123

The Tools of Watershed ProtectionChapter 2 from The Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook

In this article, we outline a watershed protectionapproach that applies eight tools to protect orrestore aquatic resources in a subwatershed. These

tools are as follows:

Tool 1. Land Use Planning

Tool 2. Land Conservation

Tool 3. Aquatic Buffers

Tool 4. Better Site Design

Tool 5. Erosion and Sediment Control

Tool 6. Stormwater Best Management Practices

Tool 7. Non-Stormwater Discharges

Tool 8. Watershed Stewardship Programs

The practice of watershed protection is aboutmaking choices about what tools to apply, and in whatcombination. The eight watershed protection toolsroughly correspond to the stages of the developmentcycle from initial land use planning, site design, andconstruction through home ownership (see Figure 1).As a result, a watershed manager will generally need toapply some form of all eight tools in every watershedto provide comprehensive watershed protection. Thetools, however, are applied in different ways depend-ing what category of subwatershed is being protected.

The remainder of this article describes the natureand purpose of the eight watershed protection tools,outlines some specific techniques for applying thetools, and highlights some key choices a watershedmanager should consider when applying or adaptingthe tools within a given subwatershed. Each of thesetools is an essential element of a comprehensive water-shed protection approach and their goal is to providelocal communities with a realistic approach for main-taining a quality environment for future generations.

Tool #1: Land Use PlanningSince impervious cover has such a strong influ-

ence on subwatershed quality, a watershed managermust critically analyze the degree and location offuture development (and impervious cover) that isexpected to happen in a watershed. Consequently,land use planning ranks as perhaps the single mostimportant watershed protection tool. When preparinga watershed plan, a watershed manager needs to do thefollowing:

• Predict what will happen to water resources in theface of future land use change.

• Obtain consensus on the most important water re-source goals for the watershed.

• Develop a future land use pattern for thesubwatersheds within the watershed that can meetthose goals.

• Select the most acceptable and effective land useplanning technique to reduce or shift future imper-vious cover.

• Select the most appropriate combination of otherwatershed protection tools to apply to individualsubwatersheds.

• Devise an ongoing management structure to adoptand implement the watershed plan.

Land Use Planning Techniques

Watershed planning is best conducted at the subwa-tershed scale, where it is recognized that stream qualityis related to land use and consequently impervious cover.One of the goals of watershed planning is to shift devel-opment toward subwatersheds that can support a particu-lar type of land use and/ or density. The basic goal of thewatershed plan is to apply land use planning techniquesto redirect development, preserve sensitive areas, andmaintain or reduce the impervious cover within a givensubwatershed.

A wide variety of techniques can be used to manageland use and impervious cover in subwatersheds. Someof these techniques include the following:

• Watershed based zoning

• Overlay zoning

• Urban growth boundaries

• Large lot zoning

Local officials face hard choices when decidingwhich land use planning techniques are the most appro-priate to modify current zoning. These techniques havebeen employed in a wide variety of watershed applica-tions by many local governments across the country.

Watershed-based Zoning: This specialized tech-nique is the foundation of a land use planning processusing subwatershed boundaries as the basis for futureland use decisions. Watershed based zoning involvesdefining existing watershed conditions, measuring cur-rent and potential future impervious cover, classifying

Article 27

124

subwatersheds based on the amount of future impervious-ness, and most importantly modifying master plans andzoning to shift the location and density of future develop-ment to the appropriate subwatershed management cat-egories. An example of subwatershed management cat-egories within a watershed is shown in Figure 2. Water-shed based zoning can employ a mixture of land use andzoning options to achieve desired results. A watershedbased zoning approach should include the following ninesteps:

1. Conduct a comprehensive stream inventory.2. Measure current levels of impervious cover.3. Verify impervious cover/stream quality relationships.4. Project future levels of impervious cover.5. Classify subwatersheds based on stream management

“templates” and current impervious cover.6. Modify master plans/ zoning to correspond to subwa-

tershed impervious cover targets and other manage-ment strategies identified in Subwatershed Manage-ment Templates.

