Source Protection

Handbook

Using Land Conservation to 

Protect Drinking Water Supplies

published by the Trust for Public Land and

American Water Works Association

“The health of our waters 

is the principle measure of

Water Protection Series

how we live on the land.”

Source Protection

Handbook

Using Land Conservation to 

Protect Drinking Water Supplies
2 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

THIS REPORT WAS PRODUCED

WITH FUNDING FROM THE

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Ground Water 

and Drinking Water
3

Foreword 5

Acknowledgments 6

MAKING THE CASE

A multiple-barrier approach to drinking water protection 9

Land conservation and its role in source protection 11

National policies and programs governing local source protection 12

A LAND CONSERVATION “ HOW-T O ”

Getting Started: Is land conservation a good approach for you? 16

Understand your watershed 16

Identify water supply lands 17

Evaluate current and future land uses 17

Determine ownership and management 18

Assess threats and monitor water quality 18

Prioritize land for protection 23

Geographic Information Systems—the basics 23

GIS ranking systems 24

Table 1: Generalized GIS overlay process to develop a 

Surface Water Conservation Priority Index 25

Table 2: Groundwater Conservation Priority Index for forests 

and wetlands in the Squannacook and Nissitissit River 

watersheds (Nashua River tributaries), Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire 26

Data Sources 27

Table 3: Pollution Mitigation Potential by Ecosystem 29

Build strong partnerships 32

Nonprofit Source Protection Partners 34

Design a comprehensive source protection plan 37

Table 4: Decision-support matrix 39

Emphasize land conservation approaches 40

Consider regulatory and design tools 42

Incorporate best management practices 44

Implement a plan that creates real change 44

Contents
4 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

Finance land conservation 47

Create and maintain dedicated local public funding sources 47

Identify and secure state and federal funding sources 52

Explore private funding sources 55

Protect priority lands 58

Doing deals 58

Forge partnerships for doing deals 62

Table 5: Acquiring Title 63

Manage protected lands 67

Stewardship of private lands 67

Stewardship of public lands 68

Forge land management partnerships 72

Fund land management 73

CONCLUSION: MOVING TOWARD SUCCESS 79

Appendix

Glossary 80

Resources 82

Endnotes 85

CASE STUDIES

Bull Run Watershed, Oregon 21

Upper Little Tallapoosa River Watershed, Georgia 31

Portland Water Bureau, Oregon 33

Raritan Basin, New Jersey 35

Merrimack Village District Water Works, New Hampshire 45

Suffolk County and its Towns, New York 56

Waynesville, North Carolina 65

Manchester, New Hampshire 73

Contra Costa Water District, California 75
5

Foreword

Earlier this year, the Trust for Public

Land (TPL) and the American Water

Works Association (AWWA) released

Protecting the Source, a report that makes the case

for land conservation as a source water protection strategy. The Source Protection Handbook is

the manual for implementing many of the policy recommendations in that report. It brings

together lessons learned during years of field

work by TPL staff and AWWA members and

presents some of the best practices for protecting drinking water sources.

This year the EPA’s Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) detailed serious

threats to drinking water sources in every state.

States and local water suppliers compiled databases of current and future drinking water

sources and threats to those sources. Not surprisingly, they found that most threats to

drinking water came from various land uses. At

one time, new housing developments, shopping

malls, and schools were sited far from drinking

water sources. Today, they are often built above

source water aquifers, adjacent to public reservoirs, and along streams that feed reservoirs

and other water sources. 

While EPA allocated some monies for

states and local suppliers to assess the threats

to drinking water, little money is available to

address those threats. TPL and AWWA

understand the value of a stronger partnership

between water resource managers and conservationists, who in making the case for conservation are already tapping into strong public

sentiment to protect drinking water quality.

State and local land conservation programs are

increasingly focusing on water quality protection. These programs are growing based on

state and local land conservation funding that

has blossomed from millions of dollars to billions of dollars in the last ten years. As a result,

an opportunity exists for water suppliers to

work more closely with conservationists in

implementing source protection strategies. 

The goal of the Source Protection Handbook is

to strengthen the ability of water suppliers to

develop protection strategies that address the

threats posed by development to drinking

water sources. The handbook provides guidance and action steps for water suppliers to

address each of the problems identified in Protecting the Source. In particular it details

how to understand the dynamics in

the watershed, how to prioritize land

for protection and find the partners,

and how to fund and manage watershed protection programs. 

TPL and AWWA are strongly

committed to source water protection.

AWWA recommends that suppliers

strive to secure drinking water from

the cleanest available sources and to

“actively and aggressively” protect

those sources. Land conservation is

central to TPL’s mission, and over 30

years of collaborating with local and

state governments on land protection

strategies make it well-suited to partner with water suppliers.

For at least sixty years, many water

suppliers have relied on water treatment technology to keep America’s

drinking water safe. Today we have

learned that although it is important,

technology is not enough. Water suppliers are learning to trace water back

to its source, where its quality is highest, and to prevent degradation of

water before it reaches the treatment plant. 

We believe that this report will help guide

these source protection activities, providing

new tools, partnerships, case studies and

proven practices so water suppliers can continue to meet the challenge of providing clean

drinking water to the nation’s people. 

Will Rogers Jack W. Hoffbuhr

PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TPL AWWA

Will Rogers

Jack Hoffbuhr
6 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

The Trust for Public Land (TPL)

would like to thank the many people

who made this report possible. In

particular, we thank the members of TPL’s

Technical Review Team who took the time to

review and provide comments as this Handbook was developed, and to TPL’s Source

Water Protection Advisory Committee for

their technical assistance and guidance

throughout the process of putting together our

companion report – “Protecting the Source.”

AWWA’s Source Water Protection Committee

Chairperson, Richard Gullick, deserves special

recognition for his technical insight, editorial

assistance, and much needed water utility perspective. Special thanks also to Gary Logsdon,

for his detailed, thoughtful and technically proficient review comments. 

