that
summarize advisory information. Also included on the Web site are the name of each
state contact, a phone number, a fax number, and an email address.
Kwww.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories.
NWISWeb
The National Water Information System Web site (NWISWeb) is the USGS’s online
database for surface water and ground water flow and water quality data. The
NWISWeb database provides access to water resources data collected by USGS at
approximately 1.5 million sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Data are available for and organized by several categories such as surface
water, ground water, real time, and flow. Data can be queried using information such
as station name, location (latitude and longitude), or 8-digit HUC. KData can be
downloaded online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.
Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication, and Health
Program Data
The BEACH Program appropriates funds to states for the development of monitoring
and notification programs that will provide a more uniform system for protecting the
users of marine waters. The BEACH Program can provide information on issues and
concerns related to bacteria contamination at recreational beaches, provide
monitoring data, and assist with educating the public regarding the risk of illness
associated with increased levels of bacteria in recreational waters. If your watershed
borders the coast or the Great Lakes, Kgo to www.epa.gov/beaches for additional
information.
Volunteer Monitoring Program Data
State, tribal, and local volunteer monitoring programs might also be good sources of
water quality data. Many volunteer groups upload their data to STORET. KGo to
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer for more information.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-38 Draft
WATERS
The WATERS information system uses EPA’s standard mapping application to
display water quality information about local waters. WATERS combines
information about water quality goals from EPA’s Water Quality Standards Database
with information about impaired waters from EPA’s TMDL database. KGo to
www.epa.gov/waters.
National Sediment Inventory
EPA completed the National Sediment Inventory (NSI) in response to the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA), which directed EPA, in consultation
with NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct a comprehensive
program to assess the quality of aquatic sediments in the United States. EPA also
submits to Congress a report on the findings of that program. The report identifies
areas in the United States where the sediment might be contaminated at potentially
harmful levels. The report also assesses changes in sediment contamination over time
for areas in the United States with sufficient data. The first National Sediment
Quality Survey report was released in 1997, and it was updated in 2004. Before
releasing the update, EPA released the National Sediment Quality Survey Database,
which compiles information from 1980 to 1999 from more than 4.6 million analytical
observations and 50,000 stations throughout the United States. The database contains
information on
? Sediment chemistry, a measure of the chemical concentration of sediment-
associated contaminants
? Tissue residue, a measure of chemical contaminants in the tissue of organisms
? Toxicity, a measure of the lethal and sublethal effects of contaminants in
environmental media on various test organisms
KGo to www.epa.gov/ost/cs/report/2004/index.htm for more information on the NSI
report. KGo to www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/nsidbase.html to download the
associated sediment quality data.
5.8.2 Biological Data
Aquatic life (e.g., fish, insects, plants) are affected by all the environmental factors to
which they are exposed over time and integrate the cumulative effects of pollution.
Therefore, biological data provide information on disturbances and impacts that
water chemistry measurements or toxicity tests might miss. This makes these data
essential for determining not only the biological health but also the overall health of a
waterbody.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-39
Although there is no single source of biological data, many of the datasets already
mentioned under the instream monitoring section include biological datasets. To
learn more about the specific biological assessment programs of states and regions,
visit KEPA’s Biological Indicators of Watershed Health Web site at
www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/stateprgs.html. This site provides links to state
program Web sites, contacts, and relevant documents.
Biological community samples (fish, invertebrates, algae) are collected in the
nation’s streams and rivers as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program’s ecological studies (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). Data for
thousands of fish and invertebrate samples are available for retrieval online, and algal
community and instream habitat data will be released in summer 2005. KGo to
http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/nawqa_www/bio/bio_communitysamples.htm.
5.8.3 Geomorphological Data
Rivers and streams change in direct response to climate and human activities in the
watershed. Increasing impervious surfaces like pavement, clearing forests and other
vegetation, compacting soils with heavy equipment, and removing bank vegetation
typically result in an adjustment in the pattern, profile, or dimensions of a river or
stream. Assessments of river and stream geomorphology can help determine (1) the
prior or “undisturbed” morphology of the channel; (2) current channel conditions;
and (3) how the stream is evolving to accommodate changes in flow
volumes/timing/duration, channel alteration, and so forth. This information is also
helpful in analyzing the movement of sediment downstream from upland sources and
channel banks.
Geomorphological studies focus on characterizing the drainage area, stream patterns
(single/multiple channels, sinuosity, meander width), the longitudinal profile
(gradient), channel dimensions (e.g., width/depth ratio relative to bankfull stage cross
section, entrenchment), bank and channel material, riparian vegetation, channel
evolution trends, and other features. Because of the fairly recent development and
application of analytical tools to assess and classify rivers and streams and explore
the relationships among variables affecting their physical conditions,
geomorphological data are not available for many river systems. Guidance on
conducting geomorphological assessments is available from the Federal Interagency
Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group
(www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration), Wildland Hydrology
(www.wildlandhydrology.com), and some state water resource and fish/wildlife
agencies.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-40 Draft
This section provides several examples of GIS data
sources, primarily national, but additional state, local, or
regional sources might exist and should be investigated.
Several states maintain online databases of GIS data for
the state; for example, California Spatial Information
Library (http://gis.ca.gov), West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection Internet Mapping
(http://gis.wvdep.org). KSee table 5-2 for more
information on locating state and local GIS data.
5.9 Selected Tools Used to Gather, Organize, and View
Assessment Information
Although you can use various tools to help visually organize data, two of the most
popular tools are GIS and remote sensing techniques, which help to collect and
display land use data.
5.9.1 Geographic Information Systems
A GIS is a tool used to support data analysis by creating watershed maps and
displaying a variety of spatial information that is helpful for characterizing a
watershed; gaining insight into the local environmental, cultural, and political
settings; and identifying potential pollutant sources. For example, application of
fertilizer on cropland might be a source of nutrients to watershed streams, and GIS
data can help in identifying the locations of cropland throughout the watershed and
the proximity of cropland to affected streams. Using water quality data analysis in
conjunction with GIS evaluations can provide a basis for evaluating water quality
trends throughout the watershed. GIS provides the flexibility of evaluating data in
different ways and combinations. Users can display only the
data useful to their needs and can easily display a
combination of spatial coverages. In addition, users can
easily create their own watershed coverages to display
specific information (e.g., average pollutant concentrations at
different waterbody sites).
GIS also allows users to combine and display spatial data
from a variety of sources. A wide range of sources for
accessing and obtaining GIS data are available. The Internet
provides a convenient source for much of the GIS data
available from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
GIS organizations and companies. Browsing the Web sites of
state and local environmental agencies or contacting the agencies directly can often
lead to GIS sites and databases. Table 5-2 provides a selected list of several online
GIS data sources.
A GIS is very useful and allows for easy display and evaluation of a variety of
watershed characteristics (e.g., soils, land use, streams). However, several aspects of
GIS and related data can “trip up” GIS novices. This section discusses several topics
that you should keep in mind when using GIS and gathering and evaluating GIS data.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-41
Table 5-2. Sources of GIS Data Available on the Internet
GIS Distribution Source Description and Web Site
Federal Agencies and Consortiums
National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Sponsored by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), the Clearinghouse
offers a collection of more than 250 spatial data servers that can be searched through a single interface based on their
descriptions or “metadata.” www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse/clearinghouse.html
EPA’s BASINS. BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system that integrates a GIS, national watershed data, and
environmental assessment and modeling tools. The BASINS GIS data include more than 35 standard coverages, including
physical data (e.g., waterbodies, elevation, land use, soils), administrative and political data (e.g., jurisdictional boundaries),
landmarks and features (e.g., roads, dams, cities), and other monitoring or environmental information (e.g., gauge sites,
monitoring sites, point source facility locations, mine locations, Superfund sites). www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS/b3webdwn.htm
USGS’s Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. EROS Data Center is a data management, systems
development, and research field center for the USGS National Mapping Division. The EROS Web site contains aerial,
topographic, elevation, satellite, and land cover data and information. http://edc.usgs.gov
U.S. Census Bureau Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) System. The Census
Bureau developed the TIGER system and digital database to support its mapping needs for the Decennial Census and other
Bureau programs. www.esri.com/data/download/census2000_tigerline/index.html or www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger
Bureau of Land Management Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. BLM established the GeoSpatial Data Clearinghouse as part
of the FGDC Geospatial Data Clearinghouse Network. BLM data can be searched through the FGDC clearinghouse Web site or
the BLM clearinghouse Web site. The BLM Geospatial Data Clearinghouse contains only geospatial data held by the BLM, and it
can be searched by state or by keyword (e.g., geology, minerals, vegetation, fire.)
www.blm.gov/nhp/what/geospatial/clearinghouse.htm or www.or.blm.gov/metaweb
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Atlas of the United States, Map Layers Warehouse. The Atlas is a largely digital
update of a large bound collection of paper maps that was published in 1970. It provides high-quality, small-scale maps, as well
as authoritative national geospatial and geostatistical datasets. Examples of digital geospatial data are soils, county boundaries,
volcanoes, and watersheds; examples of geostatistical data are crime patterns, population distribution, and incidence of disease.
http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html
Watershed Characterization System. WCS is an ArcView-based program that uses spatial and tabular data collected by EPA,
USGS, USDA-NRCS, the Census Bureau, and NOAA. The tool can quickly characterize land use, soils, and climate for
watersheds in the EPA Region 4 states. www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/wcs.html
EnviroMapper for Water. EnviroMapper for Water provides a Web-based mapping connection to a wealth of water data. It can
be used to view and map data such as the designated uses assigned to local waters by state agencies, waters that are impaired
and do not support their assigned uses, beach closures, and location of dischargers. Water quality data include STORET data,
National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas, and locations of nonpoint source projects. www.epa.gov/waters/enviromapper
State Sources
State GIS Clearinghouse Directory. Provides list of state GIS agencies, groups, or clearinghouses.
www.gisuser.com/content/view/2379
GIS Organizations or Companies
ESRI. ESRI is a software, research and development, and consulting company dedicated to GIS. Its software includes ArcInfo,
ArcGIS, and ArcView. www.esri.com/data/download/index.html
Geography Network. This global network of GIS users and providers supports the sharing of geographic information among
data providers, service providers, and users around the world. www.geographynetwork.com, provided through www.esri.com
GIS Data Depot. GIS Data Depot is an online resource for GIS and geospatial data from The GeoCommunity, a GIS online
portal and daily publication for GIS, CAD, mapping, and location-based industry professionals, enthusiasts, and students.
http://data.geocomm.com
University of Arkansas Libraries and the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST). Starting the Hunt: Guide to
Mostly On-Line and Mostly Free U.S. Geospatial and Attribute Data, written by Stephan Pollard and sponsored by University of
Arkansas Libraries and CAST, provides a compilation of links to online GIS data, categorized into two broad
classifications—State and Local Aggregations and National Aggregations. www.cast.uark.edu or
http://libinfo.uark.edu/GIS/us.asp (direct link to data lists)
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-42 Draft
Although the advent of GIS has made many aspects of watershed planning much easier, using GIS effectively requires a
certain level of knowledge and practical experience. Sometimes it’s not feasible for watershed planners to use GIS
extensively, perhaps because they don’t have the expertise or the required software. If this is the case, a variety of online
mapping applications can be used to gain an understanding of the watershed and its characteristics and pollutant sources
without doing the GIS work yourself. Many state, local, and university GIS programs or offices have online interactive mapping
applications to display or query their GIS data. For example, the California Digital Conservation Atlas (http://gis.ca.gov/ims.epl)
is an interactive map with coverages for a wide variety of natural resources-related information, including waterbodies,
watershed boundaries, environmental hazards, available plans, and land use and cover. Another example is the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection’s eMapPA (www.dep.state.pa.us/external_gis/gis_home.htm), which is a mapping
application that displays state permit information along with various statewide data layers. The mapping application displays
information on general watershed features (e.g., streams, floodplains, roads) and a variety of permitted facilities (e.g.,
WWTPs, landfills, mines). Although you won’t be able to customize the GIS data or add your own coverages (e.g., average
nitrate concentrations at monitoring stations), these types of interactive maps allow you to view and evaluate general
watershed GIS data without having to gather, store, and manipulate them.
Lambert Conformal Conic
Albers Equal-Area
Equidistant Conic
Figure 5-3. Example map projections.
Projections
The spatial representation of data in a GIS is tied to a mapping plane, and all data
have an associated projection. Map projections are the means of representing a
spherical Earth on a flat mapping plane, and the process of data projection transforms
three-dimensional space into a two-dimensional map. Different map projections
retain or distort shape, area, distance, and direction.
It is not possible for any one projection to retain more than one of these features over
a large area of the earth. Because different projections result in different
representations of the shape, area, distance, and
direction of mapped objects, GIS data for the
same watershed in different projections will not
overlap correctly. For example, figure 5-3
presents a map of Massachusetts in three
different projections. Although centered around
the same latitude and longitude, these
representations obviously do not spatially
represent the state in the same way.
Much of the GIS data available through the
Internet is provided in decimal degrees— un-
projected latitude and longitude. However, GIS
data can be projected, and different sources of
GIS data use different projections. For example,
EPA’s BASINS and U.S. Census Bureau
TIGER data are provided in decimal degrees,
but many state GIS Web sites provide their GIS
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-43
When gathering GIS data, it’s very important to obtain
and review the associated metadata. Metadata are
"data about data" and include the information needed
to use the data properly. Metadata represent a set of
characteristics about the data that are normally not
contained within the data itself, such as
? Description of the data (e.g., creator, contact,
distribution information, citation information)
? Information on how and when the data were created
? Spatial reference information (data projection)
? Definitions of the names and data items
Understanding the content and structure of the data is
especially important when compiling and comparing
data from various sources or agencies.
Streams, 1:500,000
Roads, 1:500,000
Streams, 1:24,000
Roads, 1:24,000
Figure 5-4. Example of GIS datasets at different scales.
data in projections specific to the state (e.g., state plane) or its
location in the country (e.g., Universal Transverse Mercator
[UTM] zones). When gathering GIS data from a variety of
sources, it’s important to gather information on the different
projections as well so that data can be “re-projected” into a
common projection. Projection information is included in the
GIS data’s metadata (under “Spatial Reference Information”).
Scale
The map scale of GIS data specifies the amount of reduction
between the real world and its graphic representation, usually
expressed as a ratio of the unit of measure on the map to the
same units on the ground (e.g., 1:20,000). Map scale
determines how much area is included on paper maps;
however, because the capabilities of GIS allow you to “zoom
in” and “zoom out” to customize your map display, map scale
does not determine the extent of the mapped information in a
GIS. Scale, however, does affect what is included in the GIS data. The smaller a
map’s scale (the more ground area it covers on a paper map), the more generalized
the map features. A road or stream that is sinuous on the ground might be represented
by a fairly straight line in data with a small scale, and some features might not even
be included in small-scale data. The scale of your GIS data is an important aspect to
keep in mind when combining datasets for evaluating your watershed. The scale of
your information influences the spatial detail of your analysis. For example, if you
want to evaluate road crossings for streams in your watershed and you use data at a
small scale, the data will likely not include many of the smaller roads and streams.
Figure 5-4 presents maps of streams and
roads obtained from datasets of different
scales. Obviously, the smaller-scale dataset
(1:500,000) has much coarser detail, while
the larger-scale dataset provides a higher
level of detail.
Time Frame
It’s very important to consider the date of the
GIS data you are evaluating, especially when
combining datasets. Because of the time and
effort it takes to create GIS data, often there
are not many versions (dates) of the same
coverage available and you are limited to
what is available. Sometimes, however, there
are different sources of the same kinds of
data from different time periods. For
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-44 Draft
There are several nuances associated with
displaying, manipulating, and controlling GIS data. It
is recommended that you have some training prior to
undertaking significant GIS evaluations.
The type and availability of GIS training are highly
specific to your location and needs. KTo find out
more information on GIS training and educational
resources, visit www.gis.com/education/index.html or
conduct an Internet search to research training
opportunities in your area.
example, USGS has a variety of land use datasets based on satellite images taken
during different time frames. The LULC data are based on images taken during the
1970s and 1980s, while the NLCD data are based on images from the early 1990s
and 2000. It is important to obtain the data that are most representative of the time
period you want to evaluate. If you want to compare land use and water quality data,
try to obtain land use data from the time your monitoring was conducted. For
example, compare historical data collected in the 1970s with the LULC data and
compare more recent monitoring data with the NLCD data from the 1990s.
If GIS data are significantly out-of-date, it might be necessary to ground-truth them
to avoid undermining your analysis. For example, if the land use data represent
watershed land uses 20 years ago, you might under- or overestimate certain types of
sources when evaluating current loading conditions. If you have a small watershed
and land ownership has not changed significantly (parcels are still comparable to
historical land use divisions or aerial photos), you might be able to drive through
your watershed and note any major land use changes.
Another factor to keep in mind is the date of creation versus the date of the original
data on which the GIS coverage is based. For example, the NLCD 2001 data are still
being developed; therefore, many datasets will be dated 2005 even though they are
based on satellite images from 2001. Be sure to review the metadata to determine the
dates of all of your GIS coverages.
Organization, Storage, and Manipulation of Files
GIS data can come in a variety of formats and typically have
several associated files necessary for viewing and
understanding their content. For example, a standard shapefile
includes the files (the main file [*.shp] and the index file
[*.shx]) that control the display of the shapes and the file
(dBASE file [*.dbf]) that contains feature attributes (e.g., area,
name) for each shape in the file. Grid data require even more
files to display. When dealing with data in different projects, it
is necessary to “re-project” data into a common projection,
creating even more data files. In addition, GIS data that cover
large areas or include highly detailed information (e.g., parcel-
based land use) can have very large files. Because of the
number and size of files, the organization of GIS files can
become cumbersome and require considerable disk space on your computer. It is
often helpful to organize data according to watershed topics (e.g., hydrology, land
use, soils, stations) or by the source of the data (e.g., TIGER, EPA BASINS).
In addition, GIS data can be manipulated very easily to evaluate certain areas or
certain data types, but doing so can lead to a number of extraneous files and also
unintended changes to your original data files. You can delete or add records to GIS
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-45
The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Alaska, created
a complete land cover classification to provide the
foundation for mapping inland areas according to their
common surface hydrologic and gross pollutant
generation potential. The “Storm Water Runoff” grid
was derived in summer 2000 through analysis of
IKONOS satellite imagery and other geographic
datasets (especially land use, streets, drainage,
coastland, and wetlands data). The GIS-based dataset
was built to provide information for stormwater
management applications.
The land cover data include five major classes:
Impervious, Barren Pervious, Vegetated Pervious,
Snow and Ice, and Water. These classes are further
subdivided to reflect changes in perviousness due to
different land development applications. For example,
impervious surfaces are classified as street surface,
directly connected impervious, and indirectly connected
impervious, and vegetation classes are classified as
landscaped or forested. Values for hydraulic
connectedness (direct or indirect connection) are
attributed to each mapped land parcel independently of
the assessment of the pervious quality.
MOA uses the GIS coverage to support development
and application of the Stormwater Management Model
(SWMM) for stormwater management within the
municipality. The SWMM model based on MOA’s land
use coverage also was modified and applied in the
Chester Creek watershed to develop draft TMDLs for
bacteria in the creek and two watershed lakes.
data files, but it’s important to remember that when you do this, you are changing the
original data files. If you want to isolate areas (e.g., subwatersheds) or records (e.g.,
certain monitoring stations), it is necessary to “clip” existing coverages to create new
coverages.
Several other issues related to organizing, storing, and using GIS files that can
aggravate the new user; therefore, it’s useful to rely on members of your watershed
group who have experience in using GIS or contacts that can provide guidance to
beginners.
5.9.2 Remote Sensing Techniques to Collect Land Use/Land Cover
Information
Remote sensing refers to the collection of data and information
about the physical world by detecting and measuring radiation,
particles, and fields associated with objects located beyond the
immediate vicinity of the sensor device(s). For example,
photographs collected by an aircraft flying over an area of
interest (e.g., aerial photography) represent a common form of
remote sensing information. Likewise, satellites that orbit the
earth are often used to collect similar images over larger areas,
and these images are another example of remote sensing
information. Remote sensing information is collected,
transmitted, and processed as digital data that require
sophisticated software and analysis tools. KAn excellent and
wide-ranging review of remote sensing can be found at
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Homepage/Homepage.html.
Remote sensing data products, especially land cover and
elevation, provide fundamental geospatial data for watershed
characterization. Remote sensing is a powerful tool for
watershed characterization because the data are digital and
therefore you can use the information analytically, especially
in a GIS system. You can integrate remote sensing data with
other types of data, such as digital elevation data, the stream
network (e.g., NHD), and so forth. You can then use GIS to
classify landscape and ecological attributes at detailed levels
within a watershed. An example is identifying steeply forested
lands and riparian buffers.
This section includes remote sensing principles and highlights
some of the most readily available and useful datasets. The
highlighted datasets have undergone extensive quality control,
are either low-cost or free, and can be used in a basic GIS
platform, especially ArcView. Their use in ArcView includes
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-46 Draft
being able to perform basic analytical functions, such as calculating land cover
distribution statistics in watersheds as well as integration with other data such as
Census data.
Types of Remote Sensing
Remotely sensed data can be broadly placed into two basic categories: (1) aerial
imagery, which includes images and data collected from an aircraft and involves the
placement of a sensor or camera on a fixed wing or rotary aircraft, and (2) space-
based imagery, which includes images and data collected from space-borne satellites
that orbit the earth continuously. Although air-based and space-based remote sensing
involve the same general principles, there are important technical differences in the
acquisition and application of imagery from these sources.
Aerial Imagery
Aerial images are collected using sensors placed onboard the aircraft. For example, a
photographic sensor can be placed on the underside of an aircraft and used to collect
color photos over an area of interest. In contrast, a much more sophisticated sensor,
such as AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer), can be placed
onboard an aircraft to collect hyperspectral data and thereby acquire much more than
simple color photographic images. A simple photographic sensor collects standard
color imagery that is composed of the red, blue, and green spectral regions of the
visible light spectrum (e.g., what the human eye can detect). In contrast, AVIRIS
collects 224 contiguous spectral channels (bands) with wavelengths from 400 to 2500
nanometers, spanning both the visible and non-visible regions of the light spectra.
KGo to http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov for more information about AVIRIS.
Most sensors used in remote sensing measure the radiance from the sun that is
reflected by the earth’s surface. Various land surface features absorb and reflect this
radiance to varying degrees, which is what enables the recognition of various features
on the ground. However, some sensors used in remote sensing emit a source of energy
that is reflected from the surface of the earth or from the object toward which the
energy is directed. Such sensors can be laser-based or radar-based (e.g. SAR, which is
Synthetic Aperture Radar, detailed here: Kwww.sandia.gov/RADAR/sar.html).
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) uses the same principle as radar—using
electromagnetic waves in the visible or near-visible spectrum to remotely investigate
properties of a medium—and is used in topographic mapping. LIDAR technology is
not dependent on atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover, so it has several
advantages over traditional photogrammetry for topographic mapping. LIDAR
technology offers the opportunity to collect terrain data of steep slopes and shadowed
areas (such as the Grand Canyon), and inaccessible areas (such as large mud flats and
ocean jetties). These LIDAR applications are well suited for making digital elevation
models (DEMs), creating topographic maps, and extracting automatic features.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-47
Spectral sensors record data related to sunlight in the
visible, near infrared, and shortwave infrared regions
that strikes surfaces on the earth and is reflected back
to the sensor. Multispectral sensors capture a few
relatively broad spectral bands, whereas hyperspectral
sensors capture hundreds of narrow spectral bands.
Multispectral sensors are used on satellite systems like
LANDSAT, and these systems provide the remote
sensing information used to build the National Land
Cover Data (NLCD).
Hyperspectral sensors are still at an experimental
stage for use in orbiting satellites, so that virtually all
the available hyperspectral data come from airborne
sensors. Hyperspectral imagery provides data for a
broad range of electromagnetic wavelengths with finer
spectral resolutions than conventional multispectral
systems. Substantial costs are associated with
hyperspectral systems for collecting the raw imagery,
processing large amounts of data, and ground-truthing
the remote sensing information with conventional water
quality or land cover data. After specific kinds of
hyperspectral information have been regionalized to
particular watershed areas, the costs can be
substantially reduced. Hyperspectral data can be
applied to develop enhanced gridded datasets for land
covers. With suitable regional calibration, both
hyperspectral and multispectral information can help to
provide numeric estimates for such water quality
parameters as chlorophyll-a (or other measures of
algal standing crop), turbidity, and nutrient levels for
phosphorus or nitrogen.
Applications are being established for forestry assessment of
canopy attributes, and research continues for evaluation of
crown diameter, canopy closure, and forest biometrics. KGo
to www.etl.noaa.gov/et2 for more information.
Satellite Imagery
Like aircraft-based sensors, satellite sensors have unique
operational limitations and characteristics that must be
considered before using them as a remote sensing tool. These
factors include the incidence of cloud cover, the frequency at
which the satellite passes over a given spot, the ground
resolution desired, and the amount of post-acquisition data
processing required. There are several kinds of imagery and
data collected from satellites. For example, commercial
satellites like QuickBird, IKONOS, and SPOT typically
acquire high-resolution imagery useful for basic mapping of
land surfaces. In contrast, satellites like LANDSAT-5,
LANDSAT-7 (currently off-line due to an irreparable
malfunction), TERRA, AQUA, and Earth Observing-1 (EO-1)
contain an array of on-board sensors that collect far more than
simple photographic imagery. These spacecraft are designed
to collect data for a broad scientific audience interested in a
variety of disciplines—climatology, oceanography,
geography, and forestry to name a few. Thus, the project
objectives must be clearly defined before the acquisition of
satellite-based data to ensure that the proper remote sensing
data product is chosen. Satellite imagery is available from
several different land-mapping satellites, including
LANDSAT, IKONOS, and SPOT. However, acquiring new
aerial photography and satellite imagery requires extensive
knowledge of image processing, and the data can be
expensive or cost-prohibitive for many projects.
Remote Sensing Datasets
The raw data from the satellite sensors are voluminous, and specialized knowledge
and software are needed to process the data into meaningful information. The digital
signals from the multiple sensors need to be combined and processed, for instance, to
be converted into meaningful land cover classifications. Furthermore, the digital
images need to be registered and projected into a coordinate system, such as a
Lambert projection. This makes the use of the raw data expensive and time-
consuming. Fortunately, you can access preprocessed “derived” products, such as
land cover datasets, that are available for free or at low cost. KThe USGS maintains
a Web site for “seamless” data products at http://seamless.usgs.gov. You can also
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-48 Draft
purchase data for less than $100 per item from USGS’s Earth Resources Observation
and Science (EROS) data center (http://edc.usgs.gov). In addition to the land use
datasets mentioned in section 5.7.1, several other datasets might be useful as part of
the watershed characterization process:
? Landsat data
? Elevation
? Greenness
? “Nighttime Lights”
? Coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines
Landsat Data
The Landsat Orthorectified data collection consists of a global set of high-quality,
relatively cloud-free orthorectified TM and ETM+ imagery from Landsats 4-5 and 7.
This dataset was selected and generated through NASA’s Commercial Remote
Sensing Program as part of a cooperative effort between NASA and the commercial
remote sensing community to provide users with access to quality-screened, high-
resolution satellite images with global coverage over the Earth’s land masses. The data
collection was compiled through a NASA contract with Earth Satellite Corporation
(Rockville, Maryland) in association with NASA's Scientific Data Purchase program.
The Landsat Orthorectified data collection consists of approximately 7,461 TM
(Landsat 4-5) images and approximately 8,500 ETM+ (Landsat 7) images, which
were selected to provide two full sets of global coverage over an approximate 10-year
interval (circa 1990 and circa 2000). All selected images were cloud-free or
contained minimal cloud cover. In addition, only images with a high-quality ranking
with respect to the possible presence of errors such as missing scans or saturated
bands were selected.
In addition to the NLCD datasets, the basic Landsat data can be obtained from the
USGS EROS Data Center. Unlike the NLCD, the Landsat spectral data need to be
processed before they can produce meaningful information such as land cover
characteristics. Advantages of using the Landsat data include a wider temporal range,
covering the 1990s to essentially current conditions. In addition, trained users can
produce customized classification schemes that might be more meaningful at the
local scale. For instance, BMP analyses might require cropping types to be broken
down into finer classes than the standard NLCD classes. Landsat data combined with
local ground-truthing can produce such custom land cover breakouts. The Landsat
Orthorectified datasets have been preprocessed so that the images are cloud-free,
joined images that are georeferenced.
Extra steps are required for using the Landsat data, including special software and
training in interpreting the multispectral images. KA good place for users to start is
the Purdue Multispec system, which is available for free at
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-49
http://dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu/~biehl/MultiSpec. This site also contains links to
several training and user guides.
Elevation
The USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), Khttp://ned.usgs.gov, has been
developed by merging the highest-resolution, best-quality elevation data available
across the United States into a seamless raster format. The NED provides a tool for
the precise delineation of small watershed units, which can then be overlain with
other vector or gridded GIS data. For instance, custom watershed polygons can be
delineated using vector data from the NHD.
In addition to the NED, the Elevation Derivatives for National Applications (EDNA)
datasets can be used for watershed analyses. EDNA is a multilayered database that
has been derived from a version of the National Elevation Dataset (NED) and
hydrologically conditioned for improved hydrologic flow representation.
The seamless EDNA database provides 30-meters-resolution raster and vector data
layers, including
? Aspect
? Contours
? Filled DEM
? Flow Accumulation
? Flow Direction
? Reach Catchment Seedpoints
? Reach Catchments
? Shaded Relief
? Sinks
? Slope
? Synthetic Streamlines
KEDNA data are available at http://edna.usgs.gov.
Greenness Maps
Greenness maps show the health and vigor of the vegetation. Generally, healthy
vegetation is considered an indicator of favorable climatic and environmental
conditions, whereas vegetation in poor condition is indicative of droughts and
diminished productivity. You can use USGS greenness maps to evaluate the
vegetation condition of a region. The availability of current and past greenness data
can be quite useful in, for instance, correlating the health of vegetation in a watershed
with ambient monitoring data.
The greenness maps are representations of the Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI). NDVI is computed daily from two spectral channels. The two
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-50 Draft
channels are reflected sunlight in the red (RED) and near-infrared (NIR) regions of
the electromagnetic spectrum. NDVI, which is the difference between near-infrared
and red reflectance divided by the sum of near-infrared and red reflectance, is
computed for each image pixel as follows:
NDVI = (NIR - RED) / (NIR + RED)
KGreenness maps reflecting current conditions can be obtained for free from the
USGS “seamless data” Web site (http://seamless.usgs.gov). In addition, historical
greenness data can be purchased from the EROS data center for $55 per scene. KGo
to http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/greenness. A scene is quite large, covering about half
the country.
“Nightime Lights”
One problem with the NLCD is difficulties in distinguishing vegetated areas such as
suburbs from, for instance, woodlands. The Nighttime Lights of North America map
layer is an image showing lights from cities, towns, industrial sites, gas flares, and
temporary events, such as fires. Most of the detected features are lights from cities
and towns. This image can be quite effective in delineating urban-rural boundaries.
KThe data can be accessed at http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/nitelti.html.
Remote Sensing Data for Coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines
Coastal area elevation data can be especially challenging because of the low relief.
Fortunately, the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) provides additional remote
sensing products for coastal and Great Lakes shoreline areas. These data include
more detailed elevation data using LIDAR plus specialized hyperspectral-derived
imaging datasets. KThe CSC LIDAR and other datasets can be accessed at
www.csc.noaa.gov/crs.
Table 5-3 provides a summary of sample costs for purchasing remote sensing
products.
Table 5-3. Sample Costs for Purchasing Remote Sensing Products
Remote Sensing Product Resolution Cost
NLCD 30 m Free
NED 30 m Free
Greenness 1 km Free; $55/scene for historical data
“Nighttime Lights” Free
EDNA 30 m Free
LIDAR Varies Free for selected coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines
Landsat 14.25 m to 28.5 m $30/scene to $60/scene
SPOT Varies; maximum resolution is 2.5 m $1,000 +
IKONOS Varies; maximum resolution is 1 m Varies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-51
? Type of data (e.g., monitored, geographic)
? Source of data (agency)
? Quality of data (QA/QC documentation, QAPP)
? Representativeness of data (number of samples)
? Spatial coverage (location of data collection)
? Temporal coverage (period of record)
? Data gaps
5.10 Create a Data Inventory
Once you’ve gathered current datasets and existing studies,
you should document the available relevant data in a data
inventory. A comprehensive data inventory provides an
ongoing list of available monitoring and watershed data. The
data inventory should be updated during the course of the
watershed planning effort so that a complete summary is
available to stakeholders.
It is often useful to organize the data inventory by data type,
allowing you to document the different types with information
that might not be relevant to all types. The most likely types of
data to be gathered are tabular data (e.g., monitoring data),
reports and anecdotal information, and GIS data. For each of
the datasets, you should document the important
characteristics to identify and summarize the data. It is often useful to create the lists
in a spreadsheet, such as Microsoft Excel, or a database, such as Microsoft Access.
Spreadsheets are easy to use, but you can’t search or query the data as you can in a
database. Creating the data inventory in a spreadsheet, or even in a word processing
program (e.g., Microsoft Word), is adequate. However, if you have a large amount of
data and would like to be able to query the data, for example, by keyword or content
type, you should use a database program for the inventory. The following paragraphs
identify the types of information that should be used to document and organize the
gathered data. These lists provide guidelines to help you create your data inventory,
but you can also tailor your data inventory according to your needs and the types of
data and information you gather. You should also document data not used in the
analysis and justify their exclusion.
For all the tabular datasets, you should create a list documenting the following
information:
? Type (e.g., water quality, flow)
? Source/agency
? Number of stations
? Start date
? End date
? Number of samples/observations
? Parameters
? Frequency
? Known quality assurance issues related to the data
? Special comments (e.g., part of special study, ground water vs. surface water)
Once you begin to analyze your monitoring/tabular data (chapter 7), you’ll identify
more details about each dataset, including the type and amount of data at each
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-52 Draft
station. For the data inventory, it’s appropriate to document the general type and
coverage of the datasets to provide an evolving list of the monitoring datasets
available, where they came from, and what they include.
For all the reports and anecdotal information gathered for the watershed, you should
include the following information in the data inventory:
? Document title
?Date
? Source/Author
? Description
? Web site (if available)
For the GIS data gathered, you should document the following information:
? Type (e.g., land use, soils, station locations)
? Source/agency
? Date (date or original data on which the coverage is based)
? Scale (e.g., 1:24,000)
? Projection (e.g., UTM, state plane)
? Description
Figure 5-5 provides an example of the fields in a data inventory.
For all the data types, it’s also useful to document the physical location of the files.
For example, if the dataset is electronic, provide the name of the file and the file path
or location on your computer or network. Another option is to provide a numbering
system for the filing cabinets or location of the hard copy reports you gather.
The data inventory will also be used to help identify any relevant gaps, especially
those that could hinder data analysis. The data inventory can be used to identify
obvious, broad gaps, such as a lack of water quality or flow data for the watershed.
The identification of data gaps is an iterative process, however,
and more specific data needs will be identified during the next
phase of the characterization process (chapter 6). For
example, a long period of record of water quality
monitoring data would typically
indicate sufficient water quality
data for analysis of the
waterbody. When you begin data
analysis, however, it might become
apparent that the data are not
adequate for evaluation of seasonal
trends or other relationships and
patterns.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Draft 5-53
Figure 5-5. Example fields in a data inventory.
The characterization process involves many steps. Once you’ve created the data
inventory, you’ll move on to the next phase in characterization: identify gaps and
collect new data. As you review the data, however, you might realize that you need to
gather additional existing information. You’ll have to go back, add additional
information to your data inventory, and then proceed forward.
Chapter 5
Gather Existing Data and
Create an Inventory
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
5-54 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-1
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Conducting a data review
< Identifying data gaps
< Determining acceptability of data
< Designing a sampling plan
< Collecting new data
6. Identify Data Gaps
and Collect Additional
Data if Needed
Read this chapter if...
? You want to determine if you have enough data to start your analysis
? You’re looking to review your data
? You want to determine if you need to collect new data
? You want to design a sampling plan for collecting additional data
? You need to collect new data
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-2 Draft
6.1 How Do I Know if I Have Enough Data to Start My Analysis?
One of the most difficult challenges in watershed planning is knowing when you
have enough data to identify relationships between impairments and their sources and
causes. There will always be more data to collect, but you need to keep the process
moving forward and determine whether you can reasonably characterize watershed
conditions with the data you have. Once you’ve gathered all the necessary data
related to the watershed goals identified by the stakeholders, you must examine the
data to determine whether you can link the impairments seen in the watershed to
the causes and sources of pollutants. Although you will develop a monitoring
component as part of your watershed implementation plan (chapter 12), it’s often
necessary to collect additional data during the planning phase to complete the
characterization step. The additional data will help you to develop management
measures linked to the sources and causes of pollutants.
6.2 Conduct a Data Review
The first step is to review the data you’ve gathered and ask the following questions:
1. Do I have the right types of data to identify causes and sources?
2. What is the quality of the data?
The answers to these questions will tell you whether you need to collect additional
data before proceeding with data analysis. For example, you might have gathered
existing monitoring information that indicates the recreational uses of a lake are
impaired due to excessive growth of lake weeds caused by high phosphorus levels.
The permit monitoring data might show that wastewater treatment plants are in
compliance with their permit limits, leading to speculation that nonpoint source
controls are needed. This kind of information, although adequate to define the broad
parameters of a watershed plan, will probably not be sufficient to guide the selection
and design of management measures (USEPA 1997a, 1997d) to be implemented to
control the as-yet-unidentified nonpoint sources. Therefore, further refinements in
problem definition, including more specific identification and characterization of
causes and sources, will be needed and can be obtained only by collecting new data.
You’ll review the data to identify any major gaps and then determine the quality of
the data. 7Be careful to first determine whether the data are essential to the
understanding of the problem. For example, although it might become obvious
during the inventory process that chemical data are lacking, this lack should be
considered a gap only if chemical data are essential to identifying the possible
sources of the impacts and impairments of concern. If the necessary datasets are
available, you should then compare the quality of the information with the data
quality indicators and performance characteristics. If the data quality is unknown or
unacceptable (that is, it doesn't meet the needs of the stakeholders for watershed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-3
assessment), you should not use the existing dataset. Using data of unknown quality
will degrade the defensibility of management decisions for the watershed and could,
in the long run, increase costs because of the increased likelihood of making incorrect
decisions.
Remember that the collection of existing and new data, identification of data gaps,
and analysis of data is an iterative process. Although obvious data gaps can be
identified during the data inventory process, more specific data needs are often
discovered only during data analysis and subsequent activities, such as source
assessment or modeling.
6.2.1 Identify Data Gaps
Several different types of data gaps might require that you collect additional
information. What constitutes a gap is often determined by the information needed to
adequately identify and characterize causes and sources of pollutants in the
watershed. There are three major types of data gaps—informational, temporal, and
spatial.
Informational Data Gaps
First, you need to determine whether your data include the types of information
needed. For example, if one of the goals stakeholders identified was to restore the
aquatic resources of a waterbody and you have only flow and water quality data, you
should conduct biological assessments to get baseline information on the biology of
the waterbody. Information gaps can also result if there are no data addressing the
indicators identified by stakeholders to assess current watershed conditions. For
example, stakeholders might want to use the amount of trash observed in a stream as
an indicator of stream health. If you don’t have any baseline data on trash, you
should collect data to assess the amount of trash currently in the stream (e.g., volume
of trash per mile). Without baseline data, you’ll have little against which to measure
progress. A common data gap is lack of flow data specifically corresponding to the
times and locations of water quality monitoring.
Temporal Data Gaps
Temporal data gaps occur when there are existing data for your area(s) of interest but
the data were not collected within, or specific to, the time frame required for your
analysis. Available data might have been collected long ago, when watershed
conditions were very different, reducing the data’s relevance to your current
situation. The data might not have been collected in the season or hydrologic
conditions of interest, such as during spring snowmelt or immediately after crop
harvest. In addition, there might be only a few data points available, and they might
not be indicative of stream conditions.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-4 Draft
Accuracy: The measure of how close a result is to
the true value
Precision: The level of agreement among multiple
measurements of the same characteristic
Representativeness: The degree to which the data
collected accurately represent the population of
interest.
Bias: The difference between an observed value and
the "true" value (or known concentration) of the
parameter being measured
Comparability: The similarity of data from different
sources included within individual or multiple
datasets; the similarity of analytical methods and
data from related projects across areas of concern.
Detection Limit: The lowest concentration of an
analyte that an analytical procedure can reliably
detect.
Spatial Data Gaps
Spatial data gaps occur when the existing data were collected within the time frames
of interest but not at the location or spatial distribution required to conduct your
analyses. These types of data gaps can occur at various geographic scales. At the
individual stream level, spatial data gaps can affect many types of analyses. Samples
collected where a tributary joins the main stem of a river might point to that tributary
subwatershed as a source of a pollutant load, but not
specifically enough to establish a source. Measuring the
effectiveness of restoration efforts can be difficult if data are not
available from locations that enable upstream and downstream
comparisons of the restoration activities.
Data collected at the watershed scale are often used to describe
interactions among landscape characteristics, stream physical
conditions (e.g., habitat quality, water chemistry), and
biological assemblages. The reliability of these analyses can be
affected by several types of spatial data gaps. Poor spatial
coverage across a study region can hinder descriptions of
simple relationships between environmental variables, and it
can eliminate the potential for describing multivariate
relationships among abiotic and biotic parameters. In addition,
underrepresentation of specific areas within a study region can
affect the reliability and robustness of analyses. For instance, in
a landscape that is composed of a wide range of land uses and
has large variations in topography, preferential sampling in
easily accessible areas can bias the dataset and subsequent
analyses.
6.2.2 Determine Acceptability of Data
In many cases, the existing data were collected to address
questions other than those being asked in the watershed
assessment. Also, sufficient data are rarely available from a single source,
particularly if the watershed is large. As a result, you might have to rely on data from
different sources, collected for different purposes, and collected using a variety of
sample collection and analysis procedures. Therefore, it’s critical that you review
existing data to determine their acceptability before you use them in your analyses.
Data acceptability is determined by comparing the type and quality of data with the
minimum criteria necessary to address the monitoring questions of interest. For each
data source, focus on two areas: data quality and measurement quality. Data quality
pertains to the purpose of the monitoring activity, the types of data collected, and the
methods and conditions under which the data were collected. These characteristics
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-5
determine the applicability of the data to your planning effort and the decisions that
can be made on the basis of the data. The main questions to ask are the following:
? What were the goals of the monitoring activity? Consider whether the goals of
the monitoring activity are consistent with and supportive of your goals. Daily
fecal coliform data collected at a swimming beach document compliance with
recreational water quality standards but might not help in linking violations of
those standards to sources in the watershed. Monthly phosphorus concentration
data collected to evaluate long-term trends might or might not help you to relate
phosphorus loads from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to storm
events in your watershed.
? What types of data were collected? Determine whether the types of data
collected are relevant to your needs. Data on stream macroinvertebrate
communities might be useful only if physical habitat data were also collected.
Water quality data without associated land use and management data might not
be useful in linking impairments to source areas.
? How were the data collected? Data collected at random sites to broadly
characterize water quality in the watershed might present a very different picture
from data deliberately collected from known hot spots or pristine reference sites.
Data from a routine, time-based sampling program typically underestimate
pollutant loads compared to data collected under a flow-proportional sampling
regime (collecting more samples at high flows, fewer at base flow).
Measurement quality describes data characteristics like accuracy, precision,
sensitivity, and detection limit. These are critical issues for any monitoring activity,
and you’ll consider them in detail when you design your own data collection program
(section 6.4). For pollutants like metals, toxic substances, or pesticides that are of
concern at very low concentrations, the detection, or reporting, limit of the analytical
method is one of the most readily distinguished measurement quality parameters in
all monitoring programs. Existing data will be of little value in evaluating
compliance with water quality standards if the method detection limits used were
higher than the standard.
There are several levels of measurement quality, and these should be determined for
any data source before interpreting the data or making decisions based on the data.
State and federal laboratories are generally tested and certified, meet EPA or other
applicable performance standards, employ documented analytical methods, and have
quality assurance data available to be examined. Analytical results reported from
consultants and private laboratories might or might not meet similar standards, so
documentation needs to be obtained. Data from citizens groups, lay monitoring
programs, school classes, and the like might not meet acceptable measurement
quality criteria; in most cases, they should be considered qualitatively if proper
documentation can’t be obtained.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-6 Draft
Ideally, information on the methods used to collect and analyze the samples, as well
as the associated measurement quality attributes, should be associated with the data
in a database so you can easily determine whether those data are acceptable for your
purposes. The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) associated with a data
collection effort is an excellent source of information if available (section 6.4.4). In
some cases, sufficient information might be readily available, but you’ll have to dig
deeply to obtain the best information. For example, even though most published
analytical methods have performance characteristics associated with them, the
organization conducting the analyses and reporting the data might not have met those
performance characteristics. Some laboratories, however, report performance
characteristics as part of the method, making it easier for data users to identify the
potential quality of data collected using those methods.KAn example illustrating the
use of a performance-based approach for bioassessment methods is presented in
chapter 4 of EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable
Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish
(www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/monitoring/rbp/ch04main.html).
For some types of parameters, method performance information might be limited,
particularly if the data obtained are dependent on the method used. For example,
parameters like chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil and grease, and toxicity are
defined by the method used. In such cases, you might need to rely on a particular
method rather than performance characteristics per se. (KSee Methods & Data
Comparability Board COD Pilot at
http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/about/publications/cod_pilot_v.4.4.3.htm or the
National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) at www.nemi.gov).
Other critical aspects of existing data quality are the age of the data and the format of
the database. Old data might be highly valuable in understanding the evolution of
water quality problems in your watershed and are likely to be impossible to recreate
or re-measure today. However, old data might have been generated by laboratory
methods different from those in use today and therefore might not be entirely
comparable to current data. Detection limits for organics, metals, and pesticides, for
example, are lower today than they were even a decade ago. It might be difficult to
adequately document measurement quality in old datasets. In addition, older data
might not be in an easily accessible electronic form. If the quality of such data is
known, documented, and acceptable, and the data are useful for your purpose, you’ll
need to consider the effort and expense necessary to convert them into an electronic
form.
6.3 Determine Whether New Data Collection Is Essential
At this point, you’ve collected existing data for your watershed, assessed its quality
and relevance, and identified gaps. Compare your available resources against your
tasks:
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-7
? Can we identify and quantify the water quality problems in the watershed?
? Can we quantify pollutant loads?
? Can we link the water quality impairments to specific sources and source areas in
the watershed?
? Do we know enough to select and target management measures to reduce
pollutant loads and address water quality impairments?
If you were able to answer “yes” to each of these questions, congratulations: You’re
ready to move on to the next phase and begin to analyze the data. If you answered
“no,” the next step is to come up with a plan to fill the gaps. Although this might
seem like a short-term task, it is critical to consider data collection requirements in
the context of your overall watershed plan. The kind of sampling plan you initiate
now could well become the foundation of the later effort to monitor the effectiveness
of your implementation program, and therefore it should be designed with care.
6.4 Design a Sampling Plan for Collecting New Data
If you’ve determined that additional data must be collected to complete your
watershed characterization, you should develop a sampling plan. The sampling plan
will focus on immediate data collection needs to help you finish the watershed
characterization. It’s very important to consider long-term monitoring needs in this
effort. Once data collection and analysis is complete and management strategies have
been identified, your implementation efforts should include a monitoring component
designed to track progress in meeting your water quality and other goals (chapter 12).
Many of the elements developed as part of this sampling plan, including data quality
objectives (DQOs), measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and a QAPP, can be
modified or expanded on for the monitoring component of the implementation plan.
KFor more information on designing a sampling plan, visit www.epa.gov/quality/
qs-docs/g5s-final.pdf.
Before collecting any environmental data, you should determine the type, quantity,
and quality of data needed to meet the project goals and objectives (e.g., specific
parameters to be measured) and to support a decision based on the results of data
collection and observation. Failure to do so risks expending too much effort on data
collection (more data collected than necessary), not expending enough effort on data
collection (not enough data collected), or expending the wrong effort (wrong data
collected). In addition, you should also consider your available resources. Water
quality monitoring and laboratory testing can be very expensive, so you need to
determine how best to allocate your resources.
A well-designed sampling plan will clearly follow the key steps in the monitoring
process, including study design, field sampling, laboratory analysis, and data
management. Sampling plans should be carefully designed so that the data produced
can be analyzed, interpreted, and ultimately used to meet all project goals. Designing
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-8 Draft
a sampling plan involves developing DQOs and MQOs, a study design, and a QAPP,
which includes logistical and training considerations, detailed specifications for
standard operating procedures (SOPs), and a data management plan. Because a
variety of references on designing and implementing water quality monitoring
programs are available, this section provides only a general overview and resources
available for further information. KFor more information visit EPA’s Quality
Management Tools Web site at www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html.
6.4.1 Select a Monitoring Design
The specific monitoring design you use depends on the kind of information you need.
Water quality sampling can serve many purposes:
? Defining water quality problems
? Defining critical areas
? Assessing compliance with standards or permits
? Determining fate and transport of pollutants
? Analyzing trends
? Measuring effectiveness of management practices
? Evaluating program effectiveness
? Making wasteload allocations
? Calibrating or validating models
? Conducting research
Depending on the gaps and needs you’ve identified, monitoring to define water
quality problems, assess compliance with standards, and define critical areas might
be most appropriate for your watershed. For example, synoptic or reconnaissance
surveys are intensive sampling efforts designed to create a general view of water
quality in the study area. A well-designed synoptic survey can yield data that help to
define and locate the most severe water quality problems in the watershed, and
possibly to support identification of specific major causes and sources of the water
quality problem. Data collected in synoptic surveys can also be used to help calibrate
and verify models that might be applied to the watershed (USEPA 1986).
There are a variety of approaches to conducting synoptic surveys. Less-expensive
grab sampling approaches are the norm for chemical studies. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols and other biological assessment techniques can be used to detect and assess
the severity of impairments to aquatic life, but they typically do not provide
information about the causes or sources of impairment (USEPA 1997a, 1997d).
Walking or canoeing the course of tributaries can also yield valuable, sometimes
surprising, information regarding causes and sources. It’s important to recognize that
synoptic surveys are short in duration, they can yield results that are inaccurate
because of such factors as unusual weather conditions, intermittent discharges that
are missed, or temporal degradation of physical or biological features of the
waterbody. Follow-up studies, including fate and transport studies, land use and land
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-9
Sampling network design refers to the array, or
network, of sampling sites selected for a monitoring
program and usually takes one of two forms:
? Probabilistic Design: Network that includes
sampling sites selected randomly to provide an
unbiased assessment of the condition of the
waterbody at a scale above the individual site or
stream; can address questions at multiple scales.
? Targeted Design: Network that includes sampling
sites selected on the basis of known existing
problems; knowledge of coming events in the
watershed or a surrounding area that will adversely
affect the waterbody such as development or
deforestation; or installation of management
measures or habitat restoration intended to improve
waterbody quality. The network provides for
assessments of individual sites or reaches.
treatment assessments, and targeted monitoring of specific sources, might be needed
to improve the assessment of causes and sources derived from synoptic surveys.
Compliance monitoring might focus on regular sampling at specific locations,
depending on the source, constituent, and relevant standard. Although typically
associated with point source discharges, compliance monitoring can be used
effectively to characterize and isolate pollutant loads from relatively defined sources
such as stormwater outfalls or concentrated runoff from a CAFO. Monitoring to
define critical areas can also be focused on specific locations, chosen on the basis of
land use patterns or in response to known or suspected problem areas.
Fate and transport monitoring is designed to help define the
relationships between the identified water quality problems and
the sources and causes of those problems. This type of
monitoring typically involves intensive sampling over a
relatively short period, with frequent sampling of all possible
pollutant pathways within a fairly small geographic area. The
limited geographic scope of fate and transport monitoring,
coupled with the required sampling intensity, makes it an
expensive venture if applied broadly within a watershed.
Because of its cost and relatively demanding protocols, fate
and transport monitoring is best used in a targeted manner to
address the highest-priority concerns in a watershed. For
example, the preferential pathways of dissolved pollutants
(e.g., nitrate nitrogen) that can be transported via surface or
subsurface flow to a receiving waterbody might need to be
determined and quantified to help identify the critical area,
design effective management measures, and estimate potential
pollutant load reductions.
Because nonpoint source contributions are often seasonal and dependent on weather
conditions, it’s important that all sampling efforts be of sufficient duration to
encompass a reasonably broad range of conditions. Highly site-specific
monitoring should be done on reasonably representative areas or activities in
the watershed so that results can be extrapolated across the entire area.
Station location, selection, and sampling methods will necessarily follow from
the study design. Ultimately, the sampling plan should control extraneous
sources of variability or error to the extent possible so that data are
appropriately representative and fulfill the study objectives.
In the study design phase, it’s important to determine how many sites are
necessary to meet your objectives. If existing data are available, statistical
analysis should be conducted to determine how many samples are required to
meet the DQOs, such as a 95 percent confidence level in estimated load or
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-10 Draft
Local watershed groups in Baltimore, Maryland have
long been troubled by the aging, leaky sewage pipes
that run through the beds of city streams. They were
interested in tracking the raw sewage entering the
stream system, especially after storm events, but
didn't have the resources for the required equipment.
The city's Department of Public Works was also
interested in the problem but had the time and
resources for only weekly screenings. They decided to
partner: the City agreed to provide the groups with
ammonia test kits (high levels of ammonia can
indicate the presence of sewage) in return for
screening of additional stations and a greater
sampling frequency. Now both parties have the data
they need to better understand the problem.
ability to detect a 30 percent change. If there are no applicable data for your
watershed, it might be possible to use data from an adjacent watershed or from within
the same ecoregion to characterize the spatial and temporal variability of water
quality. KFor more on statistical analyses, see EPA’s “Statistical Primer” on power
analysis at www.epa.gov/bioindicators/primer/power.html.
In addition to sampling size, you should also determine the type of sampling network
you’ll implement and the location of stations. The type of sampling network design
you choose depends on the types of questions you want to answer. Generally,
sampling designs fall into two major categories: (1) random or probabilistic and
(2) targeted. In a probabilistic design, sites are randomly chosen to represent a larger
sampling population for the purpose of trying to answer broad-scale (e.g., watershed-
wide) questions. This type of network is appropriate for synoptic surveys to
characterize water quality in a watershed. In a targeted design, sites are allocated to
specific locations of concern (e.g., below discharges, in areas of particular land use,
at stream junctions to isolate subwatersheds) with the purpose of trying to answer
site-specific questions. A stratified random design is a hybrid sampling approach that
deliberately chooses parts of the watershed (e.g., based on land use or geology) to be
sampled and then selects specific sampling points within those zones at random.
KFor more information on sampling designs, see EPA’s Guidance on Choosing a
Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection at
www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5s-final.pdf.
Your monitoring plan should focus not only on water quality but also on the land use
activities that contribute to nonpoint source loads. You might need to update the
general land use/land cover data for your watershed or gather information on specific
activities (e.g., agricultural nutrient management practices or
the use of erosion and sediment control plans in construction
projects). Monitor not just where implementation might occur
but in all areas in the watershed that might contribute to
nonpoint source loads. Part of this effort should focus on
collecting data on current source activities to link pollutant
loads to their sources. A second purpose is to generate baseline
data on existing land use and management activities. The result
of a good land use/land treatment monitoring program is a
database that will help you explain the current situation, as
well as potential changes in water quality down the road. The
ability to attribute water quality changes to your
implementation program or to other factors will be critical as
you evaluate the effectiveness of your plan.
Another important consideration during study design is how
other groups and partners can be enlisted to support your
monitoring effort. Think back to the issues of concern
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-11
Step 1. State the problem. Review existing information
to concisely describe the problem to be studied.
Step 2. Identify the decision. Determine what
questions the study will try to resolve and what actions
might result.
Step 3. Identify inputs to the decision. Identify
information and measures needed to resolve the
decision statement.
Step 4. Define the study boundaries. Specify temporal
and spatial parameters for data collection.
Step 5. Develop a decision rule. Define statistical
parameters, action levels, and logical basis for choosing
alternatives.
Step 6. Specify tolerable limits on decision errors.
Define limits based on the consequences of an incorrect
decision.
Step 7. Optimize the design. Generate alternative data
collection designs and choose the most
resource-effective design that meets all DQOs.
Example DQO: Determine, to a 95%
degree of statistical certainty, whether
there is a significant (50%) change in
average nitrate concentration over time at
given sampling locations.
expressed by the different groups and the potential partnerships you can build among
local governments, agencies, private organizations, and citizen groups. Collaborative
monitoring strategies can effectively address multiple data needs and resource
shortfalls.
Finally, it’s also important to consider how this initial monitoring might be used to
support a long-term monitoring program that addresses evaluation of watershed
condition and restoration. The sampling and analysis done during this phase can be
used to provide an evaluation of baseline or existing conditions. As long as it’s done
consistently, continued monitoring during implementation can be used to track
trends, evaluate the benefits of specific management measures, or assess compliance
with water quality standards (chapter 12).
6.4.2 Develop Data Quality Objectives
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify
the purpose of the monitoring study, define the most
appropriate type of data to collect, and determine the most
appropriate methods and conditions under which to collect
them. The DQO process, developed by EPA (GLNPO 1994,
USEPA 2000a), is a flexible planning framework that
articulates project goals and objectives, determines
appropriate types of data, and establishes tolerable levels of
uncertainty. The purpose of this process is to improve the
effectiveness, efficiency, and defensibility of decisions
made, based on the data collected. You’ll use the
information compiled in the DQO process to develop a
project-specific QAPP, which should be used to plan the
majority of water quality monitoring or assessment studies.
The DQO process addresses the uses of the data (most
important, the decisions to be made) and other factors that
will influence the types and amount of data to be collected
(e.g., the problem being addressed, existing information,
information needed before a decision can be made, and
available resources). The products of the DQO process are
criteria for data quality, measurement quality objectives, and
a data collection design that ensures that data will meet the criteria. KFor more
information on DQOs, see EPA’s Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process
at www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.
The purpose of the study, or the question that needs to be answered,
drives the input for all steps in the DQO process. Thus, sampling
design, how samples are collected and manipulated, and the types of
analyses chosen should all stem from the overall purpose of the study.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-12 Draft
6.4.3 Develop Measurement Quality Objectives and Performance
Characteristics
A key aspect of your sampling plan design is specifying MQOs—qualitative or
quantitative statements that describe the amount, type, and quality of data needed to
address the overall project objectives. These statements explicitly define the
acceptable precision, bias, and sensitivity required of all analyses in the study, and
therefore they should be consistent with the expected performance of a given analysis
or test method (ITFM 1995). You’ll use this information to help derive meaningful
threshold or decision rules, and the tolerable errors associated with those rules.
MQOs are used as an indicator of potential method problems. Data are not always
discarded simply because MQOs are not met. Instead, failure to met MQOs is a
signal to further investigate and to correct problems. Once the problem(s) are
rectified, the data can often still be used.
MQOs should be realistic and attainable. For example, establishing an MQO of less
than 10 percent relative percent difference (RPD) for biological data would most
likely result in failure simply because of the data’s natural variability. Often, the best
way to establish MQOs is to look at reliable existing data and choose MQOs that can
be met by existing data. They can be adjusted (made more or less stringent) if
protocol and program capabilities are improved.
Every sampling program should find a balance between obtaining information to
satisfy the stated DQOs or study goals in a cost-effective manner and having enough
confidence in the data to make appropriate decisions. Understanding the performance
characteristics of methods is critical to the process of developing attainable data
quality goals, improving data collection and processing, interpreting results, and
developing feasible management strategies. By calculating the performance
characteristics of a given method, it is possible to evaluate the robustness of the
method for reliably determining the condition of the aquatic ecosystem. A method
that is very labor-intensive and requires a great deal of specialized expertise and, in
turn, provides a substantial amount of information is not necessarily the most
appropriate method if it lacks precision and repeatability. A less-rigorous method
might be less sensitive in detecting perturbation or have more uncertainty in its
assessment. All of these attributes are especially important to minimizing error in
assessments. The number of samples collected and analyzed will reflect a
compromise between the desire of obtaining high-quality data that fully address the
overall project objectives (the MQOs) and the constraints imposed by analytical
costs, sampling effort, and study logistics. The ultimate question resides in a firm
balance between cost and resolution, i.e., Which is better—more information at a
higher cost or a limited amount of the right information at less cost?
Remember that you still may need to identify funding sources for the new sampling
effort. When determining the number of samples and constituents to be analyzed,
consider the resources available, cost and time constraints, and quality assurance and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-13
Quality control (QC) is a system of technical activities
that measure the attributes and performance of a
process, product, or service against defined standards
to verify that they meet the stated requirements.
Quality assurance (QA) is an integrated system of
management activities involving planning, quality
control, quality assessment, reporting, and quality
improvement to ensure that a product or service meets
defined standards of quality with a stated level of
confidence.
? The sampling (data collection) design
? The methods to be used to obtain the samples
? How the samples will be handled and tracked
? What control limits or other materials will be used to
check performance of the analyses (quality control
requirements)
? How instruments or other equipment used will be
calibrated
? How all data generated during the monitoring
program will be managed and how errors in data
entry and data reduction will be controlled (Keith
1991).
quality control requirements to ensure that sampling errors are sufficiently controlled
to reduce uncertainty and meet the tolerable decision error rates.
KFor a list of links to DQO-related items, go to http://dqo.pnl.gov/links.htm.
6.4.4 Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan
A QAPP is a project-specific document that specifies the data
quality and quantity requirements of the study, as well as all
procedures that will be used to collect, analyze, and report
those data. EPA-funded data collection programs must have
an EPA-approved QAPP before sample collection begins.
However, even programs that do not receive EPA funding
should consider developing a QAPP, especially if data might
be used by state, federal, or local resource managers. A QAPP
helps monitoring staff to follow correct and repeatable
procedures and helps data users to ensure that the collected
data meet their needs and that the necessary quality assurance
(QA) and quality control (QC) steps are built into the project
from the beginning.
A QAPP is normally prepared before sampling begins, and it usually contains the
sampling plan, data collection and management procedures, training and logistical
considerations, and their QA/QC components. The intent of the QAPP is to help
guide operation of the program. It specifies the roles and responsibilities of each
member of the monitoring program team from the project manager and QA/QC
officer to the staff responsible for field sampling and measurement. Project
management responsibilities include overall project
implementation, sample collection, data management, and
budget tracking. Quality management responsibilities might
include conducting checks of sample collection or data entry,
data validation, and system audits. The QAPP also describes
the tasks to be accomplished, how they will be carried out, the
DQOs for all kinds of data to be collected, any special training
or certification needed by participants in the monitoring
program, and the kinds of documents and records to be
prepared and how they will be maintained.
A key element of a QAPP is the SOPs. SOPs help to maintain
data comparability by providing a step-by-step description of
technical activities to ensure that project personnel
consistently perform sampling, analysis, and data handling
activities. The use of standard methods of analysis for water
quality parameters also permits comparability of data from
different monitoring programs.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-14 Draft
The QAPP also contains the types of assessments to be conducted to review
progress and performance (e.g., technical reviews, audits), as well as how
nonconformance detected during the monitoring program will be addressed.
Finally, procedures are described for reviewing and validating the data
generated, dealing with errors and uncertainties identified in the data, and
determining whether the type, quantity, and quality of the data will meet the
needs of the decisionmakers. QAPPs should be continually refined to make
them consistent with changes in field and laboratory procedures. Each
refinement should be documented and dated to trace modifications to the
original plan.
KFor assistance in developing an effective QAPP, visit EPA’s Web site to read
Quality Management Tools—QA Project Plans at www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html,
The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans at
www.epa.gov/volunteer/qapp/vol_qapp.pdf, or Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans for Modeling at www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5m-final.pdf.
An excerpt from the sampling plan for Spa Creek, Maryland, is provided as figure
6-1.
6.4.5 Develop a Plan for Data Management
Any monitoring program should include a plan for data management. You should
determine how data will be stored, checked, and prepared for analysis. Often, these
issues are addressed in the QAPP. This type of plan usually dictates that data be
entered into databases that can help keep track of information collected at each site
and can be used to readily implement analyses.