7. Incorporate management priorities from larger water-shed management units such as river basins or largerwatersheds.

8. Adopt specific watershed protection strategiesfor each subwatershed.

9. Conduct long term monitoring over a prescribedcycle to assess watershed status.

Overlay Zoning: This land use managementtechnique consists of superimposing additional regu-latory standards, specifying permitted uses that areotherwise restricted, or applying specific develop-ment criteria onto existing zoning provisions. Over-lay zones are mapped districts that place specialrestrictions or specific development criteria withoutchanging the base zoning. The advantage is thatspecific criteria can be applied to isolated areas with-out a threat of being considered spot zoning. Overlaydistricts are not necessarily restricted by the limits ofthe underlying base zoning. An overlay zone maytake up only a part of an underlying zone or may evenencompass several underlying zones. Often the utili-zation of an overlay zone is optional. A developer canchoose to develop a property according to the under-lying zoning provisions. However, in order to de-velop certain uses or certain densities, the overlayprovisions kick-in. Overlay zones can also be created

Figure 1: The Eight Tools of Watershed Protection

123123123

12341234123412341234

121212121212

1234123412341234

12341234

123123123

123123

LA N D U S E PLA N N IN GLA N D U S E PLA N N IN G

125

to protect particular resources such as wetlands, for-ests, or historic sites. Here the provisions of theoverlay zone incorporate mandatory requirementswhich restrict development in some way to reach thedesired end.

Urban Growth Boundaries: This planning tech-nique establishes a dividing line between areas appro-priate for urban and suburban development, and areasappropriate for agriculture, rural and resource protec-tion. Boundaries are typically set up for a 10 or 20 yearperiod and should be maintained during of the life ofthe planning period. Boundaries may be examined atplanning period renewal intervals to assess whetherconditions have changed since they were established.Boundaries should rarely be changed between plan-ning cycles to ensure a consistent playing field for boththe marketplace and citizens.

Urban growth boundaries are sometimes calleddevelopment service districts, and include areas wherepublic services are already provided (e.g., sewer, wa-ter, roads, police, fire, and schools). The delineation ofthe boundary is very important. There are several

important issues to consider in establishing an urbangrowth boundary. These include the following:

• Public facilities and services must be nearby and/orcan be provided at reasonable cost and in a specifictime frame.

• A sufficient amount of land to meet projected growthover the planning period must be provided.

• A mix of land uses must be provided.

• The potential impact of growth within the boundaryon existing natural resources should be analyzed.

• The criteria for defining the boundary needs to befair and should consider natural features (versusman-made features) wherever possible. The use ofwatershed boundaries as the urban growth bound-ary is one such natural feature.

Large Lot Zoning: This land use planningtechnique is perhaps most widely used to try tomitigate the impacts of development on receivingwater quality. The technique involves zoning landat very low densities to disperse impervious coverover large areas. Densities of one lot per two, five,

Figure 2: Illustration of the Subwatershed Management Categories forWatershed Planning (MCDEP, 1998)

126

While land conservation is most important in sensi-tive subwatersheds, it is also a critical tool in othersubwatershed management categories. Eachsubwatershed should have its own land conservationstrategy based on its management category, inventory ofconservation areas, and land ownership patterns.

The five conservation areas are not always clearlydifferentiable. Some of the natural areas may overlapamong the conservation areas. For example, a freshwa-ter wetland may serve as a critical habitat, be part of theaquatic corridor and also comprise part of the hydrologicreserve areas. However, the bulk of the most criticalareas are covered in at least one of these five categories.

Techniques for Conserving Land

Different land management techniques are neededto conserve natural areas. These techniques depend onthe type of conservation area and subwatershed beingmanaged. Each subwatershed contains a unique mixtureof conservation areas and requires careful choices forland conservation, depending on the goal of thesubwatershed plan, geographic region, and stakeholderconsensus.

