watershed-based plans supported by the cwa sec. 319 nps ... · watershed-based plans supported by...

1

Watershed-Based Plans Supported by theCWA Sec. 319 NPS Program

Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech

A watershed approach helps to...A watershed approach helps to...

2. FacilitateCommunication

and Partnerships

3. Provide Means of Cost-Effective Management

1. Encourage SoundScience

4. Focus onEnvironmental Results

2

Watershed Planning Steps

STEP 1

BUILD PARTNERSHIPSID stakeholdersID issues of concernID scope of effort & planning areaSet preliminary goalsConduct outreach

The Process:


STEP 1

BUILD PARTNERSHIPS–ID stakeholders–ID issues of concern–ID scope of effort & planning area–Set preliminary goals–Conduct outreach

STEP 2CHARACTERIZE WATERSHED

–Gather existing data–Create data inventory–ID data gaps–Collect additional data, if needed–Analyze data–ID causes and sources–Estimate pollutant loads

3

STEP 1

BUILD PARTNERSHIPSID stakeholdersID issues of concernSet preliminary goalsDevelop indicatorsConduct outreach



STEP 3FINALIZE GOALS AND IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS

–Set goals and management objectives–Develop indicators/targets–Determine load reductions needed–ID critical areas–ID management measures needed


k

STEP 1




STEP 3FINALIZE GOALS AND ID SOLUTIONS


STEP 4DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

–Develop Implementation schedule–Set Interim milestones–Determine how you will measure success–Develop monitoring component–Develop evaluation process–ID technical and financial assistance needed–Assign responsibility


4

k

STEP 1








STEP 5IMPLEMENT WATERSHED PLAN

–Implement management strategies–Conduct monitoring–Conduct outreach activities


k

STEP 1








STEP 5IMPLEMENT WATERSHED PLAN

–Implement management strategies–Conduct monitoring–Conduct outreach activities

STEP 6MEASURE PROGRESS ANDMAKE ADJUSTMENTS

–Review and evaluate–Share results–Prepare annual plans–Make adjustments


5

EPA’s Nonpoint Source FundingGuidelines

Watershed plans needed to restoreimpaired waters & protect other waters

Plans are required for projects fundedwith 319 incremental funds

If TMDL exists, plan must incorporateTMDL load reductions

If TMDL developed after plan, it must beamended to reflect TMDL load limits

Plans should be designed to meet waterquality standards

Plans must include nine elements (“a-i”)

EPA’s Nine Key Elements for Plans

1a. Identify causes & sources of pollution2b. Estimate load reductions expected from BMPs3c. Describe mgmt measures & targeted critical areas4d. Estimate technical and financial assistance needed5e. Develop an education component6f. Develop a reasonably expeditious project schedule7g. Describe interim, measurable milestones8h. Identify indicators to measure progress9i. Develop a monitoring component

Source: US EPA, 2004 319 Supplemental Guidelines

6

WatershedPlanning

Handbook

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/

Steps in theWatershed

Planning andImplementation

Process

7

Incorporationof the ninekey planelements

8

BASIN PLANS

WATERSHED-BASED PLANS

SITE-LEVELNONPOINT

SOURCE WORKPLANS

9

(1a) Identification of the causes and sourcesof impairment or threats to the waterbody

Water body use designations and water quality criteria

Impaired, partially impaired, and/or threatened uses (fromstate 303[d] or integrated report) are listed

Specific causes and sources of impairments and/or threats(if applicable) are listed by segment or area

Causes of impairment (or threats) listed as loads, WQCexceedance amounts, %, or otherwise quantified

Sources of impairments/threats mapped or identified byarea, category/subcategory, facility type, etc.

Contributions from each source location or category arequantified by load, percentage, priority, or other method

Estimates, assumptions, or data used in the analysis arepresented or cited and appear reasonable

10

Resource is not supporting its designated(beneficial) use, i.e., transportation.Bike is impaired

Stressor

Source???