There are many types of platforms to house databases. The simplest databases are
spreadsheets, which might be adequate for smaller projects. For more complex
watershed measurements involving many sites or variables, a relational database is
usually preferable. The biological/habitat database EDAS (Ecological Data
Application System; Tetra Tech 2000) runs on a Microsoft Access platform. Very
large databases often use ORACLE as a platform or a similar type of relational
database that is more readily Web-accessible. In a relational database, data, metadata,
and other ancillary information reside in a series of relational tables including station
information, sample information, analyses, methods used, and QC information. In
this type of database, data can be organized in many different ways depending on
how the data are to be used (i.e., the types of analyses to be performed). It is useful to
consider any requirements or options for uploading your data to other databases such
as EPA’s STORET or a state agency database as part of your overall data
management process.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-15
Located in Annapolis, Maryland, Spa Creek begins with at a large stormwater pipe and includes a few major tributaries
before it opens into the Chesapeake Bay. Spa Creek provides recreational opportunities for boating, fishing, and hiking; it
also provides habitat for Chesapeake Bay wildlife. The watershed has been developed with urban land uses, including
residential, commercial, open space, and institutional uses (e.g., schools). Impairments associated with bacteria, pH, and
dissolved oxygen exist in Spa Creek. A field observation revealed little evidence of a healthy aquatic life community and
stream site habitat. However, there are insufficient data to understand the magnitude of the impairments and the sources
and causes of impairment. As a result, a preliminary sampling plan was developed to better understand the quality of Spa
Creek, its tributaries, and stormwater from a few targeted developed areas. The proposed monitoring will help stakeholders
to develop a watershed management plan with specific water quality goals and actions.
The preliminary sampling plan recommends a minimum of two dry weather sampling events and two wet weather sampling
events. Dry weather samples help to understand the instream water quality under minimal dilution conditions (when estuarine
impacts are expected to be dominant), while wet weather samples help to understand the quality of stormwater from the
surrounding watershed and its impact on Spa Creek. To understand the spatial distribution of impairment and to isolate hot
spots, five instream locations and seven storm drain outlets were identified for sampling. Proposed locations and sampling
frequency were recommended in the interest of developing a watershed plan with specific actions and restoration.
Parameters proposed for monitoring include flow, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, fecal coliform
bacteria, total suspended solids, carbonaceous oxygen demand, total organic carbon, ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, copper, zinc, lead, hardness, and oil and grease. Ecological monitoring
was proposed in the sampling plan to assess the ecological condition of Spa Creek. As part of the assessment, biological,
physical habitat, and chemistry samples would be collected from three to five streams sites in the watershed. For example,
benthic invertebrates and fish would be collected, and in situ toxicity testing would be performed using a caged oyster study.
The proposed plan emphasizes the importance of continuing to monitor Spa Creek to understand long-term water quality
trends and to measure progress once the plan is implemented. Potential options to consider for long-term monitoring (every
3 years) include flow, metals, benthics/fish, dissolved oxygen, oyster baskets, and E. coli. Anticipated costs for monitoring
are included in the table below.
Alternative Monitoring
Description
Basic
Chemistry
and Biology
Benthic/Fish
and Oyster
Basket (3–5
locations)
Priority
Pollutant
Scan
(4 locations)
Sampling in
Tidal Area
(4 locations)
Total
Estimated
Cost
Phase I (5 instream dry, 5
instream wet, and 3 outlet
wet)
$20,000 $15,000 $14,500 $6,000
(1 dry, 1 wet)
$55,500
Complete screening level (2
dry and 2 wet at all locations)
$52,000 $15,000 $14,500 $11,000 $92,500
Only model parameter data
collection (2 dry and 2 wet at
8 locations)
$33,000 $15,000 $48,000
Long-term trend monitoring,
every 3 years (1 dry and 1
wet at 3–5 locations)
$12,000 $15,000 $27,000
Figure 6-1. Excerpt from Spa Creek Proposed Sampling Plan.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-16 Draft
Streambank erosion in remote areas
Straight pipes with visible discharges
Livestock (near or with access to streams)
Wildlife (e.g., waterfowl populations on lakes
and open streams)
Small-scale land-disturbing activities
(e.g., construction, tree-cutting)
As mentioned earlier with respect to existing data, documentation of metadata
(information about the data) is critical to ensure the proper understanding and use of
the data now and in the future. Many organizations have recognized that adequately
characterized data have more value to the program that collected the data, as well as
to other organizations and programs, than inadequately characterized data. The
Methods and Data Comparability Board and the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council have developed a list of metadata categories that should be included in
database design and should be reflected in all field sampling forms and other field
and laboratory documentation generated as part of the monitoring (NWQMC 2005).
These elements address the who, what, when, where, why, and how of collecting
data.
KFor more information on metadata and data elements, see
http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods or www.epa.gov/edr.
6.5 Collect New Data
Sampling plans often include a mixture of different types of data, including
biological (e.g., benthic, fish, algae), physical (e.g., visual habitat assessment,
geomorphic assessment), chemical (e.g., conductivity, nitrate, dissolved oxygen), and
hydrologic measurements. Numerous methods are available for collecting these data,
but the achieved data quantity and quality differ. Therefore, data collection
techniques should be carefully selected to ensure that the data produced can be used
to meet project goals completely.
6.5.1 Watershed Overview/Visual Assessment
A watershed survey, or “visual assessment,” is one of the most
rewarding and least costly assessment methods. By walking, driving,
or boating the watershed, you can observe water and land conditions,
uses, and changes over time that might otherwise be unidentifiable.
These surveys help you identify and verify pollutants, sources, and
causes, such as streambank erosion delivering sediments into the
stream and illegal straight pipes discharging various pollutants.
(Note, however, that additional monitoring of chemical, physical,
and biological conditions is required to determine whether the
stressors observed are actually affecting the water quality.)
Watershed surveys can provide a very accurate picture of what is
occurring in the watershed and also can be used to familiarize local
stakeholders, decisionmakers, citizens, and agency personnel with
activities occurring in their watershed. KFor general information, read section 3.2,
The Visual Assessment, in EPA’s Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual
(EPA 841-B-97-003), www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms32.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-17
Included is a Watershed Survey Visual Assessment form,
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/ds3.pdf.
Several agencies and organizations have developed visual assessment protocols that
you can adapt to your own situation. For example, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed a Visual Stream Assessment Protocol
(VSAP), which is an easy-to-use assessment tool that evaluates the condition of
stream ecosystems. It was designed as an introductory, screening-level assessment
method for people unfamiliar with stream assessments. The VSAP measures a
maximum of 15 elements and is based on visual inspection of the physical and
biological characteristics of instream and riparian environments. KGo to
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf to download a copy of the
tool.
Some watershed survey tools are designed to examine specific issues in the
watershed. For example, the Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT),
developed for Montgomery County, Maryland, is a simple, rapid,
reconnaissance-level assessment of stream quality and potential pollutant sources. In
this technique, visual evaluations are conducted in various categories, including
channel stability, physical in-stream habitat, riparian habitat conditions, and
biological indicators, to gauge stream conditions. KAdditional information about
RSAT is available at
www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/rsat/smrc%20rsat.pdf.
Watershed planners often incorporate photographs into their surveys.
Photographic technology is available to anyone, does not require intensive
training, and is relatively inexpensive considering its benefits. Photos serve
as a visual reference for the site and provide a good “before” image to
compare with photos taken after restoration, remediation, or other
improvements or changes. In addition to illustrating problems that need to
be corrected, photos provide a watershed portrait for those who might not
have the opportunity to visit monitoring sites. They help generate interest in
the watershed, and they can be used in reports, presentations, grant
proposals, and on Web sites and uploaded to GIS programs. In addition to
taking your own photographs, you can also obtain aerial photographs from
USGS (Earth Science Information Center), USDA (Consolidated Farm
Service Agencies, Aerial Photography Field Office), and other agencies.
KCalifornia's State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water Team
produced Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and
Assessment, which contains a section on SOPs for stream and shoreline
photo documentation: www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/cwtguidance.html#42.
More detailed visual assessment tools to determine aquatic habitat conditions or
stream stability are provided below.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-18 Draft
6.5.2 Physical Characterization
The physical conditions of a site can provide critical information about factors
affecting overall stream integrity, such as agricultural activities and urban
development. For example, runoff from cropland, pastures, and feedlots can carry
large amounts of sediment into streams, clogging existing habitat and changing
geomorphological characteristics. An understanding of stream physical conditions
can facilitate stressor identification and allow for the design and implementation of
more effective restoration and protection strategies. Physical characterization should
extend beyond the streambanks or shore and include a look at conditions in riparian
areas.
6.5.3 Geomorphic Assessment
Geomorphic assessments range from cursory evaluations that provide general
descriptions of channel shape and pattern to rigorous assessments designed to
describe the geomorphic features in detail and assess stream channel alterations over
time. They can help you answer various questions about the streams and rivers in
your watershed, such as these used by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation:
? What are the physical processes and features that characterize a stream and its
watershed?
? How have human activities affected these processes and features over time?
? Which of these physical processes and features are more sensitive to change, and
how are they likely to change in the future?
? Which of these processes and features are important for creating and sustaining
quality habitat for fish and other aquatic biota?
? Which of these processes and features present high erosion and flood hazard
risks?
Geomorphology protocols commonly describe such stream and river characteristics
as channel dimensions, reach slope, channel enlargement and stability, and bank-full
and related measurements. These measures will help you understand current stream
conditions and can be evaluated over time to describe stream degradation or
improvements. These measures can also be used to predict future stream conditions,
which can help you choose appropriate restoration or protection strategies.
KFor examples of standard geomorphic protocols, see EPA’s Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), www.epa.gov/emap, or Vermont’s
Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols,
www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htm.
The Rosgen geomorphic assessment approach (Rosgen 1996) groups streams into
different geomorphic classes on the basis of a set of criteria. The criteria include
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-19
entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and channel
materials. This method is commonly used throughout the country. The Rosgen stream
types can be useful for identifying streams at different levels of impairment,
determining the types of hydrologic and physical factors affecting stream
morphologic conditions, and choosing the best management measures to implement
if necessary. KFor a summary of the Rosgen Stream Classification System, go to
www.epa.gov/watertrain/stream_class/index.htm.
One of the common goals of a Rosgen assessment and other types of geomorphic
assessments is to compare site-specific data from a given stream reach to data from
other reaches of similar character to help classify a stream reach and determine its
level of stability. A good way to do this is to use a reference channel reach near the
watershed or stream reach being evaluated. When looking for a representative reach
in your watershed, it is possible that one has already been surveyed, but it is often
unlikely that you will be able to find the data. Therefore, it might be necessary to
survey a local reference reach by determining its longitudinal profile, representative
cross sections, bed materials, and meander pattern. It might be difficult to find a
quality channel that exists locally. However, local data from a similar watershed is
valuable to use for comparison purposes. KFor more information on stream channel
reference sites, go to www.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/PDFs/RM245E.PDF.
Another common geomorphic assessment method is the Modified Wolman Pebble
Count, which characterizes the texture (particle size) in the stream or riverbeds of
flowing surface waters. It can be used in conjunction with Rosgen-type physical
assessments or as a stand-alone method. The composition of the streambed can tell
you a lot about the characteristics of the stream, including the effects of flooding,
sedimentation, and other physical impacts on a stream. KFor detailed descriptions of
the Modified Wolman Pebble Count, see Harrelson et al. (1994) and Rosgen (1996)
or check out the Virginia Save Our Streams pebble count factsheet and worksheets at
www.sosva.com/pebblecountandworksheets.PDF or the Sampling Surface and
Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in Wadable Gravel- and Cobble-Bed Streams
for Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics, and Streambed Monitoring
document located on the USDA Forest Service’s Stream Team Web site at
www.stream.fs.fed.us/index.html.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio State University developed a
suite of spreadsheet tools (the STREAM Modules) that is commonly used across the
country for stream assessments, including the Rosgen classification described earlier
in this section. This ongoing project currently provides the following modules:
(1) Reference Reach Spreadsheet for reducing channel survey data and calculating
basic bankfull hydraulic characteristics; (2) Regime Equations for determining the
dimensions of typical channel form; (3) Meander Pattern, which dimensions a simple
arc and line best fit of the sine-generated curve; (4) Cross-section and Profile, which
can be used to illustrate the difference between existing and proposed channel form;
(5) Sediment Equations, which includes expanded and condensed forms of critical
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-20 Draft
dimensionless shear, boundary roughness and common bed load equations (can be
used with the Wolman Pebble Counts); and (6) Contrasting Channels, which
computes hydraulic and bed load characteristics in a side-by-side comparison of two
channels of different user-defined forms. The spreadsheet is available at
www.ohiodnr.com/soilandwater/streammorphology.htm.
6.5.4 Hydrological Assessments
Nonpoint source pollution is driven by climate and watershed hydrology. Hydrologic
assessments deal specifically with measuring stream flow, which can provide
important information about streams, lakes, and even watersheds. Stream flow data
are essential to estimate nonpoint source loads. Good hydrologic data are also useful
in assessing relationships between precipitation and stream flow, potentially an
important indicator of watershed development. Some management measures in both
agricultural and urban settings directly affect the stream flow regime, so hydrologic
data from before and after implementation of BMPs can be an important element of
plan evaluation.
Weather data are relatively easy to obtain from existing National Weather Service
stations, or the cooperative network. KFor information on weather data available for
your watershed, see the National Climatic Data Center Web site at
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html or the National Water and Climate Center at
www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov.
Streamflow data are more difficult to obtain. USGS conducts most of the routine
streamflow monitoring in the United States, usually in cooperation with state
agencies. KFor information on available USGS streamflow data for your region, see
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis, which contains current-condition, real-time data
transmitted from selected surface water, ground water, and water quality monitoring
sites. You can also visit http://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nffpubs.html to find
information on regional regression equations that were developed for states and
regions and can be used to predict peak flows. If you’re lucky enough to have a
USGS stream gauging station in your watershed, both current and historical data will
be available to help estimate pollutant loads. Otherwise, you might need to look for
USGS stations in adjacent, similar watersheds (similar in terms of size, topography,
stream type, and so forth) to provide estimates of hydrologic behavior. For example,
you might need to apply long-term average annual runoff estimates to your situation.
If you need detailed streamflow monitoring, it is possible (but expensive) to install a
new gauging station. If you go this route, consider installing a full-flow monitoring
station at your watershed outlet and supplementing it with periodic manual
measurements at the upstream locations to derive a relationship between the outlet
and upstream locations. Such a relationship could be useful in estimating flow at
ungauged sites.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-21
KWashington State’s Department of Ecology put together A Citizen's Guide to
Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams, which has an entire chapter
devoted to hydrology. KGo to
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/chapter5.html.
6.5.5 Water Quality Assessment
Water quality can be assessed using a variety of different methods for a multitude of
analytes. The types of analytes measured should reflect the DQOs specified, as well
as previously collected data for the watershed if available. For water quality
assessments in support of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), the specific
pollutants identified in the TMDLs will be analyzed. For nonpoint source
assessments, a variety of parameters might be analyzed, depending on the specific
questions being asked and the land uses in the watershed. It is often appropriate to
analyze pesticides, nutrients, and biochemical oxygen demand in agricultural areas,
for example, whereas oil and grease, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
metals, and dissolved solids are more useful in urban areas. The form of the analyte
being measured might need to be carefully considered; for example, if dissolved
metals concentrations are needed, filtering the sample before preservation is required.
For many types of pollutants, you’ll want to analyze some specific parameters
simultaneously to better interpret the potential effects of those pollutants (Table 6-1).
For example, the bioavailability and toxicity of many metals are regulated by the
suspended solids, alkalinity, hardness, pH, or dissolved organic carbon present in the
water. If metals are of concern, it is recommended that many of these other analytes
be measured as well. Similarly, if ammonia is a concern, simultaneous pH and
temperature measurements are needed to help interpret its potential effects.
Table 6-1. Sources and Associated Pollutants
Source Common Associated Chemical Pollutants
Cropland Turbidity, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature, total suspended solids
Forestry harvest Turbidity, temperature, total suspended solids
Grazing land Fecal bacteria, turbidity, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature
Industrial discharge Temperature, conductivity, total solids, toxic substances, pH
Mining pH, alkalinity, total dissolved solids, metals
Septic systems Fecal bacteria (i.e., Escherichia coli, enterococci), nitrates, phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen/biochemical oxygen demand, conductivity, temperature
Sewage treatment
plants
Dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, conductivity,
phosphorus, nitrates, fecal bacteria, temperature, total solids, pH
Construction Turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, and toxic substances
Urban runoff Turbidity, total suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature, conductivity,
dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand
Source: USEPA 1997a, 1997d.
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-22 Draft
Mississippi DEQ developed a visually based approach
(MDEQ 2001) that is similar to the EPA RBPs but is
more regimented with respect to habitat quality
categories; that is, the criteria used for defining optimal,
suboptimal, fair, and poor habitat are divided in more
detail. This strategy was intended make the protocol
more objective and less reliant on field training.
Maryland Biological Stream Survey methods for
assessing habitat quality are also based on the RBPs,
but the parameters are slightly different and are rated on
various scales depending on the parameter. The
individual habitat parameters in this protocol are
assembled into a final physical habitat index that assigns
different weights to the various parameters. KFor a
complete description of these methods, go to
www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/2001mbss_man.pdf.
K Additional descriptions of state protocols for assessing
habitat quality can be found in EPA’s Summary of
Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for
States, Tribes, Territories, Interstate Commissions:
Streams and Wadeable Rivers at
www.epa.gov/bioindicators.
The Stream Mitigation Compendium can be used to help
select, adapt, or devise stream assessment methods
appropriate for impact assessment and mitigation of
fluvial resources in the CWA section 404 Program:
www.mitigationactionplan.gov/Physical%20Stream%20A
ssessment%20Sept%2004%20Final.pdf.
In most nonpoint source-dominated watersheds, the concentration of a constituent in
the stream is positively related to flow; most nonpoint source activity occurs at high
flows. Therefore, an appropriate sampling schedule should be followed to avoid bias
in measuring concentrations of pollutants. Data from time-based sampling (e.g.,
weekly, monthly by the calendar) are nearly always biased to low-flow conditions
because high-flow events occur relatively infrequently. Flow-proportional sampling
produces less biased information on true concentration and load.
Sampling methods can range from intensive efforts that require analytical laboratory
analyses to in situ (field) measurements using a multiparameter monitoring and
data-logging system. KFor more information and detailed descriptions of water
quality sampling methods, see the USGS’s National Field Manual for the Collection
of Water-Quality Data at
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual.
Consider specialized monitoring requirements for your
watershed. For example, if sediment pollutants are being
analyzed, methods for sediment sampling and processing
might be critical (KRefer to EPA’s sediment manual at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collection.html, USGS
sediment sampling techniques at
http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/sediment.html, and the
section on sediment monitoring in Edward’s and Glysson’s
field manual at
http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/Edwards-TWRI.pdf
for good reviews on techniques). Some sediment quality
parameters such as pH; percent moisture; total organic
carbon; and, in the case of metals, simultaneously extracted
metals (SEM) and acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) should be
analyzed to help interpret pollutant data.
6.5.6 Assessment of Habitat Quality
When conducting biological assessments, you should assess
physical habitat quality to supplement the biological data.
Habitat quality characteristics such as stream substrate and
canopy cover influence the biotic communities that can
inhabit the site, regardless of water quality conditions.
Alterations in stream and watershed hydrology can
potentially lead to accelerated stream channel erosion,
which, in turn, leads to habitat degradation and reduces the
capacity of the stream to support a “healthy” biota. Though
it does not directly identify specific cause-effect
relationships, combining the results of biological and
physical habitat assessments can provide insight into the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Draft 6-23
Biological data can be used to track water quality
trends, list and delist waters under section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act, and assess the effectiveness
of TMDLs.
Biological organisms provide a measure of the
combined impact of stressors because they’re
exposed to the effects of almost all the different
stressors in a waterbody.
Biological organisms integrate stress over time and
are thus good measures of fluctuating conditions.
Routine bioassessments can be relatively
inexpensive, especially compared to the cost of
monitoring individual toxic pollutants.
The public views the status of aquatic life as a
measure of a pollution-free environment.
types of stressors and stressor sources affecting watersheds of interest, allowing for
more detailed, diagnostic investigations based on the severity of observed biological
responses.
As a necessary component of its Rapid Bioassessment Protocols, EPA developed a
very useful and simple method for conducting visual assessments of physical habitat.
In this method, 10 parameters describing physical habitat, stream morphology,
riparian zones, and streambanks are visually assessed and ranked as optimal,
suboptimal, marginal, or poor. Each parameter is scored on a 20-point scale (20 =
optimal; 0 = poor), and then the scores are summed for a total habitat score.
Many states have developed visual habitat assessments that are based on EPA’s RBPs
but are designed to account for regional stream habitat characteristics. Check with
your state Department of Natural Resources or a similar state agency to determine
whether it has its own visually based habitat assessment approaches. For example,
Ohio EPA developed a visual habitat assessment approach, the Qualitative Habitat
Evaluation Index, or QHEI (Ohio EPA 1989). The QHEI considers the ability of
various habitat characteristics to support viable, diverse aquatic faunas. It assesses the
type and quality of substrate, amount of instream cover, channel morphology, extent
of riparian canopy, pool and riffle development and quality, and stream gradient. The
individual habitat metric scores are then combined into an aggregate habitat score. It
should be noted, however, that the QHEI was specifically designed to meet warm-
water habitat requirements for aquatic organisms in Ohio and might not be suitable
for all stream types or all ecoregions. KFor more information visit
www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.html.
Many of these habitat assessment protocols contain components
that qualitatively measure particular stream characteristics and
provide useful descriptions of overall site conditions. These
physical characteristics can also be documented during a
watershed survey, as discussed in section 6.5.1. Such parameters
include water and sediment odors, water color and clarity,
presence of trash or algae, aesthetic quality of the site,
conditions of riparian areas, adjacent land use activities, and
other on-site observations that could indicate stream
degradation.
6.5.7 Biological Assessment
Biological assessments, or bioassessments, are highly effective
for understanding overall water quality and watershed health.
They consist of surveys and other direct measurements of
aquatic life, including macroinvertebrates, fish, and aquatic
vegetation. Changes in the resident biota are ultimately caused
by changes in their surrounding environment. Therefore, by
Chapter 6
Identify Data Gaps and Collect
Additional Data if Needed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
6-24 Draft
determining how well a waterbody supports aquatic life, bioassessments directly
assess the condition of ecosystem health; that is, when a waterbody’s biology is
healthy, the chemical and physical components are also typically in good condition.
To determine impairment in a waterbody of concern, the structure and function of the
biological assemblages are compared with those from a known reference condition
that approximates the undisturbed or natural condition. The greater the difference
between conditions measured, the greater the extent of impairment.
In addition to benefits (see box), biological assessments have some shortcomings.
Natural variability in biological communities is often extremely high, making it
difficult to detect small or gradual changes in response to changes in pollutant loads.
Conclusions drawn from a biological assessment might be somewhat ambiguous: Is a
site poor in macroinvertebrate fauna because of a large sedimentation event, a
transient toxic release, or continuously low dissolved oxygen? Finally, biomonitoring
typically requires a significant investment in time and specialized skills. It is fairly
easy to collect a water sample, submit it to lab, and wait for the results; collecting,
identifying, and counting benthic invertebrates is a more demanding task.
Numerous protocols are available for conducting biological assessments. One of the
most accepted and commonly used methods nationwide is EPA’s Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour
et al. 1999). This guidance document outlines the methods and steps required for
conducting rapid bioassessments of three different assemblages—periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish. It also contains useful information on conducting
physical habitat assessments, performing data analysis, and integrating data and
reporting. KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/download.html to download
a copy of the document. The Issak Walton League also has materials available to help
with bioassessment, including a bug card, video, and score sheet for rapid
determination of relative water quality. It also conducts training workshops. KGo to
www.iwla.org/sos/workshops.html for more information.
Some states, such as Connecticut, have developed and tested streamlined
bioassessment protocols for volunteer monitors. KGo to
http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm for more information.
Once you’ve collected the additional data needed to adequately characterize your
watershed, you’ll add the results to your data inventory. You can now move on to the
next step. In chapter 7, you’ll analyze the data to determine sources and causes of
water quality impairments.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-1
7. Analyze Data to
Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant
Sources
Read this chapter if...
? You want to satisfy element a of the section 319 guidelines—identification of
causes and sources that need to be controlled
? You want to characterize the general environmental conditions in your watershed
? You’re not sure what types of data analyses you should use
? You want to conduct a visual assessment as part of your data analysis
? You want to link your analysis results with the causes and sources of pollutants
in the watershed
? If you want to identify critical areas in the watershed that will need management
measures to achieve watershed goals
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sourcess
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Identifying locations of impairments
and problems
< Determining timing of impairments
and problems
< Identifying potential sources
< Determining areas for quantifying
source loads
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-2 Draft
7.1 Analyze Data to Identify Pollutant Sources
Chapter 5 discussed the first step of the watershed characterization
process—identifying and gathering available data and information to assess the
watershed and create a data inventory. Chapter 6 discussed the next step—conducting
a preliminary data review, identifying any data gaps, and then collecting additional
data if needed. All of this information will now be used in the next step—data
analysis to characterize the watershed. This analysis supports the identification of
watershed pollutant sources and causes of impairment, which is essential to defining
watershed management needs. This chapter highlights the types of data analyses
commonly used to characterize water quality and waterbody conditions and to
identify watershed sources contributing to impairments and problems.
This phase of the watershed planning process should result in the first of the nine
elements that EPA requires in a section 319-funded watershed plan. Element a is
“Identification of causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be
controlled to achieve load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed
plan.”
Remember that data gathering and analysis is an ongoing, iterative process. Data
examined in this phase will continue to be used in subsequent activities such as
identifying and evaluating management measures and tracking implementation
efforts.
7.1.1 Focus Your Analysis Efforts
7 Although many techniques are described in this chapter, you will likely choose
only a selected combination of the techniques in your watershed. The process of
conducting data analyses to characterize your watershed and its pollutant sources
begins with broad assessments such as evaluating the averages, minimums, and
maximums of measured parameters at all watershed stations. The analyses are then
systematically narrowed, with each step building on the results of the previous
analysis. Through careful analysis you’ll obtain a better understanding of the major
pollutant sources, the behavior of the sources, and their impacts on the waterbodies.
An understanding of the watershed conditions and sources is also the basis for
determining the appropriate method for quantifying the pollutant loads.
In addition, the kinds of data analyses you perform will be determined by the amount
of available data. For example, if you have data for several stations in a watershed,
you’ll be able to evaluate geographic variations in water quality throughout the
watershed—an analysis you could not do with data for only one station.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-3
Table 7-1 provides examples of data analysis activities and the tools used in various
steps of the watershed planning process. It gives you an idea of how the parameter or
analytical techniques might vary depending on where you are in the process and your
reasons for analysis.
Table 7-1. Examples of the Types of Data-related Activities Conducted Throughout the Watershed Planning
Process
Watershed
Planning Step
Type of Data Goal of Data Analysis Example Activity
Characterize
Watershed
? Previously conducted
studies (e.g., TMDLs, 305(b)
report, USGS water quality
reports, university studies)
Generally characterize the
watershed and identify the most
important problems for further
analysis.
? Review available reports and
assessments.
? Watershed data (e.g., land
use, soils)
? Chemical instream data
? Biological instream data
? Physical data
Perform targeted analysis of
available data to characterize the
waterbody and watershed.
Examples:
? Identify sources
? Characterize the impairment
? Evaluate spatial trends
? Evaluate temporal trends
? Identify data gaps
? Compare data to water quality
standards to identify timing
and magnitude of impairment.
? Review monthly statistics to
identify seasonal variations.
? Use GIS at watershed stations
to identify spatial variations in
water quality and potential
sources of pollutants.
Set Goals and
Identify Solutions
Watershed data (e.g., land use,
soils, population)
? Chemical instream data
? Biological instream data
? Physical data
? Meteorological data
Appropriately represent watershed
and waterbody in the model for
the most accurate simulation of
watershed loads.
? Use data to establish a non-
modeling analysis (e.g., use
observed data to establish a
spreadsheet mass balance
calculation).
? Use data for model setup
(e.g., identify appropriate
model parameter values,
establish watershed
characteristics such as land
use and soils).
? Compare observed data to
model output for calibration
and validation.
Implement and
Evaluate
Instream monitoring data for
the parameters of concern
(e.g., nutrients)
Evaluate the effectiveness of
management measures and track
the progress of water quality
improvement.
? Compare data collected
upstream and downstream of
management practices.
? Compare data collected before
and after implementation of
management practices to track
water quality improvement.
Note: TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; GIS = geographic information system.
7.1.2 Use a Combination of Analysis Types
Because data analysis techniques are used to support a variety of goals and involve
multiple types of data, a combination of techniques is usually used. Less-detailed
analyses, such as evaluating summary statistics, might be conducted for certain
pollutants, whereas more detailed analyses might be conducted for others, depending
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-4 Draft
on the goals of the plan and the pollutants of
concern. Data analysis is typically an iterative
process that is adapted as results are interpreted and
additional information is gathered.
7.1.3 Consider Geographic Variations
The kinds of analyses and the level of detail used in
your data analysis will vary within the watershed
depending on the pollutants of concern. For
example, if bacteria loading from livestock
operations is a primary concern in the watershed,
detailed land use analysis might be necessary to
identify pasturelands and evaluate proximity to
streams and water access for livestock, as well as to
identify and characterize areas of cropland that receive manure applications. In
addition, detailed water quality analyses might be needed for the areas that contain
livestock to evaluate the timing and magnitude of impacts as related to livestock
grazing schedules and access to waterbodies. For other areas of the watershed,
general water quality characterization will be sufficient, and low-level evaluations of
stream characteristics, watershed soils, and other types of data will be acceptable
given the focus of the data analysis.
7.1.4 Incorporate Stakeholders’ Concerns and Observations
Stakeholder concerns and goals will also help to determine what kinds of analyses are
needed. If the stakeholders and the earlier characterization identified bacteria- and
metals-associated impacts from developed areas as a primary concern, the data
analysis will focus on characterizing those parameters and the locations, types, or
timing of pollutant loading from urban and residential sources in the watershed. If a
specific source is expected to be contributing to water quality problems, more
detailed analyses might be conducted on data collected upstream and downstream of
that source, or smaller time scales (e.g., daily concentrations) might be evaluated.
Data analysis in the remainder of the watershed would be more coarse, identifying
simple summary statistics (e.g., monthly minimum, maximum, average) sufficient for
general characterization of identified subwatersheds. Table 7-2 illustrates this
concept with examples of different levels of effort for the various types of data used
in watershed characterization. Other factors to consider regarding level of detail,
include: relative costs of remediation, risks to human health and aquatic life, and
level of disagreement among stakeholders–all of which would likely increase the
level of detail needed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-5
Table 7-2. Examples of the Level of Detail and Effort for Typical Types of Data
Type of
Data
" Increasing level of complexity "
Low Moderate High
Instream
(e.g., water
quality, flow)
Summary statistics (e.g.,
minimum, average,
maximum) for watershed
stations
Spatial analysis of water quality
using instream water quality data
and GIS coverages
Spatial, temporal analysis of multiple instream
parameters and GIS data (often combined with
modeling and supplemental monitoring)
Land use General distribution of land
use types throughout the
watershed, using broad
categories (e.g., agriculture,
urban)
Specific identification of land use
areas by subwatershed, including
more detailed categories (e.g.,
cropland, pasture, residential,
commercial)
Statistical analysis of land use areas in relation
to water quality conditions (e.g., regression
analysis between amount of impervious area
and average flow or water quality
concentration)
Soils General distribution of soil
types based on available
information
GIS analysis of the locations and
types of soil series
Detailed analysis of soil distribution, including
identification of proximity to streams, erosion
potential, and other soil characteristics
affecting soil erosion and transport
Once the focus of the data analysis has been identified, the relevant data are compiled
and analyses are conducted. The following sections discuss the typical types of data
analyses used to support watershed characterization and the primary data analysis
techniques available to evaluate the watershed and identify causes and sources.
7.2 Analyze Instream and Watershed Data
Data analysis helps to evaluate spatial, temporal, and other identifiable trends and
relationships in water quality. Analysis of instream data is needed to identify the
location, timing, or behavior of potential watershed sources and their effect on
watershed functions such as hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitat. You
developed a preliminary assessment of the watershed during the first and second
phases of watershed characterization. Now, with a more comprehensive dataset, you
can perform a more detailed and definitive analysis. One way to organize and focus
the data analysis is to consider the specific watershed characteristics and the
questions that need to be answered before an appropriate management strategy can be
developed. OUse worksheet 7-1 to help determine the types of analyses you might
need to conduct. KA blank copy is provided in appendix B.
Typical analyses used to address these questions include statistical analysis, spatial
analysis, temporal analysis, trends and relationships, and flow and load duration
curves. It’s important to note that most of the analyses discussed in this section focus
on water quality monitoring data because many watershed goals can be directly or
indirectly linked to instream water quality conditions. In addition, water quality is an
indicator of the general watershed conditions and pollutant source types, locations,
and behavior. However, you should also broaden the evaluation of watershed
conditions by incorporating additional data types (e.g., land use, weather, and stream
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-6 Draft
O
Questions to Help Determine What Kinds of Data Analyses Are Needed
Question Section to refer to for assistance
1. Are water quality standards being met? If so, are they maintaining existing levels? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments)
7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)
2. Is water quality threatened? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments)
7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)
3. Is water quality impaired? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments)
7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)
4. Are there known or expected sources causing impairment? 7.2.7 (Visual Assessment)
5. Where do impairments occur? 7.2.3 (Spatial Analysis)
6. When do the impairments occur? Are they affected by seasonal variations? 7.2.4 (Temporal Analysis)
7. Under what conditions (e.g., flow, weather) are the impairments observed? 7.2.4 (Temporal Analysis) and
7.2.5 (Other Trends and Patterns)
8. Do multiple impairments (e.g., nutrients and bacteria) coexist? 7.2.5 (Other Trends and Patterns)
9. Are there other impairments that are not measured by water quality standards? 7.2.6 (Stressor Identification)
Questions to answer based on results of the data analysis:
1. What beneficial uses for the waterbodies are being impaired? What pollutants are impairing them?
2. What are the potential sources, nonpoint and point, that contribute to the impairment?
3. When do sources contribute pollutant loads?
4. How do pollutants enter the waterbody (e.g., runoff, point sources, contaminated ground water, land uses, ineffective
point source treatment, pipe failures)?
5. What characteristics of the waterbody, the watershed, or both could be affecting the impairment (e.g., current or future
growth, increased industrial areas, future NPDES permits, seasonal use of septic systems)?
6. Revisit the conceptual model showing the watershed processes and sources, and revise it if necessary.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-7
EPA’s new Assessment Database (ADB) application
provides a framework for managing water quality
assessment data. The ADB is designed to serve the needs
of states, tribes, and other water quality reporting agencies
for a range of water quality programs (e.g., CWA sections
305(b), 303(d), and 314). The ADB stores assessment
results related to water quality standards designated use
attainment, the pollution associated with use impairments,
and documentation of probable pollution sources. The
ADB can be used to generate several pre-formatted
reports, as well as conventional data tables and lists.
KFor more information on using the ADB, go to
www.epa.gov/waters/adb. The most recent EPA Integrated
Report guidance includes an increased emphasis on using
the ADB to meet reporting requirements.
morphology) discussed in chapter 5, as necessary or appropriate for your watershed.
A summary of the various types of analyses used in a watershed characterization is
provided below.
7.2.1 Confirm Impairments and Identify Problems
The first step in characterizing a watershed involves
understanding the water quality impairments and
designated use impacts occurring in your watershed. The
following reports and databases are available to support
this activity:
? 305(b) report (as part of the Integrated
Report)—summarizes designated use support status
for waters in the state
? 303(d) lists (as part of the Integrated
Report)—identify waters not meeting water quality
standards
? EPA’s Assessment Database (ADB)—includes data
used in 305(b) and 303(d) assessments
? TMDL Tracking System (stand-alone or through
WATERS)—includes locations of 303(d)-listed
waterbodies and provides downloadable geographic
information system (GIS) coverages
Although these references provide the necessary information to identify the types of
water quality problems occurring in your watershed, it’s likely that you’ll have to
analyze the available monitoring data yourself to fully characterize and understand
the problems. This analysis typically involves comparing available monitoring data
to water quality standards, but in a way that goes beyond the assessment already
completed by the state for section 303(d) and 305(b) assessments. When identifying
“impaired” waterbodies for the 303(d) list, states usually compare available
monitoring data to applicable water quality criteria and, based on their listing
guidelines and criteria (e.g., percent of samples above the criteria), determine which
waters don’t meet the criteria. In evaluating impairments in your watershed, you
don’t want to simply duplicate the state’s efforts. Instead, use the 305(b) and 303(d)
information to target your analyses—to identify which waterbodies are impaired or
threatened—and begin your analysis there. (You should also include in your analysis
those waterbodies identified by stakeholders as degraded but not included in the state
assessments.)
It’s a good idea to do a general analysis (e.g., summary statistics) of all the
waterbodies and associated data in your watershed, but you can focus the more in-
depth evaluation of impairment on those waterbodies known to have problems. To
better understand the watershed impairments, you can analyze the water quality and
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-8 Draft
Observed Aluminum Vs. Water Quality Standards
1
10
100
1000
10000
Oct-9
8
Ap
r
-9
9
Oct-9
9
Ap
r
-0
0
Oct-0
0
A
p
r-
0
1
Oct-0
1
Ap
r-0
2
Oc
t
-0
2
Ap
r-0
3
Oc
t
-0
3
Ap
r-0
4
Alum
inum
(ug/
L
Aluminum Chronic Criterion Acute Criterion
Figure 7-1. Example graph of observed aluminum
concentrations compared to water quality criteria.
This section discusses the typical types of data analyses to
support watershed characterization and identification of
pollutant sources. Each analysis can be conducted with
varying degrees of detail and complexity. In addition, it
might be useful to perform more detailed statistical tests.
For example, a Mann-Kendall test can be applied to long-
term datasets to indicate whether there is a statistically
significant increasing or decreasing trend in the water
quality data. Available references with information on
statistical analysis of environmental data include
Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in
Water Resources. Chapter A3 in Book 4, Hydrologic
Analysis and Interpretation, of Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations of the United States
Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997.
National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring. 450-vi-
NHWQM. National Water and Climate Center, Portland,
Oregon.
instream data in a variety of ways. The first
likely analysis is simply the magnitude of the
impairment—how bad is the problem?
Identifying the percentage of samples that
violate standards provides insight into the level
of impairment in the watershed, or at a
particular location. Using a graphical display of
water quality data compared to applicable
criteria is also an easy way to generally
illustrate the frequency and magnitude of
standards violations, as shown in figure 7-1. A
temporal analysis of water quality versus
standards can be used to identify the times of
year, season, month, and even day when the
impairment is occurring or is the worst.
Temporal and other analyses are discussed
further in this section. These analyses are used
to understand the general watershed conditions and to support identification of
pollutant sources, but also provide information specific to the distribution, timing and
magnitude of water quality impairment.
7.2.2 Summary Statistics
Statistical analyses are essential tools for describing
environmental data and evaluating relationships among
different types of data. You might not need to conduct in-
depth statistical testing to characterize your watershed,
but it’s often useful to develop summary statistics to
summarize your available datasets, to help in preliminary
analysis, and to communicate your results to stakeholders
and the public. Summary statistics include such
characteristics as range (e.g., minimum, maximum),
central tendency (e.g., mean, median), and variability
(standard deviation, coefficient of variation). Figure 7-2
defines many of the commonly used statistical terms.
Summary statistics should be computed for all stations
and relevant data (e.g., pollutants of concern) as one of
the first steps in your data analysis. Microsoft Excel and
other spreadsheet programs make developing summary
statistics simple. The program can automatically calculate
any of the statistical functions based on the dataset. In
addition, you can create Pivot tables in Excel that
calculate several statistical functions for any combination
of the data at once (e.g., by pollutant by station). It is
useful to also calculate the number or percentage of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-9
Measures of Range: Identify the span of the data from low to high.
Minimum: The lowest data value recorded during the period of record.
Maximum: The highest data value recorded during the period of record.
Measures of Central Tendency: Identify the general center of a dataset.
Mean: The sum of all data values divided by the sample size (number of samples). Strongly influenced by outlier
samples (i.e., samples of extreme highs or lows); one outlier sample can shift the mean significantly higher or
lower.
Median (P
0.50
): The 50
th
percentile data point; the central value of the dataset when ranked in order of magnitude.
The median is more resistant to outliers than the mean and is only minimally affected by individual observations.
Measures of Spread: Measure the variability of the dataset.
Sample variance (s
2
) and its square root standard deviation (s): The most common measures of the spread
(dispersion) of a set of data. These statistics are computed using the squares of the difference between each data
value and the mean, and therefore outliers influence their magnitudes dramatically. In datasets with major outliers,
the variance and standard deviation might suggest much greater spread than exists for most of the data.
Interquartile range (IQR): The difference between the 25
th
and 75
th
percentile of the data. Because the IQR
measures the range of the central 50 percent of the data and is not influenced by the 25 percent on either end, it is
less sensitive to extremes or outliers than the sample variance and standard deviation.
Measures of Skewness: Measures whether a dataset is asymmetric around the mean or median and suggests how far
the distribution of the data differs from a normal distribution.
Coefficient of skewness (g): Most commonly used measure of skewness. Influenced by the presence of outliers
because it is calculated using the mean and standard deviation.
Quartile skew coefficient (qs): Measures the difference in distances of the upper and lower quartiles (upper and
lower 25 percent of data) from the median. More resistant to outliers because, like the IQR, uses the central 50
percent of the data.
Figure 7-2. Commonly used summary statistics.
samples violating water quality criteria to include in your summary statistics for each
station.
7.2.3 Spatial Analysis
If evaluation of the summary statistics for the water quality stations in your
watershed indicates noticeable differences in water quality throughout the watershed,
you should do a more focused analysis of spatial variation in water quality and other
waterbody monitoring data. Spatial analysis of available waterbody data can be
useful to
? Determine the general distribution of water quality or habitat conditions
? Identify the locations of areas of concern or potential major sources
? Determine the impact of a specific source
? Identify the effect of a management practice or control effort
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-10 Draft
Figure 7-3. Example map of average total dissolved solids
concentration throughout a watershed.
The spatial distribution of water quality conditions in the watershed might indicate
the location of “hot spots” and sources potentially affecting impairment. Spatial
analysis of data is also useful in evaluating the potential impacts of specific sources,
when sufficient data are available. Evaluating the difference in paired observations
from stations upstream and downstream of a potential source can indicate the impact
of the source on instream conditions. Similar data analysis can be conducted on data
available upstream and downstream of a management practice to evaluate the
effectiveness of the management practice in reducing pollutant loads to the
waterbody.
Simply reviewing a table of summary statistics for each
station in the watershed can identify areas of varying water
quality. When dealing with a large watershed with multiple
stations, however, a GIS can be used to effectively
present and evaluate spatial variations in water
quality conditions, as shown in the example
map in figure 7-3. Presenting water quality
summaries by station throughout a watershed
in GIS also allows for identification of
corresponding watershed conditions or sources
that might be causing the spatial variations,
such as land use distribution and location of
point sources. This information is important for
identifying the potential sources that might be
causing the watershed problems and impairments.
Even if sufficient monitoring data are not
available to adequately evaluate spatial
variation in water quality, you should still
evaluate other available watershed data to understand the spatial distribution of
characteristics that are likely influencing waterbody conditions, such as land use,
soils, and location of permitted sources. GIS is a very useful tool for displaying and
evaluating these kinds of data.
7.2.4 Temporal Analysis
Another important analysis is the evaluation of temporal trends in water quality
conditions. Evaluation of temporal patterns can assist in identifying potential sources
in the watershed, seasonal variations, and declining or improving water quality
trends. Temporal analyses can include long-term trend analysis to identify generally
increasing or decreasing trends in data and more focused analysis of monthly,
seasonal, and even daily and hourly variations.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-11
Figure 7-4. Example graph of monthly statistics for fecal
coliform bacteria.
America’s Clean Water Foundation published an article
discussing duration curves and their use in developing
TMDLs (Cleland 2002). The duration curves act as an
indicator of relevant watershed processes affecting
impairment, important contributing areas, and key
delivery mechanisms. KTo read the full article and get
more information on the use of duration curves to
diagnose seasonal impacts and potential sources, go
to www.tmdls.net/tipstools/docs/BottomUp.pdf.
Degraded water quality during certain
months or seasons can indicate the
occurrence of a source that is active only
during those times. For example, elevated
concentrations of nutrients or bacteria
during the summer months (figure 7-4)
might indicate increased source activity,
such as livestock grazing, during those
months. It might also indicate a need for
further analysis of other watershed
conditions (e.g., weather, flow) that can
exacerbate the impairment during the
summer months. For example, warmer
temperatures during the summer might
increase the productivity of algae, leading
to greater decreases in dissolved oxygen.
7.2.5 Other Trends or Patterns
It is often beneficial to evaluate relationships and trends in the available data other
than spatial and temporal trends. Important examples include
? Evaluating the relationship between flow and instream water quality (Ksee
chapter 5 for data sources)
? Documenting the relationship between related pollutants
? Evaluating the relationship of instream conditions to other watershed factors
(e.g., land use, source activity)
Flow Versus Water Quality
An identifiable relationship between flow and instream water quality concentrations
can indicate what types of pollutant sources dominate the instream impairment and
can help to identify critical conditions surrounding the impairment. For example,
runoff-driven nonpoint sources typically dominate instream
water quality conditions during periods of high flow resulting
from rainfall/runoff events, whereas point sources that provide
relatively constant discharges to receiving waters usually
dominate water quality during low flow, when there is less
water to dilute effluent inputs.
There are several options for evaluating the relationship
between flow and a water quality parameter, including
visually evaluating time series data, developing a regression
plot, evaluating monthly averages, and developing a flow
duration curve.
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-12 Draft
Figure 7-5. Example load duration curve.
A flow duration curve can be a useful diagnostic tool for evaluating critical
conditions for watershed problems and the types of sources that could be influencing
waterbody conditions. Flow duration curves graph flows based on their occurrence
over the period of record. Flows are ordered according to magnitude, and then a
percent frequency is assigned to each, representing the percentage of flows that are
less than that flow. For example, a flow percentile of zero corresponds to the lowest
flow, which exceeds none of the flows in that record. The percentage of 100
corresponds to the highest flow, which exceeds all the flows in that record. The flow
duration is often plotted with corresponding pollutant concentrations to evaluate the
relationship between water quality and flow. To do this, you should isolate matching
flow and water quality and plot the flow and concentration data as a function of flow
percentile.
A variation of the flow duration curve is the load duration curve, which plots
observed pollutant loads as a function of flow percentile. Matching water quality and
flow (measured on the same day) are used to calculate observed loads, by multiplying
flow by pollutant concentration and an appropriate conversion factor. The loads are
then plotted along with the flow in order of flow percentile. The load duration curve
provides information on when loading occurs.
As shown in the example load duration
curve (figure 7-5), the total dissolved solids
(TDS) concentrations tend to follow a
pattern similar to the flow, with lower
concentrations occurring during lower flows
and elevated concentrations during higher
flows. This indicates that surface runoff
(nonpoint sources or stormwater discharges)
is likely the source of elevated total
dissolved solids rather than point source
discharges. The flow duration method does
not allow you to identify specific sources
(e.g., residential versus agricultural), but it
provides useful information on the
conditions under which problems occur and
the general types of sources affecting the
waterbody.
Relationships Between Pollutants
It’s also important to evaluate the correlation of instream concentrations (and
loading) of pollutants of concern to other parameters that represent the same
impairment or are likely being contributed by similar sources or acting as a source of
the pollutant of concern. For example, metals often attach to sediments, resulting in
increased metals loading during times of high sediment erosion and runoff.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-13
The Vandalia Lake, Illinois, TMDL establishes load reduction
goals for total phosphorus to address impairments from both
phosphorus and pH. Fluctuations in pH can be correlated to
photosynthesis from algae. Chlorophyll a indicates the
presence of excessive algal or aquatic plant growth, which is
a typical response to excess phosphorus loading. Reducing
total phosphorus is expected to reduce algal growth, thus
resulting in attainment of the pH standard. Available
monitoring data for the lake were used to evaluate the
relationship between pH, chlorophyll a, and total phosphorus.
The general relationships suggested that controlling total
phosphorus will decrease chlorophyll a concentrations, which
will in turn reduce pH into the range required for compliance
with water quality standards.
Kwww.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/report/vandalia/vandalia.pdf
Figure 7-6. Stressor identification process.
Establishing a correlation between instream sediment
and metal concentrations can indicate that metals
loading in the watershed is sediment-related.
Understanding these relationships will be important
when establishing load reductions and selecting
appropriate management activities.
Waterbody Conditions Versus Watershed
Characteristics
Evaluating relationships between instream conditions
and watershed features or conditions will also facilitate
the identification of sources and the establishment of
successful management goals and focused
implementation efforts. For example, performing
statistical analyses on instream data and watershed
features, such as weather patterns, land use (e.g., percent
impervious, area of urban), or soils (e.g., erodibility),
can establish a quantitative link between watershed
conditions and the resulting instream conditions. It
might also be appropriate to divide data into separate datasets
representing certain time periods or conditions for evaluation
(e.g., storm event vs. base flow, irrigation season, grazing
season).
7.2.6 Stressor Identification
When waterbodies experience biological impairment due to
unknown causes, stressor identification is used to identify the
most likely causes of biological impairment (figure 7-6). This
formal method of causal evaluation can be used in a number of
ways:
? To increase confidence that costly remedial or restoration
efforts are targeted at factors that can truly improve
biological condition
? To identify causal relationships that are otherwise not
immediately apparent
? To prevent biases or lapses of logic that might not be
apparent until a formal method is applied
KFor a detailed description of the stressor identification process, see EPA’s
Stressor Identification Guidance Document (USEPA 2000b;
www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html). In addition, two
stressor identification modules originally developed as part of EPA’s 2003 National
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-14 Draft
Biocriteria Workshop are available online. KThe SI 101 course contains several
presentations on the principles of the stressor identification process:
www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/modules/#si101.
EPA recently released the Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System
(CADDIS) to support determination of causes of biological impairment. CADDIS is
an online tool that helps investigators in the regions, states, and tribes to find, access,
organize, use, and share information to produce causal evaluations of aquatic
systems. It is based on the EPA’s stressor identification process. Current features of
CADDIS include
? Step-by-step guide to conducting a causal analysis
? Downloadable worksheets and examples
? Library of conceptual models
? Links to helpful information
KGo to the CADDIS Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis/home.cfm to access
CADDIS and obtain more information.
7.2.7 Visual Assessments and Local Knowledge
It’s important to remember that monitoring and GIS data can provide only a
representation of your watershed. Depending on the frequency of monitoring, the
data might not reflect chronic conditions but rather provide a snapshot of conditions
unique to the time of sampling, especially when dealing with parameters that are
highly variable and sensitive to localized impacts (e.g., bacteria counts). To make the
most of your data analysis, it is important to analyze the data with an understanding
of the “real world.” Use the data analysis to support what you already know about the
watershed from the people that live and work there. KAs discussed in sections 4.3.2
and 6.5.1, visual assessments (e.g., streamwalks, windshield surveys) are useful for
identifying and connecting potential sources of impairment and watershed conditions
and should be used to guide and support data analysis for identifying watershed
sources. In watersheds with limited monitoring data, visual assessments are
especially important, providing the basis for source identification.
Not only are visual assessments useful for identifying potential
pollutant sources and areas to focus your data analysis, but they can
also answer questions raised by your data analysis. For example, if
your data analysis shows a dramatic decrease in water quality in a
portion of your watershed, but the land use and other watershed
coverages don’t indicate any major sources in that area, it’s a good
idea to walk the stream or drive through the area to identify any
possible reasons for the change. For example, your data might indicate
sharp increases in sediment measures (e.g., turbidity, total suspended
solids) between two monitoring stations. Reviewing the land use maps
? Streambank erosion
? Straight pipes
? Livestock (near or with access to streams)
? Wildlife (e.g., waterfowl populations on
lakes and open streams)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-15
1
10
100
1000
10000
Jan-96
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Jan-00
Jul-00
Jan-01
Jul-01
Jan-02
Turbi
di
ty (NTU
Upstream Downstream
Introduction of new
sediment source?
Figure 7-7. Long-term turbidity levels at two stations in
Lake Creek, Idaho.
do not suggest any activities that would account for such a dramatic increase. When
you drive through the watershed, you might find a source that you would never know
about without surveying the area, such as a severely eroding streambank or livestock
or wildlife watering in the stream and causing resuspension of streambed sediments.
In addition to visual inspection of the watershed, local knowledge and anecdotal
information from stakeholders are often very important to successfully analyzing and
interpreting your watershed data. They, too, can provide useful insight to support or
guide data analysis, especially if it is historical information that would not be
identified through a present-day visual
assessment. A data analysis conducted for Lake
Creek, Idaho, provides an example of
stakeholder anecdotal information’s being
crucial to identifying a watershed source. The
data analysis indicated an unexplained increase
in turbidity and sediment between two stations
in the stream (figure 7-7). Discussing the data
analyses with stakeholders allowed TMDL
developers to understand that the increase was
the result of localized logging that had occurred
near the stream several years earlier. Knowing
that the logging had occurred explained why the
turbidity levels had dramatically and quickly
increased at the downstream station and were
now still recovering. Without this knowledge,
the TMDL might have inappropriately targeted
areas that were not affecting the stream.
7.3 Evaluate Data Analysis Results to Identify Causes and
Sources
Together with the input from stakeholders and your local knowledge of the
watershed, analyzing your data should lead you to an understanding of where and
when problems occur in your watershed and what could be causing the problems.
Ideally the data analysis phase will progress in such a manner that each analysis leads
to a greater understanding of the problems, causes, and sources—each analysis
identifies another piece of the puzzle. Suppose, for example, that you started your
analysis with a calculation of summary statistics for bacteria at all the stations in your
watershed. In doing so, you noticed that stations in the upstream portion of the
watershed had higher averages, maximums, and minimums than the rest of the
watershed. Focusing on those stations, you began to evaluate temporal variations,
noting that bacteria levels were consistently higher during the spring and summer.
From there you began to look at other factors that might change seasonally, including
weather, flow, and surrounding land activities. You discovered that although rainfall
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-16 Draft
and flow are higher during the spring, possibly delivering higher bacteria loads, they
are lower during the summer. Also, rainfall and flow are higher throughout the
watershed, not in only this “problem area.” So, what else might be causing the higher
levels during those two seasons? By evaluating land use data for the surrounding
area, you realize there are some concentrated pockets of agricultural land in the area.
After talking to stakeholders and driving the watershed, you identify several acres of
pastureland used for horse and cattle grazing during the spring and summer. Much of
the pastureland is in close proximity to the streams with elevated observed bacteria,
and some of the pastures even have direct access to the streams. Such a combination
of focused data analyses, visual assessments, and local knowledge is critical to
identifying and understanding watershed sources.
In addition, the data analysis will identify on which sources you’ll need to focus
during the loading analysis discussed in chapter 8. Some sources will be expected to
have a greater impact on watershed problems than others and might require more
detailed analysis. For example, if runoff from developed areas is expected to be the
primary cause of elevated metals in watershed streams, it might not be necessary to
evaluate subcategories of agricultural or other undeveloped lands in the loading
analysis. You can likely group those land uses or sources together and focus on the
developed areas, possibly even breaking them into more detailed categories
(e.g., suburban, commercial).
7.3.1 Grouping Sources for Further Assessment
Once you understand the potential causes and sources of the watershed
problems, you should decide at what level you want to characterize
those sources. The next step of the process is to quantify the watershed
sources—to estimate the pollutant loads contributed by the sources
(chapter 8). Therefore, you should identify the sources you want to
quantify. The level of detail in estimating the source loads can vary
widely and will depend largely on the results of your data analysis.
The analysis should give you an understanding of the sources that are
affecting watershed and waterbody conditions, providing a guide for
which sources need to be controlled. Therefore, it’s important to
identify sources at a level that will result in effective control and
improvement. For example, if you have identified specific pastures in one portion of
the watershed as dominating the bacteria levels in your watershed during the summer,
it would not be appropriate to quantify agricultural or even pastureland sources as an
annual gross load for the entire watershed.
To facilitate estimation of source loads, and later source control, sources should be
grouped into logical categories that help to prioritize and address certain pollutants,
sources, or locations for more efficient and effective management. Consider the
following factors and methods when grouping sources for assessment. You can
? Source type (e.g., nonpoint, point)
? Location (e.g., subwatershed)
? Land use type
? Source behavior (e.g., direct discharge,
runoff, seasonal activities)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-17
combine many of the methods to create various groupings and layers of sources,
relevant to the needs and priorities of the watershed-based plan.
Nonpoint Source Versus Point Source
Although watershed plans typically focus on nonpoint sources, they should consider
and integrate point sources for effective watershed protection. You should separate
nonpoint sources from point sources for assessment for both technical and
programmatic reasons. Nonpoint and point sources typically behave differently and
affect the receiving waters under different conditions. For example, nonpoint sources
usually contribute pollutant loads that are washed off and transported during
precipitation events, affecting waterbody conditions during times of higher surface
runoff and, therefore, higher flow. Point sources usually discharge constant loads to
receiving waters, affecting waterbody conditions during times of low flow when
there is less water to dilute incoming effluents. Not only do point and nonpoint
sources behave and affect waterbodies differently, but their management and control
mechanisms are also different. Grouping them separately when considering future
implementation of control measures is logical.
Spatial Distribution and Location
Grouping sources by location facilitates their assessment by dividing the area of
concern into smaller, more focused areas, and it often supports future
implementation. Spatially grouping sources helps to identify priority regions or
locations that should be targeted for control. The method of grouping sources
typically involves creating subwatersheds within the larger watershed of
concern and also prioritizing sources within the subwatershed by some other
methodology (e.g., proximity to a stream, land use).
Land Use Distribution
Sources are often specific to certain land uses, making it logical to group them by
land use. For example, sources of nutrients such as livestock grazing and fertilizer
application, which occur in conjunction with agricultural land use, would not likely
contribute loads to other land uses such as urban or forest uses. Likewise, urban land
uses typically have a set of pollutants of concern (e.g., metals, oil, sediment) different
from those of rural land uses based on the active sources. Although it is difficult to
isolate inputs from individual sources within a land use, assessing them as land use
inputs can still support evaluation of loading and identification of future controls.
Sources can be grouped and characterized by land use at a large scale, such as all
agricultural lands, or at a very detailed level, such as specific crop type. In some
cases, subcategories of nonpoint sources should be used to estimate the source
contribution. For example, a land use like agriculture would often be further broken
down into grazing or cropland, allowing a more accurate estimate of the sources
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-18 Draft
coming from each subcategory and the ability to choose the most effective
management practices for each subcategory.
Grouping sources according to their land use also facilitates identification of future
implementation efforts because certain management practices are most effective
when applied to a certain land use.
Delivery Pathway and Behavior
Depending on their behavior, nonpoint sources can contribute pollutants to receiving
waters through different delivery pathways. The nature of the delivery might support
separate assessment of the source. For example, grazing cattle might be treated as a
separate source depending on the activity or location of the cattle. Livestock on
rangeland can contribute pollutants to the land that are picked up in runoff, whereas
livestock in streams deposit nutrient and bacteria loads directly to the streams.
Different methods might be required to evaluate the effect of each group on
waterbody conditions. Another example is failing septic systems that might be
contributing pollutant loads to waterbodies. Because loads from the septic systems
can be delivered through groundwater and also through surface breakouts, you might
conduct separate analyses to estimate their loads.
Other Factors
Additional factors that can influence the grouping of sources include the following:
? Social and economic factors. Certain sources and their impact might be of
higher priority to the affected public because they are more visible than other
sources or because they could have negative impacts on the local economy.
Public buy-in and priorities can influence the evaluation and grouping of sources,
as well as subsequent source control.
? Political jurisdictions. Because source control can ultimately fall to different
jurisdictions (e.g., counties), it might be necessary to evaluate sources based in
part on jurisdictional boundaries. In some cases, the sources might even be
subject to different laws and control options depending on where they’re located.
7.3.2 Time Frame for Source Assessment
Another important consideration when deciding how to quantify your sources is the
time frame you want to capture. Your data analysis should provide insight into the
timing of watershed problems and, therefore, into the temporal scale you need to
evaluate sources. For example, instream dissolved oxygen might decrease only
during summer months because of increased nutrient loading, higher temperatures,
and lower flows. Therefore, it will be important to characterize and quantify sources
on a time scale that allows for evaluation during the summer months. It would not be
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Draft 7-19
appropriate to evaluate annual loading for a problem that occurs only during the
summer.
7.4 Summarize Causes and Sources
On the basis of your data analysis, you should now be able to identify the key
sources you will quantify in the next step of the watershed planning process. You
should identify the source type, locations, and timing for load estimation (chapter 8).
It might be helpful to identify the areas for evaluation on a watershed map to
determine the key locations for conducting the loading analysis and which sources
will be included in the analysis. You should also develop a brief report summarizing
your data analyses and their results and describing the watershed sources, including
their location, associated pollutants, timing, and impact on the waterbody.
In identifying your sources and grouping them for load estimation, you’ll also
begin to identify the critical areas needed for implementing management measures, as
required as element c of the nine minimum elements. Element c is “A description of
the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to
achieve load reductions and a description of the critical areas in which those
measures will be needed to implement this plan.” At this step, you have identified the
recommended source groupings and priorities and you’ll continue to refine the
groupings as you conduct your loading analysis (chapter 8) and target your
management measures (chapters 10 and 11). You’ll identify the final critical areas
when you select the management strategies for implementing your plan (chapter 11),
but the sources and associated groupings and characteristics you have identified at
this stage will provide the basis and groundwork for identifying those critical areas.
Chapter 7
Analyze Data to Characterize the
Watershed and Pollutant Sources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
7-20 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-1
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Load estimation techniques
< Using models to estimate loads
< Available models
< Model selection
< Model application techniques
< Presenting pollutant loads
8. Estimate Pollutant
Loads
Read this chapter if...
? You’re not sure how to estimate pollutant loads from your watershed sources
? You want information on simple or more detailed approaches for estimating
loads
? You don’t know how to select a watershed model that’s right for your watershed
and needs
? You want information on the various watershed models available and their
capabilities
? You want to review the typical steps used in applying watershed models to
estimate pollutant loads and evaluate source contributions
? You want some ideas on how to organize the results of your load estimation
analysis and present pollutant loads
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-2 Draft
As part of developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),
loading estimates are typically developed for point and
nonpoint sources for the pollutants of concern. Remember
that TMDLs are developed for specific pollutants, so they
might not include all the pollutants that the watershed plan
considers. TMDL documents, including the report,
supporting modeling studies, and model input files, are
typically available from the state or EPA. In these materials
are estimates of existing loads, allowable loads (that meet
water quality standards), and the load estimates for point
sources (wasteload allocations) and nonpoint sources (load
allocations). The load estimates are specified by categories
of sources, such as generalized land use types
(e.g., pasture). A TMDL can be an excellent source of
loading estimates that is well documented and available. If
you’re using a TMDL, consider the age of the application
and recognize that some changes might have occurred
since the original analyses. Some areas might have new
management activities that have reduced or changed
loading. Other areas might have significant land use
changes or development that could change estimates. In
addition, TMDL analyses do not require implementation
plans, so specific estimates of management techniques and
their effectiveness are not necessarily included. Some
additional or supplemental analysis is likely to be needed to
estimate how the potential load reductions will be achieved.
8.1 How Do I Estimate Pollutant Loads?
Early in the watershed characterization process, you identified and gathered available
data and information to assess the watershed and created a data inventory. Then you
conducted a preliminary data review, identified gaps, and collected additional data if
needed. Finally, you analyzed the data to characterize the waterbody conditions and
identify causes and sources, using the techniques discussed in chapter 7. Your next
step is to estimate pollutant loads from watershed sources to target future
management efforts. This step is essential to eventually satisfy element b
(i.e., necessary load reductions) of the nine minimum elements. (KIdentifying load
reductions is discussed in chapter 9.) This element is the component most often
missing from current and past watershed plans, although it is one of the most
important. Without knowing where the pollutants are coming from, you can’t
effectively control them and restore and protect your watershed. The loading analysis
provides a more specific numeric estimate of loads from the various sources in the
watershed. By estimating source loads, you can evaluate the relative magnitude of
sources, the location of sources, and the timing of source loading. The loading
analysis can help you plan restoration strategies, target
load reduction efforts, and project future loads under new
conditions. This chapter discusses the analysis and
modeling techniques commonly used to estimate or to
quantify pollutant loads.
An understanding of the watershed, built throughout the
watershed planning process, is used as the basis for
determining the appropriate method for quantifying the
pollutant loads. You can use various approaches to do the
loading analysis, and which one is right for you depends
on several factors, including water quality parameters,
time scale, source types, data needs, and user experience.
Some loading analyses are focused on determining “how
much” load is acceptable, whereas others focus on “source
loads” that attribute loading to each category of sources in
the watershed. For watershed planning purposes, source
load estimates are desirable because the information can
be used to support management planning and targeting of
restoration resources. In general, the approach you choose
should be the simplest approach that meets your needs.