There are numerous techniques that can be used toconserve land which provide a continuum ranging fromabsolute protection to very limited protection. Some ofthe major land conservation techniques include:

• Land Acquisition

• Conservation Easements

• Regulate Land Alteration

• Exclusion or Setback of Water Pollution Hazards

• Protection within the Green Space of Open SpaceDesigns

• Landowner Stewardship

• Public Sector Stewardship

Key Land Conservation Choices for the WatershedManager

When applying the land conservation tool, a water-shed manager must make some careful choices about themix of conservation areas to protect and what techniquesto employ. Given the large areas that need to be con-served within some subwatersheds, many different con-servation techniques need to be applied to cover thepatchwork of public and private lands across asubwatershed.

Some of the land conservation choices a watershedmanager often has to make include:• What fraction of my subwatershed needs to be

conserved?• What are the highest priorities for land conservation

in my subwatershed?• Who will manage these conservation areas over the

long-term?

From the standpoint of watershed protection, large lotzoning is most effective when lots are extremely large(five to 20 acre lots) While large lot zoning does tendto reduce the impervious cover and therefore theamount of stormwater runoff at a particular location, italso spreads development over vast areas. The roadnetworks required to connect these large lots canactually increase the total amount of imperviousnesscreated for each dwelling unit (Schueler, 1995). Inaddition, large lot zoning contributes to regional sprawl.Sprawl-like development increases the expense ofproviding community services such as fire protection,water and sewer systems, and school transportation.

Key Land Use Planning Choices for the WatershedManager

When applying the watershed planning tool, wa-tershed managers need to answer some hard questionsrelating to land use and watershed planning:

• What are the most economically and politicallyacceptable land use planning technique(s) that canbe used to shift or reduce impervious cover amongmy subwatersheds?

• How accurate are the estimates of the amount andlocation of future impervious cover in my water-shed? Are better projections needed?

• Will future increases in impervious cover createunacceptable changes to a watershed and/or sub-watershed?

• Which subwatersheds appear capable of absorb-ing future growth in impervious cover?

Tool #2: Land ConservationWhile the first tool emphasizes how much imper-

vious cover is created in a watershed, the second toolconcerns itself with land conservation. Five types ofland may need to be conserved in a subwatershed:

• Critical habitats for plant and animalcommunities

• Aquatic corridors along streams and shorelines

• Hydrologic reserve areas that sustain a stream’shydrologic regime

• Water hazards that pose a risk of potential pollu-tion spills

• Cultural/ historical areas that are important toour sense of place

A watershed manager must choose which of thesenatural and cultural areas must be conserved in asubwatershed in order to sustain the integrity of itsaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to maintaindesired human uses from its waters. Table 1 includesdescriptions and examples of these five conservationareas.

127

Table 1: Description and Examples of the Five Conservation Areas

Conservation Area Description Examples

Critical Habitat essential spaces for plant and animalcommunities or populations

tidal wetlands, freshwaterwetlands, large forest clumps,springs, spawning areas instreams, habitat for rare orendangered species, potentialrestoration areas, nativevegetation areas, coves

Aquatic Corridor area where land and water interact floodplains, stream channels,springs and seeps, steepslopes, small estuarine coves,littoral areas, stream crossings,shorelines, riparian forest,caves, and sinkholes

Hydrologic Reserve undeveloped areas responsible formaintaining the predevelopmenthydrologic response of asubwatershed

forest, meadow, prairie,wetland, crop pasture ormanaged forest

Water Pollution Hazard any land use or activity that isexpected to create a relatively highrisk of potential water pollution

septic systems, landfills,hazardous waste generators,above or below ground tanks,impervious cover, surface orsubsurface discharge ofwastewater effluent, landapplication sites, stormwater"hotspots," pesticideapplication, industrialdischarges, and road saltstorage areas

Cultural/HistoricalReserves

areas that provide a sense of place inthe landscape and are importanthabitats for people

historic or archaeologic sites,trails, parkland, scenic views,water access, bridges, andrecreational areas

128

Figure 3: A Stream Buffer

Figure 4: An Innovative Site Plan

In this design, stormwater pollutant loading was reduced by 40%, and the cost of develop-ment was reduced by 20% compared to a conventional site.

129

• What incentives can be used to promote steward-ship of private lands?

• Is a land trust available to accept and manageconservation areas, or does one need to be cre-ated?