Technical Review Team

Alicia Betty, The Trust for Public Land

Amy Goolsby, Carroll County, Georgia, 

Department of Community and 

Economic Development

Robert Karl, Brick Township Municipal 

Utility Authority

David Kuechenmeister, The Trust for 

Public Land

Sylvia Malm, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water, U.S. EPA

Wendy Muzzy, The Trust for Public Land

Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System

Charlie O’Leary, The Trust for Public Land

Brian Thompson, Aquarion Water Company

Source Water Protection 

Advisory Committee

Scott Abrahamson, New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation

Paul Barten, University of Massachusetts 

at Amherst

Kathy Blaha, The Trust for Public Land

Suzanne Chiavari, American Water 

Scott Emry, Hampton Roads Planning 

District Commission

Stephen Gasteyer, Rural Community 

Assistance Program

Richard Gullick, American Water

Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer 

Authority, North Carolina

Pam Kenel, Black and Veatch

Gary Logsdon, Black and Veatch

Walton Low, U.S. Geologic Survey, National 

Water Quality Assessment Program

Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System

K.C. Price, Startex, Jackson, Wellford and 

Duncan (SJWD) Water District

Grantley Pyke, Hazen and Sawyer

Carol Storms, Aqua America

Brian Thompson, Aquarion Water Company 

of Connecticut

TPL would also like to thank the many

water suppliers who participated in our survey,

which revealed critical information on the link

between forest cover and treatment costs.

Likewise, we would like to convey our special

appreciation to the many municipalities, water

utilities, and state and federal agency representatives who provided extensive materials and

background data for our case studies. In particular, EPA staff at the Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water, especially Debra Gutenson, supported TPL’s field work where many of

our best practices and case studies originated.

We are grateful for their partnership and support of our work. Special gratitude is due to

Kathy Blaha, Sr. Vice President of National

Programs at TPL, for her support, guidance,

and countless hours of reviewing and revising

drafts. 

TPL is especially grateful for the financial

support provided by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water, without which this report

would not have been possible.

Acknowledgments

8 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
MAKING THE CASE 9

I

n Virginia Lee Burton’s classic children’s

tale, The Little House, readers witness the

transformation of a picturesque countryside, first by roads and homes and later by

apartment buildings, trolley cars, and skyscrapers. Once surrounded by a “field of daisies with

apple trees growing around,” the Little House

finds herself plump in the middle of a booming

metropolis. Finally rescued, she is picked up

from her foundation and moved beyond to yet

another untouched and idyllic landscape of

rolling hillside and bubbling brooks.

Written in 1942, Burton’s story resonates

today as development presses in on all sides

and sprawls in all directions. Such unchecked

growth threatens not only our open spaces and

quality of life, but also the air and water

resources we need to survive. What was once a

bubbling brook (or wellhead or reservoir) may

be lost forever as a source of clean, safe drinking water.

Across the country, population growth and

sprawling development threaten undeveloped

land that protects regional and local water supplies. Not surprisingly, the fastest growing

threat to our water quality is pollution from

nonpoint sources related to development—the

parking lots, roadways, and housing subdivisions that consume today’s landscape. Polluted

runoff from these areas often contains oil, toxic

metals, pesticides, and other contaminants that

flow into surface water supplies or underground aquifers. 

While point sources of pollution such as

sewage discharge and industrial waste have

been regulated effectively for decades, nonpoint source pollution is more difficult to combat. Nonpoint sources of pollution appear and

increase as a community grows, and the quality

of the water shifts to reflect the changes of the

land. The problem is exacerbated when developed areas consume former forestlands and

wetlands that served as natural water filters

and buffers to water supplies. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the leading cause of source

water degradation is nonpoint source pollution. Although agriculture is currently the

greatest nonpoint source threat to drinking

water quality, urban runoff is the fastest growing threat nationwide. 

New development—particularly unplanned

development and development that replaces

forests and wetlands—greatly exacerbates the

impact of agricultural pollution because it

removes the natural barriers that filter pollutants and increases storm water runoff and soil

erosion. While there is debate about whether

changing land from agricultural use to low- or

moderate-density development negatively

impacts water, it is clear that new development

on formerly natural lands threatens water quality and increases the impacts of agricultural

pollution. 

With new development comes greater

demand for water. Population growth is leading to water supply crises in many parts of the

MAKING THE CASE

By preserving the

land that drains 

to its sources, the 

vast majority of

contaminants are 

prevented from

entering drinking

water in the first

place.

A MULTIPLE BARRIER APPROACH TO

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

© 1991 ROB BADGER
U.S., and battles over water rights have long

been part of the political landscape in the

Southeast and West. It is inevitable that

demand for potable water will continue to

increase, forcing communities to limit growth

and protect their remaining resources. 

So how do municipalities and water suppliers combat the threats? From source to tap,

there are numerous points to capture and safeguard clean water or treat contaminated water.

The most fundamental approach begins at the

source—the lakes, rivers, streams, reservoirs,

and ground water that provide drinking water.

By preserving the land that drains to these

sources, the vast majority of contaminants are

prevented from entering drinking water in the

first place. This is a critical component of

source protection and the focus of this handbook. 

Land conservation emphasizes the permanent preservation of land around both groundwater sources (aquifer recharge areas and

wellheads) and surface water sources (land that

buffers streams, rivers, and lakes). It’s an

extremely effective tool that can protect public

health, prevent increased treatment costs,

ensure consumer confidence, and maintain real

estate values in areas where water supplies are

protected. 

Treatment, through filtration and disinfection, is the next barrier against contaminated

water. Should pollutants enter water supplies,

treatment removes most contaminants. Even in

the most pristine watersheds, natural pollutants such as animal waste and organic matter

can impair water quality, making treatment

essential to the delivery of clean, safe drinking

water. 

The final barrier is infrastructure. From

treatment plants, water travels into canals,

pipes, wells, holding tanks, and finally consumer operated spigots. Contamination can

occur through the corrosion of pipes and solder material (copper, lead, asbestos), the

growth of bacteria in pipes, and untreated

water that enters through a break in the distribution system itself.1 Sound and up-to-date

distribution systems help prevent such contamination and disruption of service. 

Land conservation, treatment and filtration, and distribution system integrity are all

parts of a multiple-barrier approach to providing clean drinking water; each is essential to

long-term protection of our water supplies. Yet

the emphasis on land conservation as a source

protection tool is in flux. Many older cities

have historically protected source lands,

employing the only water protection approach

available before the advent of treatment technologies. High-growth areas, particularly newly

developing mid-sized cities and suburbs, however, often lag in protecting drinking water

supply lands. Demand for new development in

source areas, along with advancements in treatment technologies, have had the unintended

effect of lessening overall interest in source

protection.