Sometimes loading estimates have already been
developed for watersheds. Check whether a previous
study is available—a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), Clean Lakes study, or other watershed-based
program that might have required development of loading
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-3
estimates. Such studies can often be used to provide loading estimates appropriate for
developing the watershed plan.
Stakeholders have an interest in the analysis and modeling techniques used to support
decisionmaking. Engaging stakeholders in the evaluation and selection of analysis
techniques can support more informed decisionmaking and buy-in for the approaches
selected. However, the more complex techniques and modeling tools can be more
difficult to describe, review, and interpret. One consideration in selecting models is
the transparency of results to the affected community. Even the most complex models
can be effectively described and provided for review through public meetings,
workshops, and technical transfer opportunities. Simplified approaches, when
sufficient for addressing the watershed concerns, can be more easily interpreted and
adopted by the community.
Although approaches have different features, their application is typically best suited
to many generalized watershed studies. Some of the more typical model selections
are shown in table 8-1, although you should recognize that site-specific conditions
might vary significantly. In each example the models are listed in order of
complexity, simplest first. All of these approaches are discussed in this chapter.
Table 8-1. Example Approaches Used for Estimating Watershed Loads
Land Use Sources/Concerns Pollutants Models
Agricultural Grazing Nutrients and
sediment
GWLF
AGNPS
SWAT
Agricultural Livestock and wildlife sources Nutrients Spreadsheet estimation
STEPL
SWAT
HSPF
Agricultural Cropland management, conservation tillage Nutrients and pathogens AGNPS
SWAT
Mixed Use Stormwater management
Agriculture
Residential
Sediment and nutrients P8-UCM
SWMM
HSPF
Mixed Use Stormwater management
Agricultural
Pathogens Spreadsheet estimation
HSPF
Urban Stormwater management
Land use conversion, redevelopment
Sediment, nutrients, and
metals
P8-UCM
SWMM
HSPF
Two general types of techniques for estimating pollutant loads are described in the
following sections. First, techniques that directly estimate loads from monitoring data
or literature values are discussed. These techniques are best suited to conditions
where fairly detailed monitoring and flow gauging are available and the major
interest is in total loads from a watershed. Second, watershed modeling techniques
are described, including considerations in selecting models, available models, and the
steps involved in applications. A wide range of models that can provide loads by
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-4 Draft
sources, help predict future conditions, and evaluate multiple management practices
are discussed.
8.2 Using Monitoring Data or Literature Values to Estimate
Pollutant Loads
Commonly used approaches for estimating pollutant loads in watersheds involve
using instream monitoring data or literature values (e.g., land use loading rates).
These simple approaches can vary in detail or scope depending on the needs of the
analysis and the available data. In most cases, they provide a coarse estimate of the
pollutant loads entering a waterbody, without great detail on the contributing source
or areas of concern. This section provides some examples of simple load estimation
methods using available monitoring data and literature values.
8.2.1 Using Monitoring Data to Estimate Loads
Monitoring data can be used to directly estimate the pollutant loading entering a
waterbody. Because the monitoring data represent instream conditions, the resulting
estimate represents the total loading from a watershed upstream of the monitoring
point. This type of estimate does not attribute loads to particular sources or areas.
This generalized loading can help to evaluate downstream impacts, can be used to
calculate a per acre loading, and can be used for comparison of local loadings with
those of other areas. This loading estimate is also based on historical conditions
because it is directly estimated from monitoring data. It cannot be used to directly
predict how loadings might change in the future.
Monitoring data typically include periodic samples of water quality concentrations of
pollutants and flow gauging. Flow multiplied by concentration can be used to
calculate the load for a specific period. However, water quality sampling is not
continuous; it is normally done periodically (e.g., weekly, monthly). Load duration
curves are a common approach to using sporadic flow and water quality data to
estimate the average total loading at watershed monitoring stations (Ksee section
7.2.5). In addition, various statistical techniques have been developed to estimate
loading from periodic sampling and flow gauging data. These techniques build
relationships between flow and concentration to help predict or estimate loading
during time periods when there is no sampling. Flow gauging information is more
likely to be available on a daily basis than the more expensive water quality sampling
and laboratory analysis.
The major limitation of these approaches is the aggregate nature of the loading
estimate. You can use statistical load estimation techniques to directly estimate
loadings from a drainage area or watershed for which monitoring data are available,
but this method is not applicable for estimating individual source loading or
predicting future changes in loading. If you have a robust dataset throughout the
watershed and can apply the load estimation at key areas (e.g., upstream and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-5
downstream of suspected sources), you can potentially evaluate the relative
magnitude and impact of different sources. Often, however, data are not available for
a full range of flow conditions at more than a couple locations in a watershed. If this
type of methodology is used in developing your watershed plan, be sure to include
future source characterization or monitoring as part of the implementation plan to
further refine source loads and target control efforts.
These techniques are also completely reliant on a long period of record of monitoring
information to develop the loading estimates. Uncertainty can be calculated from the
statistical process, providing the advantage of a system for measuring accuracy.
However, continuous flow gauging is available only in limited locations, and
typically for large watersheds. You should carefully check the availability and
relevance of the data when considering using direct calculations of load. Make sure
to check that flow and water quality sampling were conducted at the same time.
Ideally, a continuous flow gauging record is available so you can evaluate the
changes in flow and seasonal patterns.
The following methods for directly calculating watershed loads are discussed in the
sections below:
? FLUX
? Regression of pollutant load and flow using Minimum Variance Unbiased
Estimator (MVUE)
FLUX
FLUX, developed by Walker (1996) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is an
interactive computer program used to estimate the loads of nutrients or other water-
quality constituents such as suspended sediment. This technique was developed as a
companion to the Bathtub model, a commonly used lake modeling technique (Walker
1985, 1986, 1990). The following six estimation algorithms are available in FLUX:
(1) direct-mean loading, (2) flow-weighted concentrations (ratio estimate),
(3) modified ratio estimate, (4) first-order regression, (5) second-order regression,
and (6) regression applied to individual daily streamflow. FLUX maps the flow
versus concentration relationship developed from the sample record onto the entire
flow record to calculate total mass, streamflow, and associated error statistics. FLUX
also provides an option to stratify the data into groups on the basis of flow to improve
the fit of the individual models.
Data requirements for FLUX include
? Constituent concentrations, collected on a weekly to monthly frequency for at
least a year
? Date collected
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-6 Draft
? Corresponding flow measurements (instantaneous or daily mean values)
? Complete flow record (daily mean streamflow) for the period of interest.
Regression of Pollutant Load and Flow
A very simple approach to estimating pollutant logs is to use available water quality
and flow data to develop a regression equation representing the relationship between
the pollutant load and flow magnitude. That equation is then used to estimate
pollutant loads on days when flow is available but water quality data are not. For
example, the approach can be applied to a flow gauging station that has sporadic
water quality data but continuous flow data to estimate water quality and, therefore,
pollutant loading on unmonitored days.
However, many pollutant loads, such as sediment, are storm-driven and observed
values often span several orders of magnitude. For this reason, the instream sediment
load versus flow relationship tends to be linear when examined on a logarithmic
scale. This can introduce a large amount of error when using a regression approach to
estimate pollutant loads. To reduce this error and remove the bias from the regression
analysis, a log transform regression approach can be used. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) recommends Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator or MVUE
(Cohn and Gilroy 1991) as one of the methods for bias correction. The objective of
this method is to yield an unbiased estimate with the smallest possible variance. KGo
to http://co.water.usgs.gov/sediment/bias.frame.html for more information on
MVUE.
8.2.2 Using Literature Values to Estimate Loads
One of the simplest techniques for estimating pollutant loads involves calculating
loads on the basis of land use areas and representative loading rates (i.e., load per
area of land). An example of this approach is shown in figure 8-1. In this case the
load is a function of a single factor, “land use area,” based on a predefined loading
rate. This simple presentation has the benefit of being very easy to apply and explain,
but simplicity also results in several limitations. The loading rate is a static value and
does not account for temporal or spatial variations in environmental conditions such
as precipitation and soils.
Because the loading estimate is dependent on the loading rate used in the calculation,
it’s important to identify values that are realistic for your watershed. Loading rates
for land uses can vary widely throughout the nation depending on precipitation,
source activity, and soils, and in some areas estimates are not available. Regional
loading rates might be available from scientific literature or watershed studies
conducted in nearby watersheds. Otherwise, use national estimates with caution,
recognizing that the values might not be representative of your watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-7
The export coefficient model is the simplest type of pollutant runoff model because all factors that effect pollutant movement are
combined into one term—the export coefficient. For example, the total pollutant load (in kilograms per year) is calculated by
multiplying the land use areas (in hectares) by the export coefficients (in kilograms per hectare per year) for various activities,
such as corn, pasture, and residential use and summing the products. Export coefficients for the various land uses can be
obtained from literature searches. The table below presents an example of an export coefficient spreadsheet used to obtain a
rough estimate of the effects of various land use activities on watershed nutrient loading.
Example of Pollutant Budget Estimation Using Export Coefficient Model
Land Use
Area
(ha)
Nitrogen
Export
Coefficient
(kg/ha/yr)
Total
Nitrogen
Load (kg/yr)
Percent of
Nitrogen
Load
Phosphorous
Export
Coefficient
(kg/ha/yr)
Total
Phosphorous
Load (kg/yr)
Percent of
Phosphorous
Load
Forest 100 1.8 180 0.91 0.11 11 0.52
Corn 200 11.1 2220 11.24 2 400 18.95
Cotton 100 10 1000 5.6 4.3 430 20.37
Soybeans 20 12.5 250 1.27 4.6 92 4.36
Small Grain 50 5.3 265 1.34 1.5 75 3.55
Pasture 300 3.1 930 4.71 0.1 30 1.42
Feedlot or
Dairy
5 2,900 14,500 73.39 220 1,100 52.11
Idle 30 3.4 102 0.52 0.1 3 0.14
Residential 20 7.5 150 0.76 1.2 24 1.14
Business 10 13.8 138 0.7 3 30 1.42
Industrial 5 4.4 22 0.11 3.8 19 0.9
Total 840 - 19,757 1 - 2,111 100
Note: Agricultural coefficients are from Reckhow et al. (1980), and urban coefficients are from Athayde et al. (1983).
Figure 8-1. Example of an application of export coefficients to calculate pollutant loads.
North Carolina State University’s WATER, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision
Support System (WATERSHEDSS) provides a tool for land managers to evaluate
pollutant budgets and agriculture management practices. KTo download the tool for
calculating loads using export coefficients go to www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss.
The system also includes a database of agricultural management practices, references
on nonpoint source pollutants and sources, and an annotated bibliography of
nonpoint source literature.
Empirical relationships documented in scientific literature are another option for
estimating pollutant loads. Empirical relationships are those based on observed data
and are represented by an empirical equation. An example of an empirical
relationship relating watershed characteristics to pollutant loading is the Simple
Method (Schueler 1987). The Simple Method is a lumped-parameter empirical model
used to estimate stormwater pollutant loadings under conditions of limited data
availability. Because this is a lumped approach, it assumes the physical
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-8 Draft
Lin (2004) summarizes and reviews published export coefficient
and event mean concentration (EMC) data for use in estimating
pollutant loading into watersheds. Some references included in
that review and commonly used for export coefficients include
Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of
land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources Bulletin
18(6): 1013-1024.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac., and J.T. Simpson. 1980.
Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under
uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients.
EPA-440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Regulations, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC.
Model: A representation of an environmental system through
the use of mathematical equations or relationships.
Modeling system: A computer program or software package
that incorporates a model and input and output systems to
facilitate application.
Model application: The use of a model or models to address
defined questions at a specific location.
characteristics for land units within a subwatershed
are homogeneous, thereby simplifying the physical
representation of the subwatershed. The approach
calculates pollutant loading using drainage area,
pollutant concentrations, a runoff coefficient, and
precipitation data. In the Simple Method, the amount
of rainfall runoff is assumed to be a function of the
imperviousness of the contributing drainage area.
More densely developed areas have more impervious
surfaces, such as rooftops and pavement, causing
more stormwater to run off rather than being absorbed
into the soil. The Simple Method includes default and
suggested values for the equation parameters, or
values can be watershed-specific based on monitoring
data or local information.
8.3 Watershed Modeling
Models provide another approach for estimating loads, providing source load
estimates, and evaluating various management alternatives. A model is a set of
equations that can be used to describe the natural or man-made processes in a
watershed system, such as runoff or stream transport. By building these cause-and-
effect relationships, models can be used to forecast or estimate future conditions that
might occur under various conditions. Models can be highly sophisticated, including
many specific processes such as detailed descriptions of infiltration and
evapotranspiration. Models can also be very generalized, such as a simple empirical
relationship that estimates the amount of runoff based on precipitation. Some models
are available as software packages, whereas simple models or equations can be
applied with a calculator or spreadsheet. Compared to the simple approaches
discussed in section 8.2, models add more detailed procedures that represent the
separate processes of rainfall, erosion, loading,
transport, and management practices. By separately
addressing each process, models can be adapted to
local conditions, and the simulation can be made more
sensitive to land use activities and management
changes.
This section discusses the role of modeling in
watershed planning, the types of models available,
how to select appropriate models for your watershed
study, and setting up and applying models for a
watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-9
One way to represent the watershed is by following the flow of water from land areas to streams and rivers, through lakes, to
estuaries, and ultimately to the ocean. When we evaluate water quality standards, the focus is typically on the waterbody of
concern. For total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) the dominant use of models is to evaluate the relationship between human
actions (e.g., land use management or wastewater treatment) and the impaired downstream waterbody (e.g., river, lake, or
estuary). Human actions, such as management practices, land use activities, direct withdrawals of drinking or cooling water,
and discharges of wastewater, can all be considered factors that affect watersheds at the land, river, lake, or estuary level.
For TMDLs, modeling typically focuses on describing the linkage between human activities and impaired waters. This “linkage
analysis” is necessary to demonstrate that the plan will achieve water quality standards (USEPA 1999a, 1999b, 2001a). For
watershed management plans, analysis should focus in more detail on the management actions and land-based activities that
will be used to meet water quality goals. In this case the analysis is focused on determining how best to address the
management needs. Although modeling for watershed management planning is similar, the focus on management typically will
result in more detailed, localized modeling. This localized modeling and evaluation can be performed separately or in tandem
with TMDL or other modeling efforts. The models described in this chapter will emphasize the management and localized
evaluations typically employed in watershed planning and provide references and links for other types of supporting models.
8.3.1 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Model
Before selecting the most appropriate model, you should define the approach for the
specific study. An approach may include one or more models, multiple analysis
procedures, and a variety of input data to address the project needs. Selecting the
appropriate model application or approach requires an understanding of the range of
complexity of the analytic techniques and a clear understanding of the questions to be
answered by the analysis. Note that the model application might include the
following:
? Various levels of detail for each component
? More than one model to address different waterbodies, pollutants, or stressors
? An available modeling system; a modification of an existing model; or a local,
custom model
? A model documentation plan
Determining the model application also means defining the data needs and the
accuracy of the modeling results. To select a model and associated application needs,
first examine the questions that need to be answered. The following are questions that
models are typically used to answer:
? Will the management actions result in meeting water quality standards?
? Which sources are the main contributors to the pollutant load targeted for
reduction?
? What are the loads associated with the individual sources?
? Which combination of management actions will most effectively meet the
identified loading targets?
? When does the impairment occur?
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-10 Draft
Field scale. Some applications are focused on small areas at
the subbasin or smaller level. Field-scale modeling usually
refers to geographic areas composed of one land use (e.g., a
cornfield).
Physically based models. A physically based model includes
a more detailed representation of fundamental processes such
as infiltration. Applying physically based models requires
extensive data and experience to set up and test the model.
HSPF and SWAT both include physically based processes,
although many simplifications are still used.
Lumped model. A model in which the physical characteristics
for land units within a subwatershed unit are assumed to be
homogeneous is referred to as a “lumped” model. Discrete
land use areas within a subwatershed area are lumped into
one group.
Mechanistic model. A mechanistic model attempts to
quantitatively describe a phenomenon by its underlying casual
mechanisms.
Numerical model. A numerical model approximates a solution
of governing partial differential equations that describe a
natural process. The approximation uses a numerical
discretization of the space and time components of the system
or process.
Steady state model. A steady state model is a mathematical
model of fate and transport that uses constant values of input
variables to predict constant values of receiving water quality
concentrations. Steady state models are typically used to
evaluate low-flow conditions.
Dynamic model. A dynamic model is a mathematical
formulation describing the physical behavior of a system or a
process and its temporal variability.
? Will the loading or impairment get worse under
future land use conditions?
? How can future growth be managed to minimize
adverse impacts?
Evaluating questions by using models requires looking
at and comparing results in terms of load,
concentration, flow, or another measurement. This
comparison should consider the indicators identified to
evaluate the watershed concerns (Ksection 4.6). For
example,
? A lake eutrophication problem might focus on
predicting the total nitrogen and phosphorus load.
? A river with an attached algae problem might need
models that can predict concentrations of dissolved
nitrogen and phosphorus during low-flow
conditions.
? An area with beach closures due to pathogens
might focus on predicting pathogen counts and the
frequency of water quality standards violations.
? A concern over sediment in streams might focus on
changes in hydrology, stream morphology, or
sediment loading from erosion-prone areas.
In each case the predictions of the model should be
evaluated on the basis of the indicators identified for
meeting and tracking the goals of the watershed
management plan. The indicators used will often dictate
the level of detail of the study. Predicting short-term
concentrations, such as a concentration of aluminum,
may require more detailed analysis of flow and pollutant transport. The model should
support the development of source loads and estimates of their magnitude, and it
should support the development of the appropriate pollutant load reduction estimates.
In defining a model application for your watershed, keep in mind four general
considerations:
1. Is the approach appropriate to your specific situation, answering the questions
needed to develop a watershed plan (relevance)?
2. Has the modeling system been shown to give valid results (credibility)?
3. Is the model easy enough to learn and use that you are likely to succeed at
obtaining useful results (usability)? Are data available to support the model
(usability)?
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-11
; The model can represent the land uses and
processes that are most important in your
watershed
; The model predicts the pollutants you’re
concerned about
; Model validations have been published in a
peer-reviewed journal
; The model is in the public domain, and the source
code is available on request
4. Is the model able to predict water quality changes based on the changes planned
for your watershed management plan (utility)?
Each of these considerations is discussed below.
Relevance
Even if the model has been reviewed in the literature and has
been applied in other watersheds, you need to make sure that
it’s relevant to the needs of your watershed. For example, a
model developed and tested only in urban areas, or even in
rural areas that are mostly forested, is not a good choice for a
watershed that consists almost entirely of agricultural row
crops or mixed uses. If flow-through tile drains are one of the
main pathways through which water reaches the stream in your watershed, a model
that does not include artificial drainage is probably not a good choice. For specialized
cases, such as tile drainage, a custom modeling application might be needed. Many
models have been developed for specific pollutants. Some specialize in sediment
only because reducing erosion was historically the mission of modeling conducted by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Many models give results for sediment,
nutrients, and perhaps pesticides, but not for microbial contaminants.
Credibility
Because it’s not possible to know in advance how accurate the
results of a specific model will be, you need to rely on what
others have found. Scientists rely on peer review of journal
articles written about the use of a model. A quick rule of
thumb is to use only models whose validation has appeared in
respected peer-reviewed journals. That way you benefit from
the time other modelers and scientists have spent reviewing the model. All the
models reviewed in this handbook have been validated, at least to some extent.
Most models distributed in the public domain have been developed by government
agencies (e.g., EPA or USDA) or universities and are freely available. However,
some consultants use proprietary models, which are privately owned software. Such
models cannot be checked because the code is not available to others. It is generally a
good idea to use nonproprietary models if possible. Proprietary models normally
require a purchase fee and have limited distribution rights. Limiting distribution and
review might affect acceptance by the stakeholders.
Usability
Accuracy of prediction is important, but if the model will not answer the questions
you need to develop your watershed plan, it will not be useful.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-12 Draft
; Documentation, training, and support are available
; The model can be run with data that are generally
available or data that can be obtained with
reasonable effort
; The model and user interface are reliable and
thoroughly tested
; The model or supplemental tools are able to
predict the likely water quality impacts of the land
use or management changes you are considering
in your watershed plan
Documentation that explains the parameters, how to get them,
and reasonable values is essential to ensure that the model is
usable. New users might need some sort of training to learn
how to use the model. Finally, model users sometimes run
into questions that are not addressed in the documentation. A
model that will be widely used needs to have user support
available. The support can be in the form of a person who
provides technical assistance or a list server where other users
can answer questions.
Obtaining input data is often the most time-consuming and
difficult part of running a model. This often comes as a surprise to those who have
not used models. Models generally require data on land cover, land management
(such as agricultural practices), factors that affect the rate at which water can flow
into the soil and recharge ground water (usually geology or soil type), and other
information about the land in the watershed. In addition, daily or even hourly weather
data, including precipitation and temperature, are usually required. Other weather
data that are more difficult to obtain, such as relative humidity and wind speed, might
be required. For models to be calibrated, accurate input data are needed. Modeling
systems, such as EPA BASINS, have compiled much of the basic data needed to run
the model; however, this coarse, national-scale data will not always be accurate
enough to give useful results, particularly in small watersheds. Other national,
publicly available databases are available from USGS and other sources.
Nevertheless, parameters like soil nutrient concentrations or fertilizer applications,
particularly those associated with agricultural production and other management
activities, are not available nationally and must be obtained locally.
Utility for Watershed Planning
Using a model to predict the impact of changes in a
watershed requires that the model be able to represent those
changes. Models represent changes in watershed management
in very different ways. You’ll need to consider what
management practices are likely to be applied in your
watershed and whether the model can be used to evaluate
their benefits. In many cases other analyses are used to
supplement a model; sometimes additional spreadsheet
calculations can be used to check on the potential load reductions from various
methods. In addition, you might want to consider how the model will be used in the
future. Will it be used to check future changes in management or as a tool to track
progress? If the model will be used as an ongoing planning tool, remember to
consider the complexity of the model and the availability of trained staff to apply the
model.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-13
8.3.2 Using Watershed Modeling Tools to Evaluate Loads
Watershed models use a set of equations or techniques to analyze the following key
components of the watershed system.
? Rainfall/runoff: The description of precipitation, infiltration, evaporation, and
runoff. This portion of a model is used to calculate the amount and timing of
runoff from a land area. Runoff is also related to erosion and to sediment and
pollutant transport. In cold-climate watersheds, it might be important to use a
model that can represent snowmelt/runoff conditions.
? Erosion and sediment transport: The description of soil detachment, erosion,
and sediment movement from a land area. In more detailed approaches this is
linked to the runoff calculation and might include sediment deposition.
? Pollutant loading: The wash-off of pollutants from a land area. In generalized
approaches this is a loading factor. More detailed techniques link pollutant wash-
off to hydrology and sediment movement.
? Stream transport: The stream portion of watershed models, which is needed, at
a minimum, to collect the runoff/sediment/pollutants from the various land areas.
More detailed models include evaluation of instream behavior of sediment and
pollutants. Processes may include deposition, resuspension, decay, and
transformation.
? Management practices: A management practice can be land-based (e.g., tillage
or fertilizer application), constructed (e.g., stormwater ponds), or input/output to a
stream (e.g., wastewater treatment). Land-based management can be generalized
(e.g., number of acres treated) or specific (e.g., field-specific practices). Some
models include more detailed simulation techniques. For example, a pond analysis
might include sediment settling and first-order decay of pollutants.
First, the land areas are described, typically in terms of land use, soils, and slope,
which are the key features that affect runoff, erosion, and pollutant loadings. Second,
the management practices present in the watershed are considered. Third, the stream
and river transport is considered. Each component of this analysis can be considered
at various levels of detail. For example, in describing runoff there are several distinct
levels of analytical detail (table 8-2). Each level considers more specific factors and
processes. The more detailed the equations used to build the modeling system, the
more parameters need to be estimated and the more detailed the evaluation of the
model performance needs to be. For each situation the analyst will need to select the
type of model, along with the associated level of detail, that is consistent with the
objectives of the analysis.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-14 Draft
Table 8-2. Various Levels of Detail for Simulating Runoff
Level of Detail Equation Assumptions
Generalized Percentage of rainfall that runs off
the land into the water (rational
method/regression of rainfall and
runoff observations)
Simple relationship between rainfall and runoff. One factor represents
the loss associated with evaporation and plant uptake. No special
consideration of slope or soil characteristics. No consideration of soil
moisture.
Mid-level CN Simple relationship based on studies across the country. Varies
depending on soil type, vegetation, and slope. Considers soil moisture
(antecedent moisture condition). Does not consider variations in storm
intensity; uses daily rainfall.
Detailed Infiltration equation Describes infiltration of water and evapotranspiration. Considers soil
moisture and soil type, vegetation, and slope. Considers variations in
storm intensity. Time step is typically hourly rainfall or less.
Note: CN = curve number.
Model applications to specific watersheds often include a mixture of levels of detail
depending on the problems being considered. For example, a modeling analysis
supporting an agricultural nutrient management initiative might include very detailed
descriptions of land behavior, such as nitrogen use by plants, and a very simplified
analysis of stream transport. A study considering the upgrade of a wastewater
treatment plant would include a detailed examination of the stream conditions in
summer and a very simplified representation of land use activities. Table 8-3
describes some of the variations in the level of detail that might be considered in a
watershed planning project.
Table 8-3. Levels of Detail in Watershed Models
Element Generalized Mid-level Detailed
Land
Land use Category (Agriculture) Subcategory (Cropland) Specific (Corn, ridge-tilled)
Slope N/A Average for area Average for specific location
Soil moisture N/A Antecedent moisture condition
(3 levels)
Calculated
Hydrology Percent runoff CN Infiltration equations
Pollutants Single Multiple Chemical and biological interactions between
pollutants
Load lb/ac/year lb/day; daily average concentration lb/hr; hourly average concentration
Management Practices
Management
Practices
Percent removal Percent removal and estimated
volume captured
Hydrology
Deposition/settling
First order decay and transformation
Streams/Rivers
Hydrology Single flow, steady state Single flow, steady state Continuous or variable flow
Water quality Regression, simple
relationships
Eutrophication cycle Eutrophication cycle, carbon/nutrient/BOD
processes
Toxic
substances
Regression, simple
relationships
Settling, 1st order decay Transformation, biodegradation, other
processes
Note: CN = curve number; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-15
8.3.3 Model Selection and Application Process
With so many models available, how do you know which one to choose? The
development of a modeling analysis involves more than selecting a modeling tool.
The application of a model for decisionmaking also involves designing and
implementing an analysis that addresses the management questions. Typically this
involves a combination of data analysis techniques, as described in chapter 7, and
compilation and organization of disparate data sources.
Described below are the key steps for
selecting and designing a modeling application for
watershed planning purposes. Throughout the
watershed process you’ve built an
understanding of the watershed—through
scoping, stakeholder input, and data
collection and analysis. The design of
the modeling approach should build on
this understanding and help you to better
understand the watershed.
1. Consider the objectives of the
analysis. During the scoping process the
key objectives of the study are identified, as
well as the general modeling needs and
watershed characteristics. The specific
objectives and associated indicators will
help to define the pollutants that the
model might need to consider.
2. Define the specific questions that the
modeling will be used to answer. As discussed earlier in the chapter, before
selecting a model, the analyst should first carefully define the questions that the
model will be used to answer. The questions should directly relate to the overarching
objectives of the study. The following are examples of modeling questions:
? What are the sources of the pollutant load?
? Where can management practices be targeted to best meet load reduction
requirements?
? What combination of management practices will result in reducing the load to the
desired level and meeting water quality goals?
3. Select the modeling approach that will address the questions. The modeling
approach includes the model(s) to be used, the input data processing requirements
and data sources, the model testing locations and data sources, and the output
analysis. The modeling approach defines how the model will be applied, not just
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-16 Draft
Calibration and validation are two separate procedures in
model development and testing. Available monitoring data
are separated into two separate time periods for testing.
Using one dataset, calibration parameters are adjusted,
within reasonable ranges, until a best fit to observed data is
generated. Using the second dataset, validation is performed
by keeping the parameter set constant and testing the
performance of the model. Time periods for calibration and
validation are carefully selected to include a range of
hydrologic conditions.
what the model is. The approach provides the entire plan or road map for analysis
and is broader than the selection of a model.
4. Set up the model. As required by the modeling approach identified above, the
input data are collected and processed for the model (or models). Typical data inputs
include the following:
? Land use
? Soils
? Slope
? Activities, management locations, and types
? Monitoring data—flow and water quality
? Meteorologic data—precipitation and temperature
Each dataset might require some preprocessing before
input. For example, land use information might be
selectively updated where new development has occurred.
Sometimes multiple land use datasets are combined. For
example, one data source might provide a more detailed
breakdown of forest types and could be used to add detail to a broader land use
coverage. Some models require developing categories of land use, soil, and slope
characteristics. Resulting units could include corn fields with B soils (a hydrologic
soil group defined by the USDA) and moderate slopes, pasture with C soils and steep
slopes, and so on. User’s guides and the selected modeling references provide some
additional guidance on data preprocessing needs for individual models. Much of the
data required for watershed models is discussed in chapter 5.
5. Test the model’s performance. Regardless of the
complexity or detail of the modeling approach,
appropriate testing (calibration and validation) of model
accuracy should be performed. Remember that modeling
results need a reality check before they are used to
support a loading analysis or evaluation of management
scenarios. If data are available, the model should be
calibrated and validated to ensure accurate
representation of the watershed processes. When data
are limited, you should also compare model results to
literature values and data from surrounding watersheds
to review the integrity of the results. Do the loads seem
realistic given observed concentrations and flows or
documented loads in nearby watersheds? Do the simulation results make sense given
the watershed processes? For example, if a watershed model produces monthly loads,
do the higher loads occur during the times of higher observed flows and
concentrations? Or, if a model provides output from both ground water and surface
water, do the relative contributions make sense given the topography and geology of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-17
the area? Watershed models are meant to represent the processes affecting runoff and
pollutant transport and loading. Use your knowledge of the area to reality-check the
model representations and output. KMore information on model calibration and
validation is provided in section 8.4.5.
6. Apply the model and interpret the results. The model is applied to evaluate the
range of conditions required for addressing the modeling questions. For example, a
model might be used to evaluate the nutrient loading over a 10-year period. Output
postprocessing might include developing annual and monthly loading summaries by
source category and evaluating of seasonal and annual variation. Multiple model
applications might be used to consider changes in land use, installation of
management practices, and alterations in cultivation techniques. Output can be
processed to support development of essential elements of the watershed plan (source
controls, magnitude of sources, and pollutant load reduction estimates).
7. Update the model to include new information or refine assumptions. Often
after the initial management planning study is complete, additional data are collected
or new information is discovered. The model can be updated periodically to further
refine and test performance and update management recommendations, if
appropriate.
Selection and execution of an appropriate modeling approach can support the
development of a watershed management plan. Use caution in selecting an approach
consistent with the available data, the specific questions to be addressed, and the type
of management. Data analysis is an ongoing process in which modeling is only one
potential tool. In many cases, simplifed techniques or statistical analysis is adequate
to evaluate watershed conditions and no formal modeling is required. Throughout the
process, focus on using the most simple methods appropriate to answering the
questions at hand.
8.3.4 What Models Are Available?
Various modeling systems have been developed and used to answer a wide range of
environmental questions. This handbook focuses on selected models that are publicly
available and have a track record of application and use. The models are commonly
used in TMDLs and other watershed studies. They represent a range of complexity
and are applicable to a variety of pollutants and pollutant sources.
Although these models are supported by EPA and included in this handbook, other
similar watershed models might be appropriate for use in developing your watershed
plan. An inventory of available models that evaluates the models across a set of key
charactistics is provided in table 8-4. These characteristics were selected to help
differentiate among available tools and to describe areas of emphasis, complexity,
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-18 Draft
Table 8-4. Overview of Several Available Watershed Models
Model
Acronym Source
Type
Level of
Complexity Timestep
Hydro-
logy Water Quality Types of BMPs
Grid
-b
ased
Stre
a
m
routing inc
l
ude
d
Exp
o
r
t co
efficien
ts
Loa
ding func
tions
Ph
ysically b
ased
Sub-da
ily
Daily Monthly Annua
l
Su
rface
Surface and groundwater User-d
efin
ed
Se
dime
nt
Nutrients T
o
x
ics/p
esticid
es
Metals BOD Bacteria De
te
ntion ba
s
i
n
Infiltration practices Veg
e
tative p
r
actices
We
tla
nds
Oth
e
r stru
ctu
r
es
AGNPS
(event based)
USDA-ARS !! ––!!–––! ––!!!–––! – ! ––
AnnAGNPS USDA-ARS – ! ––! – ! ––! ––!!!–––! – ! ––
BASINS EPA – !!!!!!––! !!!!!!!!! – ! – !
DIAS/
IDLMAS
Argonne National
Laboratory
––––––––! –––! –––––– – – – –
DRAINMOD North Carolina State
University
–– – – !!––––! ––! ––––– – – ! –
DWSM
(event based)
Illinois State Water
Survey
– ! ––!!–––! ––!!!–––!!–––
EPIC Texas A&M
University–Texas
Agricultural
Experiment Station
––––––! ––! ––!!!–––!!– ! –
GISPLM College of
Charleston, Stone
Environmental, and
Dr. William Walker
– ! – ! ––! ––! –––! ––––– – – – –
GLEAMS USDA-ARS – – – – – – ! ––! ––!!!–––– – – – –
GSSHA USACE !! ––!!––––! – ! –––––!! !!
GWLF Cornell University – ! – ! –––! ––! – !!––––– – ! ––
HEC-HMS USACE – ! ––!!–––! – –––––––– – – – –
HSPF EPA – ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!–––––
KINEROS2
(event based)
USDA-ARS – ! ––!!–––! ––! –––––! – ! – !
LSPC EPA and Tetra
Tech, Inc.
– ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!! – ! – !
Mercury
Loading
Model
EPA – – – – ! –––!!– ––––! –––––––
MIKE SHE Danish Hydraulic
Institute
– ! ––!!––––! –––––––– – – – –
MINTEQA2 EPA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ! –––––––
MUSIC Monash University,
Cooperative
Research Center for
Catchment
Hydrology
–– – – !!–––! – ! ––––––!!!!!
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-19
Table 8-4. (continued)
Type
Level of
Complexity Timestep
Hydro-
logy Water Quality Types of BMPs
Model
Acronym Source
Grid
-b
ased
Stre
a
m
routing inc
l
ude
d
Exp
o
r
t co
efficien
ts
Loa
ding func
tions
Ph
ysically b
ased
Sub-da
ily
Daily Monthly Annua
l
Su
rface
Surface and groundwater User-d
efin
ed
Se
dime
nt
Nutrients T
o
x
ics/p
esticid
es
Metals BOD Bacteria De
te
ntion ba
s
i
n
Infiltration practices Veg
e
tative p
r
actices
We
tla
nds
Other Structures
P8-UCM Dr. William Walker – – !!– ! –––! – !!!– ! ––!!!– !
PCSWMM Computational
Hydraulics Int.
– ! – !!!––––!!!!!!– !!!––!
PGC – BMP Prince George's
County, MD
–– – ! – ! ––––––!!– ! ––!!!!!
REMM USDA-ARS – – – – – – – – – – – – !!!!––– – ! ––
SHETRAN University of
Newcastle (UK)
– ! ––!!!–––! – ! –––––– – – – –
SLAMM University of
Alabama
–––––! –––! ––!!– ! ––!!!!!
SPARROW USGS – ! ––––––!!––!!!–––– – – – –
STORM USACE (Mainframe
version), Dodson &
Associates, Inc. (PC
version)
––! – !!–––! ––!!–––! ––––!
SWAT USDA-ARS – ! ––! – ! –––! – !!!!––!!!– !
SWMM EPA – ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!! ! –––
Toolbox EPA – ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!! – ! – !
TOPMODEL Lancaster University
(UK), Institute of
Environmental and
Natural Sciences
–– – – !!!–––! –––––––– – – – –
WAMView Soil and Water
Engineering
Technology, Inc.
(SWET) and EPA
!! ––!!––––! – !!!!– !!!!!!
WARMF Systech
Engineering, Inc.
– ! ––! – ! –––! – !!!!!!–––!!
WEPP USDA-ARS – – – – ! – !!!– ! – ! –––––– ! –––
WinHSPF EPA – ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!–––––
WMS Environmental
Modeling Systems,
Inc.
– ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!! ! – !!
XP-SWMM XP Software, Inc. – ! ––!!––––!!!!!!!!! ! ––!
– Not supported
! Supported
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-20 Draft
and types of pollutants considered. Key characterization factors include the
following:
? Type. “Landscape only” indicates that the model simulates only land-based
processes; “comprehensive” models include land and stream and conveyance
routing.
? Level of complexity. Complexity in watershed models is classified as three
levels. Export functions are simplified rates that estimate loading based on a very
limited set of factors (e.g., land use). Loading functions are empirically based
estimates of load based on generalized meteorologic factors (e.g., precipitation,
temperature). Physcially based models include physically based representations
of runoff, pollutant accumulation and wash-off, and sediment detachment and
transport. Most detailed models use a mixture of empirical and physically based
algorithms.
? Time step. Time step is the unit of time (e.g., hourly, monthly) for which a
model simulates processes and provides results. The table identifies the smallest
timestep supported by a model. If larger output timesteps are needed, model
output can be summarized from smaller timesteps.
? Hydrology. This criterion identies whether a model includes surface runoff only
or surface and ground water inputs are considered.
? Water quality. Water quality capabilities are evaluated based on the pollutants
or parameters simulated by the model.
? Types of management practices. The types of management practices simulated
by the models are indicated in the table.
Even if you’re not planning to run the model yourself, it’s helpful to know the
capabilities and requirements of the major types of watershed models so you can
“talk the talk” and make informed decisions about how to proceed with your data
analysis. Remember that typically it is not the model itself that causes problems but
the matching of the model to local conditions, key assumptions, and interpretation of
model outputs.
KAdditional detailed information on available models is provided in EPA’s
Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development (USEPA
1997c). Although updated versions of some models have been released since the
compendium was published, it provides a good starting point for researching
available models and understanding their capabilities. KA more recent online
database, provided by EPA’s Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling,
provides links to model reviews and resources (http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-21
AGNPS
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199
STEPL
Temporary URL http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/stepl
GWLF
The original version of the model has been used for 15 years
and can be obtained from Dr. Douglas Haith at Cornell
University. A Windows interface (Dai et al. 2000) is available
at www.vims.edu/bio/vimsida/basinsim.html. Penn State
University developed an ArcView interface for GWLF
(www.avgwlf.psu.edu) and compiled data for the entire state of
Pennsylvania (Evans et al. 2002).
HSPF
HSPF is available through EPA's Center for Exposure
Assessment Modeling (www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/hspf)
and also as part of EPA's BASINS system
(www.epa.gov/ost/basins/). Another formulation of HSPF is
EPA’s Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC), which can
be downloaded at www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/lspc.html.
P8-UCM
www.wwwalker.net/p8/p8v24.zip
SWAT
www.brc.tamus.edu/swat
SWAT is also included in EPA’s BASINS system
(www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm).
SWMM
www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/models/swmm/index.htm
Seven watershed models are presented here for more
detailed discussion: AGNPS, STEPL, GWLF, HSPF,
SWMM, P8-UCM, and SWAT. The models represent
a cross section of simple to more detailed approaches,
provide simulation of rural and more urbanized areas,
and include a diversity of approaches. These models
are used to describe key differentiators and
considerations in selecting and applying models.
Other models that have specialized capabilities to
support watershed management planning or TMDL
development are available. The additional models
include
? WAMVIEW for areas where there are high water
tables that affect infiltration and runoff
? Models that specialize in detailed sediment
detachment and wash-off, such as KINEROS and
the Sediment Tool (TMDL Toolbox)
? Specialty models for simulating mercury, such as
the TMDL Toolbox Mercury Tool, which
provides watershed-scale assessment of mercury
loading
The key features of the selected models are presented
below. KIn section 8.4 the model application process
for the selected models is described. KAppendix A
provides resources for more detailed discussion on
available models and their applications.
AGNPS
The Agricultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS) model
was developed by USDA’s Agricultural Research
Service for use in evaluating the effect of management decisions on a watershed
system. The term “AGNPS” now refers to the system of modeling components,
including Annualized AGNPS, rather than the single-event AGNPS, which was
discontinued in the mid-1990s. AGNPS has the advantage of providing spatially
explicit modeling results, which is not true of most of the other models described
here. However, the annualized version has not yet had extensive validation, and the
user base is not yet broad. One training opportunity per year is typically offered.
KThe model, documentation, and information about training are available at
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-22 Draft
A physically based model includes a more detailed
representation of processes based on physical
features. Applying physically based models
requires extensive data to set up and test the model
and substantial modeling experience. HSPF and
SWAT both include physically based processes,
although many simplifications are used.
AnnAGNPS is a continuous-simulation, watershed-scale program
developed based on the single-event model AGNPS. AnnAGNPS
simulates quantities of surface water, sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides leaving the land areas and their subsequent travel
through the watershed. Runoff quantities are based on a runoff
curve number (CN), while sediment is determined using the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE; USDA 1996).
Special components are included to handle concentrated sources
of nutrients (feedlots and point sources), concentrated sediment
sources (gullies), and added water (irrigation). Output is
expressed on an event basis for selected stream reaches and as source accounting
(contribution to outlet) from land or reach components over the simulation period.
The model can be used to evaluate the effect of management practices such as
agricultural practices, ponds, grassed waterways, irrigation, tile drainage, vegetative
filter strips, and riparian buffers. All runoff and associated sediment, nutrient, and
pesticide loads for a single day are routed to the watershed outlet before the next
day’s simulation. There is no tracking of nutrients and pesticides attached to sediment
deposited in stream reaches from one day to the next. Point sources are limited to
constant loading rates (water and nutrients) for the entire simulation period, and
spatially variable rainfall is not allowed. KThe model is available at
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199.
AGNPS was developed for agricultural or mixed-land-use watersheds. It predicts
nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon. It is appropriate for use on watersheds of
up to 500 square kilometers. It provides information on the impact on various
locations in the watershed, rather than simply various land uses.
STEPL
STEPL is a simplified spreadsheet tool for estimating load reductions that result from
implementing management practices. It is designed as a customized Excel
spreadsheet model that is easy to use. Users can modify the formulas and default
parameter values without any specialized programming skills. STEPL includes a
management practice calculator that computes the combined effectiveness of multiple
management practices implemented in serial or parallel configurations (or both) in a
watershed. Management measures that affect hydrology or sediment can be estimated
with empirical factors, such as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now the Natural
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) CN for estimating runoff and USLE C and
P factors representing vegetative cover and conservation practices, respectively.
(KMore detail on selecting CNs and USLE parameters is included in section 8.4.3.)
Pollutant load reductions attributable to the management practices are estimated with
reduction factors (or management practice effectiveness) applied to the pre-
management practice loads from the various land uses. KThe user’s guide, model,
default database, and other supporting information are available on the STEPL Web
site (temporary URL http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/stepl). Application of the STEPL tool
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-23
requires users to have a basic knowledge of hydrology, erosion, and pollutant loading
processes. Familiarity with the use and limitations of environmental data is also
helpful. Computer skills in Microsoft Excel and the use of Excel formulas are
needed.
GWLF
The Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model simulates runoff and
sediment delivery using the SCS curve number equation (CNE) and the USLE,
combined with average nutrient concentration based on land use. GWLF is a good
choice for watershed planning where nutrients and sediment are primary concerns.
Because of the lack of detail in predictions and stream routing (transport of flow and
loads through the stream system), the outputs are given only monthly, although they
are calculated daily.
The model is simple enough that most people should be able to learn it without
attending training sessions. The original version of the model has been used for 15
years. Data requirements are low: information on land use, land cover, soil, and the
parameters that govern runoff, erosion, and nutrient load generation is all that is
required. KPennsylvania State University developed an ArcView interface for
GWLF (www.avgwlf.psu.edu) and compiled data for the entire state of Pennsylvania
(Evans et al. 2002). A Windows interface (Dai et al. 2000) is also available at
www.vims.edu/bio/vimsida/basinsim.html. Calibration requirements for GWLF are
very low. GWLF is a good choice for watershed planning in many situations. The
interfaces and documentation are excellent, and the model is quite easy to use. The
management practice tool (PRedICT) is a good, simple way to estimate the impact of
management practices. However, GWLF is limited to nutrient and sediment load
prediction and it does not include instream processes such as flow and transport of
loads.
HSPF
The Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) is a comprehensive package for
simulating watershed hydrology and water quality for a wide range of conventional
and toxic organic pollutants. HSPF simulates watershed hydrology, land and soil
contaminant runoff, and sediment-chemical interactions. The model can generate
time series results of any of the simulated processes. Overland sediment can be
divided into three types of sediment (sand, silt, and clay) for instream fate and
transport. Pollutants interact with suspended and bed sediment through soil-water
partitioning. HSPF is one the few watershed models capable of simulating land
processes and receiving water processes simultaneously. It is also capable of
simulating both peak flow and low flows and simulates at a variety of timesteps, from
subhourly to one minute, hourly, or daily. The model can be set up as simple or
complex, depending on application, requirements, and data availability. For land
simulation, processes are lumped for each land use type at the subwatershed level;
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-24 Draft
therefore, the model does not consider the spatial location of one land parcel relative
to another in the watershed. For instream simulation, the model is limited to
well-mixed rivers and reservoirs and one-directional flow. HSPF requires extensive
calibration and generally requires a high level of expertise for application.
The most recent release is HSPF Version 12, which is distributed as part of the EPA
BASINS system. Another formulation of HSPF is EPA’s Loading Simulation
Program in C++ (LSPC), a watershed modeling system that includes algorithms for
simulating hydrology, sediment, and general water quality on land, as well as a
simplified stream transport model (www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/lspc.html). A
key advantage of LSPC is that it has no inherent limitations in terms of modeling size
or model operations and has been applied to large, complex watersheds. In addition,
the Microsoft Visual C++ programming architecture allows for seamless integration
with modern-day, widely available software such as Microsoft Access and Excel.
Data management tools support the evaluation of loading and management within
multiple watersheds simultaneously.
P8-UCM
The P8-UCM program predicts the generation and transport of stormwater runoff
pollutants in small urban catchments. It consists mainly of methods derived from
other tested urban runoff models (SWMM, HSPF, D3RM, TR-20). Model
components include stormwater runoff assessment, surface water quality analysis,
and routing through structural controls. The model applications include development
and comparison of stormwater management plans, watershed-scale land use planning,
site planning and evaluation for compliance, effectiveness of sedimentation ponds
and constructed wetlands, and selection and sizing of management practices.
Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time
series data. The model simulates pollutant transport and removal in a variety of urban
stormwater management practices, including swales, buffer strips, detention ponds
(dry, wet, and extended), flow splitters, and infiltration basins (offline and online);
pipes; and aquifers. The model assumes that a watershed is divided into a lumped
pervious area and a lumped impervious area and does not evaluate the spatial
distribution of pervious and impervious land uses. The model also assumes that
pollutants entering the waterbodies are sediment-adsorbed. P8-UCM is a simple
model that requires moderate effort to set up, calibrate, and validate. Limitations of
the model include limited capability in flow and pollutant routing and limited
capability in ground water processes and ground water and surface water interaction.
SWAT
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was developed by the USDA’s
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and is one of the models in the EPA BASINS
modeling system. SWAT is included in EPA’s BASINS v3.1—
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-25
www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm. SWAT is strongest in agricultural
areas; the urban component was added more recently. Pollutants modeled are
pesticides, nutrients, sediment based on agricultural inputs, and management
practices. The bacteria component has been developed but is still being tested.
SWAT has been validated in many watersheds. It is more comprehensive than GWLF
and can better estimate the water quality impacts of some management changes;
however, the added accuracy gained by running SWAT will be worth the extra effort
only in watersheds where high-resolution agricultural management analyses are
warranted and where information on agricultural land use practices can be obtained.
SWMM
SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model developed by EPA. It is
applied primarily to urban areas and for single-event or long-term (continuous)
simulation using various timesteps (Huber and Dickinson 1988). It was developed for
the analysis of surface runoff and flow routing through complex urban sewer
systems. SWMM was first developed in 1971 and has undergone several major
upgrades. The current edition, Version 5, is a complete rewrite of the previous release
and was produced by EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory. KFor
more information on SWMM and to download the current version, go to
www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/models/swmm/index.htm.
The model performs best in urbanized areas with impervious drainage, although it
has been widely used elsewhere. SWMM has been applied to urban hydrologic
quantity and quality problems in a number of U.S. cities, as well as extensively in
Canada, Europe, and Australia (Donigian and Huber 1991; Huber 1992). In addition
to its use in developing comprehensive watershed-scale planning, typical uses of
SWMM include predicting CSOs, assessing the effectiveness of management
practices, providing input to short-time-increment dynamic receiving water quality
models, and interpreting receiving water quality monitoring data (Donigian and
Huber 1991).
In SWMM, flow routing is performed for surface and sub-surface conveyance and
ground water systems, including the options of non-linear reservoir channel routing
and fully dynamic hydraulic flow routing. In the fully dynamic hydraulic flow
routing option, SWMM simulates backwater, surcharging, pressure flow, and looped
connections. SWMM has a variety of options for water quality simulation, including
traditional buildup and wash-off formulation as well as rating curves and regression
techniques. USLE is included to simulate soil erosion. SWMM incorporates first-
order decay and particle settling mechanisms in pollutant transport simulations and
includes an option of simple scour-deposition routine. The latest version of SWMM
simulates overland flow routing between pervious and impervious areas within a
subcatchment. Storage, treatment, and other management practices can also be
simulated. The model typically requires calibration of its parameters for water
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-26 Draft
quantity and quality simulations. The model also assumes all pollutants entering the
waterbodies are sediment adsorbed.
8.3.5 Capabilities of the Selected Models
Major factors in selecting a watershed model include
? Water quality indicators simulated
? Simulation of land and water features (e.g., land use and waterbody types)
? Application considerations (e.g., training required)
The following sections discuss the capabilities and characteristics of the selected
models for each of these considerations.
Water Quality Targets or Endpoints for the Selected Models
The selection of the appropriate model for your watershed and your goals depends on
the types of processes you need to simulate. The initial criteria for determining which
model is right for your watershed analysis include the water quality targets or goals.
Water quality targets are based on specific parameters (e.g., phosphorus, sediment)
and typically have an associated magnitude, duration, and frequency. For example, a
target might be established for a monthly sediment load of 20 tons, or bacteria targets
might be set as a daily maximum of 400 counts/100 mL. To better summarize the
selected watershed models’ applicability to typical water quality targets and to aid in
identifying appropriate models for your watershed, table 8-5 summarizes the models’
ability to simulate typical target pollutants and expressions (e.g., load vs.
concentration). The table scores the models depending on the timestep of the
simulation for the target—annual, daily, or hourly.
Simulation of Land and Water Features
After you’ve initially identified models based on the necessary parameters, it’s
important to identify the major land and water features or processes that you want to
simulate. For example, what types of land uses are in your watershed? Is ground
water an important influence on instream water quality? Are there certain types of
management measures you want to evaluate in your watershed? The available models
simulate different land and water features, and they do so at different levels of detail.
Table 8-6 provides a summary of the selected key models’ capabilities for simulating
a variety of land and water features. The table identifies the following categories:
? General Land and Water Features Supported: Rates models according to
their ability to simulate general land uses and waterbody types.
? Special Land Features Supported: Rates models on the basis of their ability to
simulate special land processes such as wetlands, hydrologic modification, urban
management practices, and rural management practices.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-27
Table 8-5. Water Quality Endpoints Supported by the Selected Watershed Models
Parameter/Endpoint AGNPS STEPL GWLF
a
HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM
Total phosphorus (TP) load ???????
TP concentration ? – ??
Total nitrogen (TN) load ???????
TN concentration ? – ??
Nitrate concentration – – – ? – ??
Ammonia concentration – – – ? –
TN:TP mass ratio – – ??– ??
Dissolved oxygen ? ––? –
Chlorophyll a – – – ? – ? –
Algal density (mg/m
2
) ––––––
Net total suspended solids load – ? – ??– ?
Total suspended solids
concentration
? –– ?
Sediment concentration ? – ???– ?
Sediment load ????– ??
Metals concentrations – – – ? –
Pesticide concentrations ? ––? – ? –
Herbicide concentrations ? ? – ? –
Toxic substances concentrations – – – ? ––
Pathogen count (E. coli, fecal
coliform)
–––? – ??
Temperature – – – ? – ? –
Key:
– Not supported
? Annual
? Daily
? Hourly
a
GWLF calculations are performed on a daily basis, but the results are presented on a monthly basis.
? Special Water Features Supported: Rates models on the basis of their ability to
simulate special processes occurring in receiving waterbodies such as air
deposition, streambank erosion, algae, and fish. Because the selected models are
primarily watershed models, many of the detailed water features are not
supported. If these processes are important in your watershed, it might be
necessary to investigate receiving water models or other outside analyses to use
in combination with your watershed model.
Application Considerations
Another issue to consider when selecting your model is what it takes to apply the
model—considerations such as how long it will take to setup and apply the model,
how much training you’ll need, and how much the model will cost. Table 8-7 rates
the selected models based on the practical considerations affecting their application.
Models with filled circles are generally easier to use and require less data and time
for application.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-28 Draft
Table 8-6. Land and Water Features Supported by the Selected Watershed Models
Land and Water Feature AGNPS STEPL GWLF HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM
General Land and Water Features
Urban – ??????
Rural ???????
Agriculture ????
Forest – ??
River – – ?????
Lake – – – ? – ??
Reservoir/impoundment – – – ????
Estuary (tidal) –––––––
Col (/shorelin)
Detailed Land Features
Air deposition – – – ? –––
Wetland – – – ????
Land-to-land simulation ? ––? –––
Hydrologic modification – – – ? ––?
Management practice siting/placement and
optimization
? ––??– ?
Urban Land Management
Street sweeping – – ? – ???
Nutrient control practices (fertilizer, pet waste
management)
? ––????
Stormwater structures (manhole, splitter) ––––? – ?
Detention/retention ponds ? ––????
Constructed wetland processes ––––???
Vegetative practices ? – ?????
Infiltration practices – – – ??––
Rural Land Management
Nutrient control practices (fertilizer, manure
management)
????– ??
Agricultural conservation practices (contouring,
terracing, row cropping)
????– ??
Irigaton practies/tile drains –––––? –
Ponds ? ––????
Vegetative practices ???– ? –
Key:
– Not supported
? Low: Simplified representation of features, significant limitations
? Medium: Moderate level of analysis, some limitations
? High: Detailed simulation of processes associated with land or water feature
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-29
Table 8-7. Application Considerations of the Selected Watershed Models
Application Considerations AGNPS STEPL GWLF HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM
Experience required ???– ??–
Time needed for application – ???
Data needs ??????
Support available ????? ?
Software tools ???? ??
Cost to purchase ???????
Key:
Experience: Time Needed for Application: Data Needs:
– Substantial training or modeling expertise required (generally
requires professional experience with advanced watershed
and/or hydrodynamic and water quality models)
? Moderate training required (assuming some experience with
basic watershed and/or water quality models)
? Limited training required (assuming some familiarity with
basic environmental models)
? Little or no training required
– > 6 months
? > 3 months
? > 1 month
? < 1 month
? High
? Medium
? Low
Support Available: Software Tools: Cost to Purchase:
– None
? Low
? Medium
? High
– None
? Low
? Medium
? High
– Significant cost (> $500)
? Nominal cost (< $500)
? Limited distribution
? Public domain
8.4 Model Application Process for the Selected Models
Previous sections discussed the basic features of models, how to select appropriate
models for your project, and general steps in applying models. This section discusses
the decisions made during model application. Although the models have different
features and capabilities, some basic decisions regarding data and data processing are
required for every model application. The major data needs for the selected models
reviewed here are summarized in table 8-8. These are the decisions that result in
tailoring the model to your specific site. Each major decision point is discussed,
along with some suggestions for how to decide the appropriate level of detail.
For loading analysis you need to think carefully about the area being modeled. A
watershed is usually composed of areas with diverse land uses and activities. Some
watersheds have regional differences, such as a densely populatd areas surrounded by
countryside. When applying a model to a watershed, the diversity within the
watershed is simplified into major categories so that the loads can be estimated. If the
analysis is too detailed, the modeling becomes very difficult to apply and test. If the
analysis is too simplified, some important information might be lost. Modeling
should build on the detailed understanding of the watershed developed during
planning and data analysis.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-30 Draft
Table 8-8. Typical Data Needs for Example Models
Model
Number of
Watersheds
Land Use and Soil
Parameters
Stream Channel
Characteristics
Nutrient
Applications Management Practices
AGNPS > 1 CN/USLE N/A Application rate Location and type
associated with land use
STEPL 1 CN/USLE N/A N/A General type
GWLF 1 CN/USLE N/A Manure/nutrient
applications, date
General/agricultural
HSPF > 1 HSPF-specific Flow/discharge relationships,
length
Application rate Location and type
P8-UCM 1 CN/USLE N/A N/A General type
SWAT > 1 CN/USLE Dimensions of stream
channel
Application rate Location and type
associated with land use
SWMM > 1 Green-Ampt/USLE Dimensions of stream
channel, conduits, and pipes
Buildup and wash-
off rates
Location and type
associated with land use
Note: CN = curve number; USLE = Universal Soil Loss Equation.
8.4.1 Watershed Delineation
Although you’ve already delineated your watershed (section 5.4.1), you’ll likely
further divide the watershed into small subwatersheds for modeling and evaluation.
Dividing the watershed into subwatersheds is usually the very first step in watershed
modeling. A watershed of 10 square miles might be subdivided into 20
subwatersheds about 0.5 square mile each. How do you decide how small to go? That
will depend on the watershed characterisitics, the type of model you’re using, and the
management actions that might be considered. Some watershed characteristics to
consider when subdividing the watershed include
? Land use distribution and diversity
? Location of critical areas
? Stream gauging stations and water quality monitoring locations (subwatersheds
should match key monitoring locations for testing)
? Location of physical features such as lakes, dams, and point sources discharges
? Changes in topography
? Soil distribution
? Areas where management might change
Table 8-9 provides examples of the number of subwatersheds and average size of
subwatersheds for some very large watershed modeling applications using HSPF or
LSPC. Why do they vary significantly? The watershed with the most uniform land
uses and a large area was evaluated using large subwatersheds (e.g., Tongue River
watershed in Montana). The watershed with the smallest subwatersheds is in an area
that ranges from highly urbanized to rural and has a dense network of monitoring
data available for testing. In this application the local conditions are represented by
using smaller watersheds. Each application is unique, and watersheds are defined
accordingly.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-31
Table 8-9. Examples of Number and Size of Subwatersheds in Modeling Applications
Watershed Location
Watershed Size
(mi
2
)
Number of
Subwatersheds
Average
Subwatershed
Size (mi
2
)
Mobile River Basin AL/GA/MS/TN 43,605 152 286.88
French Gulch Creek AZ 16 26 0.62
Boulder Creek AZ 138 9 15.33
Clear Lake Watershed CA 441 49 9.00
San Gabriel River CA 689 139 4.96
San Jacinto River CA 770 32 24.06
Los Angeles River CA 834 35 23.83
Sacramento River CA 9,147 249 36.73
Lake Tahoe Watershed CA/NV 314 184 1.71
Christina River DE/MD/PA 564 70 8.06
Tug Fork River KY/VA/WV 1,500 455 3.30
Upper Patuxent River MD 130 50 2.60
Lower Tongue River MT 3,609 30 120.30
Lake Helena Watershed MT 616 49 12.57
Wissahickon Creek PA 64 5 12.80
Tyger River SC 750 75 10.00
Salt River USVI 5 13 0.38
Tygart Valley River WV 1,362 1,007 1.35
West Fork River WV 880 645 1.36
The number and size of subwatersheds can affect the model selection process. Some
watershed models have limitations on the number of subwatersheds or the size of the
area the model can simulate. HSPF, SWMM, and SWAT are typically used for
multiple subwatersheds, allowing for the evaluation of geographic distributions of
loads. Models such as GWLF and STEPL do not inherently handle multiple
watersheds and therefore are applied to one watershed at a time.
How are subwatersheds delineated? Most applications today use a geographic
information system (GIS) to delineate watersheds based on Digital Elevation Models
(DEMs) and topographic maps. Some software packages provide autodelineation
tools or other aids to help define hydrologic boundaries. Predefined watershed
boundaries such as 14-digit hydrologic units can be used. KSee section 5.4.1 for
more details on delineating watersheds.
8.4.2 Land Use Assignment
Land use information is typically provided as a GIS coverage or map with many
individual codes that describe detailed land use types. For modeling purposes, these
individual codes should be grouped into a more managable set of dominant land use
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-32 Draft
TIP: The decisions made regarding data processing
for model input are part of the assumptions and
potential limitations of the modeling approach.
During the application, keep a log of all data-
processing steps for later use in documenting and
identifying assumptions and limitations.
types. How much combining is done depends on the watershed characteristics.
Factors to consider in deciding on land use grouping include the following:
? Dominant land use types
? Land uses subject to change or conversion
? Land use types where management changes are expected
? Spatial diversity within the watershed
? Availability of information on individual land use types
When grouping land uses, recognize that the summary of pollutant loading will be
presented by land use category. Too many categories of land uses can be difficult to
model, test, and report. Too few categories can result in oversimplication and
generalization of the watershed conditions. Like so many aspects of watershed
analysis, this decision depends on the local conditions and the management concerns
being evaluated. When selecting your land use grouping, think about the dominant
features of your watershed and how they might change in the future (table 8-10). For
example, in a watershed that is dominantly forested, the key land use categories
might include various ages of trees (newly established, mature), logging roads, and
small residential areas. Changes under consideration might be forest
practices/harvesting techniques, road removal, and road management. For this
watershed most of the detailed land use categories would relate to forest type and
practice. In an urban watershed, forest might be grouped into a single category while
numerous densities of urban land uses (e.g., commercial, industrial, high-density
urban) are represented in more detail.
Table 8-10. Example Land Use Categories for Watershed Models
Forested Watershed Urban Watershed
? Mature forest
? Scrub/brush
? Newly established forest (1–5 years)
? Harvested areas (0–1 years)
? Dirt roads
? Camp areas
? Residential
? Low-density residential
? Medium-density residential
? High-density residential
? Commercial
? Industrial
? Open space
8.4.3 Parameter Selection
Once subwatersheds and land uses are defined, the next
decisions involve summarizing other spatial information within
each subwatershed. For most models, this involves combining
information on soils, topography, and land use. For example,
models that use the CNE (STEPL, GWLF, SWAT, AGNPS, and
P8-UCM) have look-up tables that relate soil, crop type, and
management to a CN factor (USDA-NRCS 1986). The CN is used in the model to
calculate runoff based on rainfall for specific land areas. For HSPF, an infiltration
factor that relates to the soil type associated with each land use is selected.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-33
For example, CN options for cornfields (row crops without conservation treatment)
include the following (USDA-NRCS 1986):
Corn A soil Good Condition 67
Corn B soil Fair Condition 79.5 (Average of the CNs for poor and good
conditions)
Corn B soil Good Condition 78
Corn C soil Poor Condition 88
“Condition” applies to the soil conditions for the area. An area with good-condition
soils will likely have a better soil structure, resulting in good infiltration and less
runoff. Poor-condition soils are typically more compacted, resulting in less
infiltration and more runoff. When setting up the model, you would select the
appropriate CN that represents a subwatershed/land use unit.
Similarly, key parameters for sediment predictions in STEPL, GWLF, SWAT,
AGNPS, and P8-UCM are based on the USLE and are selected for each
subwatershed/land use unit. The USLE includes parameters that relate to slope,
length, erosion potential, and cropping practice.
USLE can be written as follows (Wischmeier and Smith 1965, 1978):
A = R × K × LS × C × P
Where, A represents the potential long-term average annual soil loss in tons per acre
per year, R is the rainfall and runoff factor by geographic location, K is the soil
erodibility factor, LS is the slope length-gradient factor, C is the crop/vegetation and
management factor, and P is the support practice factor. For example, USLE
parameters for a cornfield with 2 percent slope, erodible soils, and convential tillage
could be selected as follows:
R = 275 (Clarke County, Georgia)
K = 0.3 (soil textural class = loam)
LS = 0.2008 (2 percent slope and 100 feet of slope length)
C = 0.54 (residue removed, conventional tillage, fall plow)
P = 1 (no supporting practice)
Therefore, average annual soil loss is calculated as
A = 275 × 0.3 × 0.2008 × 0.54 × 1 = 8.9 ton/acre/year
If no-till is practiced and the soil surface is covered with residues, the C factor is 0.11
and the average annual soil loss will be
A = 275 × 0.3 × 0.2008 × 0.11 × 1 = 1.8 ton/acre/year
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-34 Draft
The selected models reviewed here have various capabilities
for the representation of management practices, and they tend
to specialize in agricultural and urban practices as listed below:
? Agricultural practices—SWAT, AGNPS, GWLF, STEPL
? Urban practices—P8-UCM, STEPL, SWMM
? Mixed land use—STEPL, HSPF
KMore information on how the selected models simulate
management practices and how they can support selection of
management strategies is included in section 11.3.