• What are the most appropriate techniques to con-serve land in the watershed?

• At what scale and by what method should conser-vation areas be delineated?

Tool #3: Aquatic BuffersThe aquatic corridor, where land and water meet,

deserves special protection in the form of buffers. Abuffer can be placed along a stream or shoreline oraround a natural wetland. A buffer has many uses andbenefits. Its primary use is to physically protect andseparate a stream, lake or wetland channel from futuredisturbance or encroachment. For streams, a networkof buffers acts as a right-of-way during floods andsustains the integrity of stream ecosystems and habi-tats. Technically, a buffer is one type of land conser-vation area, but it’s functional importance in water-shed protection merits some discussion on how theywork and why they are important.

In some settings, buffers can remove pollutantstraveling in stormwater or groundwater. Shoreline andstream buffers situated on flat soils have been found tobe effective in removing sediment, nutrients, and bac-teria from stormwater runoff and septic system efflu-ent in a wide variety of rural and agricultural settingsalong the East Coast (Desbonnet et al., 1994). Whilethe benefits of buffers in urban areas are impressive,their capability to remove urban stormwater pollutantsis often limited. Urban runoff concentrates rapidly onpaved and hard packed turf surfaces and crosses thebuffer as channel flow, effectively short circuiting thebuffer. Buffers can also provide wildlife habitat andrecreation. In many regions of the nation, the benefitsof a buffer are amplified if is managed in a forestedcondition.

The ability of buffers to actually realize the manypotential benefits depends on how well the buffer isplanned, designed and maintained. Buffers are impor-tant because they make up an integral part of thewatershed protection strategy and complement otherprograms and efforts to protect critical receiving waterquality.

Key Buffer Choices for the Watershed Manager

When applying the buffer tool, a watershed man-ager must make some careful choices about which kindof buffers are needed and how wide they must be. Inmany cases, a new buffer ordinance may need to beadopted or an old one revised to establish an effectivebuffer network within a subwatershed.

A watershed manager faces many tough questionswhen designing a buffer program for a subwatershed.Some issues that should be addressed include:

• How much of the aquatic corridor can be protectedby buffers in my subwatershed?

• How should buffers be managed and crossed?

• Is restoration or better stewardship possible alongan aquatic corridor that has already been devel-oped?

• Will the buffer network be managed as a recre-ational greenway or as a conservation area in mysubwatershed?

• Who will own and maintain the buffer and how willmaintenance be paid for?

• How much pollutant removal can realistically beexpected from my buffer network?

Tool #4: Better Site DesignIndividual development projects can be designed to

reduce the amount of impervious cover they create, andincrease the natural areas they conserve. Many innova-tive site planning techniques have been shown to sharplyreduce the impact of new development (see Figure 4).Designers, however, are often not allowed to use thesetechniques in many communities because of outdatedlocal zoning, parking or subdivision codes.

Thus, the fourth watershed protection tool seeks tofoster better site designs that can afford greater protec-tion to a subwatershed. The Center has recently devel-oped a guidance manual entitled Better Site Design: AHandbook for Changing Development Rules in YourCommunity (CWP, 1998a) that helps watershed manag-ers identify the local development rules that need to bechanged to promote better site designs.

Four better design strategies that have special meritfor subwatershed protection include:

1. Open space residential subdivisions2. Green parking lots3. Headwater streets4. Rooftop runoff management

Open Space or Cluster Residential Subdivisions

Cluster development designs minimize lot sizeswithin a compact developed portion of a property whileleaving the remaining portion open. Housing can still bedetached single family homes as well as multi-familyhousing or a mix of both. Clustered development createsprotected open space that provides many environmentalas well as market benefits. Cluster or open spacedevelopment design typically keeps 30 to 80% of thetotal site area in permanent community open space withmuch of the open space managed as natural area.