Cause of the impairment:Failure to meet numericcriterion for minimum

tire pressure

(2b) Estimate of the load reductionsexpected from proposed management measures

Load reductions needed to address eachimpairment and threat (if applicable) arelisted & quantified by weight, concentration,percentage reduction needed, etc

Listed load reduction estimates are linked toeach cause and source location or category

Load reductions will achieve water qualitycriteria, address threats, achieve other goals

Estimates, assumptions, or data used arepresented or cited and appear reasonable

11

What is a “load?”

Maybe measured by weight . . . Kilograms per day

Pounds per week

Tons per month

Maybe not . . . Concentration-based expression of the

“load” (e.g., milligrams per liter)

Percentage reduction in monitored valuesneeded to meet water quality criteria

# of miles of streambank needingstabilization or vegetation

# of AFOs requiring nutrient plans

% reduction in stormwater flow needed

Existing loads come from:

Point-source discharges (NPDES facilities) Info is available on the discharges (DMRs, etc.) Some are steady-flow, others are precip-driven

Nonpoint sources (polluted runoff) Mostly precip-driven, plus irrigation/groundwater Calculating the “wash-off / runoff” load is tough Literature values can be used to estimate Modeling gets you closer . . . . do you need it?

Air / atmospheric deposition Can be significant in some locations

12

Identification of pollutioncauses & sources What “pollutants” are you dealing with? Chemical, physical, biological stressors

How big is the problem for each?

How do you know? Did you “measure” them?

Did you estimate? How?

Where are they coming from? Can you put the info on a map?

Can you estimate the % from each source?

13

Reducing loads: the basics

Simple (linear) approach Use observed data Empirical relationships Reduce the concentration Reduce the source area Reduce # of sources

Complex (modeled) approach Model the loadings Model BMP reductions Layers can include topography, soils, climate, land

use, land cover, pollutant transport/fate, pointsources, management practices, etc.

To model, ornot to model . . .

As these things increase: Number of pollutants

Complexity of loads/stressors

Uncertainty regarding existing information

Expense involved in addressing problems

The need for more sophisticatedapproaches to assessment & BMPperformance also increases

14

Examples of Different Scenariosto Meet the Same Load Target

(3c) Description of the management measuresneeded to achieve the proposed load reductions

Water quality & other watershed goals listed

Management measures needed for causes andsources of pollution / impairment / threat arelisted, described, prioritized

Proposed management measures areapplicable to causes & sources & are feasible

Critical locations or high-priority sites for eachmanagement measure are mapped/described

Load reductions linked to each managementmeasure are listed and quantified viareasonable estimates

Estimates, assumptions, or data used arepresented or cited and appear reasonable

15

Proposed management measures

Load reductions needed Estimate quantitatively Metrics selected should make sense!

BMP types proposed What will lessen your ‘loads’? Applicable to your situation?

Load reductions from BMPs How can you measure BMP impacts? Use literature or actual values

BMP installation sites Which sites will hit the source(s)? Are there critical areas to focus on?

Prioritizing/targeting BMPs

Importance of waterbody Drinking water source, recreational resource

Magnitude of impairment(s) Level of effort needed; public interest/attention

Existing loads (stressors & sources) Magnitude, spatial variation, clustering

Ability of BMPs to reduce loads Sure thing, or a reasonable projection?

Feasibility of implementation Willing partners? Public support?

