Kent, Donald M. “Watershed Management” Applied Wetlands Science and Technology Editor Donald M. Kent Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001 ©2001 CRC Press LLC CHAPTER 12 Watershed Management Donald M. Kent CONTENTS Managing Watersheds Elements of Management Definition and Delineation Watershed Characterization Prioritization Developing and Implementing a Watershed Program Monitor and Adjust Source Control Municipal Wastewater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Agricultural BMPs Urban Stormwater Runoff BMPs Innovative Solutions Watershed-Based Trading Case Study—the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Anacostia Watershed Restoration References Wetlands tend to occupy topographic low points in the landscape and are thus recipient of water and eroded materials from higher in the landscape. The influx of water and other materials gives each wetland its character, supports its internal processes, and in part determines wetland function and value. In meager or excess amounts, water and other materials may alter or hinder wetland processes and ©2001 CRC Press LLC diminish functions and values. Therefore, effective wetland management requires management of parts of the landscape contributing water and other materials to wetlands. The contributing areas of the landscape constitute the watershed. The concept of managing at the scale of watersheds has been evolving in the United States for about 100 years. In the 1890s, the U.S. Inland Waterways Com- mission recommended to Congress that each river system be treated as an integrated system. Throughout the first half of the 20 th century, the focus of watershed man- agement was on the use of water resources for energy, navigation, flood control, irrigation, and drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). In 1944, the Pick-Sloan Plan proposed to reduce flood damage by constructing large dams. The plan was opposed by some that believed that more effective flood control could be accomplished by managing rural, upstream watersheds than by constructing large dams (Peterson, 1998). During the 1950s and 1960s the management emphasis shifted to protecting drinking water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 funded publicly owned treatment works, and the Water Quality Act of 1965 required states to develop standards for interstate waters. The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act of the 1970s and 1980s further emphasized large-scale protection of water resources. The Clean Water Act estab- lished a permitting program for point source polluters, provided additional funding for wastewater treatment and state water quality programs, and authorized programs to reduce, prevent, and eliminate pollution to surface and ground waters. The Safe Drinking Water Act established the basis for protecting surface and ground water supplies with an emphasis on preventing contamination. In recent years, the focus of water quality management has shifted to include nonpoint sources of pollution. Watershed management provides a necessary frame- work for managing nonpoint pollution. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency developed the Watershed Protection Approach (1995a). Through focus on hydrologically defined resource areas, rather than jurisdictional boundaries, the Watershed Protection Approach is designed to more effectively protect and restore aquatic resources and protect human health than the historical approaches. The Approach targets priority problems, involves stakeholders, seeks integrated solu- tions, and measures success. MANAGING WATERSHEDS A watershed is technically a divide separating one drainage area from another (Chow, 1964). More commonly, and as applied to watershed management, water- sheds are areas that drain to surface water bodies. Watersheds come in all shapes, and range in size from a few to several million km 2 . Depending upon the type and extent of water quality problems, administrative boundaries, and technical con- straints, watershed management may be applied to local watersheds, major water- sheds, river basins, aquifers, or composites of surface watersheds and aquifers. From a water quality standpoint, watersheds have two elements. Terrestrial habitats, including urban, suburban, and rural areas, are the sources of particulate ©2001 CRC Press LLC and dissolved materials. Particulate and dissolved materials derive from wastewater discharges, stormwater runoff, and erosion. The other element, surface water bodies including streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, and coastal habitats, are the recep- tacles for particulate and dissolved materials. Materials may become trapped in the receiving water body or be transported downstream. Watershed management attempts to sustain and improve water quality by focus- ing on hydrologically defined resource areas. This is in contrast to historical efforts to regulate individual point sources of pollution. Watershed management also inte- grates various efforts to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. A fundamental premise of watershed management is that water quality and ecosystem issues can be more effectively addressed at the watershed level than at the level of the individual waterbody or polluter (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). Because watershed management addresses both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, it