The key benefit of open space or cluster develop-ment is that it can reduce the amount of impervious cover

130

created by a residential subdivision by 10 to 50% (CWP,1998b; DE DNREC, 1997; Dreher and Price, 1994;Maurer, 1996; SCCCL, 1995). Clustering can alsoprovide many community and environmental benefits.It can eliminate the need to clear and grade 35 to 60% oftotal site area and can reserve up to 15% of the site foractive or passive recreation. When carefully designed,the recreation space can promote better pedestrian move-ment, a stronger sense of community space, and a park-like setting. Numerous studies have confirmed thathousing lots situated near greenways or parks sell for ahigher price than more distant homes. Open spacedesigns provide developers some “compensation” forlots that would otherwise have been lost due to wetland,floodplain, or other requirements. This, in turn, reducesthe pressure to encroach on buffers and other naturalareas. In addition, the ample open spaces within a clusterdevelopment provide a greater range of locations formore cost-effective stormwater runoff practices.

Green Parking Lots

When viewed from the air, parking lots are usuallythe largest feature of a commercial area, at least in termsof surface area. Over time, local parking codes haveevolved to ensure that all workers, customers and resi-dents have convenient and plentiful parking. In thisrespect, local parking codes have been a great success.One by-product, however, has been the creation of largeexpanses of often needless impervious cover.

A key strategy to reduce impervious cover involvesthe construction of green parking lots. Green parkingrefers to an approach that downsizes parking areas whilestill providing convenient access for the motorist. Greenparking can be achieved through careful design and acomprehensive revision of local parking codes. Thecommon theme in green parking lots is minimization ofimpervious area at every stage of parking lot planningand design.

Headwater Streets

Since streets are one of the biggest components ofimpervious cover created by car transport needs, head-water streets are built on a revised classification systemwhere street width declines with decreasing averagedaily trips (much like headwater streams which decreasein size with decreasing drainage area). This is essential,since streets are a key source area for stormwater pollut-ants and do not allow the natural infiltration of water intothe ground. By revisiting and changing some localsubdivision codes many of the traditionally acceptedstandards can be changed to address this issue.

Rooftop Runoff Management

Re-directing rooftop runoff over pervious surfacesbefore it reaches paved surfaces can decrease the annualrunoff volume from a site by as much as 50% for medium

to low density residential land uses (Pitt, 1987). Thiscan significantly reduce the annual pollutant load andrunoff volume being delivered to receiving waters andtherefore can have a substantial benefit in reducingdownstream impacts.

Key Site Design Choices for the WatershedManager

When using the better site design tool, a watershedmanager should be realistic about how much impervi-ous cover can be reduced through better site design ina subwatershed. While better site designs can reducethe impact of individual development projects, thecumulative impact of too much development can stilldegrade some subwatersheds, no matter how well eachone is designed. The value of the site design toolappears to be greatest in those subwatersheds that areapproaching their maximum impervious cover limit.

• A watershed manager needs to make some carefulchoices on how to best promote better site designswithin a subwatershed. Some questions include:

• Will better site design really make a difference inreducing the growth of impervious cover in thesub-watershed?

• What are the most important development rulesthat need to be changed to promote better sitedesign, and can a local consensus be achieved toactually change them?

• What economic and other incentives can be usedto encourage developers to utilize better site de-signs?

• What is the time frame for revising codes andordinances in the context of watershed planning?

Perhaps the most destructive stage of the develop-ment cycle is the relatively short period when vegeta-tion is cleared and a site is graded to create a buildablelandscape. The potential impacts to receiving watersare particularly severe at this stage. Trees and topsoilare removed, soils are exposed to erosion, naturaltopography and drainage patterns are altered, andsensitive areas are often disturbed. A combination ofclearing restrictions, erosion prevention and sedimentcontrols, coupled with a diligent plan review and strictconstruction enforcement are needed to help mitigatethese impacts. Many communities rely primarily onsediment control as the primary strategy for sedimentloss, though increasingly, the value of non-structuralpractices for erosion prevention are being recognized(Brown and Caraco, 1997).

Thus, the fifth watershed protection tool seeks toreduce sediment loss during construction and to ensurethat conservation areas, buffers, and forests are notcleared or otherwise disturbed during construction.