Additional benefits Recreational enhancements, demonstration

16

(4d) Estimate of the amount of technical,financial, and regulatory assistance needed

General type & amount of technical assistance needed toimplement the management measures are listed

Actual or potential/possible sources of the neededtechnical assistance are identified

Costs for implementing, operating, and maintaining themanagement measures are estimated and listed

Possible/potential sources of financial assistance neededto implement the management measures are listed

Regulatory or other authorities responsible for (orneeded) to implement the management measures arelisted; entities exercising the regulatory or otherauthorities are identified

Yellow Bank Creek Watershed, Alabama

Item Description Number AverageCost

BudgetFederal Nonfed Total

Channel bank vegetation 20 acres (seed, sod, treeplanting; lime, fertilizer; landpreparation)

800/ac 10,667 5,333 16,000

Critical area planting(seed, lime, fertilizer;grading and shaping)

20 acres (seed, lime, fertilizer;grading and shaping)

164/acre 2,187 1,093 3,280

Fencing 6,567 ft (4 strand barb; steelpost)

0.77/ft 3,371 1,686 5,057

Fence gate assembly 15 (14-ft each) 190 each 1,900 950 2,850

Livestock exclusion 13,133 ft (4 strand barb; steelpost)

0.77/ft 6,741 3,371 10,112

Pasture hayland planting 100 acres (seed, lime,fertilizer)

164/acre 10,933 5,467 16,400

Well drilling and casing 3 each (300 ft depth) 21/ft 12,600 6,300 18,900

Piping 6,800 ft (1” PVC to watertroughs)

0.85/ft 3,853 1,927 5,780

Pumps 3 each (livestock alternativewater)

1,110each

2,227 1,113 3,340

Heavy use area 10 each 1,000 6,667 3,333 10,000

17

(5e) Public information,education, and participation

Information, education, andpublic participation goals andobjectives for the managementprogram are listed

An overall strategy or plan for thepublic information, education,and participation component isprovided

(6f) Reasonably expeditiousschedule for implementation

Overarching timeline or schedule showing projecteddates for developing and implementing eachmanagement measure (BMP) is presented

The timeline or schedule indicates the actions, steps,or accomplishments associated with implementingthe management measures in the plan

The timeline or schedule follows a logical sequencefor implementing the management measures

The timeline or schedule lists short-term (up to 3 yrs)and long-term (up to 10 or more yrs)implementation steps

18

(7g) Interim measurable milestones forimplementing the management measures

A list of reasonable andattainable interim milestones,benchmarks, phases, or stepsfor implementing each groupof management measures orcontrol actions is provided

A logical sequence of dates forachieving the milestones,benchmarks, phases, or stepsis listed

Corsica River in Maryland

19

(8h) Criteria to determine whether ornot load reductions are being achieved

Criteria are identified that are linked to thecauses and/or sources of impairments/threats (ifapplicable)

The listed criteria include numeric and/ornarrative water quality criteria, instream physicalhabitat assessment criteria, or other criterialinked to the causes/source

Listed criteria include those incorporated intoany TMDLs developed or to be developed forwaterbodies addressed by the plan

Provisions for reviewing progress and revisingthe plan or any TMDLs involved are addressed

(9i) Monitoring component to evaluatethe effectiveness of implementation

An approach for establishing monitoring sites or proceduresand relevant parameters is provided, or procedures foracquiring and reviewing other monitoring data is described

Monitoring parameters relate to the criteria identified in (h)

Frequency of monitoring or schedules for assessingimplementation progress is included / referenced

Parties responsible for monitoring are listed / referenced

Quality Assurance Project Plans for water qualityparameters are referenced or cited, if appropriate

20

General Contents of aWatershed-Based Plan

Introduction Plan area & description, partners, background

Water quality information & analysis WQS & goals, monitoring/assessment results Key pollutants / stressors, sources, current loads

Proposed management measures Load reductions needed, BMP types proposed Reductions expected from BMPs, installation sites

Implementation plan Public info/education & outreach/involvement plan BMP/$$/TA support sources, project schedule & costs

Monitoring and adaptive managementapproach Interim measurable milestones, load reduction criteria Evaluation framework, monitoring plan & partners

21

US EPA OWOW HQNPS Branch

Review of Plans

2006 review of the“best” 30 watershedplans submitted bystates

2008-2010 review of49 plans from all USEPA regions

Figure 1: EPA Watershed Planning Elements: National Trends

67%

44%

58%

44%

70%

54%

47%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Element A Element B Element C Element D Element E Element F/G Element H Element I