is an effective mechanism for protecting water and habitat quality. Several benefits, all of which save time and money, derive from watershed management’s holistic approach (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a, b, 1996a). Regulatory efficiency is enhanced by coordinated monitoring, shared respon- sibility for assessment, and consolidated permitting. Decision making is improved by consideration of all stressors affecting water quality, systematic review of water- shed basins, an increase in the availability and level of detail of watershed informa- tion, and a pooling of resources. An enlarged information base, systematic review, and enhanced coordination improve targeting of resources; and resources are focused on environmental results rather than programmatic activities such as permitting and reporting. Finally, innovative solutions are encouraged by watershed management, including ecological restoration, protection of critical areas, wetland mitigation banking, and watershed-based trading. Inherent to a successful watershed management program is stakeholder involve- ment. Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that are affected by water quality management decisions. This includes state and federal agencies charged with protecting water quality, businesses that rely on water or discharge waste, and citizens that use waterbodies and waterways for drinking water or recreation. Stake- holders share responsibility for monitoring, setting priorities, and developing and implementing management strategies. Elements of Management Watershed management has five elements (see Figure 1): 1. Definition and delineation 2. Characterization 3. Prioritization 4. Program development and implementation 5. Monitoring and adjustment Each of these elements will now be discussed briefly. ©2001 CRC Press LLC In addition, watershed management requires development of a project team and public support. The former may include local, state, regional, and federal regulating agencies, research scientists, policymakers, trade associations representative of pollution sources, and nongovernmental organizations. The composition of the project team will vary with geographic scope and institutional infrastructure. Public support is important for developing applicable management goals, encouraging Figure 1 Elements of a watershed management program. ©2001 CRC Press LLC cooperation among disparate project team members, implementing management actions, and monitoring success. Definition and Delineation Definition and delineation are the selection of management boundaries. Man- agement boundaries may encompass local watersheds, groups of local watersheds, river basins, aquifers, or some combination of watersheds, basins, and aquifers. Ideally, management boundaries should be large enough to benefit from an economy of scale, take advantage of government and technical expertise, and yet be manage- able for the long term (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). As mentioned above, the boundary will in practice reflect the type and extent of the water quality issues and administrative boundaries. Nested watersheds, where small watersheds are subsets of larger watersheds, facilitate management at multiple scales (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b). For example, local stakeholders can manage local watersheds, while state or regional entities can manage river basins. Watershed Characterization The watershed should be characterized after the management boundary has been defined and delineated. The purpose of characterization is to describe the physical characteristics of the watershed, to determine the water quality status and trends of watershed waters, and to identify potential water quality stressors and their sources. The physical description of the watershed should include geology, topography, soils, land use, hydrology, and significant biological resources. The latter may include threatened and endangered species and critical habitat. Surface water bodies should be described with respect to their designated uses and physicochemical and biological water quality. A baseline water quality monitoring program will need to be established if existing information is inadequate. Ideally, the baseline program will include physical, chemical, and biological indicators of water condition (see Chapter 8). Potential point (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, industrial discharges) and nonpoint (e.g., urban stormwater, agricultural runoff) sources of pollution should be described by location, type, and absolute and relative loadings to the receiving body (Table 1). Rarely does one source or one type of pollution cause a problem. Existing control measures should also be described. Projecting expected watershed demo- graphics and land use as they relate to potential sources of pollutants is also helpful at this stage. Prioritization Watershed characterization may identify few issues, and available resources may be sufficient to effect comprehensive management. More likely, the extent and degree of watershed issues will exceed the resources expected to be available for management. In such instances, watershed goals, targets, and action items must be prioritized. Prioritization may be logically directed at individual waterbodies or ©2001 CRC Press LLC waterways within the watershed (Table 