131

Key Erosion and Sediment Control Choices for theWatershed Manager

Every community should have an effective ero-sion and sediment control (ESC) program to reduce thepotentially severe impacts generated by the construc-tion process. The watershed manager should play akey role in defining which specific ESC practices needto be applied within the subwatershed to best protectsensitive aquatic communities, reduce sediment loads,and maintain the boundaries of conservation areas andbuffers.

• Some of the key decisions that watershed manag-ers often make at the subwatershed level include:

• Is a higher level of ESC practice or more frequentinspection needed to protect my subwatershed?

• How well do current ESC programs reinforceother watershed protection tools, such as buffers,conservation areas, and better site design?

• What incentives can be used to minimize the amountof clearing at development sites?

Tool #6: Stormwater Treatment PracticesA watershed manager needs to make careful choices

about what stormwater treatment practices need to beinstalled in the subwatershed to compensate for thehydrological changes caused by new and existing devel-opment. The key choice is to determine what are theprimary stormwater objectives for a subwatershed thatwill the govern the selection, design and location ofstormwater practices at individual development sites.While the specific design objectives for stormwaterpractices are often unique to each subwatershed, thegeneral goals for stormwater are often the same:

• Maintain groundwater recharge and quality

• Reduce stormwater pollutant loads

• Protect stream channels

Figure 5: Examples of Stormwater Management Practices

Stormwater Wetland

Open Channel

Stormwater Pond

Stormwater Filter Infiltration Trench

132

• Prevent increased overbank flooding

• Safely convey extreme floods

Stormwater treatment practices are used to delay,capture, store, treat or infiltrate stormwater runoff. Thereare five broad groups of structural stormwater manage-ment practices:

• Ponds

• Wetlands

• Infiltration

• Filtering systems

• Open channelsSome examples of these are provided in Figure 5.

While many advances have been made recently ininnovative stormwater practice designs, their ability tomaintain resource quality in the absence of the otherwatershed protection tools is limited (Horner et al.,1996). In fact, stormwater practices designed or locatedimproperly can cause more secondary environmentalimpacts than if they were not installed at all.

Key Stormwater Choices for the Watershed Man-ager

Selecting the best stormwater practice can be a realchallenge for the watershed manager. Some of theimportant issues and questions that watershed managersshould address include the following:

• What is the most effective mix of structural vs. non-structural stormwater practices that can meet mysubwatershed goals?

• Which hydrologic variables do we want to manage inthe subwatershed (recharge, channel protection,flood reduction, etc)?

• What are the primary stormwater pollutants of con-cern (phosphorus, bacteria, sediment, metals, hy-drocarbons, or trash and debris)?

• What are the best stormwater practices for removingpollutants?

• Which stormwater practices should be used or avoidedin the subwatershed because of their environmentalimpacts?

• What is the most economical way to provide storm-water management?

• Which stormwater practices are the least burden-some to maintain within local budgets?

Tool #7. Non-Stormwater DischargesThis tool concerns itself with how wastewater and

other non-stormwater flows are treated and dischargedin a watershed. In some watersheds, non-stormwaterdischarges can contribute significant pollutant loads toreceiving waters. Key program elements consist of

inspections of private septic systems, repair or replace-ment of failing systems, utilizing more advanced on-site septic controls, identifying and eliminating illicitconnections from municipal stormwater systems, andspill prevention.

Three basic kinds of non-stormwater dischargesare possible in a subwatershed. Most non-stormwaterdischarges are strictly governed under the NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),and require a permit.

1. Septic systems (on-site sewage disposal) areused to treat and discharge wastewater from toilets,wash basins, bathtubs, washing machines, and otherwater-consumptive items that can be sources of highpollutant loads. One out of four homes in the countryuses a septic system, collectively discharging a trilliongallons of wastewater annually (NSFC, 1995). Be-cause of their widespread use and high volume dis-charges, septic systems have the potential to pollutegroundwater, lakes and streams if located improperlyor if they fail. Even properly functioning septic sys-tems can be a substantial source of nutrient loads insome settings. Unlike other non-stormwater discharges,septic systems are not regulated under NPDES, but areapproved by local and state health agencies.