TIP: Use common sense in testing modeling
results. Ask a few key questions: Do the
results appear consistent with other studies
or literature values? Is the water balance
correct? Are the predictions consistent with
the types of sources or land uses in the
watershed? Are there any missing sources?
The convenience and consistency of the CNE and
USLE approaches are one of the reasons that the use of
models based on them is prevalent. In many areas the
CNE, as applied in the NRCS runoff model TR-20, is
also used for predicting flow when designing
stormwater ponds and road culverts. Engineers and
analysts throughout the country are familiar with these
fundamental equations.
There are, however, some limitations that you should
consider when applying models based on these
equations. Like any analytical tool, they are
generalizations of natural physical processes of runoff
and erosion. The CNE is based on a standard storm and
uses daily rainfall. That means a very intense storm in which the rainfall falls very
quickly is treated in the same way as a slow rainfall that continues throughout the
day. This can result in some overpredication or underpredictions of rainfall on a
specific day. Similarly, the USLE simplifies the erosion processes of detachment
(loosening of surface soils due to rainfall) and wash-off. These processes are also
very sensitive to rainfall intensity and localized conditions. HSPF and SWMM are
more sensitive to rainfall intensity because they use an hourly or shorter rainfall
record. However, this additional detail requires more information and model testing
to verify model performance.
8.4.4 Model Testing
How do you know if the model is working appropriately? What kinds of tests can be
performed to prove that the model is working? Before embarking on detailed
evaluation and statistical testing of a model, you must first check the fundamental
performance of the model. Check whether the model is working, evaluate the basic
performance, and adjust or verify inputs if necessary. Then test for accuracy. In the
early testing process, most modelers look at graphs of observed and simulated data
and generalized summaries of flow and loading prediction. Initially, you’re looking
for ways to improve the model and identify features that might have been missed
during setup. In the later part of model testing, you’re looking for proof that the
model is working well and providing reasonable results.
Testing involves comparing modeling results with observed data. It
should focus on the questions the model is designed to answer. If a
model is designed to evaluate annual nutrient loads, for example,
comparisons are made with flow and nutrient monitoring information.
Sometimes, when data are highly limited, model testing is based
primarily on comparison with literature values, similar studies in
nearby regions, and evaluation using alternative calculation techniques.
Figure 8-2 shows idealized model testing points: an upstream small
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-35
Figure 8-2. Typical model evaluation points.
Regression: Model output is plotted against observed data
and a regression equation can identify the relationship
between modeled and observed values and the goodness
of fit. (See figures 8-3 and 8-4 for examples.)
Relative error: Modeled errors are measured by comparing
simulated flow values with observed flow values for various
time periods (e.g., for the summer) using the following
equation:
(Simulated Value ! Observed Value)/Observed Value
A small relative error indicates a better goodness of fit for
calibration.
Model coefficient of efficiency: This value measures the
ratio of the mean square error in model predictions to the
variance in the observed data. Values range from minus
infinity to 1.0; higher values indicate better agreement.
Student’s t-test: This test measures the equality of
average modeled concentrations compared to average
observed concentrations over various time periods
(e.g., the entire calibration period).
watershed (1), a small watershed dominated by a
single land use (2), and a downstream point at a USGS
flow gauging station (3). In cases where additional
data gathering is not possible and historical records
are limited, testing might be based on a single
downstream location. Testing is best performed at
locations where flow gauging and water quality
sampling are available, typically at USGS gauging
stations. Selection of the subwatershed delineation in
the initial model setup should consider the locations of
available monitoring and testing points. Then the
model output can be compared at the locations where
flow and water quality measurements are available.
Some modeling studies require the adjustment or
estimation of parameters through a calibration process.
For this process the monitoring data are split into two
independent periods—calibration and validation.
Ideally, these periods are two typical time periods (not
extreme conditions) with a range of flow conditions.
During the calibration period key parameters are adjusted
within reasonable ranges until the best fit with the
observed data is determined. The performance of the
“calibrated” model is then tested for a separate validation
period.
The various model adjustment capabilities for the selected
models depend on the techniques used for simulating
runoff and pollutant transport (table 8-11). All models that
are based on the CNE have limited ability for calibration
of flow. Because the CN is selected based on defined
look-up tables, only some slight adjustment of a CN for
local conditions can be justified. GWLF and SWAT
provide for ground water discharges to stream systems,
providing an opportunity for calibrating instream flow
volume. In this group of models, HSPF provides the most
flexibility for adjusting parameters to match local
conditons. HPSF includes calibration variables for
infiltration, upper and lower zones of soil storage, ground
water inputs to streams, and pollutant buildup and wash-
off. Although this flexiblity can help tailor the model to
local conditions, the number of parameters involved can
introduce errors and bias to the analysis as well.
Adjustment of parameters must carefully consider the
physical processes being represented and the reasonable
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-36 Draft
Table 8-11. Typical Calibration Options for Selected Example Models
Flow Calibration Pollutant Calibration
AGNPS Limited CN Nutrient concentrations in water and sediment
STEPL Limited/CN only Loading rate
GWLF Ground water recession Nutrient concentrations in water (runoff, ground water) and
sediment
HSPF Multiple, infiltration, soil storage, ground water Pollutant buildup and wash-off, instream transport/decay
P8-UCM Limited/CN only Loading rate or more detailed buildup and wash-off of dust and
pollutants
SWAT Ground water Nutrient concentrations in water and sediment
SWMM Multiple, infiltration, soil storage, ground water Pollutant buildup and wash-off, instream transport/decay
y = 0.9935x - 0.395
R
2
= 0.8761
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2040608010
Average Modeled Flow (cfs)
A
v
e
r
a
ge O
b
s
e
r
v
ed F
l
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
Avg Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998)
Line of Equal Value
Best-Fit Line
JFMAMJJASOND
0
20
40
60
80
100
12345678910112
Month
F
l
o
w
(
c
fs
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
M
ont
hl
y
R
ai
n
f
a
l
l
(
i
n
)
Avg Monthly Rainfall (in)
Avg Observed Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998)
Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)
JFMAMJJASOND
0
20
40
60
80
100
12345678910112
Month
F
l
o
w
(
c
fs)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
(i
n
)
Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Observed (25th, 75th)
Median Observed Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th)
Figure 8-3. Sample calibration tests for hydrologic simulation.
ranges for the parameters. SWMM has many of the same infiltration and pollutant
wash-off features as HSPF. SWMM has a more simplified approach for erosion
simulation using the USLE, and it does not have the ability to simulate detailed land
management activies (e.g., manure applications, tillage practices). However, SWMM
does include techniques for evaluating structural management practices and pipes
typical of urban areas.
There are two major sequences or hierarchies of testing—parameters and time scales.
Of all the parameters predicted by the model, flow is always checked first, followed
by sediment, and then the various
pollutants being simulated (e.g., nutrients,
metals). Multiple time scales are also
evaluated, including annual, monthly, and
daily summaries (figure 8-3). Time
periods can also be grouped by seasons to
evaluate performance that relates to wet
and dry periods reflective of local
weather patterns. In addition, for models
sensitive to rainfall intensity, such as
HSPF, predictions can be evaluated on
the basis of storm size. For example, how
well does the model predict the smallest
25 percent of all storms?
The typical factors used in evaluating
model performance include the
following:
? Water balance (general assessment of
precipitation, evaporation,
infiltration, and runoff)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-37
Figure 8-4. Sample model testing graphics.
? Observed vs. measured flow (daily average,
monthly, annual, and flow duration curves)
(figure 8-3)
? Observed vs. measured load (annual loads,
seasonal variation, source loads)
? Graphs comparing observed vs. modeled flow,
load and flow, or frequency plots (figure 8-4)
These factors can all be “tested” through graphical
evaluation or by applying statisticsl tests to observed
data and modeled output (see sibebar for examples).
Each test can examine different aspects of
performance consistent with the type of model
selected and the questions being evaluated. Testing is
a process that can be used to diagnose problems with
the model setup, improve model simulation, and
ultimately confirm that the model is working
correctly. You should not rely too heavily on a single
test, but use a combination of approaches to get a
multifaceted evaluation of model performance. When
you start testing the model, watch out for indications
that something has been missed during model setup.
Sometimes models appear not to work because a
source is missing or was incorrectly entered into the
model. For example, the model might appear to
underpredict flow during low-flow periods. This
could be an indication that a point source discharge is
missing or that ground water recharge into the stream
system is too low. Looking carefully at this low-flow
period, when point sources and ground water are the
dominant sources, and reviewing local records can
help you to diagnose this problem. Always check
carefully for missing information before you adjust
model parameters to compensate for something you
observe. Be careful to keep track of changes and
modeling versions so that updates are consistently
incorporated into subsequent analyses.
Sometimes local anomolies in geology and
hydromodification can significantly affect flow and
loading predictions. These local conditions should be considered during the model
selection process. Setup and application of models need to specifically account for
local geology and hydrologic conditions. Some examples of specialized conditions
follow:
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-38 Draft
When using a model as part of a watershed management effort, it's
important to document the modeling process. The purpose of
documentation is to provide a firm understanding of what the
modeling effort represents to the public and planning committee. At a
minimum, the model documentation should include the following:
? Model name and version
? Source of model
? Purpose of model application
? Model assumptions (list or summarize); any of the assumptions
could limit the usability of the results of the application, and that
must be explained
? Data requirements and source of datasets
TIP: Keep a log of all scenarios considered
and the input assumptions used for each.
? Unusual hydrology due to local geologic
conditions (e.g., karst features). Some areas
have unusual conditions. Streams might
disappear or have unusual flow patterns. If
these conditions are not well understood or
monitored, modeling will be difficult.
? High water table. If the water table is very
high, rainfall might not infiltrate, or there
might be interactions between surface water
and ground water.
? Undiagnosed or undiscovered sources. If a
source is unknown, it won’t be in the model.
When testing models, you might realize that a
source is missing. Additional field
reconnaissance or monitoring might be
needed to check.
8.4.5 Estimation of Exising Conditions and Baseline Scenarios
The modeling approaches developed are ultimately designed to support
decisionmaking. Essential to decisionmaking is the application of the model to
various alternatives. How you use the model to support decisionmaking is as
important as the various steps that go into building and testing the model. Typically,
models are applied to an existing condition to set a baseline for comparison. Existing
conditions can be compared with management alternatives and future conditions.
Remember that “existing” is really a reflection of the data used to build the model. If
the land use data you’re using are 10 years old and were not updated for the study,
“existing” will really represent 10 years ago. If residential development
includes management practices and you have not included
management practices in the model, “existing” conditions might
overestimate loads.
To estimate existing conditions, you apply the calibrated model to some typical time
period and then calculate your loads based on model results. To help understand the
watershed loads and their sensitivity to different watershed conditions, it’s useful to
apply the model to various scenarios that represent some variation of the baseline.
Some of the model applications you might want to consider are
? Future land use under various growth or land use conversion scenarios
? Management practice or point source implementation alternatives
? Historical or predevelopment conditions
Ultimately, in designing and selecting management alternatives (discussed in
chapters 10 and 11), you can use the model to support selection of the preferred
alternative, and estimate the benefits of management implementation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-39
Figure 8-5. Presentation of annual sediment loads (lb/ac) by
subwatershed, San Jacinto, California.
8.5 Presenting Pollutant Loads
You’ll use the information gained from your loading analysis to quantify your
watershed pollutant loads. Your loading analysis essentially quantified your loads,
but now you have to decide how to present them for use in your watershed plan. Two
factors will affect this decision—space and time. You need to decide the spatial
resolution for your loads, as well as the time scale for their calculation. You initally
made these decisions when you identified your sources (chapter 7), but now you’ll
refine the spatial and time scales for evaluating and calculating source loads based on
your loading analysis.
Table 8-12 summarizes typical scales for calculating and presenting loading results
from watershed models. Presentations can use a combination of tables and graphical
displays. (Storing information in spreadsheets or databases can facilate comparisons
and preparation of graphics.) Developing maps, graphs, bar charts, and piecharts can
help to summarize information and facilitate interpretation of results.
Table 8-12. Typical Loading Presentation Categories and Types
Spatial Scale Land Use Time Scale
? Watershed
? Tributary (multiple-
subwatershed)
? Region (political or other
boundaries)
? Subwatershed
? Critical areas
? Watershed general land
use category (agriculture,
urban)
? Land use subcategory
(cropland, pasture,
residential)
? Average annual
? Annual
? Seasonal
? Monthly
?Storm
? Design storm
8.5.1 Consider Spatial Scales
There are various options for assigning the spatial extent for
your load calculations. You can quantify a gross load for the
overall watershed or for each land use or even for each
land use in each subwatershed. The detail to which you
calculate the loads in the watershed will depend
primarily on the types and locations of the
watershed sources identified during the data
analysis. If a spatial analysis of water quality data
identified critical areas in the watershed—areas
experiencing the most or worst problems and
impairments—these areas should be isolated and
loadings presented separately. If the watershed is
large and has a variety of pollutant sources, it is
recommended that you present the loadings by
subwatersheds or groupings of subwatersheds,
such as larger tributaries (figure 8-5). It is also
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-40 Draft
Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform bacteria loads.
% of Total Sediment Load
Roads
14%
Pasture/Hay
4%
Cropland
41%
Evergreen
Forest
18%
Landfill
1%
Residential
1%
Groundwater
21%
Figure 8-7. Total sediment load and
percentages associated with each source.
useful to calculate loads by land use because many
pollutants are associated more with some land uses and less
with others. For example, cropland runoff is often a source
of nutrients, whereas forested areas are typically less
significant sources of nutrients.
8.5.2 Consider Time Scales
The other issue affecting how you present your watershed
loads in your watershed plan is the associated time scale.
Loads can be calculated for a number of time
scales—daily, monthly, seasonal, annual. Like the spatial
resolution, the appropriate time scale will depend on the
sources and problems in your watershed. The results of the
data analyses provide a guide for selecting the appropriate
time scale for the loading analysis and ultimate
presentation of the loads. For example, analysis of monthly
or seasonal water quality conditions identifies the critical
times of year in the watershed. If there is considerable
variation in water quality throughout the year, given source
loading characteristics and weather patterns, it might be
necessary to calculate seasonal loads (figure 8-6).
The impairment characteristics and water quality or watershed targets can also affect
the loading time scale. Some pollutants, such as bacteria, have more immediate
impacts, and associated targets are often based on daily maximums or a geometric
mean of instantaneous concentrations. For bacteria, it might be appropriate to use an
approach that is capable of calculating daily loads for comparison to water quality
targets. Sediment loading, on the other hand, is a chronic problem
that has long-term impacts. Occasional high sediment
concentrations might not cause problems, but high sediment
loading could result in long-term impacts on aquatic habitat.
Therefore, it is usually appropriate to evaluate sediment loading on
a monthly or annual basis (figure 8-7).
Keep in mind that how you establish your pollutant loads will
affect your ability to evaluate management options. When
quantifying the pollutant loads, you’re essentially establishing the
baseline load that will be reduced to meet your watershed goals. If
you establish an overall load for the entire watershed, it will be
difficult to assess changes in loads and improvements throughout
the watershed. Alternatively, when you establish loads at critical
areas (e.g., downstream of a major source, for specific land uses),
you can more readily evaluate the direct impact of the surrounding
sources and also future management efforts targeted at those sources.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Draft 8-41
8.5.3 Next Steps in the Development of the Watershed Plan
Now that you’ve calculated source loads for your watershed, you can move on to the
next step of the watershed plan development process—identifying watershed targets
and necessary load reductions. The loads you’ve calculated will provide the basis for
identifying the necessary load reductions to meet watershed goals and eventually the
implementation of management practices.
Chapter 8
Estimate Pollutant Loads
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
8-42 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-1
Read this chapter if...
? You want to select indicators to measure attainment of your watershed goals
? You want to use your watershed goals to identify numeric water quality targets
? You need an approach to determine how much of a load reduction you need to
meet your watershed goals
? You want information on how to appropriately focus load reductions
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Setting goals
< Identifying management objectives
< Selecting indicators
< Developing targets
< Determining load reductions needed
< Focusing load reductions
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-2 Draft
Targets
Objectives
Indicators
Indicators
Goals Goals
ID causes
and sources
Set targets
ID load
reductions
Objectives
Indicators
Goals
Figure 9-1. Process for identifying final watershed goals and targets.
9.1 How Do I Link the Watershed Analysis to Management
Solutions?
Once you have analyzed the data, identified the problem(s) in the watershed, and
identified and quantified the sources that need to be managed, you’ll develop
management goals and associated targets. During the scoping phase of planning
(chapter 4), you established broad watershed goals (e.g., meet water quality
standards, restore degraded wetlands) as a preliminary guide. Now that you have
characterized and quantified the problems in the watershed (chapters 7 and 8), you’re
ready to refine the goals and establish more detailed objectives and targets that will
guide developing and implementing a management strategy.
The process of developing specific objectives and targets is an evolution of the
watershed goals you identified with your stakeholders. As you proceed through the
watershed plan development, you’ll gain more information on the watershed
problems, waterbody conditions, causes of impairment, and pollutant sources. With
each step of the process, you can focus and better define your watershed goals, until
eventually you have specific objectives with measurable targets. Figure 9-1 illustrates
this evolution. The first step is identifying the broad watershed goals with your
stakeholders, answering “What do I want to happen as a result of my watershed
plan?” As you do this, you’ll also
identify environmental indicators
that can be used to measure progress
toward meeting those goals. Once
you have identified the sources
contributing to watershed problems,
you can refine your watershed goals
and develop management objectives
targeted at specific pollutants or
sources. The management objectives
identify how you will achieve your
goals. It’s important to have indicators that can be measured (e.g., load or
concentration) to track progress toward meeting those objectives. You should link
some of these indicators to pollutant sources based on their cause-and-effect
relationship to then identify the load reductions needed to meet the target. For
example, instream levels of dissolved oxygen can be linked to nutrient loads, and you
can use various methods to determine what reductions in nutrients will result in the
dissolved oxygen target.
Once you have identified your indicators, numeric targets, and associated load
reductions, they can be incorporated into the management objectives for the final
goals for your watershed plan—goals that can be tracked and will result in attaining
the overall watershed goals. These goals will guide the identification and selection of
management practices to meet the numeric targets and, therefore, the overall
watershed goals, as discussed in Kchapters 10 and 11.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-3
9.2 Translate Watershed Goals into Management Objectives
You’ve probably already identified preliminary goals and associated environmental
indicators with your stakeholders, as outlined in chapter 4, but now you will refine
those goals based on your data analysis. The data analysis identified the likely causes
and sources affecting specific indicators (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, pebble
counts). Therefore, you have an idea of what sources need to be controlled to meet
your overall watershed goals and can use this information to translate your watershed
goals into management objectives. Management objectives incorporate the watershed
goals but focus on specific processes that can be managed, such as pollutant loading
and riparian conditions.
For example, perhaps during the scoping phase you knew that there was a problem
with aquatic habitat so you established the preliminary goal “restore aquatic habitat.”
Now, after the data analysis, you can refine the goal to include a specific
management objective, such as “restore aquatic habitat in the upper main stem of
White Oak Creek by controlling agricultural sources of sediment.” Table 9-1
provides some examples of translating watershed goals into management objectives.
Table 9-1. Sample Goals Linked to the Sources and Impacts to Define Management Objectives
Preliminary Goal Indicators Cause or Source of Impact Management Objective
Support designated uses for
aquatic life; reduce fish kills
Dissolved oxygen
Phosphorus
Temperature
Elevated phosphorus causing
increased algal growth and
decreased dissolved oxygen
Cropland runoff
Reduce phosphorus loads from
cropland runoff and fertilizer
application
Reduce flood levels Peak flow volume
and velocity
Inadequate stormwater controls,
inadequate road culverts
Minimize flooding impacts by
improving peak and volume controls
on urban sources and retrofitting
inadequate road culverts
Restore aquatic habitat Riffle-to-pool ratio,
percent fine
sediment
Upland sediment erosion and
delivery, streambank erosion,
near-stream land disturbance
(e.g., livestock, construction)
Reduce sediment loads from upland
sources; improve riparian vegetation
and limit livestock access to stabilize
streambanks
Meet water quality standards
for bacteria to reduce beach
closures
Fecal coliform Runoff from livestock operations,
waterfowl
Reduce bacteria loads from livestock
operations
Improve aesthetics of lake to
restore recreational use
Algal growth,
chlorophyll a
Elevated nitrogen causing
increased algal growth
Reduce nitrogen loads to limit algal
growth
Meet water quality standards
for metals
Zinc, copper Urban runoff, industrial
discharges
Improve stormwater controls to
reduce metal loads from runoff
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-4 Draft
9.3 Select Environmental Indicators and Targets to Evaluate
Management Objectives
Once you have established specific management objectives, you’ll develop
environmental indicators and numeric targets to quantitatively evaluate whether you
are meeting your objectives. You identified indicators with your stakeholders when
you developed your conceptual model (chapter 4), and the indicators should be
refined in this step. The indicators are measurable parameters that will be used to link
pollutant sources to environmental conditions. The specific indicators will vary
depending on the designated use of the waterbody (e.g., warm-water fishery, cold-
water fishery, recreation) and the water quality impairment or problem of concern.
For example, multiple factors might cause degradation of a warm-water fishery.
Some potential causes include changes in hydrology, elevated nutrient
concentrations, elevated sediment, and higher summer temperatures. Each of these
stressors can be measured using indicators such as peak flow, flow volume, nutrient
concentration or load, sediment concentration or load, and temperature.
A specific value can be set as a target for each indicator to represent the
desired conditions that will meet the watershed goals and management
objectives. Targets can be based on water quality criteria or, where
numeric water quality criteria do not exist, on data analysis, reference
conditions, literature values, or expert examination of water quality
conditions to identify values representative of conditions that support
designated uses. If a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) already exists
for pollutants of concern in your watershed, you should review the TMDL
to identify appropriate numeric targets. TMDLs are developed to meet
water quality standards, and when numeric criteria are not available,
narrative criteria (e.g., prohibiting excess nutrients) must be used to
develop numeric targets.
It might be necessary to identify several related indicators and target
values to facilitate evaluation of pollutant loads and measure progress. For
example, dissolved oxygen is an indicator of the suitability of a waterbody
to support fisheries. However, dissolved oxygen is not a specific pollutant
and is not typically estimated as a load. Because dissolved oxygen is a waterbody
measure that is affected by several parameters, including nutrients, it’s appropriate to
select other indicators that can be linked to dissolved oxygen and quantified as loads
(e.g., phosphorus loading).
Table 9-2 provides some examples of indicators and target values associated with
management objectives.
KChapters 4 and 12 discuss the
development of a variety of indicators to
measure progress in implementing your
watershed plan and meeting your goals.
Indicators can be environmental, social,
or programmatic. This chapter discusses
only environmental indicators and how
they are used to represent watershed
goals and evaluate pollutant load
reductions. Social and programmatic
indicators are identified as part of the
implementation program, discussed in
chapter 12.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-5
It will be difficult to develop quantifiable indicators for
all watershed issues of concern. For example, some
goals and associated indicators (e.g., make the lake
more appealing for swimming, or reduce the
prevalence of exotic species) are indirectly related to
other indicators that are more easily linked to source
loads (e.g., dissolved oxygen, nutrient loads), and
trying to link them to one or even a few specific
pollutants and source loads is often too difficult or
inappropriate. Therefore, these indicators are
expected to improve based on identified load
reductions for other indicators. They will be directly
measured to track overall watershed goals, but they
will not have an associated load reduction target.
Table 9-2. Examples of Indicators and Targets to Meet Management Objectives
Management Objective Indicator and Target Value
Reduce phosphorus loads from cropland runoff and
fertilizer application
Dissolved oxygen: Daily average of 7 mg/L (from water quality standards)
Phosphorus: Daily average of 25 μg/L (based on literature values)
Minimize flooding impacts by improving peak and
volume controls on urban sources and retrofitting
inadequate road culverts
Peak flow volume and velocity: Peak velocity for 1-yr, 24-hr storm of
400 cfs
Reduce sediment loads from upland sources;
improve riparian vegetation and limit livestock
access to stabilize streambanks
Riffle-to-pool ratio: 1:1 ratio (based on literature values)
Percent fine sediment: <10 percent of particles <4 mm (based on
reference conditions)
Reduce bacteria loads from livestock operations Fecal coliform: Geometric mean of 200 cfu/100 mL (based on water
quality standards)
Reduce nitrogen loads to limit algal growth Algal growth: <10 percent coverage of algal growth (based on reference
conditions)
Chlorophyll a: <1 μg/L (based on literature values)
Improve stormwater controls to reduce metal loads
from runoff
Zinc: Maximum of 120 μg/L (based on water quality standards)
Copper: Maximum of 13 μg/L (based on water quality standards)
9.4 Determine Load Reductions to Meet Environmental Targets
At this point in the watershed planning process, you have
already quantified the pollutant loads from sources in your
watershed (chapter 8) and identified appropriate
environmental indicators and associated targets to meet your
watershed goals. The next step is to determine the load
reductions needed to meet your targets—how to control
watershed sources to meet your goals.
This phase of the watershed planning process should
result in element b of the nine elements for awarding section
319 grants. Element b is “An estimate of the load reductions
expected from management measures.”
To estimate the load reductions expected from the
management measures, you need to understand the cause-and-
effect relationship between pollutant loads and the waterbody
response. Establishing this “link” allows you to evaluate how
much of a load reduction from watershed sources is needed to
meet waterbody targets. There are several options for establishing such links, ranging
from more qualitative evaluations to detailed receiving water computer modeling. As
with your approach for quantifying pollutant loads, selecting the appropriate
approach will depend on several factors, including data availability, pollutants,
waterbody type, source types, time frame, and spatial scale. Most important, the
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-6 Draft
approach must be compatible with the method used to quantify loads and must be
able to predict the necessary load reductions to meet targets.
A number of techniques—some more rigorous and detailed than others—can be
used. Sometimes models or analytic techniques that allow for careful calculation
of appropriate loading are used, but at other times you might have only limited
data to estimate loadings. Included in this section are a range of approaches you
can use to identify the load reductions needed to meet targets. Remember that the
load estimates can be updated over time as more information and data are
collected. The options discussed in this section include
? Qualitative linkages
? Mass balance approach
? Empirical relationships
? Statistical or mathematical relationships
? Reference watershed approach
? Receiving water models
Table 9-3 presents some example approaches for the linkage analysis for typical
waterbody-pollutant combinations. Many of these approaches are discussed in the
following sections.
Table 9-3. Example Approaches for Linking Indicators and Sources
Waterbody–Pollutant
Combination
Example Linkage Approach
River–Pathogens Instream response using HSPF (data collection consideration)
Lake–Nutrients Lake response using BATHTUB
More detailed option using CEQUAL-W2 or EFDC
River–Nutrients Stream response using mass balance, QUAL2E low-flow model, or WASP
River–Pesticides/Urban Allowable loading determination based on calculation from identified target at
design flow or a range of flows
River/Estuary–Toxic
Substances
Allowable loading determination based on calculation from identified target at
design flow or a range of flows
River–Sediment Load target determined from comparison with desired reference watershed
Geomorphic/habitat targets derived from literature
River–Temperature SSTEMP or SNTEMP stream flow and temperature analysis
QUAL2E stream flow and temperature analysis
River–Biological Impairment Comparison of estimated watershed/source loads with loads in reference
watershed
Estuary–Nutrients Estuary response using Tidal Prism, WASP, EFDC, or similar model
Coastal Pathogen Response using WASP, EFDC, or similar model
Alternatively determine correlation of coastal impairment with tributary loading
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-7
An existing study (e.g., TMDL) might already have
identified the allowable loading for one or more
pollutants in your watershed. You might be able to use
these studies for your targets or at least incorporate
them into your analysis.
Keep the following in mind when incorporating TMDL
results:
? Pollutants: What pollutants were considered? How
do they relate to your goals?
? Time frame: Have conditions changed from the time
of TMDL development?
? Data availability: Are more data available now to
update the analysis?
? Management efforts: Have any management
activities been implemented since the TMDL that
should be taken into account?
? Source level: At what level did the TMDL assign
load allocations and reductions? Do you want more
detailed or more gross distributions?
The Pend Oreille Lake TMDL uses a mass balance
approach for identifying existing loading and allowable
loading for nutrients in the nearshore area of the lake.
The nearshore area was identified as impaired on the
basis of stakeholder concerns over algae and “slimy
rocks” in the area. A mass balance approach was used
to identify current watershed phosphorus loading based
on observed lake concentrations and allowable loading
based on an in-lake phosphorus target concentration.
Several of the mass balance factors were based on site-
specific data (e.g., lake “cell” volume calculated using
Secchi depths) and literature values (e.g., settling
velocity of phosphorus, first-order loss coefficients).
KFor more details on how this TMDL used mass
balance, go to www.tristatecouncil.org/pages/lpo.html.
9.4.1 Qualitative Linkages Based on Local
Knowledge or Historical Conditions
If you have only limited data for your watershed and the
sources and causes are not well documented or characterized,
it might be appropriate to use a theoretical linkage to explain
the cause-effect relationship between sources and waterbody
conditions. You might have to rely on expert or local
knowledge of the area and sources to identify coarse load
reduction targets. If you do this, remember to incorporate a
schedule for updating your watershed plan and load
reductions as more information and data are collected.
An example of a qualitative linkage is an assumed linkage
between instream sediment deposition and watershed
sediment loading. The expected problem is fine sediment
filling in pools used by fish and cementing the streambed,
prohibiting the fish from laying eggs. Although it is known
that sediment loading increases the deposition of fine
sediment, you have no documented or quantified link
between the two. You can estimate a conservative load
reduction, accompanied by plans for additional monitoring to
evaluate instream conditions.
Another example of a qualitative linkage is the assumption
that loading is directly proportional to the instream response.
That is, a percent increase in loading will result in an equal
percent increase in instream concentrations. Assuming this,
you can use observed data to calculate the needed reduction
in waterbody concentration to meet your target and assume
that it is equal to the necessary percent reduction in loading.
Although a 1-to-1 relationship between loading and
concentration likely does not exist, you might not have the
data needed to support identification of a more accurate
linkage.
9.4.2 Mass Balance Approach
A mass balance analysis represents an aquatic system through
an accounting of mass entering and exiting the system. This
analysis simplifies the representation of the waterbody and
does not estimate or simulate detailed biological, chemical, or
physical processes. It can, however, be a useful and simple
way to estimate the allowable loading for a waterbody to
meet water quality standards or other targets. The approach
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-8 Draft
Check the assumptions used in developing empirical
equations. They usually predict an “average” condition
or are based on conditions specific to certain regions.
Is your waterbody unusual (e.g., narrow and deep)?
Sometimes the unique features of your waterbody or
watershed make a difference and require more
sensitive analyses or models.
includes tallying all inputs and outputs of a waterbody to evaluate the resulting
conditions. To successfully apply a mass balance, it is important to understand the
major instream processes affecting water quality, such as decay, background
concentrations, settling, and resuspension. Many of these factors can be estimated
based on literature values if site-specific information is not available.
The mass balance approach is versatile in its application, allowing for varying levels
of detail. In addition, it requires loading inputs but does not require that the loads be
calculated by particular methods. Because of this, you can use a mass balance in
conjunction with a variety of approaches for calculating watershed loads. You can
use loads calculated from a watershed model, as well as those from a simple analysis
using loading rates and land use distribution. You can apply mass balance equations
at various places in the watershed, depending on the resolution of your loading
analysis.
9.4.3 Empirical Relationships
In some cases, depending on the indicators and pollutants of concern, you can use
documented empirical relationships to evaluate allowable loading and load reductions
to meet watershed targets. Empirical relationships are relationships based on
observed data, and an empirical equation is a mathematical expression of one or more
empirical relationships.
One example of an empirical relationship that can be used in evaluating allowable
loading is the Vollenweider empirical relationship between phosphorus loading and
trophic status. The Vollenweider relationship predicts the degree of a lake’s trophic
status as a function of the areal phosphorus loading and is based on the lake’s mean
depth and hydraulic residence time. The Lake Linganore, Maryland, TMDL for
nutrients used the Vollenweider relationship to identify the allowable loading and
necessary loading reductions to return the lake to mesotrophic
conditions, represented by Carlson’s Trophic Status Index (TSI
of 53 and chlorophyll a of 10 ug/L). The existing nutrient
loading to the lake was calculated using land use areas and
phosphorus loading rates obtained from the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The Vollenweider relationship was then used to
identify the allowable annual phosphorus loading rate to meet
the trophic status targets. The existing loading and allowable
loading were compared to identify the necessary load
reductions.
Another example of an empirical relationship is the Simple Method (Schueler 1987),
as discussed in section 8.2.2. The Simple Method calculates pollutant loading using
drainage area, pollutant concentrations, a runoff coefficient, and precipitation data. If
your watershed target is a pollutant concentration, you can apply the Simple Method
using your concentration target to estimate the allowable loading to meet that target.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-9
Use care when applying empirical relationships because although they are based on
observed data, they might not be representative of your watershed or be applicable to
your purposes. When using empirical relationships, it’s important to review the
documentation and literature to understand on what data the relationship is based and
any related assumptions or caveats for applying the relationship or equation.
9.4.4 Statistical or Mathematical Relationships
You can use statistical or mathematical analyses to estimate allowable loadings and
subsequent load reductions based on available data for your watershed. This
approach assumes some relationship between key factors in the watershed (e.g.,
loading, percent land use) and instream conditions (e.g., concentration) based on
observed data. A load duration curve, Kdiscussed in detail in section 7.2.4, is one of
the most common of these types of linkages. This approach can be applied to
diagnose and evaluate waters (e.g., dominant types of sources, critical conditions)
and can help to determine specific load reductions. A limitation of this approach is
that it does not explicitly describe where the loads are coming from or how they are
delivered. The technique is well suited to areas where robust monitoring records are
available but data are too limited to use more detailed watershed loading models. The
analysis does not identify load reductions by source type, but it can be applied at any
location in the watershed with sufficient data.
9.4.5 Reference Watershed Approach
If you don’t have an appropriate water quality or loading target, another technique for
linking your indicators to source loads is to compare your watershed with another
one that is considered “healthy.” The reference watershed approach is based on using
an unimpaired watershed that shares similar ecoregion and geomorphological
characteristics with the impaired watershed to identify loading rate targets. Stream
conditions in the reference watershed are assumed to be representative of the
conditions needed for the impaired stream to support its designated uses and meet the
watershed goals.
You should select a reference watershed on
the basis of conditions that are comparable
with the watershed requiring management.
The reference watershed should be similar to
your watershed in size, land use distribution,
soils, topography, and geology. To set the
loading rate target, predict the loading for
each watershed through modeling or another
method and then determine the allowable
loading rate based on the reference watershed
loads and areas. The loading rate from the
reference watershed can be calculated at a
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-10 Draft
level comparable to the sources you identified in your watershed. For example, you
can model specific land uses or crop types in the reference watershed to identify
loading rates or identify a gross rate based on the loading from the entire watershed.
The reference loading rates are then multiplied by the appropriate areas of the
watershed to identify allowable loads for the impaired watershed. The load reduction
requirement is the difference between this allowable loading and the existing load
(estimated in chapter 8).
This approach is best suited to waters not meeting biological or narrative criteria
(e.g., criteria for nutrients and sediment), where instream targets are difficult to
identify. Selecting a reference watershed can be extremely difficult, and not all areas
have appropriate watershed data or sufficient monitoring data to support selection.
9.4.6 Receiving Water Models
Sometimes it will be appropriate or even necessary to use detailed receiving water
modeling to relate watershed source loads to your watershed indicators. The
following are typical situations in which you should use a model instead of a simpler
approach:
? Locally significant features or conditions (e.g., groundwater interaction) affect
the waterbody’s response.
? Chemical and biological features are complicated and affect the waterbody’s
response to pollutant loads (e.g., nutrient loads affecting algal growth and
subsequent dissolved oxygen).
? Unique physical characteristics of the waterbody must be considered (e.g., long
and narrow lake).
? Localized impairments and impacts due to location of sources (e.g., discharge
from a feedlot affecting a small segment of stream).
? Cumulative impacts occur from pollutants (e.g., metals) that can accumulate in
sediment and organisms.
Table 9-4 provides a summary of many of the receiving water models available to
support linkage of sources and indicators for watershed planning. KFor more details
on the models, go to EPA’s Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling
(CREM) Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-11
Table 9-4. Overview of Various Receiving Water Models
Type
Level of
Complexity Water QualityModel
Model Source
Stead
y-state
Qu
asi-d
yn
amic
Dynamic 1
-
dime
ns
iona
l
2
-
dime
ns
iona
l
3
-
dime
ns
iona
l
User-d
efin
ed
Se
dime
nt
Nutrients
Tox
ic
s
ubs
ta
nc
e
s
Metals BOD Disso
lved
o
xyg
en
Bacteria
AQUATOX USEPA – – !!–––!!!– !!–
BASINS USEPA – !!! ––!!!!!!!!
CAEDYM University of Western Australia – – !!!!!!!– !!!!
CCHE1D University of Mississippi – – !!–– ! ––––––
CE-QUAL-ICM/TOXI USACE – – !!!!!– ! – !!!–
CE-QUAL-R1 USACE – – !!–––!!– !!!!
CE-QUAL-RIV1 USACE – – !!––––! – !!!!
CE-QUAL-W2 USACE – – ! – ! –––! ––!!!
CH3D-IMS University of Florida, Dept. of Civil
and Coastal Engineering
––!!!!– !!––!!–
CH3D-SED USACE – – !!!!– ! ––––––
DELFT3D WL | Delft Hydraulics – – !!!!!!!!!!!!
DWSM Illinois State Water Survey – – !!–––!!!––––
ECOMSED HydroQual, Inc. – – !!!!– ! ––––––
EFDC USEPA & Tetra Tech, Inc. – – !!!!!!!!!!!!
GISPLM College of Charleston, Stone
Environmental, & Dr. William
Walker
–––– – –––! –––––
GLLVHT J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. – – ! ––! – !!––! – !
GSSHA USACE – – ! – ! – ! ––––––
HEC-6 USACE – – !!–––! ––––––
HEC-6T USACE – – !!–––! ––––––
HEC-RAS USACE – – !!– –––––––––
HSCTM-2D USEPA – – ! – ! ––! ––––––
HSPF USEPA – – !!––!!!!!!!!
LSPC USEPA & Tetra Tech, Inc. – – !!––!!!!!––!
MIKE 11 Danish Hydraulic Institute ! – ! – ! –––––––––
MIKE 21 Danish Hydraulic Institute – – ! – ! ––!!!!!!!
MINTEQA2 USEPA ! ––– – –––––! –––
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-12 Draft
Table 9-4. (continued)
Type
Level of
Complexity Water Quality
Model Source
Stead
y-state
Qu
asi-d
yn
amic
Dynamic 1
-
dime
ns
iona
l
2
-
dime
ns
iona
l
3
-
dime
ns
iona
l
User-d
efin
ed
Se
dime
nt
Nutrients
Tox
ic
s
ubs
ta
nc
e
s
Metals BOD Disso
lved
o
xyg
en
Bacteria
PCSWMM Computational Hydraulics
International
––!!––!!!!!––!
QUAL2E USEPA – ! – ! ––! – ! ––!!!
QUAL2K Dr. Steven Chapra, USEPA TMDL
Toolbox
– ! – ! ––! – ! ––!!!
RMA-11 Resource Modelling Associates – – !!!!!!!––!!–
SED2D USACE – – ! – ! ––! ––––––
SED3D USEPA – – !!!!– ! ––––––
SHETRAN University of Newcastle (UK) – – !!–––! ––––––
SWAT USDA-ARS – !!–––!!!!!!–
SWMM USEPA – – !!––!!!!!––!
Toolbox USEPA – !!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAMView Soil and Water Engineering
Technology, Inc. (SWET) &
USEPA
––!!–––!!––!!!
WARMF Systech Engineering, Inc. – – !!!––!!!!!!!
WASP USEPA – – !!!!!!!!!!!–
WinHSPF USEPA – – !!––!!!!!!!!
WMS Environmental Modeling Systems,
Inc.
––!!!– !!!!!!!!
XP-SWMM XP Software, Inc. – – !!––!!!!!––!
Note: BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
– Not supported
! Supported
9.5 Focus the Load Reductions
Regardless of what approach you use to estimate your allowable loadings or
necessary reductions, it’s likely that several scenarios or combinations of source
reductions will meet your targets. Depending on the magnitude of your load
reductions, you might be able to distribute them among your sources or you might
have to focus on one dominant source to meet your targets. Table 9-5 illustrates how
different target reductions can meet the same overall goal. In addition, the location of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Draft 9-13
the proposed reductions can affect the distribution and magnitude of load reductions.
If you calculate the load reduction only at the mouth of the watershed, a large number
of scenarios will meet the load reduction target—at least on paper. Sometimes
impacts from load reductions are not adequate to meet targets at downstream
locations. Although the upstream reductions will no doubt improve downstream
conditions, they might be such a small portion of the overall load that they won’t
have a measurable effect on the overall watershed loading. In addition, the load
reductions calculated at the bottom of the watershed might not capture the more
significant reductions needed in smaller upstream subwatersheds. Be sure to estimate
your load reductions at a few key locations in the watershed to capture the major
problem areas and sources and to support efficient and targeted management.
Table 9-5. Examples of Different Scenarios to Meet the Same Load Target
Source
Existing
Phosphorus
Loading (kg/y)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
% Load
Reduction
Allowable Load
(kg/y)
% Load
Reduction
Allowable Load
(kg/y)
Roads 78 26 58 20 62
Pasture/Hay 21 26 16 10 19
Cropland 218 26 162 55 98
Forest 97 26 72 0 97
Landfill 7 26 5 0 7
Residential 6 26 5 0 6
Groundwater 111 26 83 0 111
Total 539 26 400 26 400
Note: Scenario 1 represents an equitable distribution of load reduction among sources. Reductions are
applied so that the resulting loads are the same percentage of the total as under existing conditions. Scenario
2 represents a more feasible scenario, in which controllable sources (e.g., roads, cropland, pasture) are
targeted to meet the load reduction target.
If you used a receiving model to evaluate your load reductions, you should use a
“top-down” approach to evaluating necessary load reductions. Begin by identifying
necessary load reductions to meet waterbody targets in upstream portions of the
watershed. The model then allows you to then evaluate the effect of the upstream
load reductions on downstream conditions. Starting at the top of the watershed and
moving down, you can evaluate the cumulative effects from upstream controls. In
many cases, the upstream reductions will significantly decrease or even eliminate the
necessary reductions for the lower watershed.
By this point, you should have identified the overall load reductions needed to meet
your targets and determined generally how you want to focus reductions among
sources. KThe activities discussed in chapters 10 and 11 will help you to more
specifically identify and select the reductions for each source.
Chapter 9
Set Goals and Identify
Load Reductions
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters
9-14 Draft
9.6 Summarize Watershed Targets and Necessary Load
Reductions
Now that you have identified necessary pollutant load reductions to meet your
watershed goals, you should have the information needed to satisfy element b of the
nine minimum elements. At this point you should prepare a summary to be included
in your watershed plan documenting the source loads, numeric targets to meet the
watershed goals and management objectives, and load reductions needed to meet the
targets. The reductions should be calculated and presented at the same time and
spatial scale as the source load estimations (discussed in chapter 8). As with the
source loads, there are a variety of ways you can present the load reduction
requirements, including bar graphs and watershed maps.
You should also include in the summary other watershed targets—the indicators and
numeric targets that could not be linked to specific pollutant loads (e.g., cobble
embeddedness, percent fine sediment). Even though the response of these targets
could not be predicted and linked to source loads, they’re important for measuring
the success of your watershed plan and the attainment of your watershed goals. These
targets will be integrated into the implementation and monitoring plan (discussed in
chapter 12).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-1
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Overview of management techniques
and measures
< Reviewing existing management
efforts to determine gaps
< Identifying management opportunities
and constraints
< Screening management options to
determine the most promising types
10. Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Read this chapter if...
? You want to learn about common types of management measures
? You need information on how to focus management efforts in your watershed
? You want help identify possible management practices for your watershed
? You want to identify criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of management
practices
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-2 Draft
Figure 10-1. Process to identify candidate management practices.
10.1 How Do I Link My Management Strategies to My Goals?
Once you have analyzed the watershed conditions, quantified the pollutant loads, and
determined the loading targets needed to meet your goals and objectives, you’ll be
ready to identify potential management measures and management practices to
achieve your goals. You can then screen potential practices to narrow the options
down to those which are the most promising and acceptable (figure 10-1).
Key questions to address in your evaluation of candidate management measures and
practices are
1. Are the site features suitable for incorporating the practice (i.e., is the practice
feasible)?
2. How effective is the practice at achieving management goals and loading targets?
3. How much does it cost (and how do the costs compare between alternatives)?
3. Is it acceptable to stakeholders?
This chapter addresses the first step, identifying potential management measures and
practices that might be feasible for addressing the particular problems in your
watershed. Using screening criteria, you’ll evaluate potential management strategies
(a single management practice or multiple practices used in combination). These
screening criteria are based on factors such as pollutant reduction efficiencies, legal
requirements, and physical constraints. Once you have identified and screened
various management options, chapter 11 will show you how to calculate the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-3
effectiveness of the management practices, compare the costs and benefits, and select
the final management strategies that will be the most effective in achieving the load
reductions needed to meet the goals for your watershed.
The information presented in chapters 10 and 11 should result in element c of the
nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element c is “A description of the
nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve
load reductions, and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will
be needed to implement this plan.”
10.2 Overview of Types of Management
You can use various approaches to manage your watershed. Management measures
are usually groups of cost-effective management practices (i.e., economically
achievable actions for controlling nonpoint source pollution that are taken to achieve
or aid in the achievement of a management measure) that are implemented to achieve
more comprehensive goals, such as reducing the loads of sediment from a field to
receiving waters. Individual management practices are the building blocks for
management practice systems and management measures. A more familiar term is
best management practice (BMP), but the word “best” can be subjective and highly
site-specific and might lead to the inappropriate use of a practice in some situations.
The “best” practice in one area or situation might be entirely inappropriate in another
area or situation. Therefore, watershed planners might consider using the term
management practice in lieu of BMP.
Management measures can be implemented for various purposes, such as protecting
water resources, aquatic wildlife habitat, and downstream areas from increased
pollution and flood risks. Management measures can also help control the pollutant
loads to receiving water resources by
? Reducing the availability of pollutants (such as reducing fertilizer, manure, and
pesticide applications)
? Reducing the pollutants generated (source reduction such as erosion control)
? Slowing transport or delivery of pollutants by reducing the amount of water
transported or by causing the pollutant to be deposited near the point of origin
? Deposition of the pollutant off-site before it reaches the waterbody
? Remediating or intercepting the pollutant before or after it is delivered to the
water resource through chemical or biological transformation
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-4 Draft
EPA has published guidance documents for the
following categories:
? Acid mine drainage
? Agriculture
? Forestry
? Hydromodification/habitat alteration
? Marinas/boating
? Roads, highways, and bridges
? Urban areas
? Wetland/riparian management
Management measures can also be used to guide the implementation of your
watershed management program. They establish performance expectations, and in
many cases they specify actions that can be taken to prevent or minimize nonpoint
source pollution or other negative impacts associated with uncontrolled and untreated
runoff. The NRCS National Handbook of Conservation
Practices (www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/nhcp.html)
provides a list of practices applicable to rural and farming areas.
KRefer to EPA’s National Management Measures Guidance
Documents for information about controlling nonpoint source
pollution (www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html).
There are many types of individual management practices, from
agricultural stream buffer setbacks to urban runoff control
practice retrofits in developed areas to homeowner education
programs for on-site septic system maintenance. Management
practices can be categorized several different ways, such as
source controls vs. treatment controls, structural controls vs.
nonstructural controls, or point source controls vs. nonpoint
source controls. For the purposes of this handbook, management
practices are grouped into structural controls and nonstructural
controls. Structural controls are defined as built facilities that
typically capture runoff; treat it through chemical, physical, or
biological means; and discharge the treated effluent to receiving waters, ground
water, or conveyance systems. Nonstructural practices usually involve changes in
activities or behavior and focus on controlling pollutants at their source. Examples
include developing and implementing erosion and sediment control plans, organizing
public education campaigns, and practicing good housekeeping at commercial and
industrial businesses. Regulatory mechanisms such as ordinances and permits are
discussed separately from structural and nonstructural controls.
10.2.1 Nonpoint Source Management Practices
Structural Practices
Structural practices, such as stormwater basins, streambank fences, and grade and
stabilization structures, may involve construction, installation, and maintenance.
Structural practices can be vegetative, such as soil bioengineering techniques, or
nonvegetative, such as riprap or gabions. Note that practices like streambank
stabilization and riparian habitat restoration involve ecological restoration and an
understanding of biological communities, individual species, natural history, and
species’ ability to repopulate a site. Such practices involve more than simply
installing a structural control. Examples of structural practices for rural and urban
scenarios are listed in table 10-1.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-5
Table 10-1. Examples of Structural and Nonstructural Management Practices
a
Structural Practices Nonstructural Practices
Agriculture ? Contour buffer strips
? Grassed waterway
? Herbaceous wind barriers
? Mulching
? Live fascines
? Live staking
? Livestock exclusion fence (prevents livestock from
wading into streams)
? Revetments
? Riprap
? Sediment basins
? Terraces
? Waste treatment lagoons
? Brush management
? Conservation coverage
? Conservation tillage
? Educational materials
? Erosion and sediment control plan
? Nutrient management plan
? Pesticide management
? Prescribed grazing
? Residue management
? Requirement for minimum riparian buffer
? Rotational grazing
? Workshops/training for developing nutrient
management plans
Forestry ? Broad-based dips
? Culverts
? Establishment of riparian buffer
?Mulch
? Revegetation of firelines with adapted herbaceous
species
? Temporary cover crops
? Windrows
? Education campaign on forestry-related nonpoint
source controls
? Erosion and sediment control plans
? Forest chemical management
? Fire management
? Operation of planting machines along the contour to
avoid ditch formation
? Planning and proper road layout and design
? Preharvest planning
? Training loggers and landowners about forest
management practices, forest ecology, and silviculture
Urban ? Bioretention cells
? Breakwaters
? Brush layering
? Infiltration basins
? Green roofs
? Live fascines
? Marsh creation/restoration
? Establishment of riparian buffers
? Riprap
? Stormwater ponds
? Sand filters
? Sediment basins
? Tree revetments
? Vegetated gabions
? Water quality swales
? Planning for disconnection of impervious surfaces
(e.g., eliminating or reducing curb and gutter)
? Educational materials
? Erosion and sediment control plan
? Fertilizer management
? Ordinances
? Pet waste programs
? Pollution prevention plans
? No-wake zones
? Setbacks
? Workshops on proper installation of structural practices
? Zoning overlay districts
a
Note that practices listed under one land use category can be applied in other land use settings as well.
You can choose to use structural practices that are vegetative, nonvegetative, or a
combination, depending on which practice is best suited for the particular site and
objective. For example, if a site is unable to support plant growth (e.g., there are
areas with climate or soils that are not conducive to plant growth, or areas of high
water velocity or significant wave action), a nonvegetative practice can be used to
dampen wave or stream flow energy to protect the vegetative practice.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-6 Draft
Nonstructural Practices
Nonstructural practices prevent or reduce runoff problems in receiving waters by
reducing the generation of pollutants and managing runoff at the source. These
practices can be included in a regulation (e.g., an open space or riparian stream buffer
requirement), or they can involve voluntary pollution prevention practices. They can
also include public education campaigns and outreach activities. Examples of
nonstructural practices are listed in table 10-1. Nonstructural controls can be further
subdivided into land use practices and source control practices. Land use practices
are aimed at reducing impacts on receiving waters that result from runoff from
development by controlling or preventing land use in sensitive areas of the
watershed. Source control practices are aimed at preventing or reducing potential
pollutants at their source before they come into contact with runoff or ground water.
Some source controls are associated with new development, whereas others are
implemented after development occurs. Source controls include pollution prevention
activities that attempt to modify aspects of human behavior, such as educating
citizens about the proper disposal of used motor oil and application of lawn fertilizers
and pesticides only when needed.
10.2.2 Regulatory Approaches to Manage Pollutant Sources
The management practices you select can be implemented on a voluntary basis or
required under a regulatory program. Point sources are most often controlled using
regulatory approaches. It’s important to consider that regulatory approaches work
well only when adequate mechanisms are in place to provide oversight and
enforcement.
Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Sources
? Local stormwater ordinances and permits. Local stormwater ordinances
require development applicants to control stormwater peak flows, total runoff
volume, or pollutant loading. Stormwater ordinances that apply these
requirements to redevelopment projects (not just new development areas) can
help mitigate current impacts from existing development. Developers could be
required to implement stormwater practices such as bioretention cells,
stormwater ponds, or constructed wetlands to meet performance standards for the
development set forth in the ordinance.
? Local development ordinances and permits. Local development and
subdivision ordinances require development applicants to meet certain land use
(e.g., commercial vs. residential), development intensity, and site design
requirements (e.g., impervious surface limits or open space, riparian buffer, or
setback requirements). Again, ordinances that apply these requirements to
redevelopment projects (not just new development areas) can help mitigate
current impacts from existing development. Although it might be difficult to add
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-7
open space to the redevelopment plan of an already-developed area, equivalent
off-site mitigation or payment in lieu might be required. Similarly, a riparian area
might be revegetated and enhanced.
? Federal or state forestland management plans. Corporate, federal, and state
owners of forestlands are often required to develop and implement forest
management plans. These plans usually include management practices for
logging, road construction, replanting, and other activities. A number of states
also have forestry practice regulations that cover logging practices by individuals
or private landowners. Such regulations may have requirements such as
notification of intent to log, development of and compliance with a management
plan that includes the use of management practices, and notification of
termination of activities. Watershed planners can review recent or existing forest
management plans in the watershed, discuss with managers which plans and
practices are working well, and identify areas that could be strengthened.
? Federal or state grazing permits. Federal or state lands that are leased to
individuals often require permits that specify conditions and management
practices that must be adhered to for the term of the permit. These practices and
conditions might include limiting the number of livestock allowed to graze,
establishing off-stream watering or fencing in sensitive watershed areas, and
other water quality protection measures. Again, watershed planners can review
existing permits in the watershed, discuss with managers which practices are
working well, and identify areas that could be improved.
? State Regulatory Authority. Some states, such as California, have the authority
to regulate nonpoint sources. California is beginning to issue “waivers” for
traditional nonpoint sources, such as irrigated agriculture in the Central Valley.
The waivers may require growers to implement management practices and
develop farm plans, notice of which is submitted to the state’s water board
through a Notice of Intent (NOI). Irrigated agriculture facilities may be required
to submit an NOI indicating that management practices have been implemented
before irrigation return flows may be discharged to receiving waters.
Regulatory Approaches for Point Sources
Point sources are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program. Authorized by section 402 of Clean Water Act,
the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program covers
discharges from industrial facilities, municipal stormwater conveyances, concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs), construction sites, publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs). These categories are briefly described below.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-8 Draft
? Wastewater discharges from industrial sources. Wastewater discharges from
industrial facilities might contain pollutants at levels that could affect the quality
of receiving waters. The NPDES permit program establishes specific
requirements for discharges from industrial sources. Depending on the type of
industrial or commercial facility, more than one NPDES program might apply.
For example, runoff from an industrial facility or construction site might require
an NPDES permit under the stormwater program. An industrial facility might
also discharge wastewater to a municipal sewer system and be covered under the
NPDES pretreatment program. If the industrial facility discharges wastewater
directly to a surface water, it will require an individual or general NPDES permit.
Finally, many industrial facilities, whether they discharge directly to a surface
water or to a municipal sewer system, are covered by effluent limitation
guidelines and standards.
? Stormwater discharges. Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from
land and impervious areas like paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops
during rainfall and snow events. Such runoff often contains pollutants in
quantities large enough to adversely affect water quality. Most stormwater
discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) require
authorization to discharge under an NPDES permit as part of the Phase I or Phase
II (depending on the size of the population served) NPDES Stormwater Program.
Operators of MS4s must obtain coverage under an NPDES stormwater permit
and must implement stormwater pollution prevention plans or stormwater
management programs, both of which specify how management practices will be
used to control pollutants in runoff and prevent their discharge to receiving
waters. For example, regulated small MS4s (in general, cities and towns with
populations between 10,000 and 100,000) must include the
following six minimum control measures in their management
programs:
– Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts
– Public involvement/participation
– Illicit discharge detection and elimination
– Construction site runoff control
– Post-construction stormwater management in new development
and redevelopment
– Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal
operations
The NPDES stormwater program also requires operators of construction
sites 1 acre or larger (including smaller sites that are part of a larger
common plan of development) to obtain authorization to discharge
stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-9
Management practices appropriate for controlling stormwater discharges from MS4s,
construction sites, and other areas are discussed in more detail under Nonpoint
Source Management Practices.
? Combined sewer overflows. Combined sewer systems are designed to collect
runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe system. In
1994 EPA issued its Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy
(Kwww.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0111.pdf), which is a national framework for
controlling CSOs through the NPDES permitting program. The first milestone
under the CSO Policy was the January 1, 1997, deadline for implementing
minimum technology-based controls, commonly referred to as the “nine
minimum controls.” These controls are measures that can reduce the frequency of
CSOs and minimize their impacts when they do occur. The controls are not
expected to require significant engineering studies or major construction.
Communities with combined sewer systems are also expected to develop
long-term CSO control plans that will ultimately provide for full compliance with
the Clean Water Act, including attainment of water quality standards.
? Sanitary sewer overflows. Properly designed, operated, and maintained sanitary
sewer systems are meant to collect and transport all sewage inputs to a POTW.
However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal
sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These types of discharges are
called sanitary sewer overflows, or SSOs. A few SSOs, such as those occurring
from unpreventable vandalism, some types of blockages, extreme rainstorms, and
acts of nature like earthquakes or floods, might be unavoidable. However, many
SSOs, such as those caused by inadequate or negligent operation or maintenance,
inadequate system capacity, and improper system design and construction, are
avoidable. Examples of management practices that can reduce or eliminate SSOs
include
– Conducting sewer system cleaning and maintenance
– Reducing infiltration and inflow by rehabilitating systems and repairing
broken or leaking service lines
– Enlarging or upgrading sewer, pump station, or sewage treatment plant
capacity and reliability
– Constructing storage and treatment facilities to treat excess wet weather
flows
Communities should also address SSOs during sewer system master planning and
facilities planning or when extending the sewer system into unsewered areas.
? Concentrated animal feeding operations. AFOs are agricultural operations in
which animals are kept and raised in a confined setting. Certain AFOs that meet a
minimum threshold for number of animals are defined as concentrated AFOs
(CAFOs). CAFOs require NPDES permits. The permits set waste discharge
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-10 Draft
1. Inventory existing management efforts in the
watershed
2. Quantify the effectiveness of current management
measures
3. Identify new management opportunities
4. Identify critical areas in the watershed where
additional management efforts are needed
5. Identify possible management practices
6. Identify relative pollutant reduction efficiencies
7. Develop screening criteria to identify opportunities
and constraints
8. Rank alternatives and develop candidate
management opportunities
requirements that need to be met by implementing animal waste management
practices such as reducing nutrients in feed; improving storage, handling, and
treatment of waste; and implementing feedlot runoff controls.
? Industrial stormwater permits. The NPDES program has also developed
industrial stormwater general permits that provide facility-specific requirements
for many types of industrial facilities in a single permit. The permits outline steps
that facility operators must take before they can be eligible for permit coverage.
The steps include developing and implementing a stormwater pollution
prevention plan with management practices to control runoff pollution from
outdoor storage areas, spills, and other potentially polluting activities.
Most of the management practices listed in the following section could be required
through regulations or encouraged through training and education programs. Your
watershed management plan may include both regulatory and nonregulatory methods
to get landowners, citizens, and businesses to adopt the practices needed.
10.3 Steps to Select Management Practices
This section describes a process for selecting management
practices that might be feasible to implement in the critical
areas identified in your watershed. The first step in the process
is to inventory what has been or is being accomplished in the
watershed. Future projects and management practices should
augment efforts already under way. This analysis will allow
you to determine where modifications are needed to existing
programs, practices, or ordinances and where new practices
are needed.
The next step involves quantifying the effectiveness of
existing management efforts. This step will allow you to
establish a baseline level of pollutant load reductions that are
already occurring and will help guide the selection of
additional management practices to meet target load
reductions.
The third step entails identifying new opportunities for implementing management
measures. Based on the identification of pollutant sources from chapter 7, you can
locate critical areas where management measures will likely achieve the greatest
pollutant load reductions.
Once opportunities for pollutant load reductions are identified, you can match them
with candidate management practices, alone or in combination, that could effectively
reduce pollutant loads. This step will involve research into management practice
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-11
Remember to incorporate the existing management
efforts into your implementation plan in addition to any
new management measures you identify. Existing
management have often already incorporated complex
site-specific social and economic factors, as well as,
considerable local knowledge of regional environmental
constraints. Understanding why existing management
measures were selected and choosing options for new
ones is important business. This points to the need to
be sure that those entities that will be asked to
implement practices are part of the team developing
your plan.
specifications to help you determine which practices will be most feasible
(considering site constraints), which practices are most acceptable to landowners, and
which have the greatest pollutant removal effectiveness under similar conditions.
After researching candidate management measures and practices, you should have
enough information to analyze each management opportunity using screening criteria
that you develop. The screening criteria are based on various factors, such as your
critical areas, site conditions, and constraints. The criteria will help you sort through
the different attributes of each practice so you can select the practices worthy of more
detailed analysis. Then you can quantify their effectiveness and conduct the
associated cost versus benefit analysis. KYou’ll conduct these more detailed
analyses in chapter 11.
10.3.1 Identify Existing Management Efforts in the Watershed
Before you identify the additional management measures needed to achieve
management objectives, you should identify the programs, management strategies,
and ordinances already being implemented in the watershed. In some cases, the
existing management practices themselves might be adequate
to meet water quality goals, but they might not be maintained
correctly or there might not be enough of them in place.
Perhaps, for example, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) conservation practices on farmland are
effective for the farms using them, but not enough farmers
have adopted the practices to meet the goals in the watershed.
In other cases, you might want to modify an existing practice,
for example, by increasing stream setback requirements from
25 feet to 100 feet. When identifying the existing programs
and management efforts, be sure to record the responsible
party, such as an agency or landowner, and the pollutants the
efforts address.
Communities in the Mill Creek watershed in Michigan first evaluated existing local
regulations and programs to help identify ways to strengthen local policies to help
meet multiple watershed objectives. These programs and policies are described in
table 10-2. Appendix A includes references of example watershed plans.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-12 Draft
Table 10-2. Existing Programs and Policies Identified in the Mill Creek Subwatershed Communities
Stakeholder Existing Program or Policy
Pollutant
Addressed
USDA, Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
Wetland restoration (Wetlands Reserve Program) Hydrologic flow
Controlling erosion/soil information Sediment
Streambank stabilization expertise Sediment
Riparian revegetation (Conservation Reserve Program)
Forested revegetation/filter strips
Agricultural waste management (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) Nutrients
Soil testing
Cross wind strips Wind erosion
Washtenaw
County Road
Commission
Leave buffers when grading gravel roads Sediment
Assess and manage erosion at stream crossings
Follow soil erosion and sediment control practices
Village of Chelsea Soil erosion and sediment controls and stormwater retention requirements on new
developments
Sediment
Stormwater calculations must account for roads in new development in addition to the
other development
Hydrologic flow
Large detention on wastewater treatment plant site
Stormwater collectors, proprietary treatment devices
Oil and grease separators installed; add outlet devices to existing development Sediment, oil and
grease
Daimler Chrysler
Chelsea Proving
Grounds
Leave buffers (of minimal width) along creek Nutrients
Switching products to no- or low-phosphorus alternatives
Ongoing monitoring of phosphorus levels in Letts Creek for NPDES permit
Pursuing alternative treatment chemical to reduce phosphorus
Soil erosion and sediment control permits and practices Sediment
Oil-grease separators installed Oil and grease
Devices in manholes checked monthly
Washtenaw
County Drain
Commissioner’s
Office
Planning incentives or requirements for infiltration Hydrologic flow
Require first flush and wet ponds
Implementation of Phase II NPDES stormwater permits All
Work to balance drain maintenance and channel protection
Drains are being entered into a GIS for enhanced use
Community Partners for Clean Streams program encourages business and community
partners to improve operations to protect streams
Stormwater BMP Demonstration Park nearly complete
Scio Township Adopted Drain Office standards Hydrologic flow
Follows county Soil Erosion and Sediment Control rules Sediment
Sylvan Township Part of regional plan to limit sprawl All
Lake communities connecting to sanitary sewer Nutrients
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-13
O
Wastewater Discharges
? Where are the wastewater discharges located in the
watershed? If possible, map the locations.