Fortunately this mindset is changing, as

fast-growing communities and water suppliers

are recognizing the benefits of conserving

source lands and the limitations of treatment

alone. Despite tremendous advancements in

science and technology, treating water in 

heavily used watersheds with degraded water

quality is challenging and expensive for several

reasons: 

◆ treatment measures must be continually

expanded to address new forms of contamination, including pathogens, chemicals, metals, and pharmaceuticals.

◆ standards are constantly changing as we

learn more about the potential health effects

of new contaminants, and the costs of

upgrading systems is extremely expensive; 

◆ heavy rainfall causes pollutant loads at the

intake to spike, making safe and effective

treatment more difficult. 

Dangerous levels of contamination yield

significant treatment costs to the supplier and

the community: increased treatment or treatment upgrades; remediation of the contaminant source; purchase of bottled water;

consulting services and staff time; litigation

costs against responsible parties; and provision

of public information to satisfy public and

media concerns.2 Other costs are more difficult

to measure: when water quality is threatened,

consumer confidence is lost and human health

is at risk.

Conversely, prevention measures, including

the conservation of forests and other natural

areas, can minimize the need for filtration and

treatment, and produce long-term cost savings.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the costs of treating contaminated groundwater supplies was, on

average, 30 to 40 times more (and up to 200

times greater) than preventing their contamination.3 The Trust for Public Land and the

American Water Works Association also found

10 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
in a 2002 survey of 27 water suppliers that the

more forest cover in a watershed, the lower the

costs of treatment.4

Increasing demand, decreasing supply, and

reducing pollution from a rising number of contaminants are today’s challenges. What’s clear is

the need for a multiple-barrier approach that

focuses on the permanent protection of drinking water sources. This handbook is designed to

help municipalities, water suppliers, and landuse advocates address source protection needs

through the conservation of source lands. It

compliments TPL’s 2004 Protecting the Source

report, which makes a case for source protection

and provides best practices for implementation.

(For copies of Protecting the Source, visit TPL’s

Web site at www.tpl.org).

LAND CONSERVATION

AND ITS ROLE IN SOURCE

PROTECTION

Land conservation is a powerful tool that can

help communities meet multiple planning challenges, including the protection of drinking

water resources. The fiscal and economic benefits are also considerable: in general, source protection, including land conservation, is much

less costly than clean-up.

Proactive and strategic land conservation—

greenprinting—is completely voluntary and incentives-based; open space and development rights

are acquired from willing sellers. The method

offers a variety of techniques, including fee simple ownership and conservation easements, each

offering permanent protection for natural

resources while fairly compensating landowners

for their property. 

Voluntary approaches are part of a source

protection strategy that includes regulation,

planning, and zoning. Land-use regulations can

help prevent development in sensitive areas,

control development patterns, and mitigate the

impacts of pollution, flooding, and other costly

disasters. However, regulations should be combined with compensatory, voluntary programs,

such as land conservation, to avoid placing

excessive burden on landowners in the watershed and to share the costs of protection with

communities drinking the water.

Although regulation and planning are

important components of source protection,

acquiring land through purchase or conservation

easement guarantees the most complete and

permanent protection. The American Water

Works Association views watershed protection

as key to protecting drinking water, concluding

in a 1991 study that, “the most effective way to

ensure the long-term protection of water supplies is through landownership by the water

supplier and its cooperative public jurisdictions.”5

Yet some policy-makers and water suppliers

still see increased treatment as the best and only

option. A number of challenges have made land

conservation a less feasible option: federal, state,

and local programs often fail to provide adequate funding or programmatic support; and

some water suppliers lack technical support or

resources to implement land conservation

strategies. 

This handbook is designed to help municipalities, water suppliers, and land-use advocates

address these challenges, identify existing

resources and technical support, and design a

strategy to preserve land that protects drinking

water supplies. It’s a “how-to” guide for a range

of local and regional partners, describing techniques to prioritize, finance, acquire, and manage key source lands. As it is intended to reach a

broad audience, a thorough overview of conservation and source protection techniques is

included. Keep in mind as well that although

this handbook lays out a comprehensive and

sequential land conservation program for source

protection, it is also designed to serve as a reference document for readers who need guidance

at any stage of the process. 

MAKING THE CASE 11

TH E BENEFITS OF OPEN SPACE

PROTECTION

In addition to buffering drinking supplies,

land conservation provides communities

with a variety of economic and environmental benefits, including:

◆ enhancing property values and generating tax revenues,

◆ attracting businesses and boosting

tourism,

◆ improving air quality and controlling erosion,

◆ preserving community character and

improving quality of life, and

◆ providing recreational opportunities and

expanding a community’s nonmotorized

transportation network.

CONSIDER THIS ...
NATIONAL POLICIES

AND PROGRAMS

GOVERNING LOCAL

SOURCE PROTECTION

It is important to understand national drinking

water protection programs and policies before

launching a local or regional source protection

strategy. The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972,

was one of the country’s first comprehensive

initiatives to address the clean-up of badly contaminated waterways. A legislative milestone

administered through the U.S. EPA, this Act

funds programs that help states and local communities protect their waterways. 

Two years later, Congress passed the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the first comprehensive law to establish national drinking

water standards. EPA oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these

standards.6 The legislation emphasizes a multiple-barrier approach to drinking water protection by funding both state and local source

protection initiatives. 

A 1981 EPA groundwater survey revealed

new risks from chemical and bacterial contaminates in both urban and rural water systems.7

These new threats resulted in tremendous

advances in treatment technologies and an

even greater emphasis on protecting source

lands. The ultimate result was a landmark

amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act in

1996: the Source Water Assessment Program

or SWAP. SWAP is designed to inform communities about the location of their drinking

water resources and threats to water quality in

order to encourage and assist local protection

activities. 

SWAP legislation required every state to

examine existing and potential threats to the

quality of all public water supplies. It also mandated that states develop a source water assessment program by 2003. Assessments were

made for every public water system, from small

towns to major metropolitan areas. States were

given great flexibility in the design of their

programs, yet four common elements exist:8

◆ Delineate or map the source water assessment area (the land area that contributes

water and pollutants to the water supply). 

◆ Conduct an inventory of potential contamination sources in the delineated area. 

◆ Determine the susceptibility of the water

supply to identified contamination sources. 

◆ Make the results public.

Most states have completed assessments of

their supplies, laying the groundwork for the

creation of comprehensive source protection

initiatives by local suppliers. Though not mandated, water suppliers are now expected to

develop management measures to protect their

drinking water sources. 