Levelo

fS

ati

sfa

cti

on

AVERAGE

2006 US EPA Study Results

22

2008 – 2010 US EPA Study Results

Common mistakesfound in plans

Scale

Too large a planning area, based onsheer size or size-plus-complexity

Omitting key components

Load reduction estimates, milestones

Forgot to set a goal/target

Usually, it’s numeric/narrative WQC

No adaptive management

Plans aren’t one-shot solutions!

23

1

“Identification of pollutant sources andreductions needed to meet water qualitystandards (component A1) are the essence ofTMDLs; in a number of cases, TMDLs hadalready addressed this component to asignificant extent, thereby setting afoundation for the plan.

In the few plans that did not satisfy thiscomponent, load estimates from significantsource categories were absent, or the sourcesof pollution that need to be controlled werenot quantified at a level that is useful forwaterbody remediation.”

24

2

“The watershed planning process isn’t necessarilyabout getting exactly the right answer the first time.Rather, it is about successfully employing an adaptivemanagement approach in which available information andanalytical tools are used to support the best planningdecisions that can be made.

The best plans were not necessarily relying on themost sophisticated watershed models or making anyclaims that their load estimates are 100% correct. Infact, some plans contained explicit discussionsstating factors that may lead to errors in theestimates. However, it is critical that the besteffort be made to develop good estimates; set a bar tomeasure whether or not the proposed measures areadequate; and establish a feedback loop to determineif there are additional issues in the watershed thatmay have been missed when the plan was first written.”

25

3

“Most states were able to do this withoutsignificant difficulties. However, somestates failed to adequately explain whycertain management measures were chosenover similar alternatives.

The discrepancy between the level ofsatisfaction in components B(2) and C(3)suggests plan writers can successfullyidentify best management practices toaddress pollutants, but many are having adifficult time quantifying the expectedload reduction from these practices.”

26

4

“Component D was met with a moderatedegree of success. The best plans wereable to list the partners that wouldbe called upon to complete each actionin the plan, and included a full costestimate, including possible sourcesof funding.

Other plans were commonly missing oneor more of these pieces of informationor included all of this information ata level of detail that was much lowerthan the best plans.”

27

6

5

“Most of the time, some kind ofeducation campaign was included(passing out flyers, PSA’s etc) butan explanation of how these campaignswould enhance public understanding orencourage involvement was absent.

In these cases, there is a seriousquestion whether adequate communityunderstanding of and support for thewatershed plan and its implementationhave been established.”

28

“A schedule helps ensure that theplan’s developers have thought aboutthe feasibility of their plan inrelation to its objectives andavailable resources. It also helps toensure the continuous implementationof the plan.

In many cases, plans failed to includea schedule beyond a year ofimplementation, or had a much lessdetailed schedule compared to the bestplans reviewed.”

7

8

29

“There seemed to be confusion between what wasrequired with respect to components G(7) and H(8).Many times, the criteria that would be used todetermine whether loading reductions were beingachieved were actually milestones; this indicatesthat there was confusion surrounding the differencebetween the two.

The criteria should be expected levels of pollutantsof concern in the waterbody at different points intime, whereas milestones indicate achievement ofimplementation steps like the number of BMPs thatwill be installed in a certain year. Many plans alsofailed to identify how often progress would bereviewed, and who would actually be responsible forreviewing the plan to determine this information.”

“Most plans were relying on the implementationof existing state monitoring programs, whichhave well established procedures, so componentI(9) is relatively straightforward. In a verysmall number of plans, responsibility formonitoring was unclear, as well as how oftenmonitoring would take place."

9

30

Estimating load reductions:still the weak spot

watershed-based plans supported by the cwa sec. 319 nps ... · watershed-based plans supported by...

Documents