? What volume of wastewater is being discharged?
? What are the parameters of concern in the effluent?
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
? Where are concentrations of on-site systems located? If
possible, map the locations.
? Are there known concentrations of failing on-site systems? If
so, where?
Urban Stormwater Runoff
? Are cities and counties in the watershed covered by an
NPDES stormwater permit? If so, what are the conditions of
the permit?
? Do local governments in the watershed have stormwater
ordinances? If so, what are the requirements?
Agricultural and Forestry Practices
? Are there areas with active farming or logging in the
watershed? If so, map them if possible.
? Are management plans in place where these activities are
occurring?
? What percentage of the area uses management practices for
controlling sediment and other pollutants? Are these
practices effective? If not, why? Are monitoring data
available?
Wetlands and Critical Habitat Protection
? Have wetlands been identified and evaluated for the habitat
value, water quality benefits, and flood control contributions?
? To what extent do natural buffers and floodplains remain in
the watershed?
Worksheet 10-1 below is an excerpt of a Oworksheet
that can be used to begin identifying and evaluating
existing efforts. KA blank worksheet 10-1 is provided
in appendix B.
10.3.2 Quantify Effectiveness of Current
Management Measures
After you’ve identified existing management efforts in
the watershed, you’ll determine the effectiveness of the
measures in terms of achieving desired load reductions
or meeting other management goals and objectives. The
difference between the levels of pollutant load
reductions achieved by existing practices and the
targeted reductions you identified in chapter 9 will help
determine the additional practices needed.
Quantifying the effectiveness of existing programs and
measures can be a challenging task. First, take a look at
whether the source quantification analyses performed
earlier (chapter 8) reflect existing programs adequately
so that you can determine the gap. For example, if you
don’t expect the programs to achieve more than what
was represented in earlier modeling analyses and a gap
exists between the current level of loading and the
target, additional measures will need to be added to fill
that gap. In addition, if the existing management
measures are not aimed at controlling the stressors of
greatest concern, a gap is clearly evident and new
management measures are needed. On the other hand,
if the existing programs are evolving and greater
participation or improved performance is expected with
respect to the parameters of concern, you can estimate
how much that gap will be further reduced by programs
already in place. Additional measures would be needed
only to the extent that a gap is expected to remain.
If the modeling tools previously applied to conduct the loading analysis can’t be used
to predict the future performance of existing management programs, you can
approximate the additional reductions expected based on best professional judgment
or you can develop additional modeling tools to estimate effectiveness. KChapter 11
discusses methods for evaluating the effectiveness of new management measures,
from the relatively simple to the complex; some of the methods could be used to
evaluate existing measures as well.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-14 Draft
NRCS published National Catalog of Erosion and
Sediment Control and Storm Water Management
Guidelines for Community Assistance (K
www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/Natl-Catalog-Erosion-
and-Sed-Guidelines.pdf. This document contains a
comprehensive list of urban and development
management practices from every state, as well as
representative standards and specifications for each
type of management practice.
10.3.3 Identify New Management Opportunities
Now that you’ve identified the existing management efforts in the watershed and
their relative effectiveness in reducing pollutant loads, you can begin to identify
potential new management measures that could be used to achieve the additional load
reductions required. At this stage you’ll conduct a preliminary screening of these
management measures to determine their potential usefulness. KOnce this screening
is complete, you’ll conduct more rigorous evaluations in chapter 11.
This section provides a process for screening management
opportunities and identifying good candidate options, which
will be subjected to a more detailed evaluation. The process
includes
? Identifying critical areas where additional management is
needed
? Identifying candidate management practices
? Identifying relative pollutant loading reductions
? Identifying opportunities and constraints for each
management measure
? Documenting good candidate opportunities
10.3.4 Identify Critical Areas in the Watershed Where Additional
Management Efforts Are Needed
In general, management practices are implemented immediately adjacent to the
waterbody or upland to address the sources of pollutant loads. Streamside practices
include streambank protection and riparian habitat enhancement to address the
channel, floodplain, and riparian corridor of the waterbody. Upland management
practices are typically divided into practices for agricultural lands, forestry, and urban
developed lands.
As part of your screening process you’ll want to identify which management
practices can be implemented in the critical areas that you have identified. Using the
location of the pollutant sources you identified in chapter 7, you’ll start to identify
possible opportunities for installing additional management practices.
You can use a geographic information system (GIS) or hand-drafted maps to conduct
an analysis of management opportunities. A simple mapping analysis for a rural
residential and farming area that has nutrient problems might include the following
geographic information: location of section 303(d)-listed waterbodies, existing
agricultural areas (using a GIS coverage of existing land use or land cover data that
indicates grazing vs. cropland if possible), areas where existing management
practices are being employed (if any), and the degree of riparian buffer disturbance.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-15
Figure 10-2. Percentage of buffer area disturbed and impaired waters in the
Troublesome Creek watersheds.
Most often, these maps can be generated using the land use/land cover databases and
watershed tools from the scoping and watershed analysis.
Figure 10-2 shows a map that was generated to help identify the critical areas where
management practices were needed in the rural Troublesome Creek watershed. The
map shows the impaired waters, along with the percentage of buffer area disturbed in
the Troublesome Creek
subwatersheds. The
subwatersheds that have
buffers more than 15 percent
disturbed indicate the
potential for riparian area
restoration efforts to limit
sediment loading. Maps for
an urban or suburban area
might include waters on the
section 303(d) list with an
overlay of subwatersheds that
have impervious area greater
than 10 percent and greater
than 25 percent, indicating
the medium and high
potential for stream
degradation, degree of
riparian buffer disturbance,
and industrial sites.
10.3.5 Identify Possible Management Practices
Dozens of resources are available to help provide a sound basis for your research and
preliminary screening of management practices. 7The resources you select should
depend on the pollutant sources and causes in your watershed and the land use
characteristics (chapter 7). For example, some resources focus on practices to control
urban stormwater runoff, some focus on agricultural practices to manage farm runoff,
and some concentrate on forestry practices to control impacts from logging. These
resources provide information on the practice, such as description, cost, and planning
considerations. Although data on management practice effectiveness and program-
related load reductions can be very limited, the resources provide insight on relative
performance. For example, NRCS’s (2005) National Conservation Practice
Standards allows you to identify the level of technical expertise necessary to
successfully design, install, and maintain specific activities: passive management,
active management, mild engineering, moderate engineering, and intensive
engineering. KAppendix A provides several resources that can be used to begin
identifying possible management practices.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-16 Draft
O
Sources:
(e.g., streambanks, urban stormwater, failing septic
systems, livestock in stream)
Causes:
(e.g., eroding streambanks, unlimited access of livestock,
undersized culverts)
Name of management measure or program
(NRCS code if applicable)
Data source (i.e., where you obtained your information on
the management measure)
Description (what it is and what it does)
Approximate unit cost (including installation and operation
and maintenance costs; may be expressed as a range)
Approximate or relative load reduction for each parameter
of concern (could be high, moderate, low, or unit
reduction per acre per year)
Planning considerations (e.g., project factors such as site
size and contributing watershed area; physical factors
such as slope, depth of water table, and soil type
limitations or considerations; operation and maintenance
requirements)
Skill needed to implement the management measures
(e.g., engineering, landscape design, construction)
Permitting considerations
Other (e.g., stakeholders’ willingness to use the measure)
As you conduct your research, it’s helpful to develop a
1- or 2-page summary of each promising management
option. (These can be included in an appendix to your
management plan.) Each summary should eventually
include, at minimum, the information listed in
worksheet 10-2. As you move through the screening
process you’ll add information to the Oworksheet, such
as the pollutant reduction effectiveness, planning
considerations, legal requirements, and opportunities
and constraints. KFull-size, blank worksheets are
provided in appendix B.
The National Conservation Practice Standards provides
a 1-page summary for each of 50 management practices.
Drawing from this manual, table 10-3 lists some
commonly used practices for reducing sediment, total
dissolved solids (TDS), and salinity, along with the
pollution sources they address and the expected level of
load reduction. The load reduction potential
qualitatively describes the potential reduction of loading
achieved by implementing the practice. The actual load
reduction depends on the extent of the practice, existing
loading levels, and local features like soils and
hydrology.
This handbook and others like it can provide a good
basis for screening, with some adaptation to local
circumstances. For example, because National
Conservation Practice Standards was developed in the
West, if you’re developing a plan for an eastern
watershed, you might need to consult your local NRCS office or local engineering
department staff regarding the potential load reductions and cost of selected practices
in your area.
Although dozens of management practices can be implemented, you should identify
those practices that will have the greatest likelihood of achieving your watershed
goals. You should relate the management practices back to the sources of pollutants
in the watershed, the types of impairments found, and the amount of load reduction
needed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-17
Table 10-3. Commonly Used Management Practices for Salinity, Sediment, and Total
Dissolved Solids
Pollution Sources (T = Management practice applies)
Management Practice
Load
Reduction
(H, M, or L)
AFO
Ag
Practices
Industry
Runoff
Urban
Runoff
Disturbed
Areas
Stream
Erosion
TTConstruction site mgt L
TTTGrazing mgt M
TT Nutrient mgt M
Cover crop H
TT T T Fencing H
TT T T Filter strip H
Mulching L
TTTTT Riparian buffer M
Seeding M
TT Tree planting L
T Brush layer H
TT T Brush trench H
TT T TErosion control fabric H
TT T T Silt fence M
Straw bale barrier M
Watering facility M
TT TT TConstructed wetland M
TT T T Detention basin M
TT T Road stabilization L–M
TT TTGrade stabilization H
T Willow fascines H
TTT Water quality pond M
Rock riprap H
TStream channel
stabilization
H
TT Brush mattress M
TTPole/post plantings M
TT Residue mgt M
Rock vane H
Rock weir H
TTTT Sloped drain M
TT T T Terrace H
T Pest mgt H
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-18 Draft
There are several sources of management practice
information. Select appropriate sources on the basis of the
pollutant type and land use characteristics. The following are
examples:
Urban Sources
International Stormwater Best Management Practice Database
at www.bmpdatabase.org provides access to performance data
for more than 200 management practice studies.
Agricultural Sources
NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/Standards/nhcp.html
All Sources
EPA has developed several guidance documents broken out
by type of management measure. Draft and final manuals are
available for agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and
recreational boating, hydromodification, and wetlands. These
manuals can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owow/nps.
Note: In addition to the resources mentioned above, many
states have published BMP handbooks or guidance documents
for in-state use. For example, the California Stormwater Quality
Task Force published the California Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbooks to provide information on
current practices, standards, and knowledge gained about the
effectiveness of management practices. These documents can
be downloaded from www.cabmphandbooks.com.
The management practices selected should be targeted to the sources of a particular
stressor. For example, full-scale channel restoration can be pursued along reaches
where channel incision and streambank failure result from historical channelization,
whereas exclusion fencing of cattle might be more appropriate when the sediment
source is streambank trampling along cobble bed reaches. In cases where instream
habitat is degraded, the components of the habitat that are most impacted can be used
to guide management actions. Slightly degraded habitat due to limited microhabitat
(e.g., leaf packs, sticks, undercut banks), poor cover
(e.g., logs and overhanging vegetation), and a thin
canopy could be improved through revegetation of the
riparian area; habitat degraded by poorly defined and
embedded riffles, pools filled with sediment, and
unstable streambanks might better be addressed
through natural channel design. In the case of
excessive nutrients from upland areas, passive actions
such as designating conservation easements and
limiting development might be the most prudent
action.
It’s important to look at how the management practice
being considered addresses the stressor of concern
because that factor can considerably affect
performance. Thus, in cases where sediment is
identified as a stressor, stabilizing streambanks and
limiting incision will be of little value if poor erosion
and sediment control practices in a developing
watershed are the overwhelming source of sediment
contributed to the reach.
When you’re screening management practices, it will
usually be more effective to select two or more
practices than to choose a single practice to achieve
the needed load reductions. When you combine
multiple practices, they’re called management
practice systems or treatment trains. Multiple
practices are usually more effective in controlling a
pollutant because they can be used at two or more
points in the pollutant delivery process. For example,
the objective of many agricultural nonpoint source pollution projects is to reduce the
delivery of soil from cropland to waterbodies. A system of multiple practices can be
designed to reduce soil detachment (e.g., soil additives to make soils less erodible),
erosion potential (e.g., turf reinforcement mats), and off-site transport of eroded soil
(e.g., vegetated buffer strips).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-19
When reviewing multiple practices, consider spatial and temporal factors. For
example, if you’re trying to reduce impacts from an agricultural area, you should
review management practices that might address upland agricultural activities as well
as management practices that might address stream erosion (if both impacts exist).
Complementary practices also have a time dimension. For example, streambank
erosion is often caused by a reduction of woody vegetation along the stream due to
intensive cattle grazing. Before the streambank can be successfully revegetated, the
grazing issue should be addressed through fencing or other controls that protect the
riparian zone from grazing and trampling. You should also screen for management
practices that do not conflict with each other or with other management objectives in
the watershed.
10.3.6 Identify Relative Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies
Once you’ve selected potential management practices based on the pollutant type
addressed, you should identify the relative effectiveness of each practice in reducing
pollutant loading. At the screening stage, this means using or developing simple
scales indicating high, medium, or low reduction potential (see table 10-3). KThe
actual load reduction will depend on the extent of the practice and the existing
loading levels, which will be addressed in more detail in chapter 11.
Many of the references mentioned previously also identify the relative load reduction
potential of various practices. For example, KThe BMP Implementation Appendix
includes information on more than 85 practices. It includes a description of the
practice, purpose, pollutant sources treated, pollutants addressed, load reduction
potential, and estimated time for load reduction.
Keep in mind that in addition to reducing pollutant loads, you might also want to
evaluate management practices to reduce hydrologic impacts like high peak flows
and volume through infiltration or interception. The ability of management practices
to address these hydrologic impacts should be documented using a scale of high,
medium, or low potential for peak flow or volume reduction.
Table 10-4 shows how a community can screen management practices for their
relative performance in addressing pollutant loading and hydrologic issues. The table
also shows the multiple and complementary benefits of the management practices.
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-20 Draft
Table 10-4. Example Management Practice Screening Matrix
Structural Management Practice
Hydrologic Factor Pollutant Factor
Interception Infiltration Evaporation Reduced Peak Flo
w
T
o
tal Suspended
Solids Nutrients Fecal Coliform Bacteria Metals T
e
mperature
Bioretention ??
?
? ?????
Conventional dry detention ???
?
???? ?
Extended dry detention ??? ? ? ????
Grass swale ?????????
Green roof ??? ? ?????
Infiltration trench ??? ? ????
?
Parking lot underground storage ?????????
Permeable pavement ??? ? ?????
Sand filter ?????????
Stormwater wetland ??? ??????
Vegetated filter strip with level
spreader
?????????
Water quality swale ?????????
Wet pond ?????????
? Poor, Low, or No Influence
? Moderate
? Good, High
10.3.7 Develop Screening Criteria to Identify Opportunities and
Constraints
Once you’ve identified general areas in the watershed that might benefit from
management practices that will address the sources of pollutants, you can apply
additional screening to further hone in on feasible sites, for which you will conduct
your more detailed evaluation and final selection (chapter 11).
Which screening criteria you select will depend on where the practice is to be
implemented and the nature of the practice. At this stage you can use the following
screening criteria to help identify candidate management measures:
? Location of management practice within the critical area. Check to see if the
candidate management practice will help achieve the load reductions that were
identified in one of the critical areas of the watershed.
? Estimated load reductions. Using the information you collected in section
10.3.5, record whether the anticipated load reduction is low, medium, or high.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-21
? Legal and regulatory requirements. Identify legal or regulatory requirements
for projects, and determine whether any pose significant constraints. For
example, if the restoration project involves working in the stream channel, a
section 404 dredge and fill permit might be required. You should also check for
the presence of wetlands because disturbance of wetland resources might be
prohibited. Also, if the project is adjacent to a stream, make sure local stream
buffer ordinances do not prohibit disturbance of the buffer for restoration
purposes. Are there other resource conservation constraints (e.g., endangered
species)? Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain
regulations also might affect the project. If the project is adjacent to a stream,
make sure local stream buffer ordinances allow management practices within the
buffer.
? Property ownership. Determine the number of property owners that need to
agree to the restoration project. It’s often easier to obtain easements on lands in
public ownership.
? Site access. Consider whether you will be able to physically access the site, and
identify a contact to obtain permission if private property must be traversed to
access the site. Consider whether maintenance equipment (e.g., front-end loaders,
vacuum trucks) will be able to reach the site safely. Design and costs might be
affected if a structural control requires hand-cleaning because of maintenance
access constraints.
? Added benefits. In addition to management practices fulfilling their intended
purpose, they can provide secondary benefits by controlling other pollutants,
depending on how the pollutants are generated or transported. For example,
practices that reduce erosion and sediment delivery often reduce phosphorus
losses because phosphorus is strongly adsorbed to silt and clay particles.
Therefore, a practice like conservation tillage not only reduces erosion but also
reduces transport of particulate phosphorus. In some cases, a management
practice might provide environmental benefits beyond those linked to water
quality. For example, riparian buffers, which reduce phosphorus and sediment
delivery to waterbodies, also serve as habitat for many species of birds and
plants.
? Unintended impacts. In some cases management practices used to control one
pollutant might inadvertently increase the generation, transport, or delivery of
another pollutant. Conservation tillage, because it creates increased soil porosity
(large pore spaces), can increase nitrate leaching through the soil, particularly
when the amount and timing of nitrogen application are not part of the
management plan.
? Physical factors. Many physical factors will determine whether you’ll be able to
install management practices. Look for constraints like steep slopes, wetlands,
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-22 Draft
A list of currently available cost references is given below. Most of
these references are available for free download, but some might
be available only at a university library or by purchase. You should
look for local costs before using these references because
construction costs and designs vary between states. KA more
detailed list of resources on costing information is included in
appendix A.
EPA Management Practice Fact Sheets
This comprehensive list of BMP fact sheets contains information
on construction and maintenance costs, as well as other monetary
considerations. Information is provided on both structural and non-
structural management practices.KGo to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source
Pollution from Agriculture
This EPA document provides cost information on a number of
management options for agricultural land. KGo to
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Some state NRCS offices publish cost information on agricultural
practices. Some cost data are published to support the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). For an
example of this cost information, Kgo to the “cost lists” section of
the following Web site:
www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/2005Signup.html.
Center for Watershed Protection
The Center for Watershed Protection has published numerous
support documents for watershed and management practice
planning. The Web site has documents available for free download
and purchase. KGo to www.cwp.org.
high water tables, and poorly drained areas.
Also look for opportunities such as open space,
existing management practices that can be
upgraded, outfalls where management practices
could be added, and well-drained areas. For
example, a site proposed for a stormwater
wetland that has steeply sloping topography
might not be feasible for a wetland.
? Infrastructure. Look for sites that don’t have
utilities, road crossings, buried cables,
pipelines, parking areas, or other significant
physical constraints that could preclude
installation or cause safety hazards.
?Costs. The appropriateness of a management
practice for a particular site can be affected by
economic feasibility considerations, which
encompass short- and long-term costs. Short-
term costs include installation costs, while
long-term costs include the cost of continued
operation and maintenance. Most of the
guidance manuals referenced earlier in the
chapter also provide cost information for each
of the management practices discussed. KIn
section 11.5 you’ll consider more detailed cost
elements associated with the management
practices, such as construction, design and
engineering, and operation and maintenance
costs, as well as adjustment for inflation.
? Social acceptance. Consider how nearby
landowners will perceive the management
practice. Will it cause nuisances such as
localized ponding of water, unsightly weed growth, or vector control problems?
Can these issues be addressed in the siting and design of the practice? How can
you involve nearby residents in selecting and designing the practice to address
their concerns?
The optimal method for evaluating site feasibility for riparian and upland
management practices is a site visit, preferably with staff from permitting or
extension agencies. Actual constraints and opportunities can be identified, and input
from the agencies can be incorporated to expedite the permitting process. When a site
visit is not practical, however, many physical constraints can be evaluated remotely
using a GIS. When the GIS approach is used, it’s important to recognize that the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Draft 10-23
input data might not be entirely accurate (e.g., land cover data from 1999 might have
changed by now).
10.3.8 Rank Alternatives and Develop Candidate Management
Opportunities
Now that you’ve identified various management practices that you could install in the
watershed to achieve your goals and objectives, you should screen them to document
the candidate management opportunities. 7At this stage, you’re working with the
stakeholders to identify which management options should go through a more
rigorous evaluation to determine the actual pollutant reduction that can be achieved
through combined management measures, as well as the costs and feasibility of the
measures.
Using the worksheets from your research, develop a summary chart and map, along
with a ranking of alternatives, to present and discuss with the stakeholders.
Summarize and weigh such factors as
? Relative load reduction expected
? Added benefits
?Costs
? Public acceptance
? Ease of construction and maintenance
When developing your summary worksheets, it's helpful to group similar types of
practices. Once you have collected all of the information on the various practices,
you can rate practices according to the screening criteria you’ve selected (table 10-5).
You can create a basic rating system from 1 to 4, with 1 the lowest rating and 4 the
highest. For example, pollutant removal effectiveness values may receive higher
rating for higher removal of pollutants. Cost values receive higher values for lower
costs. Maintenance values receive higher ratings for lower required maintenance.
Public acceptance values receive higher ratings for practices the public is more likely
to approve. Practices with added benefits receive higher ratings, and so forth.
Table 10-5. Example Ranking Table to Identify Candidate Management Practices
Management
Practice
Pollutant
Reduction
Effectiveness
Cost
Added
Benefits
Public
Acceptance
Maintenance Total
Gradient
terraces
231242.4
Grassed swales 3 4 3 4 4 3.2
Wet extended
detention ponds
232332.6
Model
ordinances
432443.4
Chapter 10
Identify Possible
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
10-24 Draft
Before you rate each practice, you might want to develop some assumptions like the
following:
? The management practices will be installed and maintained properly.
? Although public involvement activities will not directly reduce pollutant loads,
they will contribute to an increase in awareness that might lead to people’s
adopting pollutant-reducing behaviors.
? The management practice is rated for reducing a specific pollutant of concern,
not a suite of pollutants.
When you have rated all the practices, average the values in each row to get the total
score. The total score will give you a general idea of which management practices
might be good candidates for implementation. Next, present the summaries to your
stakeholders and ask them to review the information and agree or disagree. If they
disagree with the ratings, review the criteria used, provide them with more
information, or change the rating based on their input. Once you’ve narrowed down
the candidate practices, you’re ready to move on to chapter 11 and conduct more
detailed analyses.
When developing good candidate options for watersheds with multiple sources, make
sure you’ve identified management options for each source and that the options are
complementary. Finally, map out upstream-to-downstream management options,
making sure that you begin work on the upstream projects first. KChapter 11
provides more detail on evaluating multiple projects within a watershed or
subwatershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-1
11. Evaluate Options and
Select Final Management
Strategies
Read this chapter if...
? You want to evaluate your potential management strategies to select the final
strategy for your watershed plan
? You want to learn about approaches to quantify the effectiveness of management
practices
? You want to understand the capabilities of available models for evaluating
management practices
? You need examples of applications for quantifying the effectiveness of
management practices
? You need to identify criteria for ranking and selecting your final management
strategy
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Approaches used to evaluate
performance of management
practices
< Estimating management
performance and comparing to
objectives
< Cost considerations
< Evaluating options
< Selecting final strategies
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-2 Draft
Figure 11-1. Evaluate candidate management practices to select
final strategies.
11.1 How Do I Select the Final Management Strategy?
In chapter 10 you conducted an initial screening to determine the feasibility of using
various management practices in your implementation program. The screening was
based on factors like the critical areas in the watershed, estimated pollutant removal
efficiencies, costs, and physical constraints. In this chapter you’ll take those
candidate options and refine the screening process to quantitatively evaluate their
ability to meet your management objectives in terms of pollutant removal, costs, and
public acceptance (figure 11-1).
You’ll work with your stakeholders to consider various strategies that use a
combination of management practices, to rank and evaluate the strategies, and finally
to select the preferred strategies to be included in your watershed plan.
This chapter presents various techniques to help you to quantify the potential of the
management actions to meet the watershed objectives, thereby providing the
information you’ll need to make final selections. There are five major steps to
selecting your final management strategies:
1. Identify factors that will influence selection of the preferred management
strategies
2. Select the suitable approach to evaluate the ability of the management techniques
to meet the watershed objectives
3. Quantify the expected load reductions from existing conditions resulting from the
management strategies
4. Identify capital and O&M costs and compare initial and long term benefits
5. Select the final preferred strategies
Before you can conduct detailed analyses
on the management strategies, you should
first identify the factors that will influence
which approach you’ll use and then select
the actual approach or method you’ll use to
evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed
management practices in meeting your
objectives. The factors that will influence
the selection of your approach are
discussed below, followed by a discussion
of various approaches.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-3
While you’re setting up your evaluation of management
practices, you might find it helpful to develop metrics or
measures that can be combined readily with your cost
evaluation to facilitate the cost-effectiveness analysis
(discussed further in section 11.5). For instance,
pounds per acre per year of pollutant removal can be
combined easily with dollars per acre of cost to
produce dollars per pound removed.
11.2 Factors that Influence the Selection of Approaches Used to
Quantify Effectiveness
You should consider several factors before you select an
approach to evaluate your candidate management strategies.
These include identifying the general and specific types and
locations of management practices that will be used, what
indicators you’ll use to evaluate their performance, and the
appropriate scale and detail of the analysis to assess the
cumulative benefit of multiple practices.
11.2.1 General Types of Management Practices
Which approaches you choose to evaluate the performance of the management
practices depends in part on the location of the sources being managed and the types
of management practices used. A source in an upland area (e.g., cropland erosion) is
different from a source in a stream (e.g., streambank erosion). To evaluate upland
loading management, you could use a tool that estimates sediment loading (on an
area basis) from land uses in your watershed and could calculate a load reduction
from changes in land use management practices. For streambank erosion, you might
need to evaluate the effectiveness of stream restoration measures in terms of
reduction in tons of sediment per linear foot of stream.
When selecting the approaches used to assess
management, consider the general
characteristics of the management practices.
One way to group the various practices is to
consider how they are applied. Are the practices
applied across a land area, along a stream
corridor, or at a specific location? Some types of
management practices, such as tillage and
fertilizer management techniques, are applied
over large land areas. These land area-based
practices are measured by the area affected and
often include large regions of the watershed.
Practices applied along a stream corridor are
linear practices that stretch across long areas,
such as riparian or stream buffer zones. By
instituting a stream buffer zone, some water
from uphill areas can be filtered; the vegetation
might also provide additional shade and
improved habitat. Practices installed at a point
or specific location provide treatment for runoff
from a specific drainage area. Point practices
include detention ponds, bioretention areas, and
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-4 Draft
many other practices that collect and treat runoff through settling or infiltration of
water and pollutants. These types of practices require slightly different assessment
techniques and have different data collection needs for evaluating their pollutant
removal benefits.
11.2.2 Identify the Types of Indicators You’re Using to Measure
Performance
In chapter 9 you developed indicators to help measure progress toward meeting your
watershed goals and management objectives. Your indicators and associated targets
might be based on pollutant loads, hydrologic factors, concentration values, or habitat
measures. The type and expression of your indicators will affect the types of analyses
you can use to assess your management practices and strategies.
If your indicator is a pollutant load, performance measures for practices are easy to
find. For concentration- or value-based indicators, you should take greater care to
ensure that the information you find is applicable to your situation. Assume, for
example, that your watershed has been listed as impaired because of frequent
exceedances of fecal coliform counts during storm events. When locating data about
management practice performance, you should make sure that the information you
find applies to storm event performance, not to base flow performance.
If you have more than one indicator to address, note how each management practice
performs for all of your indicators. Practices that benefit multiple indicators might
have greater overall benefit as part of a watershed-wide management strategy.
11.2.3 Consider the Scale of Your Watershed
Understanding how to develop your management strategy will depend in large part
on how big and complicated the watershed is and how expensive the management
will be. When looking at how to evaluate a management plan, scale is a major
concern. A management strategy for a small urban watershed (e.g., approximately
1,000 acres) might include hundreds or even thousands of individual actions such as
changes in fertilizer applications, increased street sweeping, retrofit of existing
detention ponds, or restoration of shoreline areas. In large watersheds, both urban and
rural, the effect of multiple actions is often generalized to get an estimate of the
overall impact. For a smaller-scale watershed, you might conduct a more detailed
analysis of the benefit of specific management practices or restoration activities.
These studies might include examining what will happen if practices are installed or
adopted in defined locations within the watershed. Practices can also be evaluated at
the smallest scale, such as an individual development or lot. At that level, however,
analyses typically focus on meeting regulatory requirements or design requirements
of a funding program. Individual practices provide a cumulative benefit when
considered as part of a larger program of implementation, but their individual benefit
might be more difficult to discern.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-5
How to bridge the various scales is an ongoing issue in watershed planning. Tools are
needed to evaluate the cumulative benefit of management strategies to select the best
alternatives, evaluate the most cost-effective solutions, and ultimately be assured that
restoration will be successful. But it’s not always appropriate or necessary to use
models or perform detailed analyses of each management practice. In subsequent
sections the capabilities of available models to assess the benefits of management
practice installation are discussed. In applying models to management analysis, keep
in mind that sometimes simplifying or generalizing the impacts of management
practices is appropriate. Sometimes very detailed simulation or testing of land use
practices and small-scale practices can be performed and the results extrapolated to a
larger scale. Such studies can be described as “nested” modeling studies. For
example, a detailed evaluation of fertilizer and tillage practices can be performed at
the field scale using modeling or monitoring. The results from the study can be used
to evaluate the implications of using similar practices on similar fields in the region.
Similar approaches can be used to examine the implications of urban development
and redevelopment practices.
In larger watersheds there are also additional considerations in aggregating results to
the entire watershed and accounting for physical and chemical processes that occur
on a large scale (e.g., instream nutrient uptake, the timing and duration of storm event
peak flow at the mouth of the watershed). If the upstream conditions of your
watershed significantly influence the downstream portions, it might be necessary to
use models to evaluate the link between upstream and downstream indicators.
11.2.4 Consider the Synergistic Effects of Multiple Practices
The combined effects of all management practices implemented in a watershed
should be considered to determine whether water quality goals will be achieved. In
watersheds with easily characterized problems (e.g., where bacterial contamination is
due to a few obviously polluting animal operations in a watershed that has no other
identifiable sources of pathogens), it might be very easy to project that water quality
benefits will be achieved by implementing, for example, management practices for
nutrient management, erosion and sediment control, and facility wastewater and
runoff. However, in a watershed with multiple land uses where agriculture is
considered to contribute only a portion of the pollutants, it is more difficult to
estimate the combined impacts of various management practices on a fairly large
number of diverse farming operations. Further complicating the assessment is the
possibility that historical loading of pollutants has caused the water quality
impairment and several years might be required for the water resource to fully
recover.
If you need to evaluate the interaction of multiple management practices
simultaneously, you’ll want to evaluate the degree to which they complement or
conflict with one another. Their combined effect could be different from their
individual influence. The cumulative effect of management practices spread
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-6 Draft
throughout a large watershed might need to be assessed with complex tools.
Sometimes multiple management activities at the site scale are evaluated
simultaneously within a single watershed. Most commonly, individual sites are
evaluated in a watershed framework to investigate the downstream effects. An
example of a downstream effect is the magnitude of peak flows at the junction of the
main stem and the tributary on which the management practice is located. Though
unlikely, it is possible that the reduced peak outflow hydrograph from a proposed
stormwater management practice could exacerbate the peak flow in the main stem
channel because of differences in timing. The only way that this unintended, and
likely undesirable, downstream effect could be discovered is through a watershed-
scale evaluation. On the other hand, it is possible that multiple management practices
could work in concert to cumulatively reduce peak flows more than the sum of their
individual contributions.
The next section discusses various approaches for quantifying effectiveness of
management practices, including the role of modeling and the types of models
available.
11.3 Select an Approach to Quantify the Effectiveness of the
Management Strategies
You can use various approaches to evaluate the performance of management
practices and strategies. Choosing the one that is right for you will depend on several
factors, including the objectives and targets you need to achieve, the types of sources
and management practices, the scale of the analysis, and the cost of implementation.
Some of the technical considerations associated with modeling are the types of
models that were used for loading analysis, the availability of data or resources to
collect management practice information, and the availability of the appropriate
modeling techniques. A wide variety of
approaches can be used to evaluate
management strategies. At one end, you can
use published literature values and a simple
spreadsheet-based tool that calculates loads
delivered to and removed by management
practices. At the other end, you can use a
detailed watershed model that requires
substantial amounts of input on each
management technique. Sometimes a
combination of approaches are used to address
various indicators and management practices
that might need to be addressed. Very simple
approaches can be appropriate for planning
and alternatives analysis and can provide
relative comparisons of various management
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-7
? What is the time frame for your analysis? Determine
whether the management practice performance is
compared to indicators on an annual, seasonal, or
storm basis. Determine if you have to perform
calculations on a daily, or even hourly, basis.
? Is your analysis continuous through time, or can you
evaluate discrete events? For instance, you might
need to look at only large storm events, not a
continuous hydrologic record.
? Are you calculating loads, concentrations, flow, or
some other measure? Make sure that your approach
reflects the units of measure of your indicator(s).
? Do you need to account for variation in
environmental conditions in your analysis, such as
weather, wet versus dry years, and so forth?
strategies. The common limitations of simplified techniques
include the lack of sensitivity to precipitation, seasonal
patterns, and storm events.
11.3.1 Using Literature Values
One of the most commonly used methods for predicting the
performance of management strategies is the use of literature
values of removal percentage typically associated with each
type of management practice and pollutant (e.g., detention
pond and sediment). The removal percentage is typically
estimated from one or more monitoring studies in which the
performance of practices was measured using flow and
chemical monitoring.
The percentages from various literature sources and studies can
include ranges or variations in the expected reductions from
practices. This is because the effectiveness of management
practices in removing pollutants depends on many factors,
including local climate and conditions, design specifications,
and type of pollutant. Some monitoring studies have detailed data for only part of the
year, such as a few storms, and do not fully consider what the annual load reduction
might be for one or more years. When you use studies that document removal
percentages, consider the location and climate of the study area (e.g., arid, wet
region, cold weather) and the amount of data collected. If you have data that range in
values (e.g., from 20 to 80 percent), consider using a range of values in your analysis.
Note that the effectiveness of a series of management practices is not necessarily
cumulative. The removal percentage is typically calculated on the basis of monitoring
of an individual practice. Management practices are frequently combined on a site to
provide enhanced performance. If the same runoff is treated by more than one
practice, the configuration is referred to as a treatment train. One common pitfall is
that people add the performance results for all the management practices to obtain a
combined performance (e.g., 65 percent load removal plus 25 percent load removal
equals 90 percent removal). This method of calculation is not accurate and
overestimates reduction.
Management practice combinations have some cumulative benefit; however,
depending on the pollutant type and the removal mechanism (e.g., settling), the
removal percentages can change for subsequent practices. If the removal is
cumulative, the removal rate is calculated as follows. If the first practice removes 65
percent of the load, 35 percent of the total load is passed to the second practice. The
second practice removes 25 percent of the remaining 35 percent, or 8.75 percent of
the total load. The overall performance is 65 percent plus 8.75 percent, or 73.75
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-8 Draft
percent. If the process is not cumulative, the second practice might be slightly less
effective than the first, resulting in a cumulative reduction of less than 73.75 percent.
Typical practices that are not cumulative include those which rely on settling. For
instance, the first practice might remove coarse, heavy sediment, but the second
practice might be less efficient in settling the remaining fine-grained sediment.
It might be tempting to apply more than two practices in a series to achieve better
results, but the mechanisms of pollutant removal suggest that additional removal is
not likely to be achieved. Pollutants are often composed of components with different
physical properties; for example, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and organic nitrogen make
up total nitrogen. Frequently, a practice can remove only one component of a
pollutant well. If the next practice in the treatment train removes the same
component, less removal results. What is left over is often difficult for any practice to
remove. For this reason, you should usually consider no more than two practices in a
given treatment train.
Watershed-scale reductions can be calculated by using simple spreadsheets to
provide an accounting of the estimated loading, areas treated, and the percent
reductions (or ranges of reductions) expected. Through the use of spreadsheets,
multiple scenarios or combinations of load reduction practices can be easily
evaluated. Figure 11-2 shows a simple spreadsheet analysis that evaluates one
management practice at one site and then broadens the analysis to the watershed
scale.
11.3.2 Using Models to Assess Management Strategies
Watershed models or management practice-specific models can also be used to
evaluate individual management practices or watershed-scale management strategies.
These approaches can build on models developed previously to assess source loads,
or they can be set up to supplement other approaches used to estimate source loading.
Watershed management modeling is an active research and development area. The
goal is to make existing models more flexible and to develop new tools for assessing
the placement, selection, and cost of management practices. You’re encouraged to
check EPA Web sites, publications, and journal articles for ongoing research on
management practice analysis.
Currently available models have significant capabilities to represent management
practices. However, the practices they represent vary depending on the specialities of
the models. Some agriculture-oriented models have excellent tools for assessing area-
based management such as fertilizer and tillage practices. Others that specialize in
urban areas include techniques for assessing structural solutions like detention ponds.
Similar to the watershed modeling discussions highlighted in chapter 8, which model
you use depends on what questions you need to answer and the strategies under
consideration. The modeling approach you select should provide a process for
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-9
A rural/agricultural watershed is listed as impaired because of the impacts of sedimentation on fish communities. During the
watershed characterization portion of the study (chapters 7 and 8), you determined that upland sources are a major source
of sediment. Much of the load originates from fields planted in conventional-till row cropland. One of the potential
management practices you identified in chapter 10 is implementing no-till in areas currently farmed with conventional till.
You want to evaluate the effectiveness of the no-till practice on a 120-acre field. During your modeling analysis of sources,
you determined that conventional-till row cropland at this site has a loading rate of 1.6 tons/ac/yr. According to your local
extension agent, no-till practices are expected to reduce sediment loading by 75 percent. You perform the following
calculation to determine the pre-practice and post-practice sediment load:
Conventional till: 120 ac x 1.6 tons/ac/yr = 192 tons/yr
No-till: 120 ac x 1.6 tons/ac/yr x (1 ! 0.75) = 48 tons/yr
Your net reduction is 144 tons/yr for the selected site.
If you want to evaluate this practice on a larger scale for several sites throughout the watershed, you can use a
spreadsheet to facilitate the calculation. For example, suppose your watershed has 10 potential sites where conventional till
could be converted to no-till. Each site has a unique area, of course, but you have also calculated loading rates for each
site, based on variations in slope and soil composition:
Site Area (ac)
Loading Rate
(tons/ac/yr)
Load
(tons/yr)
Removal
Percentage
Load Removed
(tons/yr)
Net Load
(tons/yr)
1 120 1.6 192 75 144 48
2 305 1.8 549 75 412 137
3 62 1.9 118 75 88 30
4 245 1.7 417 75 312 105
5 519 1.6 830 75 623 208
6 97 2.1 204 75 153 51
7 148 1.9 281 75 211 70
8 75 1.5 113 75 84 28
9 284 2.0 568 75 426 142
10 162 1.8 292 75 219 73
Total 2,017 N/A 3,564 N/A 2,672 892
From this analysis, you estimate that altogether converting to no-till on 10 sites will remove 2,672 tons of sediment. The
spreadsheet environment provides a powerful tool for testing and combining results for various scenarios. For example, you
might test combinations of other management practices, with varying removal at each site.
Figure 11-2. Using a spreadsheet analysis to evaluate one management practice at a single site.
assessing pollutant loads, evaluating management practices, and ultimately testing the
recommended approach for the watershed plan.
The following sections discuss how you can use the seven models highlighted in
chapter 8 to evaluate management strategies. The capabilities, strengths, and
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-10 Draft
AGNPS—agricultural practices, tillage, nutrient
application
STEPL—removal percentages for multiple
practices
GWLF—agricultural practices, tillage, simplified
nutrient/manure applications
HSPF—urban and agricultural practices, nutrient
applications, detention, and buffer areas
SWMM—urban practices, including detention and
infiltration
P8-UCM—urban practices, including detention
SWAT—agricultural practices, tillage, nutrient
applications
weaknesses of each model are summarized. In addition to the selected models,
descriptions are provided for additional models, supplementary tools, or specialized
techniques that can be used to assess management practices. Key data needs and
technical considerations in applying the models for management analysis purposes
are also discussed.
Modeling Management Strategies with the Selected Models
The models discussed in chapter 8 have various capabilities for
representing management practices (table 11-1). As shown in the
summary table, each model can assess a variety of practices and
each has associated strengths and weaknesses. The models tend
to specialize in the following areas:
? Agricultural practices: SWAT, AGNPS, GWLF, STEPL
? Urban practices: P8-UCM, STEPL, SWMM
? Mixed land use: STEPL, HSPF
For agricultural practices, the SWAT model provides the ability
to examine specific practices and specialized agricultural
techniques such as irrigation, drainage, and ponds. STEPL
includes a generalized capability to include management
practices and assign a removal percentage of pollutant loading.
The P8-UCM model provides a flexible set of tools for
evaluating specific urban management practices such as ponds
and infiltration structures. For mixed land use watersheds
STEPL or similar spreadsheet-based models can provide a
generalized description of the load reductions from a variety of sources. HSPF can
provide a more detailed representation of agricultural, forested, and urban areas,
although it is more limited than SWMM in representing structural practices.
KChapter 8 provides additional information on the selected models.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-11
Table 11-1. Summary of Management Practice Representation Capabilities of the Selected Models
Model
Types of Practices
Considered Strengths Limitations
STEPL ? Contour farming
? Filter strip
? Reduced-tillage systems
? Streambank stabilization and
fencing
? Terracing
? Forest road practices
? Forest site preparation practice
? Animal feedlot practices
? Various urban and low impact
development (LID) practices (e.g.,
detention basin, infiltration
practices, swale/buffer strips)
? Easy to use; good for giving quick
and rough estimates
? Includes most major types of
management practices
? Simplified representation of
management practices using
long-term average removal
percentage does not represent
physical processes
? Developed based on available
literature information that might
not be representative of all
conditions
GWLF ? Agricultural area management
practices (e.g., contouring,
terracing, no-till)
? Easy to use
? Long-term continuous simulation
? Does not have structural
management practice
simulation capabilities
HSPF ? Agricultural practices
? Impoundment
? Buffer
? Can simulate both area and point
management practices
? Provides long-term continuous
simulation
? Land and management practice
simulation are linked
? Weak representation of
structural point practices
? Requires moderate to high
effort to set up
SWMM ? Detention basin
? Infiltration practices
? Can simulate both area and point
management practices
? Long-term continuous simulation
? Physically based simulation of
structural management practices
? Management practice simulation is
coupled with land simulation
? Limited representation of non-
urban area practices
? Requires moderate to high
effort to set up
P8-UCM ? Detention basin
? Infiltration practices
? Swale/buffer strip
? Manhole/splitter
? Tailored for simulating urban
structural practices
? Long-term continuous simulation
? Process-based simulation for
structural practices
? Management practice simulation is
coupled with land simulation, which
provides dynamic input to drive
practice simulation
? Cannot simulate nonstructural
and area practices
SWAT ? Street cleaning
? Tillage management
? Fertilizer management
? Pesticide management
? Irrigation management
? Grazing management
? Impoundment
? Filter strips
? Strong capabilities for simulating
agricultural area practices
? Ability to consider crop rotation
? Long-term continuous simulation
? Limited urban and structural
practice simulation
AnnAGNPS ? Feedlot management
? Tillage management
? Fertilizer management
? Pesticide management
? Irrigation management
? Impoundment
? Strong capabilities for simulating
agricultural area management
practices
? Long-term continuous simulation
? Limited urban and structural
practice simulation
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-12 Draft
Each model has a slightly different approach for including management practices, as
summarized in table 11-2. For example, the agricultural techniques in SWAT,
AGNPS, GWLF, and STEPL are already recognized during model setup by the
selection of parameters for predicting runoff (e.g., curve number equation) and
sediment loading (e.g., Universal Soil Loss Equation [USLE]). Other practices might
need to be specifically identified and separately input into the model. Some of the
agricultural models provide a continuous evaluation of the availability of nutrients in
the active soil layer or root zone. This provides for tracking of nutrient loading,
fertilizer applications, crop uptake, and leaching of nutrients. The HSPF model, with
its AGCHEM module, provides a similar ability to track nutrients in the soil.
Table 11-2. Summary of Management Practice Simulation Techniques of the
Selected Models
Model
Management Practice Evaluation Techniques
Water Quality
Constituents
AnnAGNPS ? Sediment - RUSLE factors
? Runoff curve number changes
? Storage routing
? Particle settling
? Sediment
? Nutrients
? Organic carbon
STEPL ? Sediment - RUSLE factors
? Runoff curve number changes
? Simple percent reduction
? Sediment
? Nutrients
GWLF ? Sediment - USLE factors
? Runoff curve number changes
? User-specified removal rate
? Sediment
? Nutrients
HSPF ? HSPF infiltration and accumulation factors
? HSPF erosion factors
? Storage routing
? Particle settling
? First-order decay
? Sediment
? Nutrients
SWMM ? Infiltration
? Second-order decay
? Particle removal scale factor
? Sediment - USLE (limited)
? Sediment
? User-defined
pollutants
P8-UCM ? Infiltration - Green-Ampt method
? Second-order decay
? Particle removal scale factor
? Sediment
? User-defined
pollutants
SWAT ? Sediment - MUSLE parameters
? Infiltration - Curve number parameters
? Storage routing
? Particle settling
? Flow routing
? Redistribution of pollutants/nutrients in soil
profile related to tillage and biological activities
? Sediment
? Nutrients
? Pesticides
Note: MUSLE = Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation; RUSLE = Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation; USLE = Universal Soil Loss Equation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-13
Urban models use representation of impoundments to represent a variety of point
practices that collect runoff and remove pollutants through infiltration and settling.
Most of the urban models use settling of sediment and decay as the primary removal
mechanisms. SWMM can emulate the major management practice
processes—storage, infiltration, first-order decay, and sediment settling. The recently
added overland flow rerouting (land-to-land routing) options can be used to mimic
riparian buffers or infiltration areas.
Modifying a watershed modeling application using any of the reviewed models
generally includes the following additional steps:
? Identify the specific or general practices to be included.
? Identify the practices that were included in the existing conditions.
? Incorporate each practice as appropriate into the model.
? Vary the adoption of the practices according to the management strategy.
? Summarize the results.
Typical data needs for simulating management strategies using the selected models
include specific information for area, point, and linear management practices. For
modeling purposes, you’ll need information on the existing and proposed
management practices, including location, drainage area for each practice, size, type,
and key characteristics. Consider carefully the current adoption of management
practices in the watershed and what might change in the future. Make sure that you
include the current practices in areas where significant restoration has already taken
place.
If you’re using the same model or approach from your watershed characterization,
you might need to add new land use categories. For instance, if you defined urban
development in terms of low intensity and high intensity, you might need to break
out urban categories in greater detail (e.g., low-density residential, high-density
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional). Some of your management
practices might be suited for only certain land uses.
You might also need to add a layer of complexity to an existing approach. For
instance, your assessment might have been based on generic land use classes, but the
evaluation of your management practice is driven by land cover (impervious surface,
lawn, forest). In this case, you should provide direct measures of land cover or
estimate proportions of land cover for each land use class.
Table 11-3 lists typical information needs for each of the selected models and major
practices. The specific information might vary depending on the level of detail of the
modeling tools used. For example, a detailed simulation of detention ponds in
SWMM might require detailed characteristics of the pond design (e.g., depth-volume
relationship, depth-outflow rate relationship), in addition to information on location
and the drainage area contributing to the pond.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-14 Draft
Table 11-3. Data Needs for Management Strategy Modeling
Model Data Needs for Management Practices
AnnAGNPS ? Tillage area, type and date, crop rotation
? Fertilizer application rate, method, and dates
? Manure application rate, method, and dates
? Strip cropping location and area
? Impoundment size and discharge rate
? Sediment settling rate
STEPL ? Land use type and condition
? Practice type
GWLF ? Crop type and condition
? Manure application rate and date
? Runoff nutrient concentration
HSPF ? Land use type and pollutant accumulation rates
? Nutrient and pathogen application rates and dates
? Impoundment size and discharge rates
? Settling rate and pollutant decay rate
SWMM ? Land use type and pollutant accumulation rates
? Impoundment size, shape, and discharge rate
? Settling rates and pollutant decay rates
? Street cleaning frequency and areas affected
P8-UCM ? Point practice drainage area
? Impoundment size and discharge rate, pollutant decay rate
? Bioretention size and infiltration rate
? Street cleaning frequency and area affected
SWAT ? Tillage area, type and date, crop rotation
? Fertilizer and pesticide application rate, method, and dates
? Manure application rate, method, and dates
? Filter strip width
? Grazing dates and vegetation biomass affected
? Street sweeping pollutant removal rate, date, and curb length
In general, area-based practices require information on area affected and land use
management practices (e.g., tillage, fertilizer/manure applications), including
application date, amount, and technique. Simulating point practices generally
requires information on the drainage area to each practice and the design specifics for
each practice. Detention ponds would generally require information on storage
volume, shape, outlet structure, and retention time. Bioretention structures might
require information on the infiltration rate, volume of storage, soil media, and
pollutant removal rate.
The performance of the model with management practices is typically tested for the
existing conditions, where historic monitoring data are available. However, because
management practices are dispersed across the watershed and are adopted
sporadically over time, the available monitoring data might not provide a distinct
response at the watershed scale. One solution to this problem is to use smaller-scale
pilot studies that simulate individual practices or combinations of practices for more
detailed small-scale testing. In addition, management practice simulations can build
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-15
When evaluating modeling approaches for evaluating
management practices, consider the following alternatives:
1. Modify original loading model to incorporate
management practices.
2. Add supplemental analyses for specific management
practices.
3. Perform alternative analyses for management
practices using spreadsheet or other simplified tools.
on the available data on removal effectiveness. These results are used to build the
best estimates of the potential benefits of management practice implementation.
Ultimately, these forecasts can be tested or evaluated for accuracy only through
monitoring after implementation. Once implementation has begun, a post-audit can
include monitoring of management effectiveness and a reassessment of modeling
results.
Other Models Available for Analysis of Management Practices
Although the selected models consider various
management practices, sometimes you might need an
additional model or models that specialize in a particular
type of management practice simulation. In some cases,
models are used to perform a detailed small-scale (small
representative watersheds or fields) analysis of
management practices. Some of the specialized
management practice models available today are the Site
Evaluation Tool (SET), the Prince George’s County
[Maryland] BMP Module (PGC-BMP), Model for Urban
Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization (MUSIC), and
Integrated Design and Evaluation Assessment of Loadings
(IDEAL). SET provides a simplified spreadsheet-based
approach for assessing management practices and is used in several examples
throughout this chapter. PGC-BMP, MUSIC, and IDEAL provide options for more
detailed simulation of multiple management practices. These systems are oriented to
examining networks of one or more management practices. However, many models
do not include ways to evaluate the benefits of buffer zones. The models that
specialize in the representation of buffer strips include the Vegetative Filter Strip
Model (VFSMOD) and Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM). Options
for reducing sediment loading, including forest and agricultural area management,
can be evaluated using Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP); the Erosion
Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) also provides evaluation of agricultural area
management. WETLAND and Virginia Field Scale Wetland Model (VAFSWM)
provide the capability to evaluate wetlands. These specialized models are
summarized in table 11-4 and described in more detail below.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-16 Draft
Table 11-4. Summary of Other Specialized Models for Management Analysis
Model
Types of Management Practice
Considered
Management Practice
Evaluation Techniques
Water Quality
Constituents
SET ? Detention basin (e.g., wet pond,
extended dry detention, conventional
dry detention)
? Infiltration practices (e.g., infiltration
trench, dry well, porous pavement,
sand filter)
? Vegetative practices (e.g., wetland,
swale, buffer/filter strip, bioretention,
green roof)
? Wetland
? Storage (e.g., cistern/rain barrels)
? Simple percent reduction
? Simple regression
? Sediment
? Nutrients (total nitrogen
and total phosphorus)
PGC-BMP ? Detention basin
? Infiltration practices (e.g., infiltration
trench, dry well, porous pavement)
? Vegetative practices (e.g., wetland,
swale, filter strip, bioretention)
? Infiltration - Holtan’s equation
? Storage routing
? Weir/orifice flow
? First-order decay
? User-defined pollutants
MUSIC ? Detention basin
? Infiltration practices
? Vegetative practices
? Infiltration
? Settling
? First-order decay (k-C* model)
? User-defined pollutants
IDEAL ? Vegetative filter strip
? Detention/retention basin
? Infiltration
? Storage routing
? Settling
? Trapping efficiency
? Bacteria die-off rate
? Sediment
? Nutrients
?Bacteria
VFSMOD ? Vegetative filter strip ? Infiltration - Green-Ampt equation
? Kinematic wave
? Sediment deposition and
resuspension
? Sediment
REMM ? Riparian buffer strip ? Infiltration - Green-Ampt equation
? Sediment - USLE parameters
? Storage routing
? Nutrient cycling: Century Model
? Nitrification: First-order
Weir/orifice flow
? Sediment transport: Einstein and
Bagnold equations
? Sediment
? Nutrients
? Organic matter
WEPP ? Impoundment
? Tillage management
? Irrigation management
? Grazing management
? Filter strips
? Forest roads
? Forest and rangeland fire management
? Infiltration - Green-Ampt Mein-
Larson equation
? Erosion: Steady-state sediment
continuity equation
? Kinematic wave
? Subsurface: Kinematic storage-
discharge
? Sediment
EPIC ? Tillage management
? Fertilizer management
? Irrigation management
? Feedlot management (lagoons)
? Infiltration: Curve number
equation or rational formula
? Six variations of USLE equation
for soil erosion and sediment
delivery
? Storage routing
? Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling
? Sediment
? Nutrients
? Pesticides
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-17
Table 11-4. (continued)
Model
Types of Management Practice
Considered
Management Practice
Evaluation Techniques
Water Quality
Constituents
WETLAND ? Detention basin
? Wetland
? Water budget
? Monod kinetics
? Nutrients cycling (carbon,
nitrogen, phosphorus)
? Constant vegetative growth rate
? Freundlich isotherms for
phosphorus sorption/desorption
? First-order mineralization
? Nitrogen
? Phosphorous
? Carbon
? Dissolved oxygen
? Sediment
?Bacteria
VAFSWM ? Detention basin
? Wetland
? Water budget
? Infiltration
? Particle settling
? Continuously stirred tank reactors
in series
? First-order kinetics (adsorption,
plant uptake)
? User-defined
? Sediment
SET was developed to assess the impacts of development, including sediment and
nutrient loading, on a site scale. It provides a more robust environment for testing
multiple management practices and site configurations than simple export
calculations, and it incorporates several principles discussed previously in this
section. The tool lets the user define pre- and post-treated land use/land cover,
allowing for multiple drainage areas and various combinations of practices. An
important benefit of SET is that the user can test management practices in
combination with each other, in the context of a site or small catchment. In addition,
both structural and nonstructural practices can be represented, offering a suite of
options for evaluation.
PGC-BMP is an example of a more detailed management practice simulation tool. It
evaluates the effect of management practices or combinations of management
practices on flow and pollutant loading. It uses simplified process-based algorithms
to simulate management practice control of modeled flow and water quality time
series generated by watershed models like HSPF. These simple algorithms include
weir and orifice control structures, storm swale characteristics, flow and pollutant
transport, flow routing and networking, infiltration and saturation, and a general
loss/decay representation for pollutants. The tool offers the flexibility to design
retention-style or open-channel management practices; define flow routing through a
management practice or management practice network; simulate Integrated
Management Practices (IMPs), such as reduced or discontinued imperviousness
through flow networking; and compare management practice controls against a
defined benchmark such as a simulated pre-development condition. Because the
underlying algorithms are based on physical processes, management practice
effectiveness can be evaluated and estimated over a wide range of storm conditions,
management practice designs, and flow routing configurations.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-18 Draft
MUSIC (Wong et al. 2005, Wong et al. 2001) was developed by the Cooperative
Research Center for Catchment Hydrology in Australia. It was developed to evaluate
small- and large-scale (100 km
2
) urban stormwater systems using modeling timesteps
that range from 6 minutes to 24 hours. MUSIC provides an interface to help set up
complex stormwater management scenarios. The interface also allows the user to
view results using a range of graphical and tabular formats. The stormwater control
devices evaluated by MUSIC include ponds, bioretention, infiltration buffer strips,
sedimentation basins, pollutant traps, wetlands, and swales. The major techniques
used to evaluate management practices are settling in ponds and decay of pollutants
(first-order). KFor more information go to the MUSIC Web site at
www.toolkit.net.au/music.
IDEAL (Barfield et al. 2002) provides a spreadsheet-based technique for assessing
the benefits of urban management practices on flow, sediment, nutrients, and
bacteria. The model predicts watershed runoff, concentrations, and loads based on
your selection of vegetative filter strips, dry detention ponds, and wet detention
ponds. Urban areas are defined as pervious, impervious connected, and impervious
unconnected areas. Flow and loads can be directed to a pond that can be dry (no
permanent pool) or wet (permanent pool). The model then calculates the pollutant
removal efficiencies of the practices using empirical equations. The model predicts
single storm values and converts them to average annual storm values using a
statistical process. IDEAL is designed to help managers estimate long-term
management practice pollutant removal efficiencies and is not designed for
evaluating individual storms.
VFSMOD (Mu?oz-Carpena and Parsons 2003) provides specialized modeling of
field-scale processes associated with filter strips or buffers. This model provides
routing of storm runoff from an adjacent field through a vegetative filter strip and
calculates outflow, infiltration, and sediment trapping efficiency. The model is
sensitive to the characteristics of the filter, including vegetation roughness or density,
slope, infiltration characteristics, and the incoming runoff volume and sediment
particle sizes. VFSMOD includes a series of modules: Green-Ampt infiltration
module, kinematic wave overland flow module, and sediment filtration module. The
model can also be used to describe transport at the edge of the field when flow and
transport are mainly in the form of sheet flow and the path represents average
conditions across the vegetative filter strip. VFSMOD uses a variable timestep that
helps to more accurately solve the overland water flow equation. The model inputs
are specified on a storm basis, and the model summarizes all the information after
each event to generate storm outputs. KFor more information go to the VFSMOD
Web site at www3.bae.ncsu.edu/vfsmod.
REMM is used to simulate hydrology, nutrient dynamics, and plant growth for land
areas between the edges of fields and a waterbody. Output from REMM allows
watershed planners to develop buffer systems to help control nonpoint source
pollution. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) developed REMM at the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-19
Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, in
Tifton, Georgia. KFor more information go to the REMM Web site at
www.cpes.peachnet.edu/remmwww.
WEPP (Flanagan and Nearing 1995) simulates water runoff, erosion, and sediment
delivery from fields or small watersheds. Management practices, including crop
rotation, planting and harvest date, tillage, compaction, stripcropping, row
arrangement, terraces, field borders, and windbreaks, can be simulated. WEPP has
been applied to various land use and management conditions (Liu et al. 1997,
Tiscareno-Lopez et al. 1993). KFor more information go to the Web site
http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/weppmain/wepp.html.
EPIC (Sharpley and Williams 1990) simulates the effect of management practices on
edge-of-field water quality and nitrate nitrogen and pesticide leaching to the bottom
of the soil profile. The model considers the effect of crop type, planting date,
irrigation, drainage, rotations, tillage, residue, commercial fertilizer, animal waste,
and pesticides on surface water and shallow ground water quality. EPIC has been
used to evaluate various cropland management practices (Edwards et al. 1994,
Sugiharto et al. 1994).
WETLAND (Lee 1999, Lee et al. 2002) is a dynamic compartmental model used to
simulate hydrologic, water quality, and biological processes and to assist in the
design and evaluation of wetlands. WETLAND uses the continuously stirred tank
reactor prototype, and it is assumed that all incoming nutrients are completely mixed
throughout the entire volume. The model can simulate both free-water surface and
subsurface-flow wetlands. WETLAND is modular and includes hydrologic, nitrogen,
carbon, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, sediment, vegetation, and phosphorus submodels.
The strength of WETLAND lies in the linked kinetics for the water quality variables
and the consideration of seasonal variation (variable user-defined parameter by
season/time period). The weaknesses of this model include the completely mixed
assumption, which overlooks the effect of the system shape, and the need for
extensive kinetic parameters.
VAFSWM (Yu et al. 1998) is a field-scale model for quantifying the pollutant
removal in a wetland system. It includes a hydrologic subroutine to route flow
through the treatment system and precipitation, evapotranspiration, and exchange
with subsurface ground water. VAFSWM simulates settling, diffusion, adsorption to
plants and substrate, and vegetative uptake for a pollutant in dissolved and particulate
forms in a two-segment (water column and substrate), two-state (completely mixed
and quiescent) reactor system by employing first-order kinetics. The governing
equations for quiescent condition are identical to that of turbulent condition;
however, far lower settling velocities are assumed to account for the greater
percentage of finer particles during the quiescent state. VAFSWM is a relatively
simple model that includes the most dominant processes within the wetland system.
However, the user needs to provide and calibrate the requisite kinetics parameters.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-20 Draft
Regardless of the technique used, you should
record the rationale and justification for why the
various changes were made. This will provide
documentation for what was done and give you
a basis for future updates or improvements in
the methodology as more information becomes
available.
Considerations in Modeling of Management Strategies
Whether you use simplified approaches, one of the selected models, or a combination
of supplementary tools, there are some common considerations in developing your
approach to model management practices. Summarized below are some of the key
issues in the emerging area of watershed management practices simulation. It’s
important to recognize that simulation of management practices can make the
modeling process much more complicated and data-intensive, primarily because of
scale and the amount of information needed. For example, in a 1,000-acre watershed,
hundreds of management practices could be used. Some management practices cover
large areas, such as cropping practices that affect a percentage of corn fields. Others
are at specific locations, such as an individual pond that drains part of a watershed.
Others might stretch across part of the watershed, such as a riparian buffer zone on
either side of several miles of a river. For large watersheds, the information collection
needs can quickly become formidable. In addition, there are often issues related to
privacy and protection of information related to management practices installed on
private lands. Collecting some information on current management practice adoption,
however, is very important for the purposes of estimating benefits and evaluating
needs for future management.
When setting up models, some approaches involve identifying and
inputting information on each management practice. This is
appropriate for small watersheds and can provide a system for
evaluating the benefit of management actions and new initiatives. For
large watersheds, modelers use a variety of techniques to extrapolate
or estimate the benefits of management. One technique is a “nested”
modeling approach, in which a more detailed model is applied to a
smaller representative area. The results of the detailed modeling are
then used to define the land use characteristics used for the large-
scale watershed model. For example, a detailed model might be used
to evaluate new residential development techniques. The results of the detailed small-
scale assessment would be used to create a new alternative “new residential
development” land use that would then be used in the watershed-wide simulation.
Sample or pilot studies can be used to test and evaluate a variety of management
techniques on a small scale before initiating a large, more complex and time-
intensive application. Sometimes watershed-wide or large-scale applications can be
adjusted by using simple percentage reductions at the subwatershed or land use level
to reflect estimates of load reduction due to management practices.
Consider carefully what areas are really being treated by the management practices.
The drainage area or treatment area is used for calculations of loading and percent
removal. Site constraints usually prevent 100 percent treatment of a particular
development. Assume, for example, that a residential development will be treated by
a stormwater wetland. Site topography prevents 10 percent of the site from draining
to the wetland. If you’re using an ordinance to require a set-aside of undisturbed open
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-21
space, the untreated area increases because the open space cannot be graded. In this
example, complementary practices result in a change in the evaluation of one of the
practices.
Another consideration may be the drainage area for a buffer zone. The buffer is
located laterally along a channel and receives runoff from the drainage adjacent to the
channel. In an urban setting, however, runoff from storm events tends to accumulate
into concentrated flow within a short distance, probably no more than 150 feet
(Schueler 1995). These concentrated flows will likely bisect or cross a buffer without
treatment. In the eastern United States, this area of concentrated flows usually
translates to less than 10 percent of a watershed for perennial streams. The pollutant
removal rates in the literature reflect runoff received as overland flow. Removal
performance is therefore limited by the proportion of a site draining to it.
11.3.3 Example Model Applications to Assess Management Strategies
Using the approaches discussed in the previous section, you will now quantify the
effectiveness of the proposed management practices in meeting watershed goals and
objectives. This section presents three examples that reflect various management
objectives such as addressing multiple indicators using a variety of practices,
assessing sediment loading reductions, and improving habitat.