2. With sanitary sewers, wastewater is col-lected in a central sewer pipe and sent to a municipaltreatment plant. Ideally, this permits more efficientcollection of wastewater, and often higher levels ofpollutant reduction. The extension of sanitary sewerlines is not without some risk, as it has the potential toinduce more development than may have been pos-sible in a watershed that had been previously servedonly by on-site sewage disposal systems (particularlywhen soils are limiting). Most communities cannotrefuse service to new development within the waterand sewer envelope, so the decision to extend lines outinto undeveloped areas allow future developers to tapinto the line.

In addition, not all sanitary sewer conveyance andtreatment systems are capable of achieving high levelsof pollutant reduction. Examples include the follow-ing:

• Package treatment plants

• Combined sewer overflows

• Sanitary sewer overflows

• Illicit or illegal connections to the storm drainnetwork

3. Wastewater is not the only non-stormwaterdischarge possible in a watershed. A planner shouldalso investigate whether other non-stormwater dis-charges are a factor in the subwatershed. Examplesinclude the following:

133

• Industrial NPDES discharges

• Urban “return flows” (discharges caused by ac-tivities such as car washing and watering lawns)

• Water diversions

• Runoff from confined animal feeding lots

Key Non-Stormwater Discharge Choices for theWatershed Manager

One of the first priorities for a watershed manageris to conduct a quick inventory of the nature and extentof non-stormwater discharges in the subwatershed. Ifnon-stormwater discharges appear to be a problem,then a watershed manager may need to conduct asubwatershed survey. This usually involves a surveyof the largest or most common wastewater dischargeswithin the subwatershed, with a strong emphasis onhow wastewater is actually conveyed within the sub-watershed (i.e. sanitary sewer, septic systems, etc.).

• Some issues to address for the non-stormwaterdischarges tool include the following:

• What, if any, regulating or permit programs can beutilized to improve compliance for the greatestdischarges?

• Does it make sense to extend the water/sewerenvelope into the watershed?

• Where will the sewer be located in relationship tothe stream corridor?

• Are current permit limits adequate or is a higherlevel of treatment needed?

• Where will the discharge be located?

• What kind of septic siting criteria should be re-quired?

• What kind of septic system technology should beused?

• How will septic systems be inspected, cleaned andmaintained?

Tool #8: Watershed StewardshipPrograms

Once a subwatershed is developed, communitiesstill need to invest in ongoing watershed stewardship.The goal of watershed stewardship is to increase publicunderstanding and awareness about watersheds, pro-mote better stewardship of private lands, and developfunding to sustain watershed management efforts.

There are six basic programs that watershed man-agers should consider to promote a greater watershedstewardship:

• Watershed Advocacy

• Watershed Education

• Pollution Prevention

• Watershed Maintenance

• Indicator Monitoring

• Restoration

1. Watershed Advocacy: Promoting watershedadvocacy is important because it can lay the foundationfor public support and greater watershed stewardship.One of the most important investments that can be madein a watershed is to seed and support a watershedmanagement structure to carry out the long-term stew-ardship function. Often, a grass roots watershed man-agement organization is uniquely prepared to handlemany critical stewardship programs, given their water-shed focus, volunteers, low cost and ability to reach intocommunities. Watershed organizations can be forcefuladvocates for better land management and can developbroad popular support and involvement for watershedprotection. Local government also has an important roleto play in watershed advocacy. In many watersheds,local governments create or direct the watershed man-agement structure.

2. Watershed Education: A basic premise ofwatershed stewardship is that we must learn two things:that we live in a watershed and that we understand howto live within it. The design of watershed educationprograms that create this awareness is of fundamentalimportance. The four elements of watershed educationare as follows:

• Watershed awareness: raising basic watershedawareness through signage, storm drain stenciling,streamwalks, maps

• Personal stewardship: educating residents aboutthe individual role they play in the watershed andcommunicating specific messages about positiveand negative behaviors

• Professional training: educating the developmentcommunity on how to apply the tools of watershedprotection

• Watershed engagement: providing opportunitiesfor the public to actively engage in watershed pro-tection and restoration

3. Pollution Prevention: Some watershed busi-nesses may need special training on how to manage theiroperations to prevent pollution and thereby protect thewatershed. In some cases, local or state government mayhave a regulatory responsibility to develop pollutionprevention programs for certain businesses and indus-trial categories (e.g., under industrial or municipal NPDESstormwater permits).