Several challenges exist: While some

monies were allocated for the assessments, few

implementation dollars currently exist and, in

some cases, state source water assessments may

need to be expanded in order to fully understand threats to local drinking water supplies.

Yet resources are expanding to help local suppliers increase funding, forge partnerships,

effectively use the data, and understand how to

use land conservation as a source protection

strategy. This publication and the Trust for

Public Land’s companion publication, Protecting

the Source, are designed to help, providing best

practices, case studies, and funding options to

protect source lands.

12 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

STATE LEADERSHIP IN

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

With the flexibility of federal programs, such as the Drinking

Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, and the ability of

states to create their own programs, states can have significant

influence on the success of local source protection efforts. States

can and should make source water protection a high priority and

actively promote and support local efforts by:

◆ Integrating source protection goals into other state programs,

particularly funding programs;

◆ Creating new state funding sources for watershed protection

and restoration;

◆ Actively distributing the source water assessments as widely as

possible in an easily accessible format;

◆ Providing technical assistance grants to local groups so as to

increase capacity for implementing source protection strategies,

such as small watershed grant programs;

◆ Creating one-stop shopping for water-related funding sources;

and

◆ Updating state databases and making them easily accessible to

local stakeholders, including data on source water delineations,

threats, land use, and soils.

CONSIDER THIS ...
A LAND CONSERV
14 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
A LAND CONSERVATION HOW-TO 15

I

n recent years communities have begun

to use land conservation, blended with

existing regulatory tools, to implement

their land-use and natural resource protection

goals. A community will likely have multiple

conservation goals that include protecting open

space, increasing recreational opportunities,

and hopefully, preserving drinking water source

lands. Taken together, these goals define a conservation vision or greenprint. A community

can design a broad greenprinting plan that

incorporates source protection and/or adopt a

specific source protection plan that reflects

local conservation and planning initiatives. In

either case, suppliers should be prepared to act,

help steer the broader land conservation

visioning process, and find ways to leverage

resources to specifically meet conservation

goals that protect source water lands. The steps

in the greenprinting process as it relates to

source water protection are:

◆ Understand your watershed. Determine the

source and threats to the community’s water

supply.

◆ Prioritize land for protection. Use maps and

models to identify and rank high priority

lands for protection.

◆ Build strong partnerships. Forge partnerships with source protection stakeholders

throughout your source area during the

design and implementation of a conservation

plan.

◆ Design a comprehensive source protection

plan. Develop a vision and a plan of action

that integrates a community’s land conservation goals with a broader source protection

strategy.

◆ Finance land conservation. Identify and

secure funds to implement the source protection plan.

◆ Protect priority lands. Use the most effective

acquisition tools to permanently protect targeted land.

◆ Manage protected lands. Carefully plan and

fund the stewardship of protected land.

A LAND-CONSERVATION “HOW-TO”

The following pages take you step-by-step

through the design and implementation of a

land conservation plan to protect source areas.

Keep in mind that this “how to” is designed to

meet the needs of water suppliers with various

challenges and resources; following a sequential

ordering of the steps is not necessary. 

At this point it is also important to consider potential staffing needs and resources. Successful water suppliers or local governments

typically rely on a full-time staff person dedicated to source protection—a water resource

planner, watershed coordinator, resource protection specialist, or groundwater specialist.

Assessing your resources and the scope or your

source protection challenges early on can help

smooth the planning process to come.

© SUSAN LAPIDES
Getting Started: 

Is land conservation a good 

approach for you?

Source protection involves several voluntary

approaches (i.e., land conservation, best management practices, public education), as well as

regulatory and planning approaches. While

conservation may be most effective in defined

circumstances, it is likely that a combination of

voluntary and regulatory tools will be needed to

protect a watershed. So when is land conservation an appropriate and effective tool to protect

source lands? An understanding of a watershed’s characteristics is essential in answering

this question. 

◆ Watershed size. The smaller the drainage

area, the easier it will be to accomplish measurable water quality objectives using conservation strategies. Water suppliers that choose

land conservation as a primary strategy usually

have drainage basins or aquifer recharge areas

of 300,000 acres or less.9 For water suppliers

and municipalities whose sources come from

and are affected by a large watershed (more

than 300,000 acres) with multiple political

jurisdictions, public-private partnerships are

both a necessity and an opportunity, offering

potential economies of scale and significant

water quality benefits.

◆ Natural Resources. As a strategy to protect

natural lands, conservation is most appropriate in source areas where there are still tracts

of unprotected forest or grassland in private

ownership that could be threatened by new

development. 

◆ Development patterns. Land conservation is

most critical in source areas that are vulnerable to development or where water quality has

declined as a result of changing land use.

Identifying and protecting highly sensitive

lands that are vulnerable to development

allows local partners to be proactive and avoid

costly mitigation or restoration activities.

Local plans will reveal whether any growth

activities are slated to occur in or around public water supply watersheds. In addition to

immediate plans, look closely at longer-term

growth trends and development patterns in

the community to assess potential threats. 

◆ Overlapping benefits. People may be more

likely to support conservation of source lands

when they can also achieve other objectives,

such as growth management, new recreation

opportunities, flood control, and so on.

Overlapping benefits can provide increased

incentive or motivation to implement conservation, and access to a broader array of

funding tools.

UNDERSTAND YOUR

WATERSHED

An understanding of your watershed and

aquifer recharge areas is the foundation upon

which an effective source protection plan is

built. In order to plan and implement protection strategies, you need to assess current conditions and how changes in land use,

contamination, and protection and restoration

efforts impact source lands over time. This

requires a baseline of data for monitoring and

measuring future impacts of changing land-use.

By communicating important data and analysis

about your watershed, potential threats, and

the benefits of source protection, you can build

the case for source protection with stakeholders and the public.

There are several steps to the informationgathering process. 

◆ STEP 1: Identify water supply lands. Gather

existing information about the location of

water supply lands in the community, including watersheds and groundwater recharge

areas that drain to intake or wells.

◆ STEP 2: Evaluate current and future land

uses. Determine land use and the purpose

for which it is being managed (agriculture,

commercial, industrial, residential, and so

on). Evaluate how potential development

and other land-use changes will impact

source lands over time.

◆ STEP 3: Determine land ownership and management. Identify landownership patterns

and key landowners whose property is significant to the health of the watershed. 

◆ STEP 4: Assess threats and monitor water

quality. Monitor water quality throughout

your source area in order to understand the

link between current land use and water

quality. Establish a baseline for your watershed for monitoring changes to water quality

in the future. 