Quantify the Effectiveness of Multiple Management Practices
You can use a spreadsheet tool to assist with quantifying multiple practices. This
example demonstrates how a management strategy can be assessed for multiple
indicators using a simplified spreadsheet tool (SET). The example includes a suite of
structural management practices, nonstructural management practices and detailed
site layout, and a need to define multiple drainage areas and management practice
combinations, including treatment trains (figure 11-3).
Quantify the Effectiveness of Management Practices in Reducing
Sediment Loads
When reduction of sediment loading is the management objective, rates of sediment
generation from channel enlargement can provide a tool for quantifying
effectiveness. A monitoring approach is a good strategy for assessing longer-term
sediment loading and stream channel characteristics. Historical aerial photographs
allow comparison of channel width and location over discrete points in time, and
translating changes to an average annual rate can provide an estimate of the rate of
sediment loading due to instream sources. A more direct method of calculating
erosion rates is to install and monitor bank pins in the reach of interest. Stakes or pins
can be driven into channel banks flush with the surface. The amount of pin exposed
due to erosion is the amount of change at the streambank erosion site between your
times of observation. (Note: This would have been done during the earlier data
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-22 Draft
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is home to rapidly growing Charlotte and other surrounding communities. It has several
watersheds listed as impaired in part due to the impacts of upland sedimentation. In addition, nutrient loading from much of the
county affects several reservoirs on the Catawba River. The following example explores how the SET might be used to evaluate
various combinations of management practices. The team located sites in the watershed that were publicly owned, were larger
than 5 acres, and could be adapted for retrofit of possible management practices. The selected 10-acre site contains a public
school and lends itself well to placement of a structural practice to capture most of the runoff. Three scenarios are being
tested—a stormwater pond, a combination of bioretention cells in series with an extended dry detention basin, and the
conversion of 2 acres of lawn into forest. Thirty percent of the site is impervious surface, and the remainder is lawn or managed
herbaceous. The site configuration for each scenario is as follows:
Stormwater Pond: The pond is at the lowest point on the site, and it captures all runoff except that from 1 acre of lawn area.
Bioretention Cells and Extended Dry Detention Basin: Bioretention cells treat all the impervious area and 2.75 acres of the lawn
area; all bioretention cells are configured to drain completely to the extended dry detention basin. Another 3.25 acres of the site
drain to the extended dry detention only. One acre of lawn is not treated.
Forest Conversion: Two acres of lawn area are planted with saplings, fenced off, and no longer mowed. Modeled conditions
reflect brush/immature forest.
The amount of land in each of the three land cover types is summarized below for existing conditions and the three proposed
management alternatives:
Treatment
Land Cover in Drainage Area (acres)
Lawn Impervious Forest
Existing Site
Untreated 7 3
Stormwater Pond Scenario
Stormwater Pond 6 3
Untreated 1
Bioretention and Extended Dry Detention Scenario
Bioretention + Dry Detention 2.75 3
Dry Detention Only 3.25
Untreated 1
Forest Conversion Scenario
New Land Cover 5 3 2
The SET calculates annual loads from the site under each scenario for total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total
nitrogen and shows the percent reduction in load between the existing site and each scenario. The forest conversion scenario
by itself performs poorly, but results suggest it might be a good candidate as a complementary practice. The two structural
management practice scenarios perform better for pollutant reduction. Note that the bioretention/extended dry detention
scenario performs better than the stormwater pond for nutrient removal but worse for sediment removal.
TSS TP TN
tons/yr % red. lb/yr % red. lb/yr % red.
Existing Site 5.11 11.5 70
Stormwater Pond 1.79 65% 6 48% 50 29%
Bioretention/Ext. Dry Detention 1.97 61% 4.6 60% 36 49%
Forest Conversion 4.1 20% 10.6 8% 66 6%
Figure 11-3. Analysis of multiple management practices using multiple indicators.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-23
Cross Section 28 + 14 Right Bank
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Distance from Left Pin (ft)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t)
Oc t. 1999 Oct. 2002
Bank pins were installed in a streambank in October 1999 to allow rates of streambank erosion to be measured. In
October 2002, 3years after the pins were installed, the distance that the pins extended from the streambank was
recorded. The streambank profiles are illustrated in the figure. Six bank pins were installed at approximately 1-foot
vertical intervals between the toe of the bank and top of the bank. This location along the stream is representative of
nearly 400 feet of channel. If the streambank along this reach was stabilized, what would be the effect on the average
annual contribution to the total sediment load?
The length that the six bank pins extended from
the bank at the October 2002 measurement, from
the lowest pin to the highest, are 3.5, 4.0, 3.5,
3.0, 3.0, and 3.0 feet, respectively.
Average amount of erosion = (3.5 + 4 + 3.5 + 3 +
3 + 3) / 6 = 3.3 feet
Conversion to average annual rate = 3.3 feet / 3
years = 1.1 feet per year
Average annual volumetric loading (using length
of 400 feet and average bank height of 5 feet)
= 1.1 ft/yr * 400 ft * 5 ft = 2,200 cubic
feet per year
To convert to a weight-based sediment loading, a
unit weight of the streambank soil is needed.
Assume a unit weight of 100 pounds per cubic foot for this streambank soil.
Average annual weight of sediment loading
= 2,200 cubic feet per year * 100 pounds per cubic foot = 220,000 pounds per year
= 110 tons per year
Natural stable channels tend to have negligible rates of streambank erosion, so a channel that is stabilized can be
assumed to have a negligible rate of erosion as well. Thus, stabilization efforts along this reach of stream can be
expected to reduce average annual sediment loading by 110 tons per year.
Figure 11-4. Quantifying the effectiveness of stabilization practices in reducing sediment loads.
collection phase; chapter 6). Reductions in sediment loading can then be quantified
by comparing the estimated erosion rates with the rate for a stable reach
(figure 11-4).
Quantify the Effectiveness of Management Practices in Improving
Aquatic Habitat
For stream reaches where instream habitat is degraded, habitat sampling can provide
a gauge for quantifying the effectiveness of a management action. A straightforward
comparison of conditions before and after implementation can numerically quantify
the improvement in aquatic habitat. State agencies typically have habitat evaluation
forms that provide numerical rankings for observed conditions for various
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-24 Draft
A stream reach that is classified as impaired because of the condition of the instream aquatic habitat is being
considered for rehabilitation efforts. A few rehabilitation options are under consideration due to various levels of
effort and the associated costs. How can the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts be evaluated?
A physiographic region-specific instream aquatic habitat evaluation method can be used to characterize habitat
condition, and the numeric score linked to a functional level of support for the aquatic community. In this example,
the overall score can range from 0 (most impaired conditions) to 200 (capable of fully supporting a diverse and
abundant aquatic community). The functional levels of support are provided in the table A.
Table A. Habitat Quality and Use Classifications by Habitat Score
Habitat Assessment Score Habitat Quality Use Classification
170–200 Excellent Supporting
145–169 Good Supporting
95–44 Good–Fair Partially Supporting
50–94 Fair Not Supporting
0–9 Poor Not Supporting
The field form used for the example reach includes 10 key habitat parameters with a numeric scale for each
parameter for assigning 0–20 points. An example breakdown of possible points for the degree of physical channel
alteration is shown in Table B. Under the current conditions, the example reach scores a total of 90 points,
corresponding to Fair habitat quality and Not Supporting its use. Of the 90 points, 3 points were assigned to the
parameter for Physical Channel Alteration because of historical channelization (i.e., 100 percent of the reach is
disturbed, but no embankments are present).
For the proposed full-scale rehabilitation effort, a new natural channel will be excavated on the existing floodplain.
Because of the location of a sanitary sewer line along the right side of the floodplain, the sinuosity of the new
channel will be limited and channel bends will be no tighter than 45 degrees. Therefore, if the full-scale restoration
effort is pursued, the scoring for the Physical Channel Alteration is expected to increase from 3 points to 18 points.
Figure 11-5. Quantifying the effectiveness of management practices in improving aquatic habitat.
components of aquatic habitat. By using such forms, some of the subjectivity of
visual interpretations can be reduced, leading to better evaluations of effectiveness
(figure 11-5). EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for Use in Wadeable
Streams and Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999) provides more information about
evaluating habitat (www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/index.html). Additional
descriptions of state protocols for assessing habitat quality can be found in EPA’s
Summary of Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes,
Territories, Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers at
www.epa.gov/bioindicators. (KSee section 6.5.6 for more information on assessing
habitat quality.)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-25
To fully evaluate the effectiveness of the full-scale rehabilitation option, the anticipated conditions will need to be
compared with the existing scores. Although the scores for many parameters will be expected to increase,
decreases are possible and need to be realistically evaluated. (For example, if the existing canopy cover is dense
and scores high, but the restoration effort would result in clearing and revegetation that would not provide dense
cover until the vegetation had time to grow, the result would be a lower score.) In this manner, the effectiveness of
the various rehabilitation efforts can be quantified.
Table B. Scoring Thresholds for Physical Channel Alteration
Stream follows a normal and natural meandering pattern; alteration is absent
No evidence of disturbance; bend angles greater than 60 degrees 20
No evidence of disturbance; bend angles between 40 and 60 degrees 18
No evidence of disturbance; bend angles less than 40 degrees 16
Some stream alteration present but NO evidence of recent alteration activities
Bridge abutments present but older than 20 years; no other disturbances 15
10% of reach or less has channel disturbance other than bridge 14
20% of reach has channel disturbance 13
30% of reach has channel disturbance 12
40% of reach has channel disturbance 11
Somewhat altered; 40%–80% of reach altered; alterations may be within past 20 years
40% of reach has channel disturbance 10
50% of reach has channel disturbance 9
60% of reach has channel disturbance 8
70% of reach has channel disturbance 7
80% of reach has channel disturbance 6
More than 80% of reach altered; instream habitat highly effected
90% of reach has channel disturbance 5
100% of reach disturbed; straightened with no artificial embankments 3
100% of reach disturbed; straightened with artificial embankments 2
100% of reach disturbed; straightened with natural and artificial embankments 1
100% of reach disturbed; concrete or gabion lining 0
Figure 11-5. (continued)
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-26 Draft
Modeling can be used where nutrient reductions associated with improving
vegetation in riparian areas are the management goal. Loading rates for constituents
of concern within a limited distance of riparian areas can be coupled with the
removal efficiencies of the buffers to evaluate how effective the management action
is at reducing contaminant input to the stream. However, the benefits of nutrient
reduction associated with riparian revegetation are typically limited, especially in
locations where stormwater outfalls or drainage ditches result in concentrated flow
through the buffer.
In this section you were shown how to quantify the effectiveness of various
management practices to evaluate how well they achieve the management goal. Next,
you’ll compare the estimated costs of various management actions to identify the
most cost-effective opportunities.
11.4 Identify Costs and Compare Benefits of Management
Practices
Now that you’ve quantified the effectiveness of various management practices in
achieving your goals and objectives, you should incorporate cost considerations into
your evaluation. Economics is always a consideration in the evaluation and
formulation of management strategies. Stakeholders might offer insights and
concerns regarding the cost of various management options. This is why an ongoing
dialogue with stakeholders is critical to selecting management alternatives that they
will support. Cost considerations can also help to identify opportunities for
collaboration or leveraging practices with existing programs.
To the extent possible, a cost estimate should consider all future costs of the
management strategy, including design and engineering, construction, labor, and
operation and maintenance. The following sections explain what to consider when
estimating the cost of management options and how to conduct a cost/benefit
analysis. Most of the guidelines center on structural management practices, but the
discussions of labor, inflation, discounting, and information sources are applicable to
nonstructural management options as well.
11.4.1 Identify Cost Considerations
Construction Costs
The construction costs of various management practices can be estimated in one of
two ways: (1) with a total per unit cost or (2) with a detailed breakdown of individual
cost components. Total per unit costs are more appropriate when you’re considering a
large number of management practice sites or management practices that would be
applied throughout the watershed but at no specific location. If you need to estimate
the size of a specific practice, use published design guidelines or consult with a
stormwater engineer to ensure the accuracy of the cost estimate.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-27
If you’re comparing a few specific management practices, using a detailed cost
estimate would be more accurate than using a total per unit cost estimate. For
example, if you were comparing the use of a stormwater wetland with the use of a
wet pond for a single site, you should consider how the costs of these management
practices would differ on that particular site. You would estimate the cost of each
construction component (e.g., excavation, grading, outlet structure) and then sum the
component costs to arrive at a total cost estimate. Use guidance from a stormwater
engineer when determining preliminary quantities and costs of individual
management practice components.
Whether you’re looking for total per unit costs or component costs, look for local
cost estimates that use the same design guidelines that your project will require. It’s
also important to use costs that represent soil, climatic, and geographic conditions
similar to those of your future project. Check several sources to determine whether
cost estimates vary geographically.
The accuracy of cost estimates depends on how unit costs are used to translate
management practice design quantities into management practice costs. Although
your management practice might be appropriately sized, you can describe the
management practice size in many different ways. For example, a detention pond has
at least three volumes: a permanent pool, a detention volume, and a volume up to the
emergency spillway. You should determine to which measurements the unit cost
refers. Table 11-5 shows example formats of management practice unit costs and the
information you need before using the unit costs.
Table 11-5. Considerations for Applying Management Practice Unit Cost Measures
Example
Management Practice
Example Cost
Units Issues to Consider Before Using Unit Costs
Grass swale $ per linear foot Find out the width of swale assumed in the unit cost, and make sure the width is
appropriate for your project. You will overestimate the cost if you use a unit cost
based on a swale that is wider than your proposed swale.
Water quality swale
(dry swale)
$ per square foot Find out whether the width should be measured across the filter media or across
the entire swale. You will overestimate the cost if you measure across the entire
swale, and the unit cost refers to only the filter media width.
Wet detention pond $ per cubic foot Determine the height at which to measure the pond volume. If the cost estimate
assumes the volume up to the emergency spillway, using the volume of the
permanent pool would underestimate the pond cost.
Bioretention $ per impervious
acre treated
This cost estimate format might not be appropriate for all uses. If your bioretention
cell is treating a large amount of pervious area (e.g., grass lawn), this unit cost
would not accurately represent the size of the bioretention cell needed.
Stormwater wetland $ per acre of
drainage area
treated
This unit cost would not account for how drainage areas vary in the amount of
impervious surface. Before using this type of estimate, you should make sure that
it assumes a level of imperviousness similar to that of your stormwater wetland’s
drainage area.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-28 Draft
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
EDD + Sandfilter +
Bioretention
Wet Pond + Bioretention Wet Pond + WQ Swale
T
h
o
u
sa
n
d
s o
f
D
o
ll
a
r
s P
e
r
A
c
r
e
EDD Sand Filter Wet Pond Non-Ultra Urban Bioretention Water Quality Swale
Figure 11-6. Cost comparison of alternative treatment trains to meet specific
water quality and detention performance standards.
Management practice retrofit costs can differ from the costs of management practices
used in new development. Check whether the cost information refers to new
construction or retrofit sites. If you’re estimating costs for a retrofit site and can’t find
information on retrofit costs, consider how your project will differ from new
construction. A retrofit on an agricultural site is likely to be similar in cost to a
management practice on a new construction site, whereas a management practice
retrofit on a highly developed site could have a much higher cost than new
construction. For highly developed sites, you should estimate costs for demolition,
regrading, and other components in addition to new construction management
practice costs.
Overall, construction cost
information can be an important
deciding factor for targeting
management practices in a
watershed. Figure 11- 6 shows a
comparison of the costs of
different treatment trains for a
mixed-use development. Each
treatment train achieves a 70
percent total phosphorus removal
objective, and the cost analysis
shows that treating runoff with
water quality swales leading to a
wet detention pond is the least
expensive option for this
development. Although this
treatment train is the least
expensive for one development, a
different combination of
management practices might be
more economical for a different
type of development or treatment objective.
Labor and Nonstructural Management Options
When estimating construction costs, check that the cost information includes labor.
Most total construction cost estimates include labor. If you’re estimating costs for a
nonstructural management practice like training programs or site-specific nutrient
management plans, most of the costs will be labor. Request cost information from
local agencies that have recently developed a similar policy or plan. Also consider
how project costs vary by the site acreage or type of watershed being managed. If no
local information is available, you can check Internet references that provide cost
estimates for nonstructural management practices. For example, the EPA Web site
provides cost information for agricultural management practices, including a number
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-29
of nonstructural management options: Kwww.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm.
Information is also available for management practices for other source types,
including forestry (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt/), marinas and
recreational boating (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/index.html), and urban
areas (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html).
Design and Engineering Costs
When researching construction cost estimates for various management practices,
determine whether the cost estimates include design and engineering. Typical design
and engineering costs represent an additional 25 to 30 percent of the base
construction cost. Use a local estimate if available; otherwise, consult a national
management practice reference for the approximate design and engineering costs
of your specific management practices. See appendix A for example
management practice reference guides.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs vary by the type of management practice
and local requirements. Use local cost estimates when available; otherwise, use
the most recent estimates from national sources. Reference sources might report
operation and maintenance costs as average annual costs or as a percentage of
the base management practice construction cost. For example,
Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development &
Redevelopment (USEPA 2003b) estimates that the annual, routine
maintenance cost for a wet detention pond ranges from 3 to 5 percent of the
pond’s construction cost. For example, maintenance for a $150,000 wet
detention pond would cost about $4,500 to $7,500 per year.
Inflation Adjustment
Prices of goods and services increase every year because of inflation. You should
adjust cost estimates for inflation if they are reported prior to the first year of your
project. You need to adjust only historical prices; maintenance and other costs after
the first project year do not have to be adjusted because your estimate should be in
the perspective of the first project year, or in “real” terms. The U.S. inflation rate
averages about 3 percent per year. Inflation rates for specific products are available
but are probably not necessary for preliminary cost estimates.
To adjust historical costs, increase the cost by the inflation rate for every year that the
historical cost differs from the first project year. For example, a cost of about $4 per
cubic foot for an infiltration trench in 1997 would be converted to a cost of about
$5 per cubic foot in 2005 according to the following calculation:
2005 cost = $4.00 × (1 + 0.03)
(2005-1997)
= $5.07
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-30 Draft
Discounting
The costs that occur after the first project year should be estimated in “present value”
terms. The present value is the current value of the projected stream of costs
throughout a project’s lifetime. The process of calculating present value is known as
discounting. Discounting is important because the money allocated to future costs
could earn an average return in another investment. For example, assume that the first
project year is 2005 and your project will require maintenance after construction. If
you can invest the project’s maintenance funds in another project or fund and earn at
a return of r, consuming one unit of maintenance in 2006 would have a present value
of 1/(1+r) in 2005. One unit consumed in 2007 has a present value of 1/(1+r)
2
in
2005, and so on. The r at which future returns are discounted to the present value is
called the discount rate (Helfert 1997, Sugden and Williams 1981). Discounting
simply reflects the time preference for consumption. Although not synonymous with
the interest rate, for governments it often reflects the rate at which funds can be
borrowed and loaned. Discounting is especially important if you’re comparing
projects with different maintenance costs and frequencies.
Project costs should be discounted if they are incurred after the first project year.
Costs are discounted according to the following formula:
PV = C / (1+r) (Y
C
! Y
0
)
where PV = present value, C = cost, r = discount rate, Y
C
= year of cost, and Y
0
= first
year of cost.
After discounting, costs for all years should be summed to calculate the total present
value cost.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the discount rates
required for use in federal project evaluations. OMB currently requires a 7 percent
discount rate for projects evaluated in real terms (USOMB 2005). A discount rate of
7 percent would be appropriate to use with a government-funded project; a higher
discount rate should be used if the project is privately funded.
Table 11-6 gives a hypothetical example of discounting costs for two management
practices, in which MP 1 is $2,000 more expensive to construct than MP 2. Over 20
years, the present value of maintenance costs for MP 1 is $2,000 less expensive than
that of MP 2. When construction and maintenance are considered together, MP 1 is
about $100 less expensive than MP 2. Although MP 1 is the more expensive
management practice to construct, the present value calculation shows that it is the
less expensive management practice when construction and maintenance are
considered.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-31
Buffer$, a Microsoft Excel-based tool, can be used
to analyze cost benefits of buffers compared to
traditional crops. To download the tool, visit
www.unl.edu/nac/conservation (right click on the
picture and click “save target as”; the file size is 6.0
Mb, so it might take a while to download). To
request a CD with the tool, contact Gary Bentrup at
gbentrup@fs.fed.us.
Table 11-6. Example of Discounting Management Practice Cost for Comparison
Purposes
Management
Practice
Construction
Cost
Annual
Maintenance
Present Value of
Maintenance Costs
over 20 Years, r = 7%
Total Present
Value of Costs
MP 1 $12,000 $300 $3,178 $15,178
MP 2 $10,000 $500 $5,297 $15,297
11.4.2 Compare Costs and Effectiveness of Management Practices
Choosing the most beneficial management practices for your
watershed involves comparing the cost and pollution reduction of
the available options. At a minimum, you should compare the
total costs and effectiveness of the management practices. First,
compare the total benefits and determine which management
practices achieve the goals of your project. Then, compare the
total costs of the management practices that achieve your goals
and determine which ones are the least expensive. If you wish to
prioritize further, calculate a cost-effectiveness ratio to determine
which management practice is the most cost-effective for
achieving your goals.
The following example illustrates how a cost-effectiveness ratio can be calculated.
Assume that you’re proposing a treatment train of bioretention cells draining to an
extended dry detention pond for a residential development. The total present value
cost of the management practice construction, operation, and maintenance is about
$200,000. The estimated annual reduction in total phosphorus load as 7 pounds per
year. Assuming a project lifetime of 20 years, the total reduction in phosphorus load
would be 7 lb × 20, or 140 lb. The cost per pound of phosphorus removed is
$200,000 divided by 140, or about $1,430. In this example, the pounds of phosphorus
removed are not discounted over the project lifetime. If you are comparing practices
with differing benefits over time, you might consider discounting pollution load
reduction and other nonmonetary benefits as prescribed by OMB (USOMB 2005).
You can determine which options are the most cost-effective by comparing the cost-
effectiveness ratios of your management options. The management option with the
lowest cost-effectiveness ratio provides the most benefit for the least dollars spent.
However, you also need to evaluate whether the most cost-effective options are
sufficient to meet your management goals. Sometimes you need to select less cost-
effective options because they represent the only way to achieve the required load
reductions or other specific goals. For example, in a watershed targeted for sediment
reduction that has significant sediment contribution from eroding banks, more
expensive structural stream restoration might be the only way to achieve the
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-32 Draft
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
90% 85% 72% 70% 70% 66% 60% 60% 45% 41% 40% 30% 30% 19%
UHMX COMM-H OI-H HMFR HMX IND MX MFR COMM-L HDR INS OI-L MDR MLDR
Percent Imperviousness
BMP Cost per Acr
e
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
TP Loadi
ng (l
b/
acr
e/
year
)
Construction, Design, and Engineering ($/acre)
SET Loading With BMPs (lb/acre/year)
SET Loading Without BMPs (lb/acre/year)
Figure 11-7. Example comparing construction cost and pollutant loading for
different urban land use types with decreasing levels of imperviousness.
necessary reduction; more cost-effective upland management practices might not be
able to achieve targets by themselves.
The examples above assume that you’re comparing management options for one type
of development or condition. Comparing costs and benefits is also useful when
targeting management practices across different types of land uses. Figure 11-7
compares the costs and pollutant loadings across 14 types of developments; the
percentage on the horizontal axis refers to the average percentage imperviousness of
the developments. A simplified spreadsheet, SET, was used in this example to
estimate the pollutant loading with and without management practices, and each
management practice treatment train achieved 70 percent phosphorus removal. The
figure shows that developments with a higher percentage of impervious area can cost
substantially more to treat than developments with lower levels of imperviousness.
Figure 11-8 compares the management practice construction cost per acre with the
cost per pound of total phosphorus removed. At below 70 percent imperviousness,
the cost-effectiveness ratio is fairly constant for the developments, but above that
level the cost-effectiveness ratio increases substantially. In this situation, you should
consider how much impact the developments with high imperviousness have on the
water quality of your watershed. You might find that these land uses are a small
percentage of your watershed and that a less expensive treatment option for these
land uses could achieve your watershed-wide water quality objectives. When certain
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-33
$0
$10, 000
$20, 000
$30, 000
$40, 000
$50, 000
$60, 000
$70, 000
$80, 000
$90, 000
90% 85% 72% 70% 70% 66% 60% 60% 45% 41% 40% 30% 30% 19%
UHMX COMM-H OI-H HMFR HMX IND MX MFR COMM- L HDR INS OI-L MDR MLDR
B
M
P
C
o
s
t
p
e
r A
c
re
$500
$1,500
$2,500
$3,500
$4,500
$5,500
C
os
t
per
P
ou
nd
T
P
R
em
o
v
e
d
Construc tion, Design, and Engineering ($/ ac re)
Cos t per TP Load Removed ($/ lb)
Figure 11-8. Example showing increased cost per pound of total phosphorus
removed for urban land uses with highest levels of imperviousness.
land uses are found to be the least cost-effective, stakeholders can be consulted to
determine the importance of treating all land uses versus saving on costs. Beyond
cost-effectiveness, stakeholders might be concerned about localized impacts on water
quality from highly impervious developments.
When used in combination with an assessment of the project objectives and
stakeholder concerns, a comparison of costs and benefits can be useful in
management decisionmaking. The examples and strategies outlined above do not
cover all the possible watershed conditions and issues to be considered. With each
project, look at the situation critically and ensure that you’ve covered the most
important factors before making a decision on management practices.
11.5 Select Final Management Strategies
The process of narrowing down possible management options involves ultimately
matching the best candidate practices to your needs.
When you screened management options (chapter 10), you used worksheets to
summarize promising alternatives, noting potential pollutant removal efficiencies,
identifying constraints in using the practice, and so forth. In this chapter, you’ve
refined those worksheets, quantified estimates of the total potential pollutant
removal, and identified which combinations of management practices meet your load
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-34 Draft
reduction or hydrology targets. You’ve also estimated
costs for these different watershed management
strategies (or different combinations of management
practices). Now it’s time to pull together information
from the environmental and cost analysis and select the
preferred strategies.
11.5.1 Decision Process
In general, you’ll work through a process using
established decision criteria to identify the
management strategies that are most likely to succeed.
The process is likely to follow some variation of the
following steps:
? Develop decision criteria.
? Summarize evaluation results and present to stakeholders.
? Obtain feedback from stakeholders.
? Rank preferences and select management strategy(ies).
Develop Decision Criteria
In such watershed planning efforts you should address not only the state or local
water quality or hydrology targets but also such issues as
? Fiscal impact on local governments
? Cost to the development community
? Overall regulatory feasibility of the strategy
? Compatibility with other local planning objectives and policies
? Overall political feasibility
Pulling together the “big picture” for watersheds is critical for those trying to select
the preferred management strategies, but this can also be challenging. Most likely
you’ll select indicators and objectives that include both quantifiable indicators (Does
it meet the target? How much will it cost the development community?) and more
subjective indicators (Is it compatible with local policies? Is it politically feasible?).
Summarize Evaluation Results and Present to Stakeholders
Before meeting with the stakeholder committee, develop a summary chart that can
convey the big-picture evaluation, noting which indicators you are able to quantify
versus those which must be evaluated subjectively. Fill in the chart for the indicators
you are able to quantify and evaluate (in absolute numbers or in relative percentages).
For more subjective indicators, you can use a “straw man” or “blank slate” approach
with the committee. The straw man approach involves conducting a preliminary
evaluation (e.g., evaluating how compatible the differing strategies are with local
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-35
Refer to appendix A for additional
resources concerning stakeholders.
planning policies) and presenting your evaluation to the committee for review,
discussion, and final evaluation. The blank slate approach allows the committee to
jointly or independently evaluate the criteria and develop a response. This evaluation
could be conducted through a survey of committee members, deliberations of the
committee, or both.
Obtain Feedback from Stakeholders
If stakeholders have concerns about a particular management strategy,
determine whether there is information that is already available or could be
readily obtained that would address their concerns. For example, if the
stakeholders are not familiar with a particular management practice and are
therefore hesitant to implement it, consider bringing in an extension agent familiar
with the practice who can further educate concerned stakeholders about the practice
and answer questions credibly. Perhaps increasing familiarity and confidence is all
that will be required for the stakeholders to support the practice.
Where cost feasibility is an issue, present information regarding cost-sharing sources
or other funding options that might make implementation feasible. Consider
accessing technical support from organizations like Cooperative Extension, NRCS, or
other resource agencies or nonprofit organizations that can offer technical assistance
or cost-sharing dollars. Always keep the end in view, reminding those around the
table of the loading that you are trying to achieve and the load reduction needed.
Then focus on the solutions—practices that landowners are willing to implement and
can implement on their own or with assistance of agencies, nonprofit groups, or other
stakeholders. The more that you ensure that initial questions and concerns are
adequately addressed, the more buy-in you’re likely to have when the time for
implementation arrives.
Rank Preferences and Select Final Strategies
The process for selecting preferred strategies can be very
straightforward if you have a small watershed with a limited
number of landowners and a limited number of problems or issues
to resolve. Cost-effective choices might be quite clear, and there
might not be many other issues to work through.
In small watersheds or watersheds with limited numbers of
landowners and parameters of concern, your management practice
worksheets can be used as the basis for evaluating management
strategies and making a final selection. The task might be as
simple as sharing the information regarding the effectiveness and
cost of the different practices with the landowners, explaining
how practices could be combined in complementary ways to
address the problem, and then discussing which management
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-36 Draft
practices they would be willing and able to implement. Discussions about feasible
options also need to address a reasonable timetable for implementing the options.
A more complex process is often needed when managing larger watersheds or small
watersheds with multiple issues and a broader set of stakeholders. In such cases it can
be helpful to develop formal criteria and methods for ranking stakeholder preferences
to support final decisions on selection. These formal methods can include weighting
some criteria as more important than others to best represent stakeholder preferences.
In addition, it might not always be necessary for stakeholders to agree on exactly the
same practices; if different stakeholders are willing to implement separate practices
that still achieve the objectives, there is no reason to force a single ranking or
preference.
The degree to which you feel the need to formally rank the candidate strategies will
depend on the circumstances. KYou can use a ranking process similar to the one you
conducted in section 10.3.8. The ranking factors and assumptions will change,
however.
In reality, there are many more ways you can use to rank and select management
practices than can possibly be covered here. The following section provides two
examples in the range of options for selecting the preferred strategies.
11.5.2 Example Procedures for Selecting Final Management Strategies
The following two examples are provided to help illustrate the range of methods for
selecting the preferred strategies. The first example represents the simple case where
a less formal process was used to select preferred practices; the second example
includes a more formal process in which evaluation criteria and objectives were
established and results were weighted before making final selections.
Muddy Creek Selects Final Strategies to Implement TMDL
Watershed planners in the Muddy Creek watershed went through a ranking process to
select management practices to implement their portion of the Virgin River Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Table 11-7 lists the management techniques
evaluated. Note that each is categorized by the level of engineering intensity. A
separate worksheet was developed for each technique during the screening and then
refined during the evaluation process. Table 11-8 lists the final selection of
management practices that the landowners plan to use to meet the load reduction
requirement, along with their estimated load reduction and a timeline for
implementation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-37
Table 11-7. Selected Management Techniques for the Muddy Creek
Subwatershed, Virgin River TMDL Implementation
Level A
Management Changes
1 Rotational grazing
2 Seasonal grazing
3 No-till farming techniques
Level B
Management practices and
Altruistic Techniques
1 Installation of cross-fencing
2 Use of sprinkler irrigation system
3 Decreased water usage
Level C
Mild Engineering
1 Stream grade stabilization structures
2 Revegetation of streambanks
3 Replacement of open ditches and diversions with
piped systems
Level D
Moderate Engineering
1 Installation of stream barbs
2 Installation of weirs
3 Stabilization of road cuts
Level E
Intensive Engineering
1 Slope stabilization
2 Change in meander and profile of stream sections
Table 11-8. Summary of Load Reduction Requirements and Expected Removal
Efficiencies for Selected Management Practices: Muddy Creek Subwatershed
TMDL Target
Values
Total Dissolved
Solids (lb/day)
Implementation
Technique(s)
Estimated
Percent Load
Reduction (%)
Timeline for
Implementation
Reductions
(mo)
Overall load
allocation:
12,320
A1 4 4–12
B2 8 6–12
B3 8 6–12
Current
measured load:
20,550
C1 10 9–24
C2 15 36–120
C3 15 12–36
Overall required
load reduction:
8,230
D2 20 24–48
E1 20 24–48
Town of Cary, North Carolina, Selects Final Strategies to Manage
Stormwater Runoff
The Town of Cary used a summary chart to evaluate different options and criteria for
managing future stormwater runoff from its Town Center area. The town had adopted
a redevelopment plan that encouraged urban redevelopment along a planned rail
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-38 Draft
State Regulations
? Meets state Nutrient-Sensitive Water TMDL and
Phase II requirements
? More protective than state regulations
? Comparable to existing Swift Creek watershed
drinking water supply protection rules
? Regulatory feasibility
Town Plans and Policies
? Supports Town Center Area Plan and preferred
growth areas
? Provides adequate infrastructure
? Preserves and protects natural resources
? Encourages attractive development
Fiscal Impact
? Cost-effectiveness in meeting targets
Overall Feasibility
corridor in the Town Center and the use of smart growth
principles. However, the planned redevelopment needed to
meet a number of stormwater management regulations,
including existing nutrient TMDL and drinking water supply
protection regulations and pending National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater
requirements.
At the beginning of the planning process, the stakeholder
committee was instrumental in developing and adopting the
evaluation criteria in the box at right for different management
options. Easily understood consumer report symbols were then
used to convey how well each option met the evaluation
criteria (figure 11-9). The options being compared by Cary
included onsite stormwater water quality and volume/peak
detention controls, an off-site shared facility (e.g., constructed
wetlands) for local control, regional controls to meet volume
and water quality performance standards, and combinations,
including a buy-down allowance for achieving nitrogen
reductions.
When presenting and discussing the results of the evaluation
of management options, the Stakeholder Committee prioritized
two of the criteria:
1. Meets state Nutrient-Sensitive Water TMDL and Phase II requirements
2. Supports the Town Center Area Plan and preferred growth areas
Although the other criteria were important in the evaluation, these two became the
most important in selecting the preferred management option. Therefore, option 1
was selected as the final management strategy.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Draft 11-39
Criteria
Meets State
TMDL More Restrictive than State TMDL
Option 1
On-site/Shared
Option 2
On-site/Shared
Option 3
Regional
Volume, TSS, TN
Option 4
Regional
Volume, TSS,
N Buy-Down
Option 5
On-site/Shared Water
Quality Control;
Regional Volume
State Regulations
Meets State Nutrient-
Sensitive Water and Phase
II Requirements—High
Priority
nullnull null null null
More Protective than State
Regulations
nullnull null null null
Swift Creek Watershed:
Comparable to Existing
Swift Creek LMP
nullnullnullnull null
Regulatory Feasibility
nullnull null null null
Town Plans and Policies
Supports Town Center
Area Plan (Urban Form/
Preferred Growth
Areas)—High Priority
nullnullnullnull null
Provides Adequate
Infrastructure
nullnullnullnull null
Preserves/Protects Natural
Resources
nullnull null null null
Encourages Attractive
Development
nullnull null null null
Fiscal Impact
Cost-Effectiveness of
Mitigation Target
nullnull null null null
Overall Feasibility (Counts
null/null/null)
8/0/1 7/1/1 2/6/1 2/6/1 5/3/1
Percent that Option Meets
Criteria
90% 85% 55% 55% 72%
Meets Both High-Priority
Criteria
YesNoNoNo No
null Meets Criteria null Partially Meets Criteria null Does Not Meet Criteria
Figure 11-9. Evaluation of stormwater management options for the Town of Cary.
Now that you’ve selected the recommended management strategy that will meet the
objectives of your program, the more detailed implementation planning can begin. In
the next chapter implementation plans, schedules, and funding are discussed in more
detail.
Chapter 11
Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
11-40 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-1
12. Design
Implementation
Program and Assemble
Watershed Plan
Read this chapter if...
? You want to know how to develop the implementation component of your
watershed plan
? You want to know how to set up an evaluation framework for your watershed
plan
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Information/education component
< Schedule for implementation
< Milestones
< Criteria to measure progress
< Monitoring component
< Financial and technical resources
needed
< Evaluation framework
< Assembling watershed plan
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-2 Draft
12.1 What Do I Need to Design My Implementation Program?
Now that you’ve identified watershed management measures that when implemented
should meet your objectives, it’s time to develop the remaining elements of your
implementation program. Designing the implementation program generates several of
the basic elements needed for effective watershed plans:
? An information/education (I/E) component to support public participation and
build management capacity related to adopted management measures
? A schedule for implementing management measures
? Interim milestones to determine whether management measures are being
implemented
? Criteria by which to measure progress toward reducing pollutant loads and
meeting watershed goals
? A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation efforts
? An estimate of the technical and financial resources and authorities needed to
implement the plan
? An evaluation framework
12.2 Develop Information/Education Component
Every watershed plan should include an information/education (I/E) component that
involves the watershed community. Because many water quality problems result
from individual actions and the solutions are often voluntary practices, effective
public involvement and participation promote the adoption of management practices,
help to ensure the sustainability of the watershed management plan, and perhaps most
important, encourage changes in behavior that will help you achieve your overall
watershed goals.
This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element e of the
nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element e is “An information and
education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and
encourage their early and continued participation in selecting designing, and
implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented.”
12.2.1 Integrate I/E Activities into the Overall Watershed Implementation
Program
The objectives of the public outreach program should directly support your
watershed management goals and implementation of the watershed management
plan. For example, the overall goal for your watershed plan might be to restore water
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-3
For more information on planning and implementing
outreach campaigns, refer to EPA’s Getting in Step: A
Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach
Campaigns. This comprehensive guide will walk you
through the six critical steps of outreach—defining
your goals and objectives, identifying your target
audience, developing appropriate messages, selecting
materials and activities, distributing the messages,
and conducting evaluation at each step of the way. K
You can download the guide at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/
getnstep.pdf or order it by calling 1-800-490-9198. Ask
for publication number EPA 841-B-03-002.
EPA developed a "Nonpoint Source Outreach Digital
Toolbox," which provides information, tools, and a
catalog of more than 700 outreach materials that state
and local agencies and organizations can use to
launch their own nonpoint source pollution outreach
campaign. The toolbox focuses on six nonpoint source
categories: stormwater, household hazardous waste,
septic systems, lawn care, pet care, and automotive
care, with messages geared to urban and suburban
residents. Outreach products include mass-media
materials, such as print ads, radio and television
public service announcements, and a variety of
materials for billboards, signage, kiosks, posters,
movie theater slides, brochures, factsheets, and
everyday object giveaways that help to raise
awareness and promote non-polluting behaviors.
Permission-to-use information is included for outreach
products, which makes it easy to tailor them to local
priorities. Evaluations of several outreach campaigns
also offer real-world examples of what works best in
terms of messages, communication styles, formats
and delivery methods. The toolbox is available online
quality to Brooker Creek, which has been badly degraded due
to nutrient inputs from fertilizers. To help meet that goal, you
might develop a public participation program that will “make
residents aware of proper fertilizer use to reduce application
rates.” The objectives will also be shaped by the size of the
community and the resources available to support efforts. The
I/E components identified should also include measurable
objectives and indicators for measuring progress.
You can develop a separate public outreach component in your
watershed plan that provides the foundation of your I/E
activities, but be sure to include the specific tasks, costs of
implementation, and responsible parties in the overall
implementation matrix.
12.2.2 Develop an I/E Program
Although it’s important to let people know about the water quality problems in the
watershed, sometimes simply informing and educating people on the issues is not
enough to initiate behavior change. Keep in mind that behavior change occurs over
time. First, audiences should be made aware of the issue or problem. Then they
should be educated on the problems facing the watershed.
Finally, they should know what actions they can take to help
address those problems.
To develop an effective I/E program, you should follow these
six steps:
1. Define I/E goals and objectives.
2. Identify and analyze the target audiences.
3. Create the messages for each audience.
4. Package the message to various audiences.
5. Distribute the messages.
6. Evaluate the I/E program.
The activities that occur in each of these steps are briefly
summarized below.
Step 1: Define I/E Goals and Objectives
In developing an I/E component, you should identify I/E goals
for the watershed plan implementation program. KStart with
the driving forces that you outlined at the beginning of the
watershed planning effort in chapter 4. 7 This will help set the
foundation for, and focus, your I/E activities.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-4 Draft
Remember . . .
As you progress through implementation, your
outreach objectives and activities will evolve. For
example, during the early stages it might be necessary
to generate basic awareness of watershed issues, but
as problems are identified during watershed
characterization your objectives will focus on educating
your target audiences on the causes of the problems.
Next, your objectives will focus on actions your target
audience can take to reduce or prevent adverse water
quality impacts. Finally, your objectives will focus on
reporting progress.
The outreach goals and objectives will reinforce the overall watershed goals and
objectives and should be specific, measurable, action-oriented, and time-focused.
Keep the desired outcome in mind when developing your
objectives. Do you want to create awareness, provide
information, or encourage action among your target audience?
It’s very important to make your objectives as specific as
possible and to include a time element as well as a result. This
approach will make it easier to identify specific tasks and will
enable you to evaluate whether you've achieved the
objectives.
Step 2: Identify and Analyze the Target Audience
Next, you should identify the audiences you need to reach to
meet your objectives. The target audience is the group of
people you want to reach with your message. You should
break down your target audience into smaller segments using
demographics, location, occupation, watershed role, and other
factors. If your target audience is too broad, chances are you won't be able to develop
a message that engages and resonates with the entire audience. Be creative in
defining and developing perspectives on your target audiences and in finding out
what makes them tick.
Step 3: Create the Message
After gathering information on members of the target audience, you’re ready to craft
a message that will engage them and help achieve your watershed planning
objectives. To be effective, the message must be understood by the target audience
and appeal to people on their own terms. The message should articulate what actions
the audience should take. These actions might include letting vegetation grow taller
along a stream, pumping septic tanks, or conducting soil tests before fertilizing
lawns. The actions should tie directly back to the goals of the watershed plan because
one of the goals of your I/E program will be to help implement the watershed plan. In
addition, your message should be clear, specific, and tied directly to something the
target audience values, such as
? Money savings
? Time savings
? Convenience
? Health improvements
? Efficiency
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-5
In the Lake Champlain Basin, a cooperative venture
between the Lake Champlain Basin Program and a
local TV station produced weekly spots on the evening
news between May 1999 and September 2004 that
provided an in-depth look at many of the important
environmental issues surrounding the Lake, its basin,
and restoration efforts. Periodic half-hour special
reports showed compilations of these spots and
provided videos as a resource for teachers and
communities. The series won many awards, including
awards from EPA and the North American Lake
Management Society (NALMS).
K www.anr.state.vt.us/champ/cham2000.htm
The Livable Neighborhood Water Stewardship Program
in Falls Church, Virginia, fulfilled community members’
desire to take part in watershed protection activities at
the neighborhood level. Volunteer leaders recruited
their neighbors to form household EcoTeams to help
each other become better water stewards. The teams
adopted behaviors such as creating a rain garden and
reducing the use of household chemicals. The team
aspect provided the motivation to carry out the actions
while establishing relationships that helped create a
more livable neighborhood. Studies show that such
community activities are successful in sustaining
significant behavior change. KGo to
www.empowermentinstitute.net/Files/WSP.htm for
more information on this program.
Step 4: Package the Message
Now it’s time to determine the best package or format for the message for eventual
delivery to the target audience. The information you collected in Step 2 while
researching the audience will help to determine the most appropriate format. When
selecting your message format, think about where the target audience gets its
information. A farming community might respond more
positively to door-to-door visits or articles in farm
publications than to an Internet and e-mail campaign.
Work with the Media
If your message needs to be understood and embraced by the
public, it should be covered by the mass media. The media
can be a very cost-effective and efficient way to get your
message delivered. Formats using the mass media can be
broken down into two major categories—news coverage and
advertising. News coverage includes interviews, news stories,
letters to the editor, and event coverage. Advertising includes
the development of public service announcements (PSAs).
Publicity generated from news coverage is dependent on the
news organization, whereas you create radio, TV, and
newspaper advertising yourself. In many cases the advertising
you do can be leveraged later into news coverage. For
example, one state bought informational ads on agriculture-related water quality
issues from a radio station and received as a benefit some free news coverage of the
issues during the year.
Develop Effective Print Materials
By far the most popular format for outreach campaigns is
print. Printed materials include items like fact sheets,
brochures, flyers, booklets, posters, bus placards, billboards,
and doorknob hangers. These materials can be created easily,
and the target audience can refer to them again and again. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
launched a nonpoint source outreach campaign in 2001 that
targeted watersheds with water quality problems where the
causes were known. In watersheds where pet waste was
identified as contributing to these problems, TCEQ developed
a full-color billboard display of a dog with the message,
“Please pick up my poop.” The billboards served as prompts
to encourage behavior change. KFor more information, visit
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea/nps/nps.html.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-6 Draft
Hold Events
Also consider using activities to spread your message. A watershed event can be one
of the most energizing formats for distributing messages targeted at awareness,
education, or direct action. A community event plays into the desire of audience
members to belong to a group and have shared goals and visions for the community.
In urban areas, where knowing your neighbors and other members of your
community is the exception instead of the rule, community events can help to
strengthen the fabric of the community by creating and enhancing community
relationships, building trust, and improving the relationships between government
agencies and the public. And if done well, they’re just plain fun.
Leverage Resources
If resources are limited and the message is fairly focused, try to piggyback onto an
existing event that involves the target audience. Trade shows and other events for
farmers, developers, boaters, fishers, the automobile industry, and other groups can
often be accessed with a little research and a few phone calls. As in all outreach, you
can’t deliver a message to the target audience if you don’t have access to it.
Approaches for generating interest and attention are limited only by your creativity.
Watershed groups have used bands, balloons, face-painting, mascots, interactive
displays, video games, giveaways, clowns, jugglers, and celebrities to draw crowds.
You can also increase the exposure of your event by inviting local TV and radio
stations to cover it.
Step 5: Distribute the Message
Once the message has been packaged in the desired format, you can proceed with
distribution. Fortunately, you’ve already considered distribution mechanisms
somewhat while researching the target audience and selecting a format. Common
means of distribution are by direct mail, door-to-door, by phone, through targeted
businesses, during presentations, as hand-outs at events, through media outlets, and
by posting your message in public places. Consider which distribution method(s) is
best for your community. Local governments, for example, might choose to add
inserts to utility bills, whereas local community groups might prefer door-to-door
visits. One of the ways the City of Fresno, California, distributed its stormwater
pollution prevention message was through placemats at area fast food restaurants. Be
creative in your distribution mechanisms.
Consider the Messenger
In addition to how you’re going to deliver the message, you should decide who will
deliver the message. Analysis of the target audience can help you identify the most
trusted members of the community. An organization trusted by the public can use a
staff representative of its own. If the organization is a government agency, it might be
more effective to have a member of the target audience deliver the message.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-7
Programmatic
? Number of newspaper stories printed
? Number of people educated/trained
? Number of public meetings held
? Number of volunteers attending activities
? Number of storm drains stenciled
Social
? Number of calls to hotline
? Number of people surveyed with increased
knowledge of watershed issues
? Number of people surveyed with changes in
behavior
? Participation at watershed events
? Number of trained volunteer monitors
Environmental
? Number of gallons of used paint collected
? Number of people who purchased rain barrels
? Pounds of trash collected on stream clean-up
days
? Number of pet waste bags taken at kiosks
? Pounds of yard waste collected
In Grapevine, Texas, the “Conservation Cowboy” conducts
numerous visits throughout the year within the community to
promote environmental responsibility and nonpoint source
pollution prevention. The Conservation Cowboy has been a huge
hit with children and has become an effective messenger of
environmental education messages.
Remember to use your watershed stakeholder group to help
distribute the message. The group already has a vested interest in
the success of the watershed plan and will help you distribute
educational materials to the watershed community—perhaps
through in-kind support like helping erect watershed road signs, or
through financial or technical support to cover printing costs or
conduct presentations at community meetings. Members of your
stakeholder group will be trusted, respected members of the
watershed community and will make it easier to spread the word.
Step 6: Evaluate the I/E Program
Evaluation provides a feedback mechanism for ongoing
improvement of your outreach effort. Many people don’t think
about how they’ll evaluate the success of their I/E program until
after the program has been implemented. Building an evaluation
component into the plan from the beginning, however, will ensure
that at least some accurate feedback on outreach program impact
is generated. Ideally, feedback generated during the early stages of
the project will be used immediately in making preliminary
determinations about program effectiveness. Adapting elements of
the I/E effort continually as new information is received ensures
that ineffective components are adjusted or scrapped while
components that are working are supported and enhanced. KGo back to chapter 4
(section 4.6) to review the suite of potential indicators you can use to measure the
effectiveness of your I/E program.
KAppendix A provides resource information on developing outreach programs.
12.3 Establish an Implementation Schedule
This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element f of the
nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element f is a “Schedule for
implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in the plan that
is reasonably expeditious.”
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-8 Draft
Short-Term (< 2 years)
? Achieve 5 percent reduction in sediment load on 1,000
acres of agricultural land in the Cross Creek
subwatershed by implementing rotational grazing
practices.
? Eliminate direct sources of organic waste, nutrients,
and fecal coliform bacteria to the stream by installing
5,000 feet of fencing to exclude direct access to cattle
along Cross Creek.
Mid-Term (< 5 years)
? Reduce streambank erosion and sediment loading
rate by 15 percent by reestablishing vegetation along
3,600 feet of Cross Creek.
Long-Term (5 years or longer)
? Achieve the fecal coliform water quality standard in
the upper section of Cross Creek above Highway 64.
The schedule component of a watershed plan involves turning goals and objectives
into specific tasks. The schedule should include a timeline of when each phase of the
step will be implemented and accomplished, as well as the agency/organization
responsible for implementing the activity. In addition, your schedule should be
broken down into increments that you can reasonably track and review. For example,
the time frame for implementing tasks can be divided into quarters. You will prepare
more detailed schedules as part of your annual work plans (Ksee section 13.4).
In developing schedules, it helps to obtain the input of those who have had previous
experience in applying the recommended actions. Locate experienced resource
agency staff and previous management practice project managers where possible to
identify the key steps. Be sure to note sequence or timing issues that need to be
coordinated to keep tasks on track.
12.4 Develop Interim Measurable Milestones
One means of supporting detailed scheduling and task tracking is to identify interim,
measurable milestones for determining whether management practices or other
control actions are being implemented. What do you want to accomplish by when? It
usually helps to think of milestones in terms of relevant time scales. For example,
? Short-term (1 to 2 years)
? Mid-term (2 to 5 years)
? Long-term (5 to 10 years or longer)
This phase of the watershed planning process should
result in element g of the nine elements for awarding section
319 grants. Element g is “A description of interim
measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint
source management measures or other control actions are
being implemented.”
It’s also helpful to think of the milestones as subtasks, or
what needs to be accomplished over time to fully implement
the practice or management measure. When determining
time scales and subtasks for actions, place the milestones in
the context of the implementation strategy. Given the
selected practices and the available funds or time frame for
obtaining grants, estimate what can be accomplished by
when. First, outline the subtasks involved and the level of
effort associated with each to establish a baseline for time
estimates. Next, identify the responsible parties associated
with the steps so that you can collectively discuss milestones
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-9
and identify those which are feasible and supported by the people who will do the
work.
Groups should also consider economic, social, and environmental factors. When
selecting a milestone, make sure that it is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant to
a nonpoint source management measure, and time-sensitive.
Groups should consider staff availability and funding resources and how to determine
how the milestones will be evaluated. For example, will progress toward a milestone
be determined through monitoring, spot-checking, participation, adoption of
management practices, or some other methods? Answering this question will enable
the group to allocate and plan for resources and easily determine whether a milestone
has been met. It would be difficult to set a milestone at “installing 30 miles of buffer
strips within 2 years” if no staff were available to measure the miles of buffer strips
installed. Resources should be targeted toward the highest-priority milestones.
Finally, your plan should also provide a description of what will be done if the
milestones are not being achieved or how your program will take advantage of
milestones being achieved in a significantly shorter time frame.
12.5 Establish a Set of Criteria to Measure Progress toward
Meeting Water Quality Standards and Other Goals
As part of your implementation program, you should set some criteria by which
you’ll determine whether you are achieving load reductions over time and making
progress toward meeting your overall watershed goals. These criteria can also
support an adaptive management approach by providing mechanisms by which to
reevaluate implementation plans if you’re not making substantial progress toward
meeting your watershed goals.
This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element h of the
nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element h is “A set of criteria that
can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time
and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards.”
These criteria can be expressed as indicators and associated interim target values.
You can use various indicators to help measure progress (chapter 4). You’ll want to
select indicators that will provide quantitative measurements of progress toward
meeting the goals and can be easily communicated to various audiences. It’s
important to remember that these indicators and associated interim targets will serve
as a “trigger,” in that if the criteria indicate that you are not making substantial
progress, you should consider changing your implementation approach.
These indicators might reflect a water quality condition that can be measured
(dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, total suspended solids) or an action-related achievement
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-10 Draft
that can be measured (pounds of trash removed, number of volunteers at the stream
cleanup, length of stream corridor revegetated). In other words, the criteria are
interim targets in the watershed plan, such as completing certain subtasks that would
result in overall pollutant reduction targets. Be careful to distinguish between
programmatic indicators that are related to the implementation of your work plan,
such as workshops held or brochures mailed, and environmental indicators used to
measure progress toward water quality goals, such as phosphorus concentrations or
sediment loadings.
The indicators and interim target values you select should reflect the performance of
the management measures being implemented, the concerns identified early in the
process by stakeholders, and the refined goals that were outlined (chapter 9). Because
of the confounding, dynamic conditions that occur in a watershed, you should be
careful how you interpret these indicators once implementation begins. For example,
if you’ve selected turbidity as your indicator for measuring sediment load reductions
and the turbidity value actually increases after installation of management practices,
does this mean you’re not making improvements in the watershed? You should
determine whether additional activities, such as new development activities, are
contributing additional loads that you didn’t consider. You also should realize that
the initial land disturbance that installation of management practice sometimes
generates initially could create a short-term increase in sediment loadings. In
addition, you might actually see a decrease in sediment loads while turbidity remains
the same or increases due to increased biological production. Therefore, you also
want to include long-term progress measurements such as reduced frequency of
dredging as an indication of reduced sediment loads, or improved aquatic habitat as a
result of reduced sediment loads. Table 12-1 demonstrates how you can use a suite of
indicators to measure progress in reducing pollutant loads depending on the issues of
concern.
There are various factors to consider before setting criteria, such as the
implementation schedule of the management measures, the nature of the pollutants,
and the time frame for applying the criteria.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-11
Table 12-1. Example Indicators to Measure Progress in Reducing Pollutant Loads
Issue Suite of Indicators
Eutrophication ? Phosphorus load
? Number of nuisance algae blooms
? Transparency of waterbody or secchi depth
? Frequency of taste and odor problems in water supply
? Hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen in a lake or reservoir
? Soil test phosphorus in agricultural fields
Pathogens (related to recreational use) ? Bacteria counts
? Compliance with water quality standards (single sample or geometric mean)
? Number and duration of beach closings
? Number of shellfish bed reopenings
? Incidence of illness reported during recreation season
Sediment ? Total suspended solids concentration and load
? Raw water quality at drinking water intake
? Frequency and degree of dredging of agricultural ditches, impoundments,
and water supply intake structures
12.5.1 Schedule for Implementation of Management Measures
Before developing any criteria to measure progress in reducing loads, you should
review the schedule you’ve developed for implementing the proposed management
measures. Obviously, you won’t see any load reductions until the measures are
installed. Check to see if the management measures are to be installed evenly over
the duration of the plan or whether most practices are to be installed in the first few
years of implementation. Often, long and uncertain lag times occur between
implementation and response at the watershed level.
12.5.2 Nature of Pollutants to Be Controlled
The speed with which loads can be reduced is also dependent on the nature of the
pollutants. Pathogens in animal waste, for example, tend to die off quickly in the
environment, so response to a decrease in pathogen delivery to a waterbody might be
noticed quickly. If direct deposition of waste in a stream by grazing livestock is the
problem, fencing the animals away from the stream might cause nearly immediate
reductions in pathogen levels in the water. Implementation of erosion controls,
however, might show results more slowly as sediments already in the drainage
network move through the system even as soil loss from cropland or construction
sites is controlled. If runoff of soluble phosphorus due to excessive soil phosphorus
levels is the problem, measurable change might take years or even decades to
demonstrate in response to nutrient management as accumulated phosphorus is
slowly depleted by crop harvests.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-12 Draft
12.6 Develop a Monitoring Component
As part of the development of your watershed plan, you should develop a monitoring
component to track and evaluate the effectiveness of your implementation efforts
using the criteria developed in the previous section.
This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element i of the
nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element i is “A monitoring component
to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured
against the criteria established to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water
quality standards.”
Monitoring programs can be designed to track progress in meeting load reduction
goals and attaining water quality standards, but there are significant challenges to
overcome. Clear communication between program and monitoring managers is
important to specify monitoring objectives that, if achieved, will provide the data
necessary to satisfy all relevant management objectives. The selection of monitoring
designs, sites, parameters, and sampling frequencies should be driven by the agreed-
upon monitoring objectives, although some compromises are usually necessary
because of factors like site accessibility, sample preservation concerns, staffing,
logistics, and costs. If compromises are made because of constraints, it is important
to determine whether the monitoring objectives will still be met with the modified
plan. There is always some uncertainty in monitoring efforts, but to knowingly
implement a monitoring plan that is fairly certain to fail is a complete waste of time,
effort, and resources. Because statistical analysis is usually critical to the
interpretation of monitoring results, it’s usually wise to consult a statistician during
the design of a monitoring program.
Measurable progress is critical to ensuring continued support of watershed projects,
and progress is best demonstrated with the use of monitoring data that accurately
reflect water quality conditions relevant to the identified problems. All too frequently
watershed managers rely on modeling projections or other indirect measures of
success (e.g., implementation of management measures) to document achievement,
and in some cases this approach can result in a backlash later when monitoring data
show that actual progress does not match the projections based on surrogate
information.
There is no doubt that good monitoring can be complex and expensive. Monitoring
can be done at numerous levels; the most important criterion is that the monitoring
component should be designed in concert with your objectives. If documenting the
performance of particular management practices under seasonal conditions is
important, a detailed and intensive water quality monitoring regime might be
included. If your objective is to restore swimming at a beach previously closed, you
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-13
might monitor progress by keeping track of the number of days the beach is open or
the number of swimmers visiting the beach. If restoration of life in a stream is the
objective, annual sampling of benthic invertebrates and fish might be included, or a
count of anglers and a creel census could be useful. If another agency is already
conducting monitoring (e.g., making annual measurements of phosphorus load or
regulating shellfish beds based on bacteria counts), you might be able to use such
ongoing monitoring to track your project’s progress. In North Carolina, the Long
Creek Watershed Project used the frequency of dredging at a water supply intake as a
measure of the progress in controlling erosion in the watershed (Lombardo et al.
2004). Regardless of the specific objective, keep in mind that documental measures
of progress toward your water quality goals are important.
Because of natural variability, one of the challenges in water quality monitoring is to
be able to demonstrate a link between the implementation of management measures
and water quality improvements. To facilitate being able to make this connection, the
following elements should considered when developing a monitoring program.
12.6.1 Directly Relate Monitoring Efforts to the Management Objectives
The data you collect should be directly related to the management objectives outlined
in your watershed plan. Often data are collected for historical purposes, but the
information is not used to help determine whether watershed plan objectives are
being met. The monitoring component, which will be used to assess the
effectiveness of implementation strategies, can also be used to address other
important information needs in the watershed with minimal changes or addition
of resources. Consider a range of objectives like the following when developing
your monitoring program:
? Analyze long-term trends.
? Document changes in management and pollutant source activities in the
watershed.
? Measure performance of specific management practices or implementation
sites.
? Calibrate or validate models.
? Fill data gaps in watershed characterization.
? Track compliance and enforcement in point sources.
? Provide data for educating and informing stakeholders.
When developing a monitoring design to meet your objectives, it’s important to
understand how the monitoring data will be used. Ask yourself questions like the
following:
? What questions are we trying to answer?
? What assessment techniques will be used?
? What statistical power and precision are needed?
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-14 Draft
? Can we control for the effects of weather and other sources of variation?
? Will our monitoring design allow us to attribute changes in water quality to the
implementation program?
The answers to these questions will help determine the data quality objectives
(DQOs) (section 6.4.2), that are critical to ensuring that the right data are collected.
These DQOs also take into consideration practical constraints such as budget, time,
personnel, and reporting requirements and capabilities. Parameters measured,
sampling locations, sampling and analysis methods, and sample frequency are
determined accordingly. It’s helpful to know the degree of measurement variability
you might encounter for a given parameter method and watershed. If variability in a
parameter concentration or value is relatively high because of natural or
methodological causes, it will be difficult to identify actual improvements over time.
You might need to collect more samples, consider different methods, make more
careful site selections, select different parameters or indicators, or use a combination
of approaches.
12.6.2 Incorporate Previous Sampling Designs
If you already developed a sampling plan as part of additional data collection efforts
(chapter 6), start with that plan to develop the implementation monitoring
component. The plan, which was focused on immediate data needs, should have
followed the key steps in the monitoring process (study design, field sampling,
laboratory analysis, and data management). Most important, that additional data
collection plan should have been developed with an eye toward supporting your
long-term monitoring program. The data collected in that effort, along with other
historical data, can be analyzed to evaluate the locations of hot-spots, the sampling
frequencies necessary to adequately capture variability, and other parameters of a
monitoring program. The sampling and analysis done during that phase can provide
an evaluation of baseline conditions; continued monitoring under a similar program
during and after implementation can be used to track trends in response to
implementation of the plan.
Many of the specific elements developed as part of that effort, including DQOs,
measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and a quality assurance project plan
(QAPP), can be modified or expanded for this final monitoring component. KGo
back to section 6.4 to review the information and resources on the selection of sample
design, field and lab protocols, and standard operating procedures.
12.6.3 Monitor Land Use Changes in Conjunction with Water Quality
Monitoring
The monitoring component of your watershed plan should include not only water
quality monitoring but also monitoring on the land, including the land treatments
being implemented and the land use activities that contribute to nonpoint source
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-15
loads. Land treatment tracking is important to determine whether the plan is being
implemented appropriately and in a timely manner. At a minimum, you should track
where and when practices were installed and became operational. But you should
look beyond dollars spent or points on a map and consider how the measures are
working. Structural practices like waste storage lagoons or sediment basins might be
easy to see and count, but their associated management activities are more difficult to
monitor. How have nitrogen and phosphorus applications changed under nutrient
management? Are riparian buffers filtering sheet flow or is runoff channelized
through the buffer area? Are contractors following erosion and sediment control
plans?
Sometimes such questions can be answered only by asking the landowners. Some
agricultural watershed projects have had success in asking farmers to keep records of
tillage, manure and fertilizer application, harvest, and other management activities.
Several Vermont projects, for example, used log books and regular interviews by
local crop management consultants to gather such information (Meals 1990, 1992,
2001). In urban settings, public works staff can be valuable sources of information.
Aerial photography and windshield or foot surveys are also useful (section 6.5.1).
Remember to monitor not just where implementation is occurring but in all areas in
the watershed that might contribute to nonpoint source loads.
A good land treatment/land use monitoring program will help you to
? Know when and where measures are implemented and operational
? Determine whether measures are working as planned and how much they have
accomplished
? Get a handle on contributions of non-implementation areas to watershed
nonpoint loads
? Prevent surprises
Surprises can derail the best watershed plan. An accidental release from a waste
storage facility, a truck spill, land use changes, technology adoption, or the isolated
actions of a single bad actor can have serious water quality consequences and, if the
source is not documented, can cause you to question the effectiveness of your plan.
The result of a good land use/land treatment monitoring program is a database of
independent variables that will help you explain changes in water quality down the
road. The ability to attribute water quality changes to your implementation program
or to other factors will be critical as you evaluate the effectiveness of the
implementation effort and make midcourse plan corrections.
12.6.4 Use an Appropriate Experimental Design
You can choose from many different monitoring designs, such as the paired
watershed, upstream/downstream monitoring before, during, and after land treatment;
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-16 Draft
A covariate is a measurement of those
variables that are not controllable by the
researcher.
and multiple watershed monitoring (Clausen and Spooner 1993; Grabow et al. 1999a,
1999b). Your decision should be based on the pollutants of concern, the length of the
monitoring program, the size of the study area, and the objectives of the monitoring
program.