4. Watershed Maintenance: Most watershedprotection tools require maintenance if they are to prop-erly function over the long run. Some of the most criticalwatershed “maintenance” functions include manage-ment of conservation areas and buffer networks, andmaintenance of stormwater practices, septic systems andsewer networks.

134

5. Watershed Indicator Monitoring: An ongo-ing stewardship responsibility is to monitor key indica-tors to track the health of the watershed. Public agenciesshould seriously consider citizen monitoring to providehigh quality and low cost indicator data.

6. Watershed Restoration: The last phase ofwatershed stewardship is to restore or at least rehabilitatestreams that have been degraded by past development.Urban watershed restoration is an emerging art andscience that seeks to remove pollutants and enhancehabitat to restore urban streams. The urban watershedrestoration process should include three main themes:stormwater retrofitting, source control through pollutionprevention, and stream enhancement (Claytor, 1995).

Key Choices for the Watershed Manager

There are several important issues that watershedmanagers should address when designing watershedstewardship programs:

• Is my community ready to undertake restoration?

• Which mix of stewardship programs is best for mysubwatershed?

• Who are the best targets for watershed education?

• How am I going to pay for a stewardship program?

Summary

This article provides a simple introduction to theeight watershed protection tools. For more informationon how to implement these tools, refer to other articles inthis book.

References

Brown, W. and Caraco, D. “Muddy Water In, MuddyWater Out.” Watershed Protection Techniques.2(3), February, 1997. 393-404.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1998a. Better SiteDesign: A Handbook for Changing DevelopmentRules in Your Community. Ellicott City, MD.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1998b. NutrientLoading from Conventional and Innovative SiteDevelopment. Prepared for the Chesapeake Re-search Consortium, Annapolis, MD.

Claytor, R. 1995. “Assessing the Potential for UrbanWatershed Restoration.” Watershed ProtectionTechniques. 1(4): 166-172.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-ronmental Conservation (DE DNREC). 1997. Con-servation Design for Stormwater Management.Delaware Department of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Conservation, Dover, DE.

Desbonnet, Alan, Pamela Pogue, Virginia Lee, andNicholas Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in theCoastal Zone: A Summary Review and Bibliogra-phy. Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island SeaGrant, Narragansett, RI.

Dreher, D. and T. Price. 1994. Reducing the Impact ofUrban Runoff: The Advantages of Alternative SiteDesign Approaches. Northeastern Illinois Plan-ning Commission, Chicago IL.

Horner, et al. 1996.”Watershed Determinates of Eco-system Functioning.” Effects of Watershed Devel-opment and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems.Roesner, L.A. (editor). Snowbird Utah. August 4-9, 1996. Engineering Foundation.

Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Envi-ronmental Protection (MCDEP). 1998.Countywide Stream Protection Strategy. Mont-gomery County Department of EnvironmentalProtection and Maryland-National Capital Parkand Planning Commission.

Maurer, George. 1996. A Better Way to Grow: ForMore Livable Communities and a Healthier Chesa-peake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, An-napolis, MD.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC). Pipe-line 6(3), 1995.

Nelson, M. 1998. Personal Communication. Horsleyand Witten, Inc. Sandwich, MA.

Pitt, R. 1987. Small Storm Urban Flow and Particu-late Washoff Contributions to Outfall Discharges.Doctorate Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madi-son, WI.

Pitt, R. 1993. Source Loading and ManagementModel (SLAMM). National Conference on Ur-ban Runoff Management, March 30-April 2, 1993.Chicago, IL.

Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban StreamProtection. Center for Watershed Protection,Ellicott City, Maryland.

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCCL).Fall 1995. “Getting a Rein on Runoff: HowSprawl and Traditional Town Compare.” SCCCLLand Development Bulletin (7). South CarolinaCoastal Conservation League, Charleston, SC.