2). Alternatively, specific pollutants or pol- lutant sources could be prioritized. Water quality impairments that pose a risk to public health should receive top priority and be addressed as quickly as possible. Other policy-related criteria include water quality goals, designated water uses, and waterbody or waterway value. These criteria are related when the waterbody or waterway is used for drinking water, commercial fishing, or recreation. Waters with more stringent water quality goals, greater designated uses, and higher value might reasonably receive high priority. Table 1 Water Quality Stressors Typically Associated with Land Uses and Land Use Activities Land Use or Activity Stressor Agriculture Sediment Nutrients Bacteria Pesticides Construction Sediment Forestry Sediment Golf courses Nutrients Pesticides Impoundments Altered hydrology Industrial discharge Inorganic and organic chemicals Metals Mining Sediments Metals Septic systems Nutrients Bacteria Urban runoff Sediment Nutrients Bacteria Pesticides Altered hydrology Metals Wastewater treatment facility Nutrients Bacteria Table 2 Criteria for Prioritizing Watershed Management Efforts Directed at Improving Waterbody and Waterway Water Quality Degree of waterbody/waterway impairment Designated use of the waterbody/waterway Knowledge about water quality, stressors, and sources Probability of success Resources available for management Risk to ecosystem health Risk to public health Stakeholder support Type of waterbody/waterway impairment Value of the waterbody/waterway Water quality goals for the waterbody/waterway ©2001 CRC Press LLC Programmatic criteria, including knowledge about watershed waters, resources available for management, stakeholder support, and probability of success, also impact the implementation of management actions. Insufficient knowledge about the watershed will require a return to the characterization stage. Alternatively, insufficient knowledge about individual waters may eliminate their consideration from the management process. In the absence of sufficient resources, some goals, targets, and action items may have to be eliminated. Lack of stakeholder support may necessitate initiation of an education program and postponement of actions. Conversely, projects with stakeholder support will be easier to implement. Goals, targets, and action items with a high probability of success are important at the beginning of a watershed management program to demonstrate program effective- ness to stakeholders. The type and degree of water quality impairment and ecosystem health relate directly to the physical, chemical, and biological character of the waterbody or waterway. Waterbody and waterway water quality can be compared against regula- tory or designated use standards or against the minimum requirements of aquatic organisms such as fish. Reviewing plant and animal richness and diversity can assess ecosystem health. Systems with impaired water quality or poor ecosystem health may be priorities. As noted above, the threat to public health will be the superceding criteria for prioritization. In the absence of a public health risk, other criteria may become superceding based upon local or regional policy concerns, programmatic constraints, or stakeholder interest. Nevertheless, particularly in the early stages of a watershed management program, formalized evaluation of assorted criteria facilitates consid- eration of multiple perspectives, flexible problem solving, and stakeholder support. This approach also provides a basis for reevaluating a goal, target, or action item if circumstances change. A matrix analogous to the site selection criteria matrix illus- trated in Chapter 5 could be used to ensure careful consideration of all issues. Developing and Implementing a Watershed Program Developing and implementing a watershed management program requires knowledge of the type and degree of water quality problems, the source of the problems, and the available and achievable solutions. This was achieved in the characterization stage. The prioritization stage helped determine the sequence of management actions. This stage has two components: program development and program implementation. Program development focuses on defining a strategy for improving watershed water quality. This is accomplished by setting management goals, targets, and action items. Goals are long-term visions of the watershed and may be programmatic, activity-based, centered on best management practices (BMPs) installation, water quality-oriented, or biological. An example goal might be stating that all surface waters will support commercial and recreational fisheries by the year 2010. Setting of additional near-term or interim goals may facilitate continued stakeholder support and a sense that progress is being made toward long-term goals. Goals are supported by targets, which are specific, quantifiable objectives. For example, reducing nutrient ©2001 CRC Press LLC loads by 50 percent and restoring historical riparian vegetation will restore commer- cial and recreational fisheries. Finally, action items ensure that goals and targets will be achieved. Action items are specific projects with assigned roles and responsibil- ities and a scheduled completion date. For example, the local chapter of the ecolog- ical restoration society will restore bank vegetation along a 1 km stretch of the headwater stream extending from point A to