Loads can be measured at many levels of resolution; tributaries and watersheds
commonly serve as the geographic unit for load estimation. Loads can also be
measured for specific subwatersheds or sources, providing watershed managers with
opportunities to track priority areas and determine whether funding is being directed
efficiently to solve the water quality problems. The time frame for estimating loads
should be selected to fit the watershed plan and the watershed of interest. For
example, seasonal loads might be most relevant for nonpoint sources, whereas annual
loads might be more appropriate in watersheds with fairly consistent wastewater
treatment plant discharges. Because nonpoint source loads are subject to considerable
variability due primarily to weather but also to source management, it is
highly advantageous to use controlled studies (e.g., paired watersheds,
upstream-downstream pairs before and after implementation) and
covariates (e.g., flow) to aid in interpreting load patterns. KSee appendix
A for resources on developing an effective monitoring program.
12.6.5 Conduct Monitoring for Several Years Before and After
Implementation
You should conduct multiple years of monitoring both before and after
implementation of your management measures to increase your chances of
documenting water quality changes. Year-to-year variability is often so large that at
least 2 to 3 years each of pre- and post-management practice implementation
monitoring may be necessary to document a significant water quality change
following management practice implementation. Also, longer-duration monitoring
may be necessary where water quality changes are likely to occur gradually.
Sampling frequency and collection should be consistent across years.
12.6.6 Build In an Evaluation Process
When developing your monitoring program implementation strategy, plan for
evaluation and reporting processes that will record change and provide the basis for
appropriate modifications to the watershed plan. Link assessments and reporting
formats back to the objectives by comparing monitoring results for the indicators to
the criteria for judging progress toward milestones.
Monitoring programs frequently should be modified as they are implemented.
Flexibility is important in the implementation strategy so that staff can make minor
refinements “on the fly,” while significant adaptations might need to be considered
periodically by sponsors and decisionmakers (e.g., following review of an annual
progress report). This applies to revisions to the QAPP as well.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-17
Improper maintenance is one of the most common
reasons for failure of water quality controls to function
as designed. It’s important to consider who will be
responsible for maintaining permanent management
practices, what equipment is required to perform the
maintenance properly, and the long-term cost involved
in maintaining structural controls.
KFor a complete list of federal funding, visit the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(www.cfda.gov). This Web site provides access to a
database of all federal programs available.
Also visit www.epa.gov/watershedfunding to view the
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed
Protection. This interactive Web site helps match
watershed project needs with funding sources.
12.7 Estimate Financial and Technical Assistance Needed and
the Sources/Authorities that Will Be Relied on for
Implementation
This phase of the monitoring process should result in element d of the nine
elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element d is “Estimate of the amounts of
technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and
authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.”
A critical factor in turning your watershed plan into action is the ability to fund
implementation. Funding may be needed for multiple activities such as management
practice installation, I/E activities, monitoring, and administrative support. In
addition, you should document what types of technical assistance are needed to
implement the plan and what resources or authorities will be relied on for
implementation, in terms of both initial adoption and long-term operation and
maintenance (O&M). For example, if you have identified adoption of local
ordinances as a management tool to meet your water quality goals, you should
involve the local authorities that are responsible for developing these ordinances.
The estimate of financial and technical assistance should take into account the
following:
? Administration and management services, including
salaries, regulatory fees, and supplies, as well as in-kind
services efforts, such as the work of volunteers and the
donation of facility use
? I/E efforts
? The installation, operation, and maintenance of
management measures
? Monitoring, data analysis, and data management activities
12.7.1 Identify Funding Sources
You can access hundreds of funding sources to help fund the
implementation of your watershed plan. These sources include
funding opportunities from federal, state, local, and private
sources. Try to access several different funding sources so you
don’t put all of your eggs into one basket. The greatest
challenge is identifying these opportunities in an efficient
manner. Several online tools can help narrow the places you
need to look. For example, EPA has developed Guidebook of
Financial Tools: Paying for Sustainable Environmental
Systems, which is available for download at
www.epa.gov/efinpage/guidbkpdf.htm. The guide was
designed to enable watershed practitioners in the public and
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-18 Draft
KVisit www.rivernetwork.org for the Directory of
Funding Sources for Grassroots River and Watershed
Conservation Groups. It lists private and corporate
sources, as well as federal sources. Note: This
resource is for River Network members only.
Plan2Fund was developed by the Environmental
Finance Center (EFC) at Boise State University to
help organizations determine the amount of outside
funding necessary to achieve the goals and objectives
of their watershed management plan. The Plan2Fund
tool leads organizations through the process of
estimating implementation costs for their goals and
objectives, evaluating local funding options, and finally
identifying gaps in funding. With the output from
Plan2Fund, users can then search EFC's Directory of
Watershed Resources database for federal, state, and
private funding sources based on identified funding
needs.
Khttp://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/Tools_Services/Plan2
Fund/plan2fund.htm
private sectors to find appropriate methods to pay for environmental protection
efforts. It was developed by EPA’s Environmental Financial Advisory Board and the
Agency’s network of university-based Environmental Finance Centers.
12.7.2 Leverage Existing Resources
Some of the costs needed to implement your watershed plan can be defrayed by
leveraging existing efforts as well as seeking in-kind services. Some examples
follow.
Use existing data sources. Most geographic areas have some associated background
spatial data in the public domain, such as digital elevation models, stream coverages,
water quality monitoring data, and land cover data in the form of imagery like
orthophoto quads or raster satellite image files.
Use existing studies. Many agencies have reports of previous analyses, providing
useful baseline information and data, such as delineated subwatersheds or a historical
stream monitoring record. They might have been done for
another purpose, such as a study on fish health in a particular
stream, but they can contribute to understanding the
background of the current concerns.
Use partnerships. State, county, or federal agencies working
as technical assistance providers and implementing natural
resource program initiatives can offer computer services and
expertise, such as performing GIS analysis or weaving
together elements of different programs that might apply to
the local area. They might be in a position to write part of the overall watershed-
based plan if they have existing generalized watershed
characterization studies.
Cover incidental/miscellaneous costs through contributions.
For example, staff time to assemble needed elements, supplies,
and meeting rooms for a stakeholder or scoping meeting can
all be donated. As a start, Krefer back to the checklist you
compiled from your stakeholder group in section 3.3.4 to
determine what resources are available within the group.
12.7.3 Estimating Costs
Many factors affect the cost of implementing management
measures as part of a watershed plan, including the following:
? Type of management practice/restoration activity
? Installation costs
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-19
? Operation and maintenance costs
? Method of cost calculation
? Annual tasks and milestones that you establish (see the next sections)
KGo back to section 11.5, where you researched cost considerations related to the
proposed management measures. Some management measures might be more
diffusely implemented across the watershed, and therefore the costs might be difficult
to quantify. For example, developers across the watershed are encouraged to use
fencing to prevent sediment runoff on their construction sites, and homeowners are
encouraged through educational outreach to keep their neighborhood storm drains
free of debris. These actions are voluntary, and therefore no specific operational costs
are associated with them. However, costs would be associated with the I/E activities.
In refining the implementation plan to establish your overall financial and technical
assistance needs, you should develop a more detailed estimate of the annualized cost
of your actions. Table 12-2 provides annualized cost estimates for selected
management practices from Chesapeake Bay installations.
Monitoring Program Costs
The cost of your monitoring program will depend on many factors, including the
program design, the number and locations of sampling stations, the types and number
of samples collected, the variables measured, staff and equipment required, local
conditions, and others. Because these factors vary so much from watershed to
watershed, it is impossible to establish general unit costs for monitoring activities. In
building a monitoring budget for your program (or in putting together a grant
application to support monitoring), you should consider costs in several common
categories, which are described below.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-20 Draft
Table 12-2. Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices from Chesapeake Bay
Installations
a
Practice
Practice Life Span
(Years)
Median Annual Cost
b
(EAC
c
)
($/ac/yr)
(1990 dollars)
Median Annual Cost (EAC
c
)
($/ac/yr)
(2002 dollars)
Terraces 10 84.53 116.35
Diversions 10 52.09 71.70
Sediment retention water control
structures
10 89.22 122.81
Grassed filter strips 5 7.31 10.06
Cover crops 1 10.00 13.76
Permanent vegetative cover on
critical areas
5 70.70 97.31
Reforestation of crop and
pasture
d
10 46.66 64.22
Grassed waterways
e
10 1.00/lin ft/yr 1.38
Animal waste system
f
10 3.76/ton/yr 5.18
a
Median costs (1990 dollars) obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office management practice tracking database and
Chesapeake Bay Agreement Jurisdictions' unit data cost. Costs per acre are for acres benefited by the practice.
b
Annualized management practice total cost, including operation and maintenance, planning, and technical assistance costs.
c
EAC = equivalent annual cost: annualized total costs for the life span. Interest rate = 10%.
d
Government incentive costs.
e
Annualized unit cost per linear foot of constructed waterway.
f
Units for animal waste are given as dollars per ton of manure treated.
Source: Camancho 1991.
Staffing
Consider how much staff time you’ll need to carry out the activities necessary to
conduct monitoring, including
1. Researching and selecting sampling sites
2. Installing and maintaining structures or instruments
3. Collecting samples and other field data
4. Delivering samples to the laboratory
5. Maintaining field data and other records
Note that the relationship the between number of stations or samples and the staff
requirement is not always linear; operating 20 stations might cost only 25 percent
more in staff time than operating 10 stations. This is especially true if you are hiring
full-time staff dedicated to a single project. Consider sharing staff with other
activities if possible. Monitoring programs associated with a college or university can
take advantage of graduate student efforts to provide some staff support.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-21
Twelve state and local Vermont entities facing Stormwater
Phase II requirements formed the Chittenden County
Regional Stormwater Education Program (RSEP). The
RSEP focused on increasing awareness and changing
behaviors through social marketing by hiring a local
marketing firm to craft a communications and marketing
strategy based on the results of a public stormwater
awareness survey. Each entity provided $5,000 toward the
development and implementation of the strategy. This
approach was cost-effective for each entity and allowed for
the development of a consistent message across the state.
The RSEP paid $20,500 in message distribution through
the media (newspaper, cable TV, and radio broadcasts) in
the first year. KFor more information, visit the RSEP Web
site www.smartwaterways.org.
Equipment
Sophisticated monitoring instrumentation like autosamplers, electronic flow
recorders, and dataloggers can automate much of the monitoring program and offset
some staffing resources. This might be a desirable approach in long-term, relatively
intensive monitoring programs. However, such equipment is often expensive, has a
steep learning curve, and sometimes has a greater risk of failure compared to manual
sampling and measurement. The balance between high-
tech, high-initial-expense equipment and more manual,
labor-intensive approaches will depend on your available
budget and monitoring design. Remember to consider
power, shelter, and security requirements for expensive
electronic equipment in your budget. If you decide to use
electronic equipment, consider renting or purchasing used
equipment rather than purchasing new equipment
outright, especially for short-term projects.
Supplies
Remember to account for sampling supplies like bottles,
batteries, chemicals, labels, ice, shipping, and so forth in
estimating your monitoring costs, as well as supplies
needed to tabulate and report data collected.
Logistics
Operating and maintaining a sampling network requires logistical support. The cost
of travel between the project base and remote sampling locations must be considered.
Be sure to include routine maintenance and field checks in mileage estimates, in
addition to actual sampling runs. You might also need to factor in some additional
costs to deal with difficult weather conditions such as harsh winters or major storms.
Consider the sample handling and holding requirements for the variables you’re
monitoring. The cost of collecting, preserving, and transporting a sample for analysis
of a variable with a 24-hour holding time might far exceed the costs associated with a
variable with a 7-day holding time. Factor this into your decision on whether it’s
really necessary to measure soluble reactive phosphorus or whether total phosphorus
analysis will meet your needs. Travel distance and time to deliver samples, as well as
the lab’s ability to accept certain kinds of samples on certain days will affect costs, as
well as your decisions on where to collect samples and what lab to chose. The lowest
quoted per sample price might not adequately represent the total cost to your
monitoring budget.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-22 Draft
Laboratory
Analytical costs are relatively straightforward to estimate using direct price quotes
from one or more laboratories. Be sure to discuss sample numbers and schedules at
the start so that the lab can give you its best price. Remember to include your own
field quality control samples in your estimates of total sample numbers for the lab.
Training
Your monitoring staff might need training in specialized monitoring techniques such
as stream morphologic assessment or collection and identification of stream biota.
Determine the costs (both tuition and travel) for any such training your staff will
require in carrying out your monitoring program. Remember to budget for training
for staff turnover that is likely to occur over the course of the monitoring program.
Data management
Hardware, software, or programming costs might be associated with storage and
manipulation of monitoring data. Budget for anticipated costs in statistical analysis or
other data reporting that may be contracted out.
I/E Program Costs
Just as for other parts of the watershed plan implementation, you should determine
roughly how much funding you’ll need to implement your I/E program. I/E program
costs are almost always higher than you expect, especially if you plan to use mass
media formats such as TV or radio PSAs. When planning your I/E budget, don’t
forget to include travel expenses, supplies (e.g., display booths, paper, stormdrain
stencil kits), giveaways, and vendor services such as printing and Web site
registration. You can keep costs down by teaming with universities, local civic
organizations, or area businesses. You might also team with other localities or
watershed organizations that face the same issues.
12.7.4 Identify Technical Assistance Needs
Technical assistance can take many forms. At the beginning stages of your watershed
planning process, it might be collecting or compiling data on the watershed. Later it
might involve the work of selecting an appropriate model to work on your
watershed's particular issues (e.g., lake-based pollution, sediments) and then actually
running the model. After specific practices have been selected, technical assistance in
siting chosen practices or selecting among several different management practices for
cost-effectiveness might be necessary. Technical assistance can also include advice
on the best combination of practices and tools to apply to a particular site based on
previous similar work and experience.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-23
Federal
In addition to the in-house technical support that USDA provides
through Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service
Agency, and conservation districts, the Department has expanded the
availability of technical assistance to landowners by encouraging the
use of technical service providers (TSPs). TSPs are independent of
USDA but are certified in delivering conservation technical services to
landowners. Keep in mind that TSPs are private professional
consultants that provide services to landowners at a cost, unlike the
extension agents, Soil and Water Conservation District technicians,
and NRCS field staff whose services are free to the landowner. USDA
developed a registry of TSPs to enable landowners to locate and
choose TSPs in their service area. KGo to http://techreg.usda.gov.
State
USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service partially sponsors its state partners through Extension Service
programs based in land-grant universities. Frequently state
Cooperative Extension Services have a research and education focus
that results in their being able to provide cutting-edge technical
expertise at a regional scale. KGo to
www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html.
The process of delivering technical assistance
can include working one-on-one with a
landowner to share technical design
specifications and similar site experiences;
developing engineering plans for a property;
showing a demonstration site; presenting
drawings, plans, and documents that can be used
as a technical record to go along with a
watershed plan; or simply providing oversight.
Technical assistance is offered by many agencies
and organizations, including local conservation
districts, state natural resources agencies,
universities, and federal agencies.
12.7.5 Identify the Relevant Authorities
Needed for Implementation
In addition to the required technical assistance
you might need, it’s critical to identify any
relevant authorities or legislation that
specifically allows, prohibits, or requires an
activity. For example, if you’re planning a
streambank restoration project that involves
working in the stream channel, a section 404
dredge and fill permit might be required. You should also identify the available
authorities that can help you to implement your plan. For example, you might
identify stream buffer ordinances, nutrient management plans, or animal feeding
operation (AFO) regulations. KIn chapter 3 you identified other local, state, tribal,
and federal planning efforts that you wanted to coordinate with, and these same
programs can help you identify any relevant authorities that you might have missed.
Close communication with the local agency staff and state agency personnel can help
ensure that you have considered the relevant statutes and authorities needed for
implementation.
12.8 Develop the Implementation Plan Basics
The implementation plan is a road map for turning your management strategies from
paper into reality and for determining how you’re going to measure progress toward
meeting your goals. Putting the implementation pieces together involves laying out
the detailed tasks that need to be done, identifying who will do them, identifying the
funding and technical assistance needed, and setting up a process to measure the
effectiveness of the program. The implementation plan, or action plan, is a subset of
the overall watershed plan.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-24 Draft
If you’ve followed the approach of this handbook, you’ve already defined the
scope of your plan (chapter 4); estimated pollutant loads and set goals for load
reductions (chapters 8 and 9); and identified, evaluated, and selected a
management strategy (chapters 10 and 11). From information developed in these
steps, you should have a reasonable idea of what, where, and when practices need
to be implemented in the watershed to achieve your goals. Although the level and
source of resources necessary to complete implementation might not be completely
known at this point in time, the procedures recommended in this section will help
identify responsible parties, costs, sources of funds, and ways to track progress that
will improve the likelihood of assembling the pieces necessary to successfully
implement your plan. A good implementation plan that is part of a good overall
watershed plan can be very helpful in securing funds for implementation.
To provide a clear guide for stakeholders implementing the watershed plan, it is
recommended that you compile basic information into several matrices. For each
selected management option or related management options, work with your
stakeholders to outline the following:
? Actions that need to be taken (including any special coordination, education, or
public outreach needed to improve the chances of implementation.)
? The responsible party(ies) for the action/education
? Time frame for implementing the actions
? Time frame for operation and maintenance requirements
? Estimated total cost and annual cost for each action
? Funding mechanism(s) for each action
? Measures or tracking indicator
Your implementation plan should include all activities, including I/E activities and
monitoring requirements. Once all the elements of the plan are laid out in matrices,
you’ll be able to identify any gaps you might have or areas that you did not address.
Developing an implementation plan matrix can also help to increase the likelihood of
completing actions on time and within budget, as well as facilitating the development
of annual work plans. The challenge, however, is to generate implementation
information that is accurate and acceptable to the stakeholders responsible for
carrying out the recommended actions. Meeting that challenge requires research by
each responsible party (and consensus-building discussions where multiple parties
are involved) regarding feasibility, constraints, possible funding sources, and timeline
confirmation for each primary action to be taken. It’s important to identify areas of
uncertainty and constraints so they can be addressed or planned for where possible.
Where funding resources among stakeholders appear to be falling short of projected
needs, place emphasis on identifying other potential sources of funding or technical
assistance from outside watershed partners. Worksheet 12-1 (below) is an example of
an implementation matrix, based on the Kblank worksheet provided in appendix B.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-25
As a companion matrix to the implementation of your management practices, I/E
activities, and monitoring program, you should document how you will measure
progress toward reducing pollutant loads and meeting your goals. The criteria you
select should correspond to the management objectives in the previous table. KA
blank worksheet 12-2 is provided in appendix B.
12.9 Develop an Evaluation Framework
There are two primary reasons to evaluate your watershed program. First, you want
to be able to prove, or demonstrate, that by implementing the management measures,
you are achieving your water quality and other environmental goals. Second, you
want to be able to continually improve your program in terms of efficiency and
quality. This adaptive management process should be built into your program before
implementation so that you ask the right questions and use the answers to strengthen
your program. Collecting information does no good if you don’t use the information
to improve your watershed program.
You should develop an evaluation framework to use once you begin to implement
your watershed plan. The framework should be developed before implementation so
that you can effectively identify what measures you want to evaluate and determine
how you will obtain the information. You should recognize that you’ll continue to
build on the initial characterization, filling information gaps and refining the
connections between sources, pollutants, and load reductions. You’ll adapt your
implementation efforts on the basis of new information collected, changes in the
operational structure of your partnership, emerging technologies, and monitoring
results.
12.9.1 What Parts of Your Program Should You Evaluate?
In general, you will evaluate three major parts of your watershed implementation
program to be able to demonstrate progress and make improvements in your
program. You need to structure your evaluation framework to consider all three
components and develop indicators that will measure each. The components are
inputs, outputs, and outcomes. When “filling in” these components, you’ll work
backward, starting with your desired outcomes (goals) and working toward
identifying the specific inputs needed to achieve those outcomes.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-26 Draft
O
Watershed Goals
Goal 1: Restore water quality to meet designated uses for fishing
Objective 1: Reduce sedimentation by 20 percent
Tasks for G1/O1
Respon.
Party
Total
Costs
Funding
Mechanism Indicators Milestones
Short
< 1 yr
Med
< 3 yr
Long
< 7 yr
Remaining
Task 1
Seek donation of
conservation easements
from property owners
along Baron Creek
Local land
trust
$0 # acres donated 2 7 10 10
I/E Activities Task 1
Hold informational
workshop with property
owners
Develop brochures on
how to donate easements
Local land
trust
$3,000 Sect. 319
funding
# workshops held
# participants
# requests for
assistance
3
40
2
3
45
4
0
Task 2
Purchase greenway
alongside Baron Creek
County park
district
$2,000/
mile
County
general
funds
# miles purchased 2 4 7 5
I/E Activities Task 2
None
Task 3
Develop ordinance
requiring a 150-ft
easement for new
construction in floodplain
of Baron Creek
Local
municipalities
$0 # ordinances
adopted
1 2 4 0
I/E Activities Task 3
Run articles in local
newspapers on benefits of
ordinances
Watershed
Committee
$0 # articles 2580
Task 4
Install 300 ft of riparian
buffer along Baron Creek
County dept.
of natural
resources
$2,500 EQIP, CREP # ft of buffers 100
Monitoring Activities for
Task 1/2/3
Monitor sediment load
before and after
implementation
State DEP $5,000/
yr
Section 319
funding, state
funds
Annual TSS load
(kg/yr)
2,500 2,250 2,000
Evaluate substrate habitat State DEP &
Watershed
Committee
$3,000/
yr
Section 319
funding, local
volunteers
% embeddedness
% sand
12
10
6
5
3
2
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-27
O
[Note: Complete one worksheet for each management objective identified.]
Management Objective: Reduce nutrient inputs into Cane Creek by 20 percent
Indicators to Measure
Progress
Target
Value or
Goal
Interim Targets
Short-term Medium-term Long-term
P load 44 t/yr 52 t/yr 49 t/yr 44 t/yr
# of nuisance algae blooms 0 2 1 0
transparency 5.5 m 4.1 m 4.9 m 5.5 m
frequency of taste and odor
problems in water supply
011 0
hypolimnetic DO 5.0 mg/L 2.5 mg/L 4.0 mg/L 5.0 mg/L
1. Inputs: the process used to implement your program. This includes inputs to your
program such as resources of time and technical expertise, organizational structure
and management, and stakeholder participation.
Sample evaluation questions:
? Are the human and monetary resources allocated sufficient to carry out the tasks?
? Did stakeholders feel they were well represented in the process? (K appendix B,
O worksheet 13-1)
2. Outputs: the tasks conducted and the products developed. This includes the
implementation activities such as installing management practices, developing
brochures, holding workshops, preparing fact sheets, and so forth.
Sample evaluation questions:
? Are we meeting our implementation schedule?
? Are we meeting our milestones?
? Did we meet our milestones sooner than expected?
? Did we reach the appropriate target audiences with our I/E materials?
3. Outcomes: the results or outcomes seen from implementation efforts. This
includes increased awareness and behavior changes among the watershed
community, as well as environmental improvements such as water quality, habitat,
and physical changes. Outcomes can be further broken down into short-term
outcomes and long-term outcomes.
Sample evaluation questions:
? Did the target audience increase its awareness of watershed issues?
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-28 Draft
? Did the behaviors of the target audience change as a result of implementing the
watershed plan?
? Are we meeting our interim targets for pollutant load reductions?
? Are pollutant loads being reduced?
Once you’ve determined the questions you want to answer, you can set up the
framework to collect the necessary information. One approach to setting up an
evaluation framework is to use a logic model.
12.9.2 Using a Logic Model to Develop an Evaluation Framework
Many programs use a logic model (figure 12-1) to set up and evaluate their programs.
The model is an important tool in the adaptive management process because it allows
you to better document the results you find and helps you determine what worked
and why. Logic models have been used for years in social programs and are now
being used in the context of watershed management.
Basically, a logic model is a picture or visual representation of your program,
showing the inputs needed to implement your program, the expected outputs to be
performed, and the anticipated outcomes from implementing these activities. Using a
logic model can help you to better document the outcomes, discover what works and
why, and continually make changes to your program based on your evaluation
results.
There are several benefits to using a logic model. First, the model puts all the
information about your program in one place and can summarize a complex program
Figure 12-1. Logic model components.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-29
in a simple picture. This is particularly helpful when communicating key activities to
stakeholders. A logic model also shows the connections that link the inputs to results
so that you can readily identify any gaps in the sequence. Finally, a logic model
provides a “to do” list for evaluation, signaling what needs to be evaluated and when.
The basic structure of a logic model includes stating your situation or problem,
recording the inputs or resources needed, listing anticipated outputs from activities,
and ultimately outlining the expected outcomes from the program. As you move from
the inputs through the outputs and to the outcomes, there should be a direct link
between the steps. These links are called “if...then” relationships. For example, if you
invest the required staff time and resources (inputs), you’ll be able to conduct the
outlined activities (outputs). If you conduct those activities, you’ll see the expected
results (outcomes). Setting up a logic model this way can help you to identify gaps
and revise some of the parameters. See figure 12-2 for an example logic model for
water quality improvements.
KThe resources section in appendix A provide more information on how to develop
and use logic models to evaluate your program.
12.9.3 Evaluation Methods
You will use various methods and tools to evaluate your watershed program, such as
baseline surveys, focus groups, direct measurements, and stakeholder interviews. The
important point is to determine what methods you will use before your implement
your program. Identifying these methods will help make sure you are collecting
information that will directly relate to your program. For example, if you wish to do
any before-and-after comparisons, you should have baseline information with which
you can compare the final results. The methods will be used to measure the indicators
you have selected. For each indicator selected, you will identify the method for
measuring the indicator. K See appendix A for resources for evaluation approaches.
Figure 12-2. Sample logic model.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-30 Draft
12.9.4 Timing of Evaluation
Once you know what you want to evaluate and how you’ll collect the information,
you’ll develop a timeline for evaluation. Typically, there are four times to evaluate
your watershed management program. The first is once you’ve completed the plan
but have not yet begun to implement it. The second is during the implementation of
project activities; the purpose of this evaluation is to provide feedback on the
activities so that changes can be made if needed to increase their effectiveness. The
third time is after the project activities have been completed; the purpose of this
evaluation is to provide some measures of project effectiveness. Finally, you will
continue to evaluate after the project has been completed to observe its effects. This
is the most difficult aspect of the evaluation to complete because of lack of long-term
funding. You have the greatest chance of following through on this if you have built
your partnership into a sustaining organization to maintain continuity and stability
through the years. KChapter 13 provides more information on conducting
evaluations during the implementation phase and shows how to use the information
collected to make changes in your program.
12.10 Devise a Method for Tracking Progress
Whether you track your implementation program by using index cards or create a
computer database tracking system, you should identify how you’ll track your
program before you begin to implement it. Specifically, you want to set up a system
that makes it as easy as possible to perform subsequent evaluations of your watershed
plan’s effectiveness
First, examine the type of data that you’ll collect to perform the evaluations and
match it to the appropriate format. For example, if you want to perform periodic
statistical analysis to answer one or more types of evaluation questions, storing data
in a spreadsheet (or a more powerful database program if you have large amounts of
data for numerous indicators) that can be linked to the analysis. If you plan to
conduct spatial analysis and present results in map form, storing information in a GIS
database will be appropriate. You might also be using a complex simulation model
from your assessment on an ongoing basis, and need to update and maintain it with
new information. Whatever your plans for evaluation of the implementation program,
be sure you consider the type and use of the data when setting up the tracking system.
You should also consider how you plan to communicate results to stakeholders and
other parties, and determine your needs for that process. Examine the format of the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-31
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the
University of Illinois Extension, in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency, initiated
a pilot program to develop a GIS-based information system
to track conservation practices being implemented in Illinois
and, in particular, the Illinois River Basin.
The project goals are (1) to provide baseline data to assess
the efficacy of conservation practices and management
techniques in improving water quality and habitat in the
Illinois River Basin and (2) to create a tool that will aid state
and federal partner agencies in planning and implementing
watershed management activities within the Illinois River
Basin, as well as visualizing the individual and cumulative
impact of programs.
To date, conservation easement data for approximately
123,000 acres have been entered and mapped for all active
Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) contracts
in a six-county area of the Middle Illinois River Basin.
The initiative will continue to expand programmatically and
geographically, with the eventual goal of creating a
statewide system that tracks all conservation management
activities of agencies in Illinois.
results—are you communicating progress in improvement
of your indicators, costs of management measures, a
schedule of progress? Also consider your method of
communication—are you sending emails and do you need
to maintain an email list, or do you need a listserv (a
program for distributing email to a large number of
recipients)? Are you sending newsletters through the
Postal Service and do you need to maintain a database of
names and addresses? If you are planning to maintain a
Web site, have you arranged for access to a Web server,
and do you know the Web site address? Be sure to plan
for all of your data management needs as they pertain to
stakeholder communication.
Next, think about staff experience, training, and ease of
use. For instance, if you need to input and track a large
amount of water quality monitoring data and are using a
database, you might need to train others to use the
database system. Alternatively, you could have a database
administrator develop data input forms that are easy to use
and require little training. Web site design and
maintenance require a certain level of expertise,
depending on your expectations about the quality and
complexity of the Web site. There are a number of boxed
programs you can purchase that make Web site design
and maintenance relatively easy.
There are several administrative issues to consider as well.
Be sure to plan for the following:
1. Process and Ownership. Process refers to the procedures you set up to ensure
that tasks are performed and completed. Ownership refers to the specific person
responsible for carrying out each process. It’s helpful to have processes written
out in detail and easily accessible by staff. This helps staff reference how to
perform procedures that occur infrequently, and it facilitates transfer of
responsibilities when someone is out of the office or leaves a position.
Ownership is critical to ensuring that tasks are completed on time.
2. Maintenance Schedule. This is an important component of defining processes.
You should determine a set timetable for various activities, such as data entry,
Web site updates, and database maintenance.
3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Be sure to have procedures for QA/QC.
For example, you might want to have a manager responsible for examining data
before they are entered into a database to make sure the data are reasonable. You
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-32 Draft
might want to have a third party look over data that have just been entered. For
correspondence or reports, you should have someone else do proofreading.
4. Versioning. In some cases it’s important to maintain a file history. This is
important in tracking down errors and preventing important information from
being overwritten. You might also want to refer back to previous versions to
detect changes or report on long-term progress. For files, you might find it
helpful to insert the date and version number into the filename itself (e.g.,
“Progress Report 3-25-05 V2.wpd”). For simulation models, you might want to
create a new directory each time you do a model run. GIS files might also need a
version history.
5. Metadata. Metadata means “data about data,” and it communicates the who,
what, when, where, why, and how about data. You might want to maintain
metadata about certain aspects of project areas. For instance, a database could
have metadata describing its contents, who maintains it, the time period it covers,
sources of information, and so forth. You should give special consideration to
metadata for GIS files that you generate. In fact, some state or federal agencies
might require that you maintain GIS metadata in a specific format if you’re
working under contract for them. You should document sources of data,
processing steps, definitions of database fields and their values, projection
information, and the like. Several scripts and plug-ins for ArcView help with
metadata generation and tracking, and ArcGIS has built-in functionality for this.
Remember that the high-quality work is key for maintaining credibility with your
stakeholders and with regulators. Through careful planning, attention to detail, and
high standards for accuracy, you will retain the respect of those that benefit from
your work.
12.11 Putting It All Together
There is more than one way to assemble your watershed plan, but most plans follow a
similar sequence of organization. An example table of contents from the White Oak
Creek, Ohio, watershed plan (figure 12-3) is provided. KTo download a complete
copy of this watershed plan, go to http://brownswcd.org/action_plan.htm.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-33
White Oak Creek Watershed Plan
Plan Endorsement
Table of Contents
Acronyms
General Watershed Facts
Executive Summary
Project Partners
Section 1: Introduction
Mission Statement
Water Quality Goals
Comprehensive White Oak Creek Watershed Goals
Purpose of Action Plan
Updates and Revisions
Previous Water Quality Efforts
White Oak Creek Watershed Group
Development of the Action Plan
Education/Marketing Strategies and Outreach Goals
Education and Community Outreach
Section II: Inventory of the Watershed
Fact Sheet
Map of Watershed
Introduction
Physical Description
Administrative Boundaries
Districts
Demographics
Economics
Agriculture and Economy
Geology and Topography
Land Form and Slope
Soils
Land Uses
Livestock in Streams
Forested Areas and Riparian Corridors
Floodplains
Agriculture
Chemical Use Patterns
Precipitation and Climate
Surface Water Resources
Wetlands
Tributary
Groundwater Resources
Climate and Precipitation
Flow and Depth
Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlife
Recreation
Historical Information
Historical Sites
Dams
Physical Attributes of the Stream and Floodplain Area
Section III: Water Quality Data
Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Designated Uses and Subcategories for Surface Water
Resources
Aquatic Life Habitat
Water Supply
Recreation
State Water Resources
Aquatic Life Use Designations
Potential Contamination Sources
Overview of Water Quality Impairments
Section IV: Water Quality Issues
Critical Area Table
Major Water Quality Issues
Sedimentation and Loss of Riparian Area
Improperly Treated Wastewater
Excessive Nutrient and Pesticide Runoff
Section V: Load Reductions
STEPL Program
Section VI: Sub-watershed Inventory
Subwatershed Introduction and Goals
1997 Use Attainment Status Summary
Individual Subwatersheds
Physical Description
Tributaries, Reservoirs, Dams, Special Features
Land Use
Point and Nonpoint Causes and Sources
Water Quality Results
Subwatershed Map
Impairments
Background
Problem Statement
Goals
Implementation Strategies/Task Table
Causes/Sources by Tributary
Inventory Spreadsheet
Section VII: Watershed Programs
Previous and active programs
Section VIII: Water Quality Monitoring
Introduction
Program
High School Volunteer Monitoring Sites
Monitoring Parameters
Macroinvertebrate Testing
Future Water Quality Monitoring Activities
Section IX: Funding and Evaluation
Funding Guideline
Evaluation Activity Table
Appendices
Figure 12-3. Table of contents from White Oak Creek, Ohio, watershed plan.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-34 Draft
12.11.1 The Final Review
Once you’ve assembled your watershed plan, take a few minutes to review the
sections. Ensure that you have included the recommended elements for a watershed
plan, which will help to ensure that you have identified measurable goals that will
lead to measurable results. Use the following checklist (worksheet 12-3) as a guide.
KA blank worksheet is provided in appendix B. In addition, some states have
developed checklists to help groups submit watershed plans that meet the nine
elements. KWorksheets from Michigan and Missouri are included in appendix B
(Oworksheets 12-4 and 12-5).
O
Key watershed planning components Chapter Done? Comments
Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by the plan. 4
Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the appropriate water
quality standards and designated uses.
4, 5, 8, 9
Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be
controlled to achieve the water quality standards.
4, 5, 6
Break down the sources to the subcategory level. 7
Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody. 8
Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water quality goals. 9
Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed. 7, 9, 10
Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the
load reductions.
10, 11
Prepare an information/education component that identifies the education and
outreach activities needed for implementing the watershed management plan.
12
Develop a schedule for implementing the plan. 12
Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining whether management
measures are being implemented.
12
Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved and progress is being made toward attaining (or maintaining) water
quality standards, and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not
been demonstrated.
12
Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being
implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or
maintenance of applicable water quality standards is being achieved.
6, 12
Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, I/E
activities, and monitoring.
12
Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and
associated authorities available to implement the management measures.
12
Appx C
Develop an evaluation framework 12
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
Draft 12-35
12.11.2 Make the Plan Accessible to Various Audiences
Your plan provides an exceptional opportunity to educate the watershed community about
the key watershed issues, goals, and planned implementation activities. Consider
developing a reader-friendly summary version of the watershed plan, a short executive
summary, or a list of frequently asked questions that you can distribute to various
audiences. Distribution mechanisms could include mass mailings, handouts at community
events, or articles in local papers. A press release could also be used to communicate the
availability of your watershed plan for public comment or review. Press releases should be
clear, straightforward, and free of unnecessary words or details. The goal of a press release
is to arouse the curiosity of reporters and furnish information they can use in developing
new stories to publicize your plan.
You should also consider posting the watershed plan on the Internet. With a Web-based
format, readers can view the document at their leisure and you can easily update the plan
as necessary. In addition, you should provide background information on the Web site that
describes how the plan was developed, who was involved in developing it, and how
citizens can get in involved in implementing it. Keep in mind that the downloading
capabilities and processing speeds of computers vary widely, so you should allow readers
to choose which format they would like to view or download, depending on their
computer capabilities. The Upper Neuse River Basin Association posted the Upper Neuse
Watershed Management Plan on its Web site (www.unrba.org/projact.htm#mgmtplan) in
May 2003. Since the plan was posted, it has been downloaded more than 850 times.
When it comes to publicizing your watershed plan, be creative. Team with local schools to
build watershed lessons into science curricula. Develop a slide presentation on the
watershed plan and present it at Master Gardeners or Kiwanis Club meetings. Try to
piggyback on the efforts of other organizations to help spread the word about the
watershed plan. Finally, be inclusive in your efforts to get the plan out. Be sure to develop
written communication in all languages relevant to your community and across various
education levels.
Chapter 12
Design Implementation Program
and Assemble Watershed Plan
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
12-36 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-1
13. Implement Watershed
Plan and Measure
Progress
Read this chapter if...
? You want to figure out what to do after you’ve started to implement the
watershed plan
? You want to get organized for implementation
? You’re ready to implement activities
? You want to prepare work plans that will outline implementation activities over
time
? You’d like to share the results of your effort
? You want to evaluate your program
? You need to make adjustment to your watershed plan
Handbook Road Map
1 Introduction
2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
3 Build Partnerships
4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort
5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory
6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data
if Needed
7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed
and Pollutant Sources
8 Estimate Pollutant Loads
9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions
10 Identify Possible Management Strategies
11 Evaluate Options and Select Final
Management Strategies
12 Design Implementation Program and
Assemble Watershed Plan
13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure
Progress
Chapter Highlights
< Creating an organizational structure
< Implementing activities
< Preparing work plans
< Sharing results
< Evaluating your program
< Making adjustments
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-2 Draft
13.1 What Do I Do Once I've Started to Implement My Watershed
Plan?
Although you’ve expended a tremendous effort to develop your watershed plan,
remember that it is nothing if you don’t implement it. Although many watershed
planning handbooks end with development of the plan, the plan is just the starting
point. The next step is to implement the plan in your watershed. Implementation can
begin with an information/education (I/E) component or with on-the-ground
management measures. Remember, implementation activities should follow the road
map developed in your plan.
When implementation begins, the dynamic of your watershed group, as well as
stakeholders’ level of participation, might change. This is the time when most
members of your watershed group are really excited that something more than a
written plan will come out of the planning efforts. This chapter offers tips and
suggestions on measuring implementation progress, determining when you need to
make changes to your current plan, and sharing the results of your efforts with the
rest of the community.
13.2 Create an Organizational Structure for Implementation
After the plan is completed, you need to determine how you want to continue to
operate. Don’t just assume that you’ll proceed with the same group that helped to
develop the plan. Take a hard look at the planning team and ask the team members if
they want to continue to be involved in implementing the plan. It’s useful to ask the
stakeholders to evaluate the process used to prepare the watershed plan so that you
can improve on the process during implementation. OUse worksheet 13-1 to ask
your stakeholders for input. KA blank copy of the worksheet is provided in
appendix B.
Identify any gaps in skills or resources, and try to find some new faces with skills,
energy, and enthusiasm to move the ball forward. Consider creating a watershed
implementation team made up of key partners, whose responsibilities include making
sure tasks are being implemented, reviewing monitoring information, identifying or
taking advantage of new funding sources, and sharing results.
Make sure, however, that new players that join the team are committed to the plan
and its goals. Seek a balance between bringing in new ideas and energy and
allegiance to following through on your hard-won plan.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-3
To help ensure that you can continue to implement your watershed plan for many
years, consider “institutionalizing” your watershed team. Try to create several
positions that are funded by outside sources to provide continuity and stability. These
positions might reside in other organizations but are tasked with administering the
watershed plan. For example, the county might fund a part-time watershed
coordinator out of the environmental planning department to assist with
implementing your watershed plan.
If you want to make your partnership official, many guides explain how to create a
nonprofit organization such as a 501(c)3. Having this designation is often useful in
O
Possible Evaluation Questions for Participants
Purpose: To determine how the level of participation in the Watershed Stakeholder Committee has changed over the past 2
years and why, and to assess the usefulness of the Committee.
Name/Affiliation: ______________________________________.
PARTICIPATION
1. How many Watershed Stakeholder Committee meetings have you participated in over the past 2 years?
2. If you have not participated in all the meetings, what factors would have increased your participation?
G Hosting the meeting closer to where I live.
G Hosting the meeting at a time that was more convenient for me, such as _______________.
G Providing more advance notice of where and when the meeting was to be held.
G Including topics for discussion that were more relevant to my interests.
G Other:
GROUP STRUCTURE
1. Do you feel the size of the group was adequate? Please explain.
2. Do you feel the composition of the group was representative of the watershed community? Please explain.
GROUP INPUT
1. Do you feel the meetings were held to optimize participation from the attendees? Please explain.
2. Do you feel that your input was incorporated into the watershed management planning process? Please explain.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. What do you think are the most useful aspects of the Watershed Stakeholder Committee?
2. What do you think can make the Watershed Stakeholder Committee more useful?
3. Would you like to be involved in future watershed protection efforts?
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-4 Draft
applying for funding from foundations. KGo to www.foundationgroup.com for
information on how to set up a nonprofit organization.
13.3 Implement Activities
Implementing the watershed management plan involves a variety of expertise and
skills, including project management, technical expertise, group facilitation, data
analysis, communication, and public relations. Your watershed plan implementation
team should include members that can bring these skills to the table. The
management measures you selected, schedules and milestones you set, financial and
technical resources you identified, and I/E programs you developed in the course of
assembling your plan provide a road map for implementation. Follow it. Take
advantage of the partnerships you formed during plan development to work toward
efficient implementation of the plan.
Key implementation activities include the following:
? Ensuring technical assistance in the design and installation of management
measures
? Providing training and follow-up support to landowners and other responsible
parties in operating and maintaining the management measures
? Managing the funding mechanisms and tracking expenditures for each action and
for the project as a whole
? Conducting the land treatment and water quality monitoring activities and
interpreting and reporting the data
? Measuring progress against schedules and milestones
? Communicating status and results to stakeholders and the public
? Coordinating implementation activities among stakeholders, multiple
jurisdictions, and within the implementation team.
To keep the implementation team energized, consider periodic field trips and site
visits to document implementation activities in addition to the necessary regular team
meetings.
13.4 Prepare Work Plans
You’ll use your overall watershed plan as the foundation for preparing work plans,
which will outline the implementation activities in 2- to 3-year time frames. Think of
your watershed plan as a strategic plan for long-term success; annual work plans are
the specific “to-do lists” to achieve that vision. Work plans can be useful templates
for preparing grant applications to fund implementation activities. Depending on the
time frame associated with your funding source, your work plan might need to be
prepared annually with quarterly reporting. It’s also possible to update work plans
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-5
and make some changes, within the original scope of the work plan, as needed.
However, completely changing the focus of the work plan after receiving funding is
unacceptable to most funding sources. Table 13-1 presents similarities and
differences in the scope and breadth of a hypothetical watershed plan with a
hypothetical 319 grant application/work plan for the same area. A written work plan
would go beyond this tabular format and explain each parameter in much greater
detail.
Table 13-1. Comparison of Example Parameters in a Hypothetical Watershed Plan and 319 Work Plan
Parameter Lake Fraser Watershed Management Plan 319 Work Plan #1
Period 2003–2013 2003–2006
Geographic scope 180,000 acres 24,000 acres
Critical areas 52,000 acres 7,000 acres
Goal statement Improve watershed conditions to support sustainable
fisheries
Reduce sediment loadings from priority
subwatershed X
Example objectives
and key elements
? Increase the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) from 30 to 75
? Identify causes and sources of sediment
? Identify load reduction expected
? Identify management practices needed
? Identify critical areas
? Treat 5,000 acres of cropland with crop
residue management (CRM) practices
? Install six terraces to treat 1,200 acres
? Establish five buffer strips for a total of 8,000
feet
Implementation ? CRM: 2,000 acres of row crop/year into CRM
? Terraces: 4 fields/year, 40 fields total
? Buffers: restore 1 to 1.5 miles of riparian area/year,
8 miles total
? Field buffers: 100 fields total
? Develop training materials on CRM in year 1
? Hold two workshops each in years 2 and 3
? 2 terraces/year
? One buffer strip in first year and two each in
years 2 and 3
Costs $4.02 million over 10 years
? $800,000 for information and education (I/E)
? $600,000 for monitoring and reporting
? $1,980,000 for buffers (18,000 acres at $110/acre)
? $140,000 for 40 terraces
? $500,000 for CRM
$250,000 over 3 years
? $50,000 to prepare training materials and
give 5 workshops on CRM
? $160,000 for management practice cost
sharing
? $40,000 for monitoring and reporting
Schedule ? Begin slowly and accelerate (build on successes)
? Establish interim milestones
- Cropland: 2008 – reduce soil erosion by 80,000
tons/year
- Streambanks: 2006 – stabilize 10,000 feet of
eroding streambanks
- 2010 – stabilize 30,000 feet of eroding
streambanks
? Push I/E early and complete by year 6
? Annual reports that track progress
? Coordinate with partners
? See above
? Annual progress reports
Monitoring ? Environmental – water quality, IBI, acres treated, tons
of soil erosion reduced, feet of streambank stabilized
? Administrative – contracts approved, funds expended,
and funds obligated
? Social - landowners contacted
? Changes in public understanding resulting from I/E
? Attendance at CRM training workshops
? Acres of cropland using CRM
? Feet of stream buffers established
? Feet of field buffers established
? Number of terraces
? Environmental: reduction in sediment loads
? Administrative: contracts approved and funds
expended
? Social: landowners contacted
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-6 Draft
KMore ideas regarding sharing success can
be found in the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Success Stories at:
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319
There are two other key pieces of information to include in your work plans. To help
keep track of what will need to be done in the future, it’s important to document what
will not be done in your proposed work plan that relates to the overall watershed
plan. This helps to provide continuity from year to year. In addition, you should
indicate other activities that will be conducted using other funds and activities
conducted by other cooperating groups as part of the watershed implementation.
13.5 Share Results
As part of the I/E program developed in chapter 12, you should
have included opportunities to publicize the plan to increase
awareness of the steps being taken during implementation.
Continuous communication is essential to building the credibility
of and support for the watershed implementation process. Lack of
communication can impede participation and reduce the likelihood
of successful implementation. This is especially critical if you’re
using a stakeholder-driven process. Transparency of the process
builds trust and confidence in the outcome. Regular
communication also helps to strengthen accountability among
watershed partners by keeping them actively engaged. Such
communication might also stimulate more stakeholders to get
involved in the effort and offer new ideas or suggestions. Sharing
results can also help to ensure more consistent watershed
approaches across subwatersheds.
The many stakeholders that have invested time and money in the
watershed plan will want to know if the plan is making a difference.
They’re also likely to want to know what resources have been used to
make that difference and what resource gaps remain. You can be
accountable to stakeholders by regularly reporting information. You
should provide information on interim results and report the ways in
which the plan is working and how you plan to address the
deficiencies. Encourage stakeholders to contribute ideas on how to make
improvements.
Progress and implementation results can be shared through various media formats,
such as press releases, ads in local newspapers, television or radio public service
announcements, or presentations at community meetings such as those of homeowner
associations and local civic organizations, PTA meetings, or other gatherings of
members of the watershed community. You could secure time on the local cable
access station to discuss the watershed plan and share monitoring results with the
public. You might also consider hosting a press conference with local officials and
the stakeholders as a way to thank them for their participation and to inform the
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-7
Figure 13-1. Watershed report card for Clermont County, Ohio.
larger community about the plan’s contents and how they can participate in
implementing the plan. (KSee section 12.2.2 on developing an I/E program.)
Remember to publicize the project team’s accomplishments to county
commissioners, elected local and state officials, watershed residents, and other major
stakeholders. The group might wish to issue a watershed “report card” (figure 13-1)
or develop a fact sheet, brochure, or annual report to highlight its successes. Report
cards let the community know whether water quality conditions are improving
overall. They also allow people to compare results across specific areas to see if
things are improving, whether some aspects seem to be connected, and whether a
change in direction is needed to bring about greater improvements. This is an
effective way to build awareness of the watershed issues and the progress of
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-8 Draft
Figure 13-2. Example adaptive management approach using a logic model.
watershed plan implementation. In addition, when people see progress, they’ll
continue to work toward making the plan a success.
13.6 Evaluate Your Program
Once you’ve started to implement your watershed plan, you need to monitor both
water quality and land treatment to ensure smooth implementation and to measure
progress toward meeting goals. The adaptive management approach is not linear but
circular, to allow you to integrate results back into your program. You need to create
decision points at which you’ll review information and then decide whether to make
changes in your program or stay the course. Figure 13-2 illustrates how the adaptive
management approach feeds back into your program based on information gathered
from monitoring and management tracking. As part of your evaluation efforts, you’ll
periodically review the activities included in your work plan and the monitoring
results to determine whether you’re making progress toward achieving your goals.
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-9
This time series plot of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
data collected in three Vermont watersheds illustrates
the importance of frequent data evaluation. Obviously,
something happened around May 1996 that caused a
major shift in TKN concentrations in all three streams.
In addition, it is clear that after October, no values less
than 0.5 mg/L were recorded. In this case, the shift was
not the result of some activity in the watersheds but an
artifact of a faulty laboratory instrument, followed by the
establishment of a detection limit of 0.50 mg/L.
Discovery of this fault, although it invalidated a
considerable amount of prior data, led to correction of
the problem in the lab and saved the project major
headaches down the road.
O
? Administrative and management activities
? I/E activities
? Monitoring activities
? Additional issues
13.6.1 Track Progress Against Your Work Plans
As part of developing your implementation plan, you devised
a method for tracking progress (section 12.10). Using that
tracking system, you should review the implementation
activities outlined in your work plan, compare results with
your interim milestones, provide feedback to stakeholders,
and determine whether you want to make any corrections.
These reviews should address several key areas:
? The process being used to implement your pro9gram. This
process includes the administrative and technical
procedures used to secure agreements with landowners,
develop specifications, engage contractors, and the like.
? Progress on your work plan. Check off items in your
annual work plan that have been completed.
? Implementation results. Report on where and when
practices have been installed and have become
operational.
? Feedback from landowners and other stakeholders.
Review information on the stakeholders’ experience with
the implementation process and with operation and
maintenance of the practices.
Schedule reviews regularly and formalize the routine
procedures. A simple way to gather this information is to
provide worksheets to the project team at their regularly
scheduled meetings. O Use worksheet 13-2 to check in with
the group and evaluate how things are going. KA copy of the
worksheet with detailed questions is provided in appendix B. Maintain agendas,
minutes, and other records so that important issues and decisions are well
documented. Consider tying each meeting to a simple progress report so that all team
members stay up-to-date. Above all, involve all team members, not just those directly
involved in the specific items outlined above. Communication and sharing of
knowledge among team members is an essential ingredient for success.
13.6.2 Analyze Monitoring Data
As part of the monitoring component developed in section
12.6, you have determined how and where the data are
stored, how frequently they are compiled and analyzed, the
types of analyses that will be performed, and how results
will be interpreted. Two types of analyses should be
considered during the implementation phase: (1) routine
summary analysis that tracks progress, assesses the quality
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-10 Draft
Inventory of practices/measures implemented.
Where and when were measures implemented?
Consider locating implementation as points or areas in
a geographic information system (GIS) and developing
standard maps.
Status of practices/measures implemented
How were structural measures built or maintained? Are
landowners following management practices? For
practices that “grow in” such as riparian buffers, report
on growth of vegetation.
Index of effects of implementation
What is the magnitude of implementation? What are
the estimated effects? In agricultural watersheds, for
example, the number or proportion of acres treated or
animal populations under management practices in the
critical areas can be useful indices of how much
treatment has been implemented. Where land
treatment tracking data allow, report estimates of
changes in nitrogen and phosphorus application under
nutrient management. If possible, estimate changes in
soil loss using tools like the Revised Universal Soil
Loss Equation (RUSLE).
of data relative to measurement quality objectives (i.e.,
whether the data are of adequate quality to answer the
monitoring question), and provides early feedback on trends,
changes, and problems in the watershed and (2) intensive
analysis to determine status, changes, trends, or other issues
that measure the response to the implementation of the
watershed plan.
Routine summary analysis should examine both water quality
and land treatment monitoring data fairly frequently. Simple,
basic data analysis should be done at least quarterly as part of
the regular review process. Progress reports (self-imposed, not
necessarily reports to funding agencies or the public) and
regular team meetings are effective ways to accomplish this.
Even though the process might seem demanding, early
suggestion of trends or problems can prevent major headaches
down the road by detecting changes or problems early.
Feedback from monitoring data can be invaluable in tracking
the effectiveness of your plan and making small adjustments.
To promote consistency and continuity, consider appointing a
single team member as the primary gatekeeper for routine data
analysis.
Routine data analysis in this context does not have to be
complex or sophisticated. Your primary goals are to make
sure your monitoring effort is on track and that you get a
general sense of what’s going on in your watershed.
Because many watershed activities can affect nonpoint source loads, you should pay
attention to broad watershed land use patterns such as overall land use change (e.g.,
abandonment of agricultural land, timber harvest, large urban development); changes
in agriculture, such as acres under cultivation or animal populations; and changes in
watershed population, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and so forth.
An annual look at watershed land use is probably enough in most cases.
Types of Data Analyses
In general, intensive data analysis should be conducted at least annually in a
multiyear watershed plan. The types of data analyses you perform on the monitoring
data depend on the overall goals and objectives, the management approach, and the
nature of the monitoring program; several types of analyses might be appropriate
depending on the monitoring questions. For example, an assessment of the Clinch
River watershed in Virginia used a variety of statistical analyses to relate land
use/land cover data and biological or stream habitat indices. Some of these analyses
involved relatively simple procedures, such as correlations between percent urban
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-11
Evaluate data collection effectiveness and data
quality
Are all planned samples and measurements being
collected? If not, why not? Are there technical,
logistical, laboratory, or financial issues? Are
measurement quality objectives being met? Is the
laboratory meeting the stated detection limits and
quality control standards?
Screen data
Are the data reasonable? Are there major outliers that
suggest sampling or analytical errors that require
attention or something going on in the field that needs
investigation?
Conduct exploratory data analysis
What can the data tell you? Characterize the data with
simple descriptive statistics like mean, median, and
standard deviation. Plot the data as a time series that
is added to each quarter. This approach allows the
team to visualize seasonal patterns, compare data
from different locations, and compare current data with
data from previous years.
Look at supporting data
What other data are available to support your
monitoring? Weather data from the local National
Weather Service station, for example, are often key to
explaining patterns in your data and putting the data in
context. Was this year unusually wet or dry? Did a
100-year storm occur in part of the watershed?
area and fish Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs). Other analyses
were more complex, involving multivariate procedures such
as clustering, multiple regression, or factor analysis to tease
out the stressors most responsible for fish community
impairments in the watershed. Where analysis and evaluation
of management practices are the focus of monitoring, it might
be feasible to use relatively simpler analyses, such as t-tests
comparing indicator levels before and after implementation,
above and below implementation sites, or between areas
where management options were implemented and areas
where they were not. Where adequate preimplementation data
are not available, trend analysis can be used to look for
gradual changes in response to your implementation program.
In some cases, more sophisticated statistical techniques like
analysis of covariance might be required to control for the
effects of variations in weather, streamflow, or other factors.
Determine Who Should Review the Data
Monitoring data might need to be reviewed by several types
of personnel depending on the complexity of the data. For
bigger watershed projects, it’s often necessary to enlist the
help of an expert in GIS applications because maps and land
use relationships are usually critical to the analyses. A
statistician is often required to review the data and help design
appropriate analyses. Note that even the most capable
statistician cannot completely compensate for a weak
monitoring design. Consult a statistician during the
development of your monitoring design (section 12.6).
Additional specialists might be necessary depending on the
types of data reported. For example, a toxicologist should
review toxicity data and a biologist should review
bioassessment data. Finally, the watershed coordinator should review the results of
analyses to ensure that they are on track and to help determine whether midcourse
changes are needed.
Run Models to Compare Actual Results with Predicted Results
Under some circumstances, models might be useful to evaluate the progress of
implementing your plan. You can, for example, compare the predictions of a model
that has been validated for your watershed against actual monitoring data. Such a
comparison can confirm that you are on track toward your load reduction goals or
can tell you that something is amiss. If data do not match predictions, you might be
able to track down possible reasons. The failure of a treatment measure to reduce
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-12 Draft
pollutant load as expected, for example, could be due to problems in installation or
management that can be corrected.
Models are also useful when you need to extrapolate monitoring data to the
watershed scale. For example, you can’t monitor every inch of stream and runoff
from every square inch of land. In fact, often you’ll be lucky if there are monitoring
stations (or more than a couple) in your watershed. With modeling techniques, you
can sometimes extrapolate data from monitoring stations to other locations to check
instream flows, concentrations, loads, or other parameters.
However, always use models with caution. You should not use models as the sole
means of assessing progress or evaluating the effectiveness of your efforts. Models
incorporate many assumptions about how management practices perform, and
without good monitoring data, model predictions can overstate or misstate changes in
water quality. In the Chesapeake Bay, for example, model results have suggested
major reductions in pollutant loads that are not borne out by monitoring data, leading
to a great deal of controversy and uncertainty over the status and direction of the Bay
restoration plan. Always remember that you’re working to reduce pollutant loads to a
real waterbody and that is where you should look to evaluate the effectiveness of
your plan.
13.7 Make Adjustments
If you’ve determined that you are not meeting the implementation milestones or
interim targets that you set for load reductions and other goals, what should you do?
There are several possible explanations for why you haven’t met your interim
milestones or why pollutant loads aren’t being reduced. Sometimes it takes much
longer to see results in the waterbody than anticipated. Sometimes management
practices have been installed but are not being used or maintained properly so they
have lost their effectiveness. Before making any modifications to your watershed
plan, ask yourself the questions in sections 13.7.1 and 13.7.2.
13.7.1 Not Meeting Implementation Milestones
Did weather-related causes postpone implementation?
Installation of many management practices depends on favorable weather conditions.
If you were unable to install these practices because of weather conditions, you might
want to stay the course, assuming you’ll be able to install them in the near future.
Was there a shortfall in anticipated funding for implementation of
management measures?
You might have identified funding sources to implement several of the management
measures. For example, the availability of crop subsidies or funding for cost-share
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-13
(e.g., USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP]) can affect the
installation and maintenance of management practices. If these sources were
insufficient or became unavailable, you need to determine whether the management
practices can still be installed and adjust new targets for the milestones.
Was there a shortage of technical assistance?
Many management practices require technical assistance (e.g., Natural Resources
Conservation Service [NRCS] engineers, Extension personnel, or private crop
management consultants) in design and construction or in management. Lack of such
assistance can slow implementation. You should consult with NRCS and other
sources of technical assistance to determine future availability and possibly adjust
your timetable accordingly.
Did we misjudge the amount of time needed to install some of the
practices?
Installation of structural practices, growth of vegetative measures, or adoption of
management or behavioral changes might take longer than predicted. You might
want to adjust your timetable to reflect this new reality.
Did we fail to account for cultural barriers to adoption?
Cultural or social barriers to the adoption of some practices exist. Some stakeholder
groups might avoid participation in government programs. Traditional aesthetic
preferences might conflict with development of riparian buffers. If such factors
become evident, you might need to increase incentives to landowners or undertake
additional I/E efforts.
13.7.2 Not Making Progress Toward Reducing Pollutant Loads
Are we implementing and using the management measures correctly?
Are structural practices being installed, operated, and maintained correctly?
Remember that the existence of an animal waste storage structure does not itself
guarantee effective animal waste management. Are management changes being
followed? Don’t assume that phosphorus inputs are automatically reduced by a set
amount for each acre of nutrient management implemented. Changes in phosphorus
applications following nutrient management must be documented. This is one big
reason for the land treatment monitoring discussed earlier. If you have instituted
erosion and sediment control regulations in portions of the watershed but the
sediment loads are not decreasing, determine whether the regulations are being
followed, with the proper setbacks, installation of silt fences, and so forth. If
management measures are not being implemented or followed correctly, more
education or technical assistance might be needed.
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-14 Draft
Has the weather been unusual?
Extended wet periods or storm events of unusual magnitude or unfortunate timing
can increase nonpoint source loads. Furthermore, many management practices have a
finite capacity to control nonpoint source loads, and this capacity might be exceeded
during extreme weather events. Before concluding that your implementation program
needs to be revised, check to see if unusual weather events might have contributed to
the failure to reach milestones.
Have there been unusual events or surprises in the watershed?
One purpose of land treatment and land use monitoring is to identify factors other
than the implementation program that might affect water quality. Are there new
sources of pollutants that you did not consider? Before setting off to revise your
implementation program, check to see that no surprises, disasters, or bad actors have
created problems in the watershed that affect your progress or mask the progress that
your plan implementation has made elsewhere.
Are we doing the right things?
If all your measures are being implemented according to specifications and there has
been no unusual weather or other unusual events, you might need to examine the
specifications themselves. If erosion and sediment control regulations have not
reduced sedimentation problems enough, you might need to extend the setback or
increase the inspections of constructions sites for these areas. If your nutrient
management practice is nitrogen-based but phosphorus loads remain high, you might
need to move to phosphorus-based nutrient management. Alternatively, you might
need to expand the level of implementation so that more watershed area comes under
improved management.
Are our targets reasonable?
If load reductions were predicted on the basis of models, plot studies, or idealized
systems, the milestones set for load reductions could be overly optimistic. For most
management practices, reports of effectiveness vary widely, depending on the
pollutant inputs, climate, and monitoring regime. Riparian buffers, for example,
might perform well in plot studies when runoff occurs as sheet flow, but in the real
world concentrated overland flow might bypass the treatment processes. You might
need to revisit your assumptions about expected load reductions.
Are we monitoring the right parameters?
Despite your best efforts to develop a monitoring program that’s targeted to
measuring progress, review the parameters you selected to ensure that they truly will
tell you if load reductions are occurring. Data on turbidity, for example, might not
tell the whole story on the success of erosion control measures if high turbidity
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Draft 13-15
results from fine clay particles that are not controlled effectively by your
management practices.
Do we need to wait longer before we can reasonably expect to see
results?
The nonpoint source problems may have taken time to develop, and it may take time
to clean them up. Pollutants like phosphorus might have accumulated in soils or
aquatic sediments for decades. Sediment could continue to move through drainage
networks even after upland erosion has been reduced. It might be a mistake to expect
an immediate response to your implementation program. You might want to rethink
your targets or timetable for some pollutants.
Revisit the watershed plan
If you’ve ruled out all the above possibilities, you need to consider whether your plan
has called for the right management measures. It’s possible that the identification of
the causes and sources of pollutants earlier in the planning process was not
completely correct or that the situation has changed. For example, from 1978 to
1982, the New York Model Implementation
Project attempted to reduce phosphorus loads to
the Cannonsville Reservoir by implementing
improved management of dairy barnyards and
barnyard runoff. This approach was based on an
assessment that had identified barnyards as the
main source of the excessive phosphorus load.
When the phosphorus load reduction targets were
not met, the project team determined that winter
spreading of dairy manure, not barnyard runoff,
was the actual culprit (Brown et al. 1989). In
such a case, no amount of barnyard management
would address the fundamental problem.
Revisiting the plan and reexamining earlier assessments of the sources of pollutant
loads might be the only answer at this point. The good news is that the land treatment
and water quality monitoring data you’ve collected during this process can contribute
to a better understanding of your watershed. The watershed team can change any of
the elements on the schedule of activities, especially a management measure or
responsible party. It can also change priorities and shift resources to achieve a high-
priority milestone.
13.8 A Final Word
Volumes have been written on watershed management, and not all the permutations
and combinations that you might encounter in your watershed planning effort could
Chapter 13
Implement Watershed Plan and
Measure Progress
Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters
13-16 Draft
be included in this handbook. However, the authors have tried to provide a
framework to help you develop a scientifically defensible plan that will lead to
measurable results and an overall improvement in the water quality and watershed
conditions that are important in your community.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-1
General Watershed Planning Information
The Indiana Watershed Planning Guide
This guide was developed by the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management to assist local groups in developing successful watershed plans and
to establish a common approach for watershed planning throughout Indiana. It
helps users answer the following watershed planning questions: Where are we
now? Where do we want to be? How are we going to get there? How will we
know when we’ve arrived? The guide is available at
www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/wsm/iwpg/content.html.
Michigan’s Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An
Introductory Guide
This guide was developed to help local units of government, nonprofit
organizations, and citizens develop watershed management plans. It outlines a
process for gathering people, information, and resources to protect and improve
Michigan’s water resources. The guide is available for download at
www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-Watershe.pdf.
Ohio EPA’s A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio
This guide helps users develop local watershed plans. It provides background
information about watershed planning, including the watershed approach, what a
watershed plan is and why it is important to develop one, why the plan needs to
be locally based, who should participate in planning, when to prepare the plan,
and limitations to the approach. The guide also provides guidelines to help users
get started with the planning process, inventory the watershed, define the
problem, develop solutions and set goals, and implement the action plan. The
guide is available for download at
www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf.