16 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
UNDERSTAND YOUR WATERSHED 17

STEP 1: Identify Water Supply Lands

States are required through the Source Water

Assessment Program to delineate all source

areas and potential threats to drinking water.

SWAP reports can be used to identify the public water supply watersheds and aquifer protection areas located in your area, and existing

threats to water supplies. EPA’s Web site contains links to state source water contacts and its

organization’s regional contacts (http://www.

epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html).

State-level environmental protection departments or similar state agencies and large water

utilities may also have maps of ground and surface water supplies. Additionally, local water

boards, health departments, and inland wetlands commissions may be helpful sources of

information. 

STEP 2: Evaluate Current and

Future Land Uses 

To plan effectively, you must understand your

source land and how it is changing. Begin by

determining how the land is currently used,

and then look ahead—assess where growth has

been occurring in order to determine where

change is likely in the future and, therefore, the

most critical areas for protection. 

To determine current land uses, look at the

type of land cover in your source area (e.g., residential, forest, wetlands, and so on). Maps for

land use (the activity or type of development

on the land) and land cover (vegetation found

on the surface of non-urban land) may be

available from the state and/or regional planning commissions. It is preferable to obtain

information from the state so that it is consistent across jurisdictions, but it may be necessary to assemble information from various local

or regional sources.

Next, assess potential land-use changes

that may impact source lands. Take advantage

of the wealth of information at the federal,

state, regional, and local levels that exists about

your region, where it is developing, and the

impact of growth trends on your watershed

lands and aquifer recharge areas. State and

regional planning reports, for instance, may

include plans for growth, development, and

conservation as well as indicators about future

trends. Local plans, such as comprehensive and

smart growth plans, are valuable sources of

information about growth and development

patterns. State and local maps of existing protected lands will help you determine what areas

are not vulnerable to development and where

future conservation efforts can build on existing protection. Other resources include: 

◆ Future development plans. Zoning ordinances and development plans should be

reviewed to determine whether any growth

activities are slated to occur in areas near

public water supply watersheds. 

◆ Buildout analysis. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), local partners and

states can evaluate the amount of buildable

land and the impact of potential development based on current zoning. These analyses visually depict how projected growth will

impact water quality and quantity.10

◆ Parcel and zoning maps and subdivision

regulations. Use these resources to define

the specific types of development allowed in

a particular area. Overlay a map of the community’s watershed lands and aquifer

recharge areas with the municipal parcel map

and a zoning map to see where future development could impact source areas. Maps can

typically be found in the tax assessor’s office

or via the planning and zoning commission.

GROUNDWATER VERSUS SURFACE WATER:

UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS

Your community may receive its drinking water from a surface

water intake, such as a river or reservoir. A reservoir may be fed

by a variety of upstream water bodies, including rivers, streams,

lakes, and wetlands. If the intake lies in your municipality, the

upstream water bodies are most likely located in other communities. Alternatively, your drinking water may come from a source

in another community, which, in turn, is influenced by waterways

in your jurisdiction.

Groundwater, which flows beneath the land’s surface and is

pumped to the surface through wells, may also be an important

source.Your municipality may again face multi-jurisdictional

issues, as aquifers often span large geographic areas underground.

Ground and surface water are often interconnected depending on

the season and watershed characteristics. Groundwater pollution, chemistry, and flow can directly impact surface water quality and vice versa. Because of this relationship, it is imperative

that water suppliers understand the source of their waters in dry

and wet seasons, and act to protect them.

CONSIDER THIS ...
GIS can also be used to map man-made

characteristics, such as ownership and land

use. If a community does not have computerized parcel and zoning maps, the process of

overlaying maps can be somewhat time-consuming. 

MINI CASE STUDY

Massachusetts Build-out Analysis

In Massachusetts, the state Executive Office of

Environmental Affairs has developed a set of

build-out maps and analyses for all 351 cities

and towns. The maps and analyses depict currently developed and protected land within a

community and what a community would look

like if remaining undeveloped land were completely developed in accordance with local zoning. The information is designed to help communities project the potential impact of future

growth and encourage cities and towns to work

together to address cross-jurisdictional issues,

such as water supply protection. 

For more information, visit the Web at http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/buildout.asp.

STEP 3: Determine Ownership and

Management

Once you have evaluated the land and its

growth patterns, try to determine land ownership within targeted areas, identifying the large

parcels within the watershed and the predominant landowners. Who are the largest

landowners or holders of significant source

lands? Will you be working with farmers, timber owners, speculative developers, or others?

Local realtors, the Farm Bureau, woodlot

groups and other relevant organizations or

associations may be able to help you answer

these questions. This process will help you

understand land uses, management issues, and

potential protection approaches. 

STEP 4: Assess Threats and Monitor 

Water Quality

The next step is to understand the impacts on

water quality from land uses, and create a baseline of water quality data for monitoring future

changes. There are two components to the

process: 

1) compile and analyze existing sources of

data, such as SWAPs, Watershed Studies,

USGS Studies, Consumer Confidence

Reports, and others;

2) implement a comprehensive monitoring

program. 

Compile and analyze existing

sources of data

To begin, identify sources of information that

can help you assess threats to water quality

from land use, such as:

◆ Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP).

Each state is required by federal law to complete an assessment that determines the location of source lands and threats to quality

18 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

Where the river meets the sea, estuaries serve as critical buffersbetween land and ocean, filtering sediment and pollutants,

and absorbing flood waters and storm surges. To protect estuaries of

national importance, Congress created the National Estuaries Program (NEP) in 1987 through amendments to the Clean Water Act.

Administered by EPA’s Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, NEP

is charged with developing Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) for attaining or maintaining water quality in

28 targeted estuaries. 

CCMPs address all aspects of environmental protection for an

estuary, including water quality, habitat, living resources, and land

use. The plans are based on a scientific characterization of the estuary, and developed and approved by a broad-based coalition of stakeholders—essentially creating a blueprint for future land-use and

water quality decisions within the estuary.

Within each of the estuaries there exists a wealth of watershed

information that may be useful in local source protection planning

efforts, including monitoring data, characterization reports, and environmental indicators. In the process of designing its CCMP, Long

Island’s Peconic Estuary Program identified the need for an individual

land protection plan—known as the Critical Lands Protection Plan.