point B, beginning May 1, 2000 and completing the restoration by June 30, 2000. Together, the goals, targets, and action items will be a mix of local and watershed- wide regulations, management practices, economic incentives, and education and training programs. Again, one of the benefits of watershed management is the opportunity for innovative solutions, such as pollution trading (discussed later in this chapter), ecological restoration (see Chapter 6), and mitigation banking (see Chapter 7). Installation of controls should be site specific and tailored to hydrology, topography, geology, the resource to be protected, and politics. Documentation in the form of a watershed management plan is fundamental to program development. The plan should describe the watershed, characterize water quality and pollutant sources, list priorities, and describe the process leading to setting of goals, targets, and action items. In addition, the plan should define roles and responsibilities, identify funding sources and mechanisms, establish a schedule, and describe how program effectiveness will be assessed. Documenting development of the watershed management program facilitates reevaluation, clarifies intent and the decision-making process, and serves as a reference for future management. The plan should be periodically updated. Program implementation requires reaching consensus on goals, targets, and action items, developing an organizational infrastructure for effecting controls, and establishing procedures. Consensus is facilitated by stakeholder involvement in watershed definition and delineation, characterization, prioritization, and program development. An organizational infrastructure must carry out management actions, account for funds, maintain the schedule, and communicate to stakeholders. Controls must be properly installed and subject to periodic inspection and maintenance. Effective actions should be documented as procedures and become part of the watershed plan. Successful watershed management programs will secure commitments for fund- ing and installation and management of controls. Commitments should come from both those implementing and administering actions and from those installing con- trols. Commitments may be formal or rely on public accountability (U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, 1995a). The former are written and detail expectations for all parties. The latter provide for public review through meetings or publications. Funding may derive from the operating budgets of participating organizations, businesses, municipal bonds, taxes, grants from nonparticipating organizations, dona- tions, or fees. Additional support may come from in-kind contributions. Large or complex watershed management programs may benefit from a funding schedule. The schedule would reflect potential funding sources, application dates, dates funding is required, and tasks to obtain funding (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). Ultimately, successful programs have multiple incentives for stakeholder partic- ipation (Table 3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a). Stakeholders ©2001 CRC Press LLC should be thoroughly educated about the reasons, goals, and progress of the water- shed management program. Individuals responsible for implementing, installing, and maintaining pollution controls should receive adequate training and technical assistance. Individuals and businesses should be compensated for control costs that benefit society as a whole. Monitor and Adjust Ideally, monitoring will have been effected prior to the implementation of any management actions to characterize the watershed and provide a baseline for com- parison, and after the implementation of management actions, monitoring documents the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the watershed management program. Docu- mented monitoring results also provide the basis for communicating with stakehold- ers and facilitate long-term maintenance of pollutant controls. Perhaps most importantly, monitoring provides a basis for making adjustments to the watershed management program. Adjustments will be necessary if manage- ment actions are partly or wholly ineffective at achieving program goals or targets. Program adjustments will also be necessary if management actions are effective; goals and targets must be reprioritized. Finally, monitoring provides a basis for making program adjustments in response to significant land-use changes. Monitoring plans should derive directly from program goals, targets, and action items. Continuing with the earlier example, monitoring of native fisheries might include direct counts of fish, preferably by age class. Depending upon program goals, monitoring may encompass biological, chemical, physical, and program- matic parameters (see Chapter 8). Table 4 lists parameters commonly monitored as part of a watershed management program. Chemical and physical parameters should be monitored routinely, as well as during storm events, to characterize the initial flush of pollutants. Biological parameters effectively may be monitored seasonally or annually. Voluntary citizen monitoring programs have become increasingly common in the United States. The success of these programs is dependent upon effective training and a good quality assurance/quality control program. Table 3 Incentives for Participating in a Watershed Management Program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a) Incentive Description Cost–Share Payment to polluters for the installation of controls Education Including function and value of waterbodies and waterways; goals, targets, and action items; benefits of controls; and progress Purchase Purchase of critical areas including source water protection areas, riparian areas, critical habitat, lands from owners unwilling to institute controls Regulation Environmental laws and regulations, zoning ordinances, use restrictions, performance standards Tax advantage Conservation easements, credits for installation of controls Technical assistance Installation of controls, training of on-site managers, provision of procedural documents [...]