Pennsylvania’s Watershed Stewardship - A Planning and Resource Guide
This guide, which was developed by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, consists of six toolboxes designed to give grassroots
watershed groups and local governments guidance and a framework for
developing comprehensive watershed plans that address local goals, are
compatible with regional and state-scale planning efforts, and are based on the
most current information available. The Guide focuses on six components,
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-2 Draft
including watershed organization development and sustainability, securing
financial and human resources, watershed assessments, developing the watershed
management plan, implementation, and monitoring for success. The guide is
available on CD or hardcopy by contacting the Watershed Protection Division at
717-772 5807 or emcdonald@state.pa.us The guide may also be downloaded at
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/wsnotebks/
newbooks/guide%20intro1.doc.
The California Watershed Assessment Manual (CWAM)
The California Watershed Assessment Manual provides guidance for conducting
a watershed assessment in California. It is intended to support the planning and
technical needs primarily of watershed groups, but also local and state agencies,
academic scientists, consultants, and individuals involved in developing and
conducting a watershed assessment. The Manual includes guidance on planning
and operational principles and steps that are useful for assessment processes
anywhere in the state. The topics addressed in the Manual cover the primary
natural and human processes in rural watersheds of northern and central
California. The optimal organizational and geographic scale for use of the
Manual is for watershed groups conducting assessments in 10,000-acre to 1
million-acre watersheds. The guide is available for download at
http://cwam.ucdavis.edu.
The Watershed Project Management Guide
This book presents a four-phase approach to watershed management that is based
on a collaborative process that responds to common needs and goals. Chapters in
the book focus on watershed importance, the watershed management process,
partnership development and operation, the assessment and problem
identification phase, plan development, the watershed management plan,
implementation, evaluation, monitoring, models, and social building capacity.
The book is available for purchase at
www.enviroscapes.com/watershed_management.htm.
The Clean Water Act: An Owner’s Manual
This manual was written by River Network to make the Clean Water Act
comprehensible and usable for every American working to protect or restore a
watershed. The Owner’s Manual provides citizen activists with clear descriptions
of the provisions of the act that enhance citizen involvement. The document is
available for purchase at http://www.rivernetwork.org/marketplace/
index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=5.
The Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series
This series from the Center for Watershed Protection includes 11 manuals on
techniques to restore small urban watersheds. The entire series of manuals was
written to organize the enormous amount of information needed to restore small
urban watersheds in a format that watershed groups, municipal staff,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-3
environmental consultants, and other users can access easily. The manuals are
organized by the following topics: an integrated approach to restore small urban
watersheds, methods for developing restoration plans for small urban watersheds,
stormwater retrofit practices, stream repair and restoration practices, riparian
management practices, discharge prevention techniques, pervious area
management practices, pollution source control practices, municipal practices
and programs, a user’s manual for Unified Stream Assessment (USA), and a
user’s manual for Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR). The
manuals are available from the Center for Watershed Protection at
www.cwp.org/USRM_verify.htm.
Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum
The Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum, which is held each year, provides tools
for watershed planning. The 2004 Forum was a daylong presentation about the
nuts and bolts of preparing a watershed plan. A discussion of nine critical
elements of watershed-based NPS pollution control plans was also provided.
Additional information about the 2004 Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum is
available at www.ourwater.org/econnection/connection15/npsforum.html.
Information about the Colorado NPS Program is available at
www.npscolorado.com.
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
EPA’s National Estuary Program was established to improve the quality of
estuaries of national importance. The Clean Water Act section 320 directs EPA
to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in an estuary. This
includes protection of public water supplies; protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, allowance of
recreational activities, in and on water; and required control of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution. Each
National Estuary Program establishes a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to meet the goals of section 320. Program-specific
CCMPs are available at www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ccmp/index.htm.
Additional information about the NEP is available at www.epa.gov/nep.
Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National
Estuary Program
This document (EPA 842-B-05-003) describes the highly successful approaches
to watershed management implemented by National Estuary Programs
throughout the United States. The principles and lessons learned contained in the
document are relevant, not only to the NEPs, but also to other watershed
organizations who are working to implement watershed protection and
restoration efforts. To obtain a copy, contact the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or
www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-4 Draft
A Guide for Local Governments: Wetlands and Watershed Management
This guidebook (Dr. Jon Kusler, Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy
of the Association of State Wetland Managers) was written to help local
governments integrate water resources management and wetland ecosystem
protection efforts. The guidebook has been written for engineers, biologists,
botanists, planners, not for profit staff, legislators and others. It makes
recommendations for integrating wetlands into broad watershed management
efforts and more specific water programs, including floodplain management,
stormwater management, source water protection, point source pollution control,
and nonpoint source pollution control programs. Case study examples are
provided from throughout the Nation. The guidebook is available for download
at www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/aswm/wetlandswatershed.pdf.
Planning As Process: A Community Guide to Watershed Planning
Some of the most successful efforts at solving environmental problems have
happened through local watershed planning projects. Since most environmental
problems originate as local land use issues, it makes sense that local efforts
should be the primary means of determining ways to control land use generated
pollution. This guide, which was developed by the Washington State Department
of Ecology, adapts those efforts and presents a watershed planning process that
has been used through out Washington State by local entities who have
successfully battled water quality problems. However, this guide can be applied
to most environmental problems that require local involvement. Developing a
general process that can be converted into the various applications is the idea
behind this guide. The guidebook is available for download at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9901.pdf.
Example Watershed Plans
Mill Creek Subwatershed Management Plan, Michigan:
www.hrwc.org/program/mid.htm#plan
White Oak Creek Watershed Action Plan, Ohio:
http://brownswcd.org/action_plan.htm
Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan, North Carolina:
www.unrba.org/projact.htm
Virgin River Management Plan, Utah:
http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/WebPage/ReportsPlanAgreements/VRMP/
TitlePage.html
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-5
Oneida Lake Watershed Management Plan, New York:
www.cnyrpdb.org/oneidalake/
Clean Water Act Information
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program
Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987 to establish the section 319
Nonpoint Source Management Program. Under section 319, states, territories,
and American Indian tribes receive grant money to support a wide variety of
activities, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,
technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success
of specific nonpoint source management projects. Go to
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.
Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories
EPA has developed guidelines for state implementation of nonpoint source
management programs under section 319 and for awarding of section 319 grants
to states to implement those programs. The guidelines are available, under “EPA
Guidance,” at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.
Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement
Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense
of Place
This guide addresses the social and cultural aspects of community-based
environmental protection. To obtain a copy, contact the National Service Center
for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or
www.epa.gov/ncepihom. The guide is also available at
www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/pdf/ccecomplete.pdf.
Getting In Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed
This guide provide tips and tools to identify stakeholders, make decisions using
consensus, build a stakeholder group, maintain momentum in the watershed
planning process, and resolve conflict. The guide is available only in pdf format
at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/stakeholderguide.pdf.
Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns
This guide provides detailed information on developing and conducting effective
watershed outreach campaigns. You can download a pdf version at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf.
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-6 Draft
Know Your Watershed
The Center for Technology Information Center (CTIC) has developed a series of
documents to know your watershed. This information clearinghouse for
watershed coordinators helps assure measurable progress toward local goals. The
clearinghouse is available at www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW.
Model Ordinance Language
Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center
Located at CWP, the center provides technical assistance for stormwater
management. CWP also provides a checklist to evaluate community needs and
model ordinances. Go to www.stormwatercenter.net.
EPA’s Web site for stormwater control operation and maintenance
This site provides model ordinance language, example ordinances, and
supporting materials. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/stormwater.htm.
The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
The district provides a model stormwater management ordinance. Go to
www.northgeorgiawater.com/stormwater.htm.
Putting the Water Quality Plan into Action: Tools for Local Governments
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments provides specific actions local
communities can implement to protect their water resources, including
ordinances. Go to www.semcog.org.
Evaluation Tools
Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together
Planning, Evaluation, and Action
This guide provides a step-by-step approach using logic models to effectively
evaluate programs. Available in pdf on their Web site at
www.wkkf.org.
Logic Model Worksheets
The University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension has done quite a bit of
research on logic models and provides online courses and worksheets that you
can download at www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-7
Seeking Signs of Success: A Guided Approach to More Effective Watershed
Programs
This guide includes a step-by-step process and worksheets to conduct meaningful
evaluations of watershed programs. Available for $19.95 at www.rivercare.org.
Establishing Watershed Benchmarks — Tools for Gauging Progress (River
Network. Volume 8, Number 3)
This issue of River Voices focuses on establishing watershed benchmarks,
including watershed health, organizational health, and watershed activities.
Available for $2 at www.rivernetwork.org.
Monitoring Program Design and Implementation
Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source
Controls
This EPA manual gives an overview of nonpoint source pollution and covers the
development of a monitoring plan, data analysis, quality assurance/quality
control, and biological monitoring. To obtain a copy, contact the National
Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or
www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
EPA’s Monitoring and Assessment Web site
This site includes a wealth of information on assessment and reporting
guidelines, databases and mapping capabilities, biological assessment, and
volunteer monitoring. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring.
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program
This guidance recommends ten basic elements of a holistic, comprehensive
monitoring program that serves all water quality management needs and
addresses all waterbody types. It describes a process in which States develop a
monitoring program strategy to implement these basic components over a period
of up to 10 years. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements.
DQOs, MQOs, and Performance Characteristics
The Methods and Data Comparability Board
This board is a workgroup of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and
has developed data and method quality objectives tools. Go to
http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/dqomqo/index.htm.
Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) Appendix C
Appendix C provides information on statistical considerations for data quality
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-8 Draft
objectives and data quality assessments in water quality attainment studies. Go to
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm/calm_appc.pdf.
Sampling Design
Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Survey Design and Statistical
Evaluation of Biosurvey Data
This guidance provides methods to help managers interpret and gauge the
confidence with which biological criteria can be used to make resource
management decisions. Go to www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/biolstat.html.
Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs)
For more information on SAPs check out the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
publication titled Engineering and Design - Requirements for the Preparation of
Sampling and Analysis Plans (specifically chapter 3 – Sampling and Analysis
Plan: Format and Contents and Appendix J – Sampling and Analysis Plan
Review Checklist). Go to www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/
em200-1-3.
Visual Stream Assessment Tools
Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams (SOS) Program
The Izaak Walton Save Our Streams (SOS) program is a national watershed
education and outreach tool to provide innovative educational programs for
groups and individuals. SOS has educated and motivated citizens to clean up
stream corridors, monitor stream health, restore degraded streambanks and
protect dwindling wetland acreage through biological and other assessments,
education, and training. Go to www.iwla.org/sos.
Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT)
RSAT is a methodology for visually evaluating a stream to assess the stream
quality and to identify potential pollutant sources. RSAT was developed for
Montgomery County, Maryland, to provide a simple, rapid, reconnaissance-level
assessment of stream quality conditions. Go to
www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/rsat/
smrc%20rsat.pdf.
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP)
SVAP is designed as an introductory screening-level assessment method for
people unfamiliar with stream assessments. The SVAP measures a maximum of
15 elements and is based on visual inspection of the physical and biological
characteristics of instream and riparian environments. To download a copy of a
SVAP document, go to www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-9
Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR)
USSR is designed to assess upland areas for behaviors that can potentially
influence water quality and to identify promising restoration project
opportunities. Go to www.cwp.org.
Biological Assessment
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers:
Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, 2nd edition
This document describes refined and revised methods for conducting cost-
effective biological assessments of streams and small rivers. It focuses on
periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages, and on assessing
the quality of the physical habitat. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp.
Stressor Identification Guidance Document
This guidance leads water resource managers through a rigorous process to
identify stressors that cause biological impairment in aquatic ecosystems and to
assemble cogent scientific evidence that supports conclusions about potential
causes. Go to www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html.
Summary of Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States,
Tribes, Territories, Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers
This EPA document includes an overview of biological assessment programs and
protocols used at the state level. Go to www.epa.gov/bioindicators.
Modeling Tools
Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development
The Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development
supports the watershed approach by summarizing available techniques and
models that assess and predict physical, chemical, and biological conditions in
waterbodies. Go to www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/comptool.html.
The Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM)
The Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM) promotes
consistency and consensus within the Agency on mathematical modeling issues,
including model guidance, development, and application, and enhances both
internal and external communications on modeling activities. The CREM is the
Agency's central point to address modeling issues. CREM has a comprehensive
online database that provides links to model reviews and resources. Go to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem.
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-10 Draft
Management Measures
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters
This 1992 EPA document describes management measures and associated
management practices for all six nonpoint source categories. The document
includes extensive cost and effectiveness information as well as examples and
detailed descriptions of management practices. EPA has updated and expanded
several chapters of the 1992 guidance. Updated sections are available for
agriculture, forestry, marinas and recreational boating, and urban areas. All of the
chapters can be downloaded at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
International Stormwater Best Management Practices database
This database is operated by the Urban Water Resources Research Council of the
American Society of Civil Engineers under a cooperative agreement with EPA.
The database provides technical documents, software and tools to evaluate the
effectiveness of stormwater runoff BMPs. These tools include standardized BMP
monitoring and reporting protocols, a stormwater BMP database, BMP
performance evaluation protocols, and BMP monitoring guidance. Go to
www.bmpdatabase.org.
National Handbook of Conservation Practices
Written in 1977 by NRCS, it is updated annually. Provides details on nationally
accepted management practices. Available in hardcopy and electronically at
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/nhcp.html.
National Menu of BMPs for Storm Water Phase II
This compliance assistance tool was developed by EPA to help small
communities develop stormwater management programs and select management
practices to control pollutants in runoff. It includes descriptions, cost and
effectiveness data, and case study examples for more than 100 management
practices. Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm.
Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation of
Nonpoint Source Control Measures
There are three documents that provide information on the techniques used to
track, evaluate, and report on the implementation of nonpoint source control
measures. Each document focuses on a different measure: agriculture, forestry,
and urban areas. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix A
Resources
Draft A-11
BMP Costing Information
A list of currently available cost references is given below. Most of these
references are available for free download, but some might only be available at a
university library or by purchase. You should look for local costs before using
these references since construction costs and designs can vary between states.
USEPA BMP Fact Sheets
This comprehensive list of BMP fact sheets contains information on construction
and maintenance costs as well as other monetary considerations. Information is
provided on both structural and non-structural BMPs. Go to
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Some state NRCS offices publish cost information on agricultural practices to
support the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). For an example
of this cost information, go to the “cost lists” section of the following Web site
www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/2005Signup.html.
Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project
This demonstration project has produced cost estimating criteria for both
structural and non-structural management practices. The project continues to
publish information on recent BMP projects. The most recent cost estimating
criteria can be found at www.rougeriver.com/pdfs/stormwater/sr25.pdf.
International Stormwater BMP Database
The American Society of Civil Engineers and USEPA have developed a
stormwater BMP database that contains site-specific BMP information from
across the country. Depending on the location and type of BMP, the database
may provide BMP cost information. It’s available at www.bmpdatabase.org.
Low Impact Development Center
Among many LID resources, the Low Impact Development Center offers a series
of fact sheets with BMP construction and maintenance cost information at
www.lid-stormwater.net/intro/sitemap.htm.
RS Means Construction Cost Data
RS Means publishes construction cost data and updates this information
annually. RS Means publications usually can be found at university libraries. In
addition to construction cost, the RS Means publications contain indices for
converting prices between cities and states. Go to www.rsmeans.com.
Appendix A
Resources
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
A-12 Draft
Performance and Whole Life Costs of Best Management Practices and
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (2005)
Provides an extensive review of BMP costing techniques for selected controls, as
well as a spreadsheet model to estimate costs. Reviewers include Black & Veatch
Corporation; Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas;
Glenrose Engineering; Urban Water Technology Center, University of Abertay;
HR Wallingford Ltd.; Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd. The document is available
from the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) at www.werf.org.
Funding Resources
List of NPS Funding Opportunities
This EPA site provides links to various federal, state, and private funding sources
available to address nonpoint source issues. Go to
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/funding.html.
Catalog of Federal Funding Opportunities
This interactive EPA Web site helps match project needs with funding sources. It
also provides administrative guidelines and applicability for each source. Go to
www.epa.gov/watershedfunding.
Grassroots Fundraising Journal
The Grassroots Fundraising Journal helps nonprofit organizations learn how to
raise more money to support their goals. It offers practical, how-to instructions
on implementing fundraising strategies such as direct mail, special events, major
gift campaigns, and phone-a-thons. It also has tools to help you build a board of
directors that is willing to raise money, choose a database to track donors,
manage your time effectively, and ultimately develop a successful fundraising
program. Go to www.grassrootsfundraising.org/index.html.
A Guidebook of Financial Tools
EPA’s Environmental Financial Advisory Board and the Agency's network of
university-based Environmental Finance Centers developed this guidebook as a
working tool to enable practitioners in the public and private sectors to find
appropriate methods to pay for environmental protection efforts. Go to
www.epa.gov/efinpage/guidebook/guidebooktp.htm.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Appendix B
Worksheets
Draft B-1
WORKSHEET 3-1: Identifying Stakeholder’s Skills and Resources
Name:
Phone: Email:
Skills/resources
U If you possess
these skills or
have access to
these resources
Comments
SKILLS
Accounting
Graphic design
Computer support
Fund-raising
Public relations
Technical expertise
(please describe)
Facilitation
Other:
Other:
RESOURCES
Contacts with media
Access to volunteers
Access to datasets
Connections to local organizations
Access to meeting facilities
Access to equipment
(please describe)
Access to field trip locations
Other:
Other:
Other:
Please identify any other skills or resources you bring to the group:
WORKSHEET 4-1: What Do We Already Know?
1. What are the known or perceived impairments and problems in the watershed?
2. Do we already know the causes and sources of any water quality impairments in the
watershed? If so, what are they?
3. What information is already available, and what analyses have been performed to support
development of a TMDL, watershed plan, or other document?
4. Have the relative contributions from major types of sources of the pollutant or stressor
causing impairment been estimated?
5. Are there any historical or ongoing management efforts aimed at controlling the problem
pollutants or stressors?
6. Are there any threats to future conditions, such as accelerated development patterns?
7. Have any additional concerns or goals been identified by the stakeholders?
WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model
The conceptual model is essentially made up of three parts—the sources (at the top); the
impairments (at the bottom); and the stressors (or the steps/relationships between the
sources and impairments (in the middle).
1. Start at the end: Define the impairments
The impairments are the endpoints for the conceptual model. Add the impairments in boxes at
the bottom of the next page. Put each impairment in its own box on the worksheet. Be as
specific as possible. Keep the impairments on the same sheet (don’t make a separate model for
each impairment). You might find that the impairments share a common source and are linked
in unexpected ways.
2. Go to the top
Start listing the most likely sources of impairment. In general, you will identify many more
sources than impairments. List the sources in boxes at the top of the next page.
3. Identify the stressors and impacts that link sources to impairments
These boxes provide the links between the sources and the impairments. Draw in as few or as
many stressors and impacts as are needed to show cause and effect between sources,
stressors, and impairment.
4. Connect the sources, stressor, impacts, and impairments
Start drawing arrows between the sources, linkages, and impairments. You might have arrows
that go from sources to sources (e.g., between logging and unpaved roads), from sources to
linkages, and finally from linkages to the impairments.
Examples
Use the template and examples on the next page as guides to identifying sources, stressors,
impacts, and impairments in your watershed.
Your sources here
your impairments here
WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model (continued)
WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model (continued)
WORKSHEET 4-3: Identifying Concerns, Causes, Goals, and Indicators
What are the
problems/
concerns in
the
watershed?
What do you
think caused
the problems?
How can we
assess current
conditions?
(Indicators)
What would
you like to see
for your
watershed?
(Goals)
How will we
measure progress
toward meeting
those goals?
(Indicators)
WORKSHEET 7-1: What Data Analyses Do We Need to Conduct?
Questions to Help Determine What Kinds of Data Analyses Are Needed
Question Answer
1. Are water quality standards being met? If so, are they
maintaining existing levels?
2. Is water quality threatened?
3. Is water quality impaired?
4. Are there known or expected sources causing impairment?
5. Where do impairments occur?
6. When do the impairments occur? Are they affected by
seasonal variations?
7. Under what conditions (e.g., flow, weather) are the impairments
observed?
8. Do multiple impairments (e.g., nutrients and bacteria) coexist?
9. Are there other impairments that are not measured by water
quality standards?
Questions to Answer Based on Results of the Data Analysis
1. What beneficial uses for the waterbodies are being impaired? What pollutants are impairing
them?
2. What are the potential sources, nonpoint and point, that contribute to the impairment?
3. When do sources contribute pollutant loads?
4. How do pollutants enter the waterbody (e.g., runoff, point sources, contaminated ground
water, land uses, ineffective point source treatment, pipe failures)?
5. What characteristics of the waterbody, the watershed, or both could be affecting the
impairment (e.g., current or future growth, increased industrial areas, future NPDES permits,
seasonal use of septic systems)?
6. Revisit the conceptual model showing the watershed processes and sources, and revise it if
necessary.
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts
Wastewater Discharges
(Source of information: state water quality program administering NPDES permits)
1. Where are wastewater discharges located in the watershed? If possible, map the locations.
2. What volume of wastewater is being discharged?
3. What are the parameters of concern in the effluent?
4. For each permit, what are the existing requirements?
5. What is the recent (5-year) history of permit compliance? How severe are the violations, and
what caused them?
6. Are significant treatment plant upgrades being planned? If so, will the future discharge show
a net increase or decrease in pollutant loading?
7. Have potential threats to diminishing water supplies been identified in a source water
assessment?
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
(Source of information: local health department)
8. Where are concentrations of on-site systems located? If possible, map the locations.
9. Are there known concentrations of failing on-site systems? If so, where?
10. Is there a homeowners’ education program for proper maintenance of on-site systems? Is
there an inspection program?
11. What is the depth of the water table?
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)
Urban Stormwater Runoff
(Source of information: local government engineering and planning department)
12. Are cities and counties in the watershed covered by an NPDES stormwater permit? If so,
what are the conditions of the permit?
13. Do local governments in the watershed have stormwater ordinances? If so, what are the
requirements?
14. Do the regulations address stormwater volume and pollutant loading?
15. Do the stormwater requirements apply to redevelopment of existing developed areas?
16. Does the local government have a public education program for pollution prevention?
17. Does the local government have a stream restoration and BMP retrofit program? Are
projects being located in your watershed?
18. Are any new ordinances or programs being developed or planned?
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)
Agricultural and Forestry Practices
(Sources of information: local NRCS Conservation District office and Forest Service office, state soil and
water district office, and state forestry service office)
19. Are there areas with active farming or logging in the watershed? If so, map them if possible.
20. Are management plans in place where these activities are occurring?
21. What percentage of the area uses management practices for controlling sediment and other
pollutants? Are these practices effective? If not, why? Are monitoring data available?
22. For areas not using management practices to control runoff, what have been the obstacles
to their use?
23. Are there existing stream side buffers? If so, how wide are they?
Note: Farm*A*Syst is a voluntary, confidential program in each state that helps farmers and ranchers
evaluate pollution risks to their property and take preventive action to reduce those risks. Further state
program information and Web links can be accessed through www.uwex.edu/farmasyst/index.html. Click
on “Resources” and the state of interest. Other programs that have developed from Farm*A*Syst include
Forest*A*Syst, Stream*A*Syst, and Cotton*A*Syst. Forest*A*Syst provides a series of questions for
landowners on the types of practices conducted on their forestland. Stream*A*Syst is a set of materials
that landowners review to determine whether there are stream-related factors to improve with better
management practices. Cotton*A*Syst is an assessment tool to measure current levels of integrated pest
management (IPM) implementation and help cotton farmers improve management practices.
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)
Wetlands and Critical Habitat Protection
(Sources of information: Association of State Wetlands Managers, Association of State Floodplain
Managers, local wetlands partners)
24. Have wetlands been identified and evaluated for the habitat value, water quality benefits,
and flood control contributions?
25. To what extent do natural buffers and floodplains remain in the watershed?
26. What projects have gone into create or restore wetlands and wetland formations?
WORKSHEET 10-2: Documenting Management Measure Opportunities and
Constraints
Sources:
(e.g., streambanks, urban stormwater, failing septic systems, livestock in stream)
Causes:
(e.g., eroding streambanks, unlimited access of livestock, undersized culverts)
Name of management measure or program
(NRCS code if applicable)
Data source (i.e., where you obtained your information on the management measure)
Description (what it is and what it does)
Approximate unit cost (including installation and operation and maintenance costs; may be expressed as
a range)
Approximate or relative load reduction for each parameter of concern (could be high, moderate, low, or
unit reduction per acre per year)
Planning considerations (e.g., project factors such as site size and contributing watershed area; physical
factors such as slope, depth of water table, and soil type limitations or considerations; operation and
maintenance requirements
Skill needed to implement the management measures (e.g., engineering, landscape design,
construction)
Permitting considerations
Other (e.g., stakeholders’ willingness to use the measure)
WORKSHEET 12-1: Template for Implementation Plan Matrix
Note: prepare one worksheet for each management objective identified.
Watershed Goal:
Management Objective (MO 1):
Implementation Activities
Management Measures Who Needs to Be
Involved?
(Authorities/Resp.
Party/Other
Organizations)
Costs
(Annual/Total
Funding Sources)
Schedule/Milestones
Short Med Long Remaining
MM 1
Benefits/estimated load
reduction
MM 2
Benefits/estimated load
reduction
MM 3
Benefits/estimated load
reduction
I/E Activities
I/E1
I/E 2
I/E 3
Monitoring Component
WORKSHEET 12-2: Developing Criteria to Measure Progress in Meeting Water
Quality Goals
Note: Complete one worksheet for each management objective identified.
Management Objective:
Indicators to Measure Progress Target Value
or Goal
Interim Targets
Short-term Medium-term Long-term
WORKSHEET12-3: Basic Components of a Watershed Plan
Key Watershed Planning Components Done? Comments
Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by
the plan.
Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the
appropriate water quality standards and designated uses.
Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar
sources that need to be controlled to achieve the water
quality standards.
Break down the sources to the subcategory level.
Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody.
Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the
water quality goals.
Identify critical areas in which management measures are
needed.
Identify the management measures that need to be
implemented to achieve the load reductions.
Prepare an information/education component that identifies
the education and outreach activities needed for
implementing the watershed management plan.
Develop a schedule for implementing the plan.
Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining
whether management measures are being implemented.
Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading
reductions are being achieved and progress is being made
toward attaining (or maintaining) water quality standards,
and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not
been demonstrated.
Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the
plan is being implemented appropriately and whether
progress toward attainment or maintenance of applicable
water quality standards is being achieved.
Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including
management measures, I/E activities, and monitoring.
Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical
assistance and associated authorities available to
implement the management measures.
Develop an evaluation framework.
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans
319 WATERSHED PLANT REVIEW LIST
Watershed:
Plan(s): Document(s) reviewed and dates.
a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be
controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to
achieve any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed in
item b immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the
significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the
watershed (e.g., including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility, Y acres of
row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control, or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing remediation).
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under
paragraph c below (recognizing the natural variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting
the performance of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the
same level as in item a above (e.g., the total load reduction expected for row crops, or
eroded streambanks).
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans
(continued)
c. A description of the BMPs and techniques (nonpoint source management measures) that
are expected to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under item b
above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan),
and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas (by pollutant or
sector) in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, monitoring and
I&E cost, associated administrative costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be
relied on to implement the entire plan (include administrative, I&E, and monitoring costs).
Expected sources of funding, states to be used section 319 programs, State Revolving
Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve
Program, and other relevant federal, state, local, and private funds to assist in implementing
this plan.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
e. An information/education component that will be implemented to enhance public
understanding of the project and enable the public’s early and continued participation in
selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures that will be
implemented (cost needs to be included in item d above).
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
f. A schedule for implementing the activities and NPS management measures identified in this
plan.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans
(continued)
g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented and what will be done if the
project is not meeting its milestones.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
h. A set of environmental, social, and administrative criteria that will be used to determine
whether the implementation schedule is being met, loading reductions are being achieved
over time, and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standard.
These criteria provide the basis for determining whether the watershed-based plan needs to
be revised or whether the nonpoint source TMDL needs to be revised.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
i. A monitoring and evaluation component to track progress and evaluate the effectiveness of
the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under items
g and h above.
G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated.
G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management
Planning Worksheet
The attached worksheet provides guidance for the development of watershed management
plans that meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency to be eligible for
certain grant funding. It is designed to help the user find basic information to begin the
development of these watershed management plans, as well as providing information about the
nine elements that are required in the plan. The completion of this worksheet does not
constitute an approved plan, but it should provide the user with the basic necessary information
from which an approved watershed management plan can be developed and ultimately
implemented.
Completing the Worksheet:
This worksheet must include the Waterbody Identification Number (WBID) of the impaired
waterbody that the planning effort will impact.
If a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been written for the watershed, the Watershed
Management Plan must be designed to achieve the reduction in pollutant load called for in the
NPS Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL). If a TMDL has not been developed for the waterbody,
the plan must include implementation practices to remove the waterbody from the 303(d) list.
Project Name:
Waterbody Name(s): Waterbody ID Number:
Project
Sponsor:
Address:
Project
Manager:
Phone:
Email:
Watershed Identification
Name of Watershed:
HUC Codes for all 14-Digit Watersheds
in Planning Effort:
Total Area Encompassed in Planning
Effort (Acres):
Approved TMDLs with nonpoint source
impairments (if any) See Attachment B
Waterbody WBID Size Pollutant(s) Source
Does the area encompass a Public Water
Supply?
Yes Name(s):
No
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management
Planning Worksheet (continued)
Elements of the Watershed Management Plan (see Attachment C)
Element A
Pollutant(s)
Addressed in the
Plan:
Pollutant Category (see Attachment D)
(Mark all that apply)
Element A
Quantify Sources of Pollutant
(e.g., # of cattle, # of acres,
miles of stream, etc.)
Ag
CP
Ag
AP
Silv. C
U/
SW
HM LD RE
Sediment
Nutrients
Pesticides
Fecal Coliforms
Dissolved Oxygen
Metals
pH
Other/Unknown
AgCP-Agriculture Crop Production, AgAP-Agriculture Animal Production, Silv.-Silviculture, C-Construction,
U/SW-Urban/Stormwater, HM-Hydrologic/Habitat Modification, LD-Land Disposal, RE-Resource Extraction
NPS Management Measures – Element C
BMP to be
Implemented (For a list
of some BMPs, refer to
the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s
(NRCS) Electronic
Field Office Technical
Guide) Total # or Area Unit of Measure Estimate of Pollutant Load Reduction – Element B
Describe Methods Used to Estimate Pollutant Load Reduction:
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management
Planning Worksheet (continued)
Estimate of Assistance Needed – Element D
Agency Providing Technical Assistance
(For a list of some agencies, refer to appendix J of the
Nonpoint Source Management Plan) Technical Assistance to be Provided
Agency Providing Financial Assistance
(For a list of some agencies, refer to appendix J of the
Nonpoint Source Management Plan) Amount of Financial Assistance Provided
Schedule for BMP Implementation – Element F
BMP to Be Implemented
Anticipated Date of Completion
25% complete 50% complete 75% complete 100% complete
Description of Interim Milestones – Element G
Describe interim, measurable milestones:
Method Used to Determine Load
Reduction – Element H
Pollutant Type(s)
Fixed Station Network
Intensive Surveys
Toxics Monitoring Program
Biological Monitoring Program
Fish Tissue Analysis
Volunteer Monitoring Program
Other(s)
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management
Planning Worksheet (continued)
Monitoring Program – Element I
Describe monitoring component(s):
Information/Education Component – Element E
Describe Information/Education component(s):
WORKSHEET 13-1: Sample Watershed Stakeholder Committee Evaluation
Purpose: To determine how the level of participation in the Watershed Stakeholder Committee
has changed over the past 2 years and why, and to assess the usefulness of the Committee.
Name/Affiliation:
PARTICIPATION
How many Watershed Stakeholder Committee meetings have you participated in over the past
2 years?
If you have not participated in all the meetings, what factors would have increased your
participation?
G Hosting the meeting closer to where I live.
G Hosting the meeting at a time that was more convenient for me, such as _______________.
G Providing more advance notice of where and when the meeting was to be held.
G Including topics for discussion that were more relevant to my interests.
G Other:
GROUP STRUCTURE
Do you feel the size of the group was adequate? Please explain.
Do you feel the composition of the group was representative of the watershed community?
Please explain.
GROUP INPUT
Do you feel the meetings were held to optimize participation from the attendees? Please
explain.
Do you feel that your input was incorporated into the watershed management planning
process? Please explain.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
What do you think are the most useful aspects of the Watershed Stakeholder Committee?
What do you think can make the Watershed Stakeholder Committee more useful?
Would you like to be involved in future watershed protection efforts?
Worksheet 13-2: Sample Questions to Ask Implementation Team at Quarterly
Review of Watershed Management Plan
Review Administrative and Management Activities
1. Are we on track with resources and expenditures?
2. Do we have any gaps in skills or do we need additional technical assistance?
3. What implementation activities have occurred since the last quarterly meeting?
4. Are we meeting our implementation milestones?
5. What are the next management measures to be implemented?
6. Do we have the resources/skills/authorities to proceed?
Review I/E Activities
7. Are we getting participation at the events?
8. What materials have been produced?
9. How were they distributed?
10. What are the upcoming I/E activities?
Review Monitoring Activities
11. Are we meeting our interim load reduction targets?
12. When is the next round of monitoring?
13. How will we publicize the monitoring results?
Additional Issues
14. Are there any upcoming initiatives or new regulatory requirements of which we need to be
aware?
15. Are there any additional issues that we need to discuss?
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary
Draft Glossary-1
Glossary
The following terms are used throughout this handbook. Refer back to this list if you need to determine the meaning
of any of these terms. In addition, EPA’s Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms provides
definitions for a variety of environmental terms and is available at www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms.
Baseline An initial set of observations or data used for comparison or as a control; a
starting point.
Beneficial uses See Designated uses.
Best management practice
(BMP)
A method that has been determined to be the most effective, practical means of
preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.
Biocriteria The biological characteristics that quantitatively describe a waterbody with a
healthy community of fish and associated aquatic organisms. Components of
biocriteria include the presence and seasonality of key indicator species; the
abundance, diversity, and structure of the aquatic community; and the habitat
conditions required for these organisms.
Calibration Testing and tuning of a model to a set of field data not used in developing the
model; also includes minimization of deviations between measured field
conditions and output of a model by selecting appropriate model coefficients.
Clinger richness A metric used to measure the diversity of macroinvertebrates that have the
ability to attach to the substrate in flowing water.
Coefficient of skewness (g) Most commonly used measure of skewness. It is influenced by the presence of
outliers because it is calculated using the mean and standard deviation.
Combined sewer overflow
(CSO)
Overflow from systems designed to collect runoff, domestic sewage, and
industrial wastewater in the same pipe system.
Criteria Standards that define minimum conditions, pollutant limits, goals, and other
requirements that the waterbody must attain or maintain to support its
designated use or uses. Criteria describe physical, chemical, and biological
attributes or conditions as measurable (e.g., parts per million of a certain
chemical) or narrative (e.g., no objectionable odors) water quality components.
CWA section 303(d) Section of the Clean Water Act under which states, territories, and authorized
tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters.
CWA section 305(b) Section of the Clean Water Act under which states are required to prepare a
report describing the status of their water quality every 2 years.
Glossary
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary-2 Draft
CWA section 319 Section of the Clean Water Act under which EPA has developed guidelines to
help states, territories, and tribes implement nonpoint source pollutant
management programs and provide grants to fund the programs.
Delineation The process of identifying a watershed boundary on the basis of topographic
information.
Designated use Simple narrative description of water quality expectations or water quality
goals. A designated use is a legally recognized description of a desired use of
the waterbody, such as (1) support of communities of aquatic life, (2) body
contact recreation, (3) fish consumption, and (4) public drinking water supply.
These are uses that the state or authorized tribe wants the waterbody to be
healthy enough to fully support. The Clean Water Act requires that waterbodies
attain or maintain the water quality needed to support designated uses.
Discounting The process of calculating the present value of a project on the basis of the
current value of the projected stream of costs throughout the project’s lifetime.
Eutrophication Enrichment of an aquatic ecosystem with nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) that
accelerate biological productivity (growth of algae and weeds) and an
undesirable accumulation of algal biomass.
First-order decay A reaction in which the concentration decreases exponentially over time.
Geographic information
system (GIS)
A tool that links spatial features commonly seen on maps with information from
various sources ranging from demographics to pollutant sources.
Hydrologic unit code (HUC) A unique code, consisting of two to eight digits (based on the four levels of
classification in the hydrologic unit system), that identifies each hydrologic unit.
Information/education (I/E)
activities
Public outreach.
Impaired waterbody A waterbody that does not meet the criteria that support its designated use.
Indicator Direct or indirect measurements of some valued component or quality in a
system. Can be used to measure the current health of the watershed and to
provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the watershed goals.
Interquartile range (IQR) The difference between the 25th and 75th percentile of the data. Because the
IQR measures the range of the central 50 percent of the data and is not
influenced by the 25 percent on either end, it is less sensitive to extremes or
outliers than the sample variance and standard deviation.
Management measure A group of cost-effective practices implemented cooperatively to achieve more
comprehensive goals, such as reducing the loads of sediment form a field to
receiving waters.
Management practice A method that is effective and practical for preventing or reducing pollution
from nonpoint sources. Management practices, which are the building blocks of
management measures, are similar to best management practices.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary
Draft Glossary-3
Maximum (statistics) The highest data value recorded during the period of record.
McNeil core A streambed sample collected with a McNeil core sampler and used to
characterize the composition of the substrate.
Mean The sum of all data values divided by the number of samples. The mean is
strongly influenced by “outlier” samples (extremely high or low samples), with
one outlier sample possibly shifting the mean significantly higher or lower.
Measure of central tendency Measure that identifies the general center of a dataset.
Measure of range Measure that identifies the span of the data from low to high.
Measure of skewness Measure that shows whether a dataset is asymmetrical around the mean or
median and suggests how much the distribution of the data differs from a
normal distribution.
Measure of spread Measure of the variability of the dataset.
Median (P
0.50
) The 50th percentile data point; the central value of the dataset when ranked in
order of magnitude. The median is more resistant to outliers than the mean and
is only minimally affected by single observations.
Mesotrophic Describes reservoirs and lakes that contain moderate quantities of nutrients and
are moderately productive in terms of aquatic animal and plant life.
Minimum (statistics) The lowest data value recorded during the period of record.
Model A representation of an environmental system obtained through the use of
mathematical equations or relationships.
Model application The use of a model or models to address defined questions at a specific location.
Modeling system A computer program or software package that incorporates a model and input
and output systems to facilitate application.
Narrative criteria Nonnumeric descriptions of desirable or undesirable water quality conditions.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state,
or, where delegated, a tribal government on an Indian reservation.
Nine minimum elements Components that EPA has identified as critical for achieving improvements in
water quality. EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for section
319-funded watershed plans and strongly recommends they be included in all
watershed plans that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.
Nonpoint source Diffuse pollution source; a source without a single point of origin or not
introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are
generally carried off the land by stormwater. Common nonpoint sources are
agriculture, forestry, urban areas, mining, construction, dams, channels, land
disposal, saltwater intrusion, and city streets.
Glossary
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary-4 Draft
Nonstructural practice A practice that prevents or reduces runoff problems in receiving waters by
reducing the generation of pollutants and managing runoff at the source. This
type of practice may be included in a regulation or may involve voluntary
pollution prevention practices.
Numeric criteria Criteria or limits for many common pollutants that are based on laboratory and
other studies that test or otherwise examine the effects of pollutants on live
organisms of different species.
Point source A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any
single identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, or
factory smokestack.
Pollutant A contaminant in a concentration or amount that adversely alters the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of the natural environment.
Pollutant load The amount of pollutants entering a waterbody. Loads are usually expressed in
terms of a weight and a time frame, such as pounds per day (lb/d).
Probabilistic sampling Sampling in which sites are randomly chosen to represent a larger sampling
population for the purpose of trying to answer broad-scale (e.g., watershed-
wide) questions.
Quality assurance project
plan (QAPP)
A project-specific document that specifies the data quality and quantity
requirements of a study, as well as the procedures that will be used to collect,
analyze, and report the data.
Quartile skew coefficient (qs) Measure of the difference in the distances of the upper and lower quartiles
(upper and lower 25 percent of data) from the median. The qs is more resistant
to outliers because, like the IQR, it uses the central 50 percent of the data.
Reach file A series of national hydrologic databases that uniquely identify and interconnect
the stream segments or “reaches” that compose the country’s surface water
drainage system.
Remote sensing The collection of data and information about the physical world by detecting
and measuring radiation, particles, and fields associated with objects located
beyond the immediate vicinity of the sensor device(s).
Sample variance (s
2
) and its
square root standard
deviation (s)
The most common measures of the spread (dispersion) of a set of data. These
statistics are computed using the squares of the difference between each data
value and the mean, so that outliers influence their magnitudes dramatically. In
datasets with major outliers, the variance and standard deviation might suggest
much greater spread than exists for the majority of the data.
SCS curve number Number used to determine runoff, as a result of rainfall, for a specific land area
based on the area’s hydrologic condition, land use, soil, and treatment.
Stakeholder Individual or organization that has a stake in the outcome of the watershed plan.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary
Draft Glossary-5
Sanitary sewer overflow
(SSO)
An occasional unintentional discharge of raw sewage from a municipal sanitary
sewer.
Structural practice A practice, such as a stormwater basin or streambank fence, that requires
construction, installation, and maintenance.
Targeted sampling Sampling in which sites are allocated to specific locations of concern (e.g.,
below discharges, in areas of particular land use, at stream junctions to isolate
subwatersheds) for the purpose of trying to answer site-specific questions.
Threatened waterbody A waterbody that is meeting standards but exhibits a declining trend in water
quality such that it will likely exceed standards.
Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL)
The amount, or load, of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and
still meet the water quality standard for its designated use. For impaired waters
the TMDL reduces the overall load by allocating the load among current
pollutant loads (from point and nonpoint sources), background or natural loads,
a margin of safety, and sometimes an allocation for future growth.
Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE)
An equation used to predict the average rate of erosion of an area on the basis of
the rainfall, soil type, topography, and management measures of the area.
Validation Subsequent testing of a precalibrated model to additional field data, usually
under different external conditions, to further examine the model’s ability to
predict future conditions. Same as verification.
Water quality standards Standards that set the goals, pollution limits, and protection requirements for
each waterbody. These standards are composed of designated (beneficial) uses,
numeric and narrative criteria, and antidegradation policies and procedures.
Watershed Land area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary,
wetland, or ultimately the ocean.
Watershed approach A flexible framework for managing water resource quality and quantity within
specified drainage area, or watershed. This approach includes stakeholder
involvement and management actions supported by sound science and
appropriate technology.
Watershed plan A document that provides assessment and management information for a
geographically defined watershed, including the analyses, actions, participants,
and resources related to development and implementation of the plan.
Glossary
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Glossary-6 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-1
Bibliography
Arnold, J.G., and J.R. Williams. 1987. Validation of SWRRB—Simulation for Water Resources in Rural Basins.
J. Water Res. Plan. Man. 13:243-256.
Arnold, J.G., J.R. Williams, A.D. Nicks, and N.B. Sammons. 1990. SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil
and Water Resources Management. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1993. Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Task Committee of the Watershed Management Committee.
Athayde, D.N., P.E. Shelley, E.D. Driscoll, D. Gaboury, and G.B. Boyd. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program: Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams
and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2
nd
ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Barfield, B. J., J. C. Hayes, K. F. Holbrook, B. Bates, J. Gillespie, and J. Fersner. 2002. IDEAL Model User Manual.
J. C. Hayes and Associates, Clemson, SC.
Beasley, D.B., L.F. Huggins, and E.J. Monke. 1980. ANSWERS: A model for watershed planning. Trans. ASAE
23:938-944.
Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources
Bulletin 18(6): 1013-1024.
Beck, M.B. 1987. Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Res. Research
23(8):1393-1442.
Beyer, A.S., C.K. Contant, and M.J. Donahue. 2001. Seeking Signs of Success: A Guided Approach to More Effective
Watershed Programs. Harbor House Publishers, Michigan.
Bingner, R.L., C.E. Murphree, and C.K. Mutchler. 1987. Comparison of Sediment Yield Models on Various
Watersheds in Mississippi. ASAE paper 87-2008. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Bosch, D.D., R.L. Bingner, F.D. Theurer, G. Felton, and I. Chaubey. Evaluation of the AnnAGNPS Water Quality
Model. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, July 12-16, 1998, Orlando, Florida. Paper no.
982195. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1999. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia: Coastal Watershed
Assessment Procedure Guidebook (CWAP), Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook. 2
nd
ed. British
Columbia Ministry of Forests.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-2 Draft
Brown, E., A. Peterson, R. Kline-Robach, K. Smith, and L. Wolfson. 2000. Developing a Watershed Management
Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
<www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-Watershe.pdf>.
Brown, M.P., P. Longabucco, M.R. Rafferty, P.D. Robillard, M.F. Walter, and D.A. Haith. 1989. Effects of animal
waste control practices on nonpoint-source phosphorus loading in the West Branch of the Delaware River watershed.
J. Soil Water Cons. 44(1):67-70.
California SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2003. A Process for Addressing Impaired Waters in
California. Draft. California State Water Resources Control Board, CA.
Camacho, R. 1991. Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies in
the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Unpublished draft. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.
Caraco, D., R. Claytor, P. Hinkle, H.Y. Kwon, T. Schueler, C. Swann, S. Vysotsky, and J. Zielinski. 1998. Rapid
Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Cassell, E.A. and J.C. Clausen. 1993. Dynamic simulation modeling for evaluating water quality response to
agricultural BMP implementation. Water Sci. & Technol. 28(3-5): 635-648.
CCRS (Canada Centre for Remote Sensing). 2005. Fundamentals of Remote Sensing.
<www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/learn/tutorial/fundam/fundam_e.html>.
Clausen, J.C. and J. Spooner. 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-F-93-009. 8 p.
Claytor, R.A., and W.E. Brown. 1996. Environmental Indicators to Assess Stormwater Control Programs and
Practices. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Cleland, B. 2002. TMDL Development from the “Bottom Up.” Part II. Using Duration Curves to Connect the Pieces.
America’s Clean Water Foundation, Washington, DC.
Cohn, T.A., and E.J. Gilroy. 1991. Estimating Loads from Periodic Records. U.S. Geological Survey Branch of
Systems Analysis Technical Memo 91.01.
Cronshey, R.G., and F.D. Theurer. 1998. AnnAGNPS—Nonpoint Pollutant Loading Model. In Proceedings of First
Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, April 19-23, 1998, Las Vegas, NV.
CTIC (Center for Technology Information Center). Know Your Watershed Kits. <www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW>.
CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). 1996. Crafting better urban watershed protection plans. Watershed Protect.
Techn. 2(2): 329-337.
CWP. 2004. Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: A User’s Manual, Version 1.0. Urban Subwatershed
Restoration Manual Series, Manual 11. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-3
Dai, T., R.L. Wetzel, T.R.L. Christensen, and E.A. Lewis. 2000. BasinSim 1.0: A Windows-Based Watershed
Modeling Package. User’s Guide. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering #362. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.
Davenport, T.E. 2003. The Watershed Project Management Guide. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
<www.enviroscapes.com/watershed_management.htm>. Accessed March 2005.
Deal, J.C., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and K.D. Konyha. 1986. Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses as
Related to Agricultural Drainage System Design. Ag. Ecosys. and Envir. 18:37-51.
Donigian, A.S. 1983. Model Predictions vs. Field Observations: The Model Validation/Testing Process. In Fate
of Chemicals in the Environment, ACS Symposium Series 225, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC,
pp.151-171.
Donigian, A.S., and W.C. Huber. 1991. Modeling of nonpoint source water quality in urban and non-urban areas.
EPA/600/3-91/039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Edwards, D.R., V.W. Benson, J.R. Williams, T.C. Daniel, J. Lemunyon, and R.G. Gilbert. 1994. Use of the EPIC
Model to Predict Runoff Transport of Surface-applied Inorganic Fertilizer and Poultry Manure Constituents. Trans.
ASAE 37(2):403-409.
Elder, D. 1997. Establishing watershed benchmarks: Tools for gauging success. River Voices 8(3).
Evans, B.M., D.W. Lehning, K.J. Corradini, G.W. Petersen, E. Nizeyimana, J.M. Hamlett, P.D. Robillard, and R.L.
Day. 2002. A Comprehensive GIS-Based Modeling Approach for Predicting Nutrient Loads in Watersheds. J. Spatial
Hydrology 2:2. <www.spatialhydrology.com/journal/paper/nutrient/nutrient.pdf>.
Flanagan, D.C., and M.A. Nearing, eds. 1995. USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and
Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report no. 10. West Lafayette, IN.
Follet, R.F., D.R. Kenney, and R.M. Cruse. 1991. NLEAP or Nitrogen Leaching and Economic Analysis Package.
Soil Science of America, Inc., Madison, WI.
Foster, M.A., P.D. Robillard, D.W. Lehning, and R. Zhao. 1996. STEWARD, a knowledge-based system for
selection, assessment, and design of water quality control practices in agricultural watersheds. Water Res. Bull. In
review.
GLNPO (Great Lakes National Program Office). 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program: Assessment Guidance Document. EPA 905-B94-002. Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL.
Grabow, G.L., J. Spooner, L.A. Lombardo, and D.E. Line. 1999a. Detecting water quality changes before and after
BMP implementation: Use of SAS for statistical analysis. p. 1-11. In NWQEP notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group
Newsletter. January 1999. North Carolina State Univ. Coop. Ext., Raleigh.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-4 Draft
Grabow, G.L., J. Spooner, L.A. Lombardo, and D.E. Line. 1999b. Detecting water quality changes before and after
BMP implementation: Use of SAS for trend analysis. p. 1-8. In NWQEP notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group
Newsletter. July 1999. North Carolina State Univ. Coop. Ext., Raleigh.
Griffin, M.L., D.B. Beasley, J.I. Fletcher, and G.R. Foster. 1988. Estimating Soil Loss on Topographically
Nonuniform Field and Farm Units. J. Soil Water Cons. 43:326-331.
Haan, C.T., B. Allred, D.E. Storm, G.J. Sabbagh, and S. Prabhu. 1995. Statistical procedure for evaluating
hydrologic/water quality models. Trans. ASAE 38(3):725-733.
Haith, D.A. 1985. Variability of pesticide loads to surface waters. J. WPCF 57(11):1062-1067.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to
Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Heidtke, T.M., and M.T. Auer. 1993. Application of a GIS-based nonpoint source nutrient loading model for
assessment of land development scenarios and water quality in Owasco Lake, New York. Water Sci. Technol.
28(3-5):595-604.
Helfert, E. 1997. Techniques of Financial Analysis. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Chapter A3 in Book 4, Hydrologic
Analysis and Interpretation of Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey.
Howard County SWMD (Stormwater Management Division). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Howard
County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program. Howard County, Department of Public Works, Stormwater
Management Division, Columbia, MD.
Huber, W.C. 1992. Experience with the USEPA SWMM Model for analysis and solution of urban drainage problems.
Proceedings, Inundaciones Y Redes De Drenaje Urbano, ed. J. Dolz, M. Gomez, and J. P. Martin, eds., Colegio de
Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales Y Puertos, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 199-220.
Huber, W.C., and R.E. Dickinson. 1988. Storm Water Management Model Version 4, User’s manual. EPA 600/3-88/
001a (NTIS PB88-236641/AS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2003. Indiana Watershed Planning Guide. Indian
Department of Environmental Management. <www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/wsm/iwpg/content.html>. Accessed
March 2005.
IEP, Inc. 1990. P8 Urban Catchment Model User’s Manual, v1.1. IEP, Inc.
Illinois CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program). 2002. Illinois Conservation Practices Tracking System.
Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. <www.ilcrep.org>.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-5
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1995. The Strategy for Improving Water Quality
Monitoring in the United States. Final report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. OFR
95-742. U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA.
Keith, L.H. 1991. Environmental Sampling and Analysis: A Practical Guide. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Knisel, W.G., R.A. Leonard, and F.M. Davis. 1991. Water Balance Components in the Georgia Coastal Plain: A
GLEAMS Model Validation and Simulation. J. Soil Water Cons. 46(6):450-456.
Lauenroth, W.K., G.V., Skogerboe, and M. Flug. 1982. Developments in Environmental Modeling 5. Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company.
Lee, E R. 1999. SET-WET: A Wetland Simulation Model to Optimize NPS Pollution Control. Master’s thesis, Dept.
of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Lee, E.R., S. Mostaphimi, and T. M. Wynn. 2002. A model to enhance wetland design and optimize nonpoint source
pollution control. J. AWRA 8(February):17-32.
Lin, J.P. 2004. Review of Published Export Coefficient and Event Mean Concentration (EMC) Data. ERDC
TN-WRAP-04-03. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Line, D.E., S.W. Coffey, and D.L. Osmond. 1997. WATERSHEDSS—GRASS AGNPS modeling tool. Trans. ASAE
40(4):971-975.
Liu, B.Y., M.A. Nearing, C. Baffault, and J.C. Ascough. 1997. The WEPP Watershed Model: Three Comparisons to
Measured Data from Small Watersheds. Trans. ASAE 40:945-952.
Lombardo, L.A., G.L. Grabow, J. Spooner, D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, and G.D. Jennings. 2000. Section 319 Nonpoint
Source National Monitoring Program Successes and Recommendations. North Carolina State University, Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Department, NCSU Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC.
Lombardo, L.A., G.L. Grabow, D.E. Line, J. Spooner, and D.L. Osmond. 2004. 2004 Summary Report: Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects. National Nonpoint Source Watersheds Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality
Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
MD Tributary Strategy. 1997. Close to Home: A Focus on Small Watersheds.
<www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/monitor/ss/small_shed.html>
MDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 303(d)
Monitoring and Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of Pollution, Jackson, MS.
MDEQ. 2003. Mississippi Gulf Coast Stormwater Toolbox Ranking Report. Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality, Department of Marine Resources. <http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/CoastalEcology/Storm/SECTION-2/Section-
2-Text.pdf>.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-6 Draft
Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program: Comprehensive
Final Report. Program report no. 12. University of Vermont, Vermont Water Resources Research Center, Burlington,
VT.
Meals, D.W. 1992. Relating land use and water quality in the St. Albans Bay Watershed, Vermont. In The National
Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, September 1992, Orlando, FL, pp. 131-144. EPA/625/R-92/006. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Meals, D.W. 2001. Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Project, Final Project Report: May, 1994–September, 2000. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation,
Waterbury, VT.
Mill Creek Subwatershed Stakeholder Advisory Group. 2003. Mill Creek Subwatershed Management Plan. Available
from the Huron River Watershed Council. <www.hrwc.org>.
Mullens, J.A., R.F. Carsel, J.E. Scarbrough, and I.A. Ivery. 1993. PRZM-2, A Model for Predicting Pesticide Fate in
the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 2.0. EPA/600/R-93/046. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Munoz-Carpena, R., and J.E. Parsons. 2003. VFSMOD-W— Vegetative Filter Strips Hydrology and Sediment
Transport Modeling System, Model Documentation and User’s Manual. University of Florida, Agricultural and
Biological Engineering.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2005a. Remote Sensing: Special Signatures.
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/remote_05.html>.
NASA. 2005b. Remote Sensing: Remote Sensing Methods. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/remote_08.html>.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2003. North Carolina Nonpoint
Source Management Program, Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy. <http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarpam.htm>.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005a. NOAA’s Remote Sensing Activities.
<www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag13.htm>.
NOAA. 2005b. NOAA Uses Remote Sensing Technology to Monitor and Identify Harmful Algal Blooms. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s2096.htm>.
Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, Identification, and Management of Diffuse Pollution.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997. National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring. 450-vi-
NHWQM. National Water and Climate Center, Portland, Oregon.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-7
NRCS. 2005. National Conservation Practice Standards. <www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards>.
NSFC (National Small Flows Clearinghouse). 1993. National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Summary of Onsite
Systems in the United States. National Small Flows Clearinghouse, Morgantown, WV.
NWQMC (National Water Quality Monitoring Council). 2005. Water Quality Data Elements.
<http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/wqde/index.htm>.
Ohio EPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI):
Rationale, Methods, and Application. Ohio, Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Assessment Section,
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment. Columbus, OH.
Ohio EPA. 1997. A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio.
<www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf>.
PGDER (Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources). 1995. Biological Monitoring and
Assessment Program, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Maryland Department of Environmental Resources,
Programs and Planning Division, Technical Support Section, Landover, MD.
Prince George’s County. 2001. Low-Impact Development Management Practices Evaluation Computer Module,
User’s Guide. Prepared for Prince George’s County, Maryland, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under
Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Richards, R.P. 1997. Estimation of Pollutant Loads in Rivers and Streams: A Guidance Document for NPS Programs.
Draft. Heidelberg College, Water Quality Laboratory, Tiffin, OH.
Ritchie, J.C., and C.M. Cooper. 2001. Remote sensing techniques for determining water quality: Applications to
TMDLs. In TMDL Science Issues Conference, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, pp. 367-374.
<www.wef.org/Home>.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Metropolitan Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Schueler, T.R. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, MD.
Shaffer, M.J. 1985. Simulation Model for Soil Erosion-Productivity Relationships. J. Environ. Qual. 14(1):144-150.
Shaffer, M.J., and W.E. Larson, eds. 1985. NTRM: A Soil-Crop Simulation Model for Nitrogen, Tillage, and Crop
Residue Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, St. Paul, MN.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-8 Draft
Shaffer, M.J., S.C. Gupta, D.R. Linden, J.A.E. Molina, C.E. Clapp, and W.E. Larson. 1986. Simulation of Nitrogen,
Tillage, and Residue Management Effects on Soil Fertility. In Analysis of Ecological Systems: State-of-the-art in
Ecological Modelling, ed. W.K. Lauenroth, G.V.
Sharpley, A.N., and J.R. Williams, eds. 1990. EPIC—Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model
Documentation. Bulletin no. 1768. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Shilling, F., S. Sommarstrom, R. Kattelmann, B. Washburn, J. Florsheim, and R. Henly. 2004. California Watershed
Assessment Manual. Prepared for the California Resources Agency. <http://cwam.ucdavis.edu>.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. A Water Management Model for Artificially Drained Soils. North Carolina Agricultural Research
Service technical bulletin 267. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Smith, M.C., A.B. Bottcher, K.L. Campbell, and D.L. Thomas. 1991. Field testing and comparison of the PRZM and
GLEAMS models. Trans. ASAE 34(3):838-847.
Sugden, R., and A. Williams. 1981. Principles of Practical Cost Benefit Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK.
Sugiharto, T., T.H. McIntosh, R.C. Uhrig, and J.J. Lavdinois. 1994. Modeling alternatives to reduce dairy farm and
watershed nonpoint source pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 23:18-24.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000. Ecological Data Application System (EDAS): A User’s Manual. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, by Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Owings Mills, MD. (For more information on this report, contact Robert King, USEPA, at 202-566-1177).
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. Greater Battle Creek Area Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Springfield.
Tiscareno-Lopez, M., V.L. Lopes, J.J. Stone, and L.J. Lane. 1993. Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP watershed model
for rangeland applications: I. Hillslope Processes. Trans. ASAE 36:1659-1672.
University of Nebraska. 2005. Development and Implementation of a Comprehensive Lake and Reservoir Strategy for
Nebraska as a Model for Agriculturally Dominated Ecosystems. The Center for Advanced Land Management
Information Technologies (CALMIT), University of Nebraska-Lincoln (supported through EPA STAR Grant
R828635). <www.calmit.unl.edu/lakes>.
University of Texas. 2002. Symposium on Terrain Analysis for Water Resources Applications, December 16-18, 2002.
Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas, Austin.
<www.crwr.utexas.edu/terrainAnalysis/presentations.cfm>.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1996. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning
with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Wessies, D.K. McCool, and
D.C. Yoder, coordinators. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 703. 404 pp.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-9
USDA-ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service). No date. User’s Guide for REMM:
Riparian Ecosystem Management Model. <http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/remmwww/remm/users.htm>.
USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service formerly Soil Conservation
Service). 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical release no. 55, rev. ed. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under
Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1985. Field Agricultural Runoff Monitoring (FARM) Manual. EPA/600/3-85/043. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
USEPA. 1986. Eastern Lake Survey. Phase 1. Characteristics of Lakes in the Eastern United States: Volume 1.
Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical Relationships. EPA/600/4-86/007a. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1989. A Probabilistic Methodology for Analyzing Water Quality Effects of Urban Runoff on Rivers and
Streams. Final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1993a. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1993b. Post-Audit Verification of the Model AGNPS in Vermont Agricultural Watersheds. EPA
841-R-93-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997a. EPA’s Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation of Nonpoint Source
Control Measures—Agriculture. EPA 841-B-97-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997b. BASINS Training Course, December 8-12, 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997c. Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development. EPA 841-B-97-006. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997d. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls. EPA
841-B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 630-R-095-002F. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1999a. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-007. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-10 Draft
USEPA. 1999b. Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/R-96/055. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000b. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000c. Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community Growth
and Change on Land-Use Patterns. EPA 600-R-00-098. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001a. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. 1
st
ed. EPA 841-R-00-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2001b. Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2002a. 319 Success Stories, Volume III: The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's Section 319
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. EPA 841-S-01-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2002b. Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. EPA
842-B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2002c. Water Quality Assessment of the Black Warrior River Basin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Nonpoint Source Branch.
USEPA. 2003a. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture. EPA
841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm>.
USEPA. 2003b. Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management.
<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm>.
USEPA. 2003c. Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns. EPA 841-B-03-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA, Montana Operations Office, Flathead National Forest, and Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004. Water Quality Assessment
and TMDLs for the Flathead River Headwaters Planning Area, Montana. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography
Draft Bibliography-11
USEPA and USDA. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005a. Remote Sensing.
<www.gcmrc.gov/about/programs/isp/dasa/survey/remotesensing.htm>.
USGS. 2005b. About Terrestrial Remote Sensing. <http://terraweb.wr.usgs.gov/about.html>.
USGS. 2005c. LIDAR—Light Detection and Ranging.
<http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Monitoring/LIDAR/description_LIDAR.html>.
USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2005. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of
Federal Programs (Revised), January 2005. Circular no. A-94.
<www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html>.
Van Ness, K., K. Brown, M.S. Haddaway, D. Marshall, and D. Jordahl. 1997. Montgomery County, Water Quality
Monitoring Program, Stream Monitoring Protocols. Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed
Management Division, Rockville, MD.
Walker, W. W. 1985. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 3, Phase III: Model
Refinements. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W. W. 1986. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 3, Phase III:
Applications Manual. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W.W. 1990. P8 Urban Catchment Model Program Documentation, v1.1.
Walker, W.W. 1996. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. Chapter 2,
FLUX. Instruction Report W. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Operations Technical Support Program.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D. Smith. 1965. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky
Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Conservation. USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook no.
282. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning.
USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook no. 537. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Wong, T.H.F., Duncan, H.P., Fletcher, T.D. and Jenkins, G.A. 2001. A Unified Approach to Modelling Urban
Stormwater Treatment. In Proceedings of the 2nd South Pacific Stormwater Conference. Auckland, New Zealand,
June 27–29, 2001. pp.319-327.
Wong, T.H.F., J. Coleman, H. Duncan, T. Fletcher, G. Jenkins, L. Siriwardena, A. Taylor, and R. Wootton. 2005.
MUSIC: User Guide. MUSIC Development Team, Cooperative Research Center for Catchment Hydrology,
Australia.
Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters
Bibliography-12 Draft
Wright, J.F., D.W. Sutcliffe, and M.T. Furse. 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and
Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK.
Wylie, B.K., M.J. Shaffer, M.K. Brodohl, D. Dubois, and D.G. Wagner. 1994. Predicting Spatial Distributions of
Nitrate Leaching in Northeastern Colorado. J. Soil Water Cons. 49:288-293.
Wylie, B.K., M.J. Shaffer, and M.D. Hall. 1995. Regional Assessment of NLEAP NO3-N Leaching Indices. Water
Res. Bull. 31:399-408.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1994. Agricultural NonPoint Source Pollution Model,
Version 4.03 AGNPS User’s Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Morris, MN.
Yu, S.L., G.M. Fitch, and T.A. Earles. 1998. Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Management. VTRC 98-R35RB.
Virginia Department of Transportation Research Council.
Zacharias, S., C. Heatwole, T. Dillaha, and S. Mostighimi. 1992. Evaluation of GLEAMS and PRZM for Predicting
Pesticide Leaching Under Field Conditions. ASAE paper 92-2541. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, MI.
| 课件名称： | 污水处理手册（英文） |
| 课件分类： | 环境 |
| 课件类型： | 电子图书 |
| 文件大小： | 6.11MB |
| 下载次数： | 1 |
| 评论次数： | 1 |
| 用户评分： | 5 |