This plan is designed to evaluate and prioritize land for protection for

water quality and habitat protection; drinking water, public access,

and other issues also come into play. A diverse group of stakeholders

is involved in the process and the plan is designed to build on and

complement existing conservation activities. For instance, a GIS

database was compiled of lands already identified for protection by

various levels of government, and protection efforts are coordinated,

to the extent possible, with special groundwater protection initiatives

in the Pine Barrens.

For more information about NEP and its estuaries and resources,

visit the Web at www.epa.gov/nep/.
and quantity. Although unique in format and

level of detail for each state, all assessments

must delineate source water areas, inventory

potential sources of contamination within

these areas, and determine the relative susceptibility of each source to contamination.

Municipalities and water suppliers are

encouraged to use the information for local

source protection activities, including land

conservation, and expand upon the assessments whenever possible. 

◆ EPA Resources. EPA has several resources

that can help you assess the condition of your

watershed: 1) EPA’s Surf Your Watershed

Web site (www.epa.gov/surf/) can help you

locate, use, and share environmental information about your state and watershed. Included

are tools to locate watersheds and a Watershed Atlas, which is a catalog of geo-spatial

displays and analyses of information and data,

including resources about watershed health,

conditions, and vulnerability; 2) EPA’s

WATERS database (Watershed Assessment,

Tracking and Environmental Results) unites

water quality information that was previously

available only from several independent and

unconnected databases, including databases of

water quality standards, nonpoint source pollution, and water quality inventories. Visit the

Web at www.epa.gov/waters. 3) State 305(b)

reports. This biennial report is prepared by

state governments and submitted to EPA for

review and analysis and transmission to Congress. Reports present a description of navigable water quality, protection of water life,

elimination of pollutants, cost control, and

other related records.

◆ Existing Watershed Monitoring Data. State or

local entities may be currently monitoring

watersheds in order to comply with Clean

Water regulations. Non-governmental organizations, such as watershed associations, may

also have monitoring stations set up, and universities and local land trusts are potential

sources of data. Water suppliers should build

on what is already available: assess the data,

identify any gaps, and determine how monitoring efforts can be integrated and expanded

to provide a complete picture of watershed’s

health. 

◆ Watershed studies. Watershed studies by the

United States Geological Survey (USGS),

universities, watershed associations, and water

suppliers can provide valuable information

about the health of a watershed. The USGS

Web site (www.usgs.gov) provides scientific

information organized by watershed, coupled

with observations and measurements made

by watershed groups.

Implement a comprehensive 

monitoring program

Although the information sources listed previously may provide a big picture of water quality

within a certain watershed or source area, such

as cumulative pollutant loads, there will likely

be gaps in the data and a need for more targeted monitoring. Watershed monitoring can give

you a baseline by which to fully understand

UNDERSTAND YOUR WATERSHED 19

FEDERAL AND STATE

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

◆ Clean Water Act (CWA). The federal CWA establishes minimum

monitoring requirements, although states can require more stringent

monitoring of state-issued permits. Currently, 47 of the 50 states

administer their own permit programs. States are required to produce an assessment of ambient water conditions (CWA 305b). There

are also guidelines for “monitoring and reporting, enforcement,

funding, personnel, and manpower,” (CWA 304i), and requirements

for the development of water quality standards and the establishment of “designated uses”, including the use of the water source as

a drinking water supply (CWA 301, 510).14

◆ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):

As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program

controls water pollution by regulating point sources (including municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial discharges). Phase I

of the NPDES storm water program requires NPDES permit coverage for large or medium municipalities. Phase II extends coverage to

certain regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems and

small construction activities. Phase II Stormwater Management Permits will likely require monitoring, but this will vary from state to

state. Additional federal monitoring requirements may be established through NPDES permits to track point sources of pollution.

There is some room for negotiating monitoring requirements of

watershed-based permits—this can be done when developing

NPDES permits for multiple point sources located within defined

boundaries. For instance, some ambient monitoring may be required

as a condition of the permit. 

◆ 303(d) list: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that

states identify waters that do not meet or are not expected to meet

applicable water quality standards. These water bodies are compiled

into a list known as the 303(d) list. Once a stream or lake is identified as 303(d), meaning that it is impaired, the Clean Water Act

requires communities to monitor and track the contaminants of concern.
your watershed and measure the success of

future source protection and watershed management efforts.11

Tracking the health of a watershed is

important throughout the source protection

process, from the earliest information-gathering stage described here, through efforts to prioritize land for protection, and finally, as an

on-going tool to manage protected land.

Specifically, watershed monitoring can help you

understand the health of your watershed (not

necessarily finished water quality); identify

sources and levels of pollution; meet regulatory

standards; decide which lands are most critical

to protect or restore; track conditions over

time; and implement a comprehensive source

water protection program. A monitoring program can also help you build public and political support for your program. Scientific data is

critical for building a strong case for a comprehensive source protection strategy that may

include land conservation, public funding, and

regulatory and zoning changes.

As defined by EPA, “monitoring” is “the collection of water quality or watershed data, either periodic

or continuous, using measured parameters and consistent

methods.” 12 Depending on the objectives, monitoring may be limited to water quality, which is

the sampling and analysis of chemical conditions of a water body. 

Watershed monitoring, is a more comprehensive approach to data collection that

includes monitoring chemical water quality and

physical or biological watershed conditions

throughout a source area. Comprehensive

watershed monitoring helps you understand

the fundamental health of your watershed,

where land use is impacting water quality, and

where conservation, restoration, or other

efforts are effectively mitigating those impacts. 

Unfortunately, monitoring can be complex,

time-consuming, and costly; local partners

sometimes lack the resources and expertise to

implement a comprehensive monitoring program. Public and private partnerships and

funding sources at the local, state, federal, and

private levels are available. Many municipalities

and water suppliers partner with the state,

USGS, local universities, or volunteer watershed associations to implement monitoring

programs. In fact, volunteer monitoring is

often one of the primary purposes of local volunteer watershed associations. 

Regardless of available resources and a chosen approach, it is important to understand the

basic components of a comprehensive monitoring program. Outlined here are key considerations as developed by EPA. (More complete

background is available on the EPA’s Watershed Academy Web at www.epa.gov/watertrain/monitoring/.) 

Begin by determining the geographic

boundaries and particular attributes of the

watershed under examination. Define the

objectives of your program and the scope of

your study—its duration, any particular area of

focus within a watershed, budget, and sources

of funding. 