... Project Focus, Environmental Protection Agency 841-R-9 5-0 03, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 1995a U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach, Environmental Protection Agency 841-R-9 5-0 04, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 1995b U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Why watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency 800-F-9 6-0 01, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 1996a... subject of Chapter 6, and mitigation banking is the subject of Chapter 7 Watershed-based trading is discussed next Watershed-Based Trading Watershed-based trading is an exchange of effluent control responsibility between pollutant dischargers to achieve water quality objectives (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b; Commonwealth of Virginia, 1996) A market-based approach, watershed-based trading... Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six Point Plan to Restore the Anacostia River, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C., 1991 Bingham, D R., Wetlands for stormwater treatment, in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology, Kent, D M., Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994, 243 Bitter, S and Bowers, J., Bioretention as a water quality best management practice, Water... Agency, Why watersheds, Environmental Protection Agency 800-F-9 6-0 01, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 1996a U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading, Environmental Protection Agency 800-R-9 6-0 01, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., 1996b ©2001 CRC Press LLC ... projects, and monitor results In addition, each SWAP will develop plans to increase wetlands and forest cover within the subwatershed Management actions are focused on implementation of basin-wide controls, stream restoration, and communicating with stakeholders (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1990) Basin-wide controls include abatement of combined sewer overflows, retrofitting of urban... will use on-site treatment consisting of a septic tank and disposal field BOD, SS, N, P, bacteria, and viruses are the primary constituents of concern with on-site disposal Onsite systems should be set back from surface and ground waters, the distance of the setback contingent upon system capacity and soil permeability (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) Schueler (1995) has noted that more than one on-site septic... EPA 903-R9 9-0 13, CBP/TRS 222/108, Annapolis, MD, 1999 Chesapeake Executive Council, Commonwealth of Virginia Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, final comment draft, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Department of Environmental Quality, 1996 Chow, V T., Handbook of Applied. .. protection Socially, watershed-based trading encourages dialogue among stakeholders Programmatically, watershed-based trading provides managers with a flexible approach for accelerating watershed-wide water quality improvement programs for point and nonpoint sources of pollution Participants in a watershed-based trading program could include point source dischargers, indirect dischargers (i.e., industrial or... that buy and sell pollutant allowances may also effect trading Table 7 Types of Watershed-Based Trading (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b) Intra-facility trading Point source to point source trading Pretreatment trading Nonpoint to nonpoint source trading Point to nonpoint source trading A facility cost-effectively allocates pollutant discharges among outfalls A point source purchases an allowance... Environmentally, watershed-based trading may achieve equal or greater water quality for the same or less cost, provide an incentive to polluters to go beyond the minimum pollutant reduction required, and encourage innovation Innovation may address broader goals like conservation and preservation, ecological restoration, and endangered species protection Socially, watershed-based trading encourages . Donald M. “Watershed Management” Applied Wetlands Science and Technology Editor Donald M. Kent Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC,2001 ©2001 CRC Press LLC CHAPTER 12 Watershed Management Donald. banking, and watershed-based trading. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation are the subject of Chapter 6, and mitigation banking is the subject of Chapter 7. Watershed-based trading is discussed. action items. Goals are long-term visions of the watershed and may be programmatic, activity-based, centered on best management practices (BMPs) installation, water quality-oriented, or biological.