With the scope defined, several steps are

required to effectively implement a program:

establish monitoring protocols; generate data;

define quality assurance and quality control

procedures; and conduct the assessment. The

design of a sample must take into consideration the type, frequency, and amount of data to

be collected and by whom. You should also

consider up-front how the analysis will be conducted and how the data will be managed. 

Regarding the collection and management

of data, be sure to choose appropriate tools and

indicators of quality, including measures of

chemical, physical, biological, habitat, and toxicity, as well as the land-use plans, maps, and

photos gathered in your watershed assessment

thus far. A comprehensive monitoring program

should include the following. 

◆ Probability-based and fixed-station sampling on all major tributaries throughout

the watershed. Fixed station samples are

taken regularly (daily, weekly, monthly) at

fixed locations in the watershed and are used

to monitor changes over time, identifying

trends at those specific locations. Probabilitybased sampling should be used in tandem

with fixed-station sampling, as its results can

20 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

The EPA has a Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection

on its Web site, a searchable database of

financial assistance sources (grants, loans,

cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of

watershed protection projects. Visit

http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/ to search the

database for funding sources that might be

a match for your area. 
UNDERSTAND YOUR WATERSHED 21

be used to make generalizations about the

condition of the whole watershed instead of

just the fixed sampling sites. In contrast to

measuring at fixed locations, sampling sites

within the watershed are chosen at random.

Every location in the watershed has some

known probability of being sampled. Because

sampling is random and watershed wide,

probability-based sampling results can be

folded into statistical analyses that provide

information (with a certain degree of confidence) about the entire watershed.

◆ Physical, chemical and biological sampling

methods. Physical monitoring assesses the

stability of a stream channel and a stream’s

vulnerability to erosion. Chemical sampling

(testing for metals, nutrients, and other pollutants) provides a snapshot view of water

quality—measuring the amount of a particular pollutant in the water when the sample is

taken. Biological monitoring assesses how

water quality is affecting the condition of the

stream over time, by examining the biological

(fish or macro invertebrate) community to

assess the aggregate impact of all stressors

potentially affecting the stream, including

episodic water quality conditions that may

not be present when chemical samples are

collected.

◆ Wet and dry-weather monitoring. Most

loading of pollutants to surface waters occurs

during brief episodes of wet weather. Chemical monitoring that is limited to dry weather

may not capture the most significant pollutant loads.

Monitoring data will give you the information you need to understand your watershed,

design an effective source protection program,

and assess its impact over time. Once initial

assessments and analyses are complete, it’s time

to report the findings to the public and local

leaders in an effort to influence watershed protection policies. 

CASE STUDY

Bull Run Watershed, Oregon 

The City of Portland, Oregon, through its

Bureau of Water Works, provides drinking

water to nearly one-fourth of the population of

Oregon—roughly 787,000 people—across an

area that includes Portland and 19 suburban

cities and water districts. Water flows from two

primary sources: the Bull Run watershed, 35

miles east of Portland in Mt. Hood National

Forest; and the Columbia South Shore Well

Field, which largely serves as a supplemental

source during summer months or times of

emergency.

The story of Portland’s drinking water

dates back at least to 1892 when the city successfully lobbied President Benjamin Harrison

to establish the Bull Run Reserve, a national

forest reserve. Federal legislation, known as the

Bull Run Act, now limits land management

activities primarily to those needed to protect

drinking water quality and to operate and

maintain water supply facilities and hydroelectric facilities. No residential, commercial, or

industrial activities are permitted within its

boundaries. The legislation is unique because

of its restrictions on federal land use and the

requirements that federal and local partners

cooperatively manage a large area of federal

land for the purpose of protecting a municipal

water supply.15

Because the watershed is closed to public

entry and has stringent controls on logging,

there are no land-use related sources of chemical or microbial contamination. The result of

such prescient protection has been the availability of consistently high quality unfiltered

drinking water to metro-Portland residents.

Monitoring water quality is an integral part

of the Water Bureau’s program to ensure clean

supplies. The Water Bureau monitors for

approximately 200 regulated and unregulated

contaminants, including pesticides and

radionuclides. Water samples are taken

throughout the water system, including the

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

EPA’s Elements of a State Water Monitoring and AssessmentProgram, outlines the components of a comprehensive monitoring program. Details can be found at: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html.13

The Center for Watershed Protection has designed a series of

cost-effective rapid assessment methods, including vulnerability

assessments and rapid stream assessment techniques. Details are

available at www.cwp.org/tools_assessment.htm.

The Chesapeake Bay Program published The Community Watershed Assessment Handbook to help community groups and local

governments conduct comprehensive environmental assessments

of their watersheds. The handbook outlines a basic process for

assessing current and anticipated future watershed conditions and

is available at www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/watershed_assess/

index.htm.
Bull Run watershed, Columbia Southshore

Well Field, in-town reservoirs, distribution system, and customers’ taps. Each year, roughly

75,000 water analyses are conducted on 9,900

water samples, and 32,000 quality control tests

are performed to ensure compliance with state

and federal drinking water standards and monitor water quality trends.16

Source water quality is routinely monitored

at the mouths of major tributaries, the raw

water intake, and immediately above and below

some earth disturbing projects.17 Source water

monitoring responsibilities for the Bull Run

watershed are shared among the Portland

Water Bureau, the U.S. Geologic Survey

(USGS), and the U.S. Forest Service. The

team implements a comprehensive monitoring

program with both fixed station and probability based monitoring to track such things as

stream flow, turbidity, microbial risks, and

other potential water quality problems. The

USGS operates a monitoring program under

contract with the Water Bureau and collects

continuous data on flow, temperature, and specific conductance at stations located at the

mouth of the four major tributaries. The

Water Bureau augments this program by collecting samples with automated pumping samplers and in-stream turbidity probes at the

same set of stations. To monitor water quality

during wet weather, the pumping samplers utilize a flow-weighted, probability-based method

for determining when to trigger sample collection during storm events. The Water Bureau

collects samples from the reservoirs every two

weeks, and monitors for some variables daily at

the raw water intake. 

The Forest Service is involved in monitoring the impacts on water quality from road

decommissioning projects. The road decommissioning program involves removing culverts

and restoring stream channels on abandoned

logging roads in order to minimize the longterm risk of erosion and sedimentation. Taken

together, monitoring data gathered from the

Water Bureau, USGS, and the U.S. Forest Service is used to inform land management decisions and gauge the effectiveness of best

management practices.

Contact: Dick Robbins, Water Resources 

Program, City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,

503-823-7799, drobbins@water.ci.portland.or.us

UNDERSTAND YOUR WATERSHED

Questions to Consider

◆ Does the community understand the scope of the watershed that supplies its drinking

water? How will future demand be met?

◆ Which watershed lands are protected and which are vulnerable to development?

◆ How is your watershed changing? How will growth and land-use changes impact the watershed and steer source protection efforts?

◆ Who owns large parcels within the watershed? Are privately owned parcels strategically significant to the management of the watershed and the protection of drinking water? 

◆ What are the threats to water quality from specific land uses in your watershed?

◆ What is the current condition of the watershed?

◆ What resources exist to implement a comprehensive watershed monitoring program?

22 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

WRAP - U P
consider the entire source area, and that usually means looking at maps of land in multiple

jurisdictions. Too often, local partners fail to

look outside their political boundaries even

though the most critical source protection land

could well be located in a neighboring jurisdiction. States are a key resource for cross-jurisdictional data and maps, and are usually a

better source for data layers than municipalities, as they provide consistent data, watershed-wide. A list of potential data sources is

included at the end of this chapter.

There are several components to GIS:

computer hardware, software, and databases

(geographic, demographic, topographic, and so

on), a mapping methodology, and the people to

manage the process. Support may be available

from EPA, private consulting firms, state or

regional government or planning agencies,

watershed organizations, or water suppliers,

among others. Municipalities and water suppliers without access to GIS can often contract

mapping and technical services from other

consultants or state/regional agencies. 

How you use GIS to prioritize watershed

land will depend on the availability and sophistication of your resources: simple analyses can

help you identify existing conditions in the

watershed; more sophisticated modeling can

help you prioritize watershed and aquifer

recharge lands. Potential methodologies

include:

◆ Locating specific sites on a map, such as

parcels or contaminant sources that have

been identified through field surveys, monitoring, and existing data sources

◆ Developing deterministic or quantitative

models that can predict potential impacts

from land use on water

quality 

◆ Creating operational or

qualitative models that

rank parcels or areas based

on a set of characteristics 

The first and simplest

use of GIS—locating specific

sites on a map—can be very

useful in integrating information on multiple sites into

a single watershed map that

can become a shared

resource and guide for remediation or protection. For

small municipalities and

PRIORITIZE LAND FOR PROTECTION 23

PRIORITIZE LAND FOR

PROTECTION

In broad strokes, the most important lands

requiring safeguarding for the purpose of

maintaining water quality include:

◆ forestlands 

◆ wetlands 

◆ natural grasslands 

◆ steep slopes 

◆ land close to or encompassing small streams,

and

◆ land with erodable soils, such as silts and

clays.

Even with this information, difficult decisions must be made about where to spend limited resources and how to best prioritize

properties. Improved knowledge about the

impacts of land use on water quality and

advances in computer-based decision support

tools, notably geographic information systems

(GIS), have made the decision-making process

more efficient and effective. When integrated

with other tools, such as field surveys, water

quality monitoring, and professional judgment,

GIS analysis is an increasingly effective and

accessible way to identify and rank source

lands. 

Geographic Information Systems –

The Basics

GIS is a computer-based tool for mapping and

analyzing land. It can be used throughout the

source protection process, providing an invaluable resource for inventories, prioritization,

and management. On a broad scale, a GIS can

show permanently protected land, temporarily

protected land, and land vulnerable to development. It can also provide overlays that demonstrate the interrelationship among natural

resources, contaminant sources, and water

resources. 

More specifically, GIS can map natural features such as topography, vegetation, soils,

wildlife and riparian areas, and cultural or

man-made characteristics such as land use,

growth patterns, protected areas, and property

values. Decision makers can integrate and analyze these maps, design conservation strategies,

and prioritize land accordingly. 

Keep in mind that you cannot create an

effective source protection plan unless you

GIS SCENARIO BUILDING

TOOLS

CommunityViz software is the leadingprovider in the market of scenario

building tools, offering decision support

software products optimized for ESRI

ArcGIS. CommunityViz is located on the

Web at www.communityviz.com.

ESRI is the world leader in GIS (geographic information system) software and

technology. ArcGIS is an integrated collection of GIS software products for building a complete GIS. www.esri.com
water suppliers with limited resources, this can

be an excellent first step in understanding

threats to drinking water and mapping out a

strategy for protection. 

More complex GIS applications involve creating deterministic or quantitative models that can predict potential impacts from land use (e.g,

pesticide concentration, nutrient loading, or

total suspended solids in stream water) on

water quality. Quantitative models such as

EPA’s BASINS (Better Assessment Science

Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources) or

Electric Power Research Institute’s WARMF

(Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework) models are often used to develop Total

Maximum Daily Loads for a water body. These

models can be very useful and accurate, yet

require significant resources, technical expertise,

and historical data. Still, the approach is within

reach for many local partners; consulting groups

can be excellent resources in thinking through

which quantitative models are the most appropriate tools for reaching your goals. 

With deterministic or quantitative models,

GIS can be used to create and compare different scenarios. For example, one scenario in a

watershed may show “business as usual” development and how that impacts ground water

reserves and quality. An alternative scenario

might show a change in zoning to move high

density development off of a critical aquifer

recharge zone into another area. The impacts 

of this zoning shift on water reserves and quality can be displayed using charts, tables or 3D

visuals. 

Lastly, operational models, also called ranking systems,

use data to generate indices or qualitative rankings—a widely used GIS tool for mapping out

high priority sites for protection and restoration. Operational models integrate a diverse

array of data and information—topography,

soil type, slope, and land use, for example—to

produce data layers.18 Digitized data layers are

used to determine the areas of greatest interest,

such as sites with steep slopes and natural land

cover that incorporate small streams, and can

efficiently generate land protection priority

lists. When combined with local knowledge

and field inspections, the resulting priority lists

can be very effective decision-making tools. A

comprehensive examination to this approach

follows.

GIS Ranking Systems

Ranking systems can help you understand the

importance of a particular piece of property to

the health of your watershed. By combining

information on land characteristics such as

topography, soil type, slope, land use, and zoning, you can efficiently generate land protection priority lists. For example, a large forested

parcel that encompasses small streams, with

steep slopes and highly erodible soils, would

rank higher than a parcel that is level, with

good soils and far from a water source. Where

digitized parcel data is available, a numerical

score can be given to each parcel indicating its

value for conservation or restoration. 

The University of Massachusetts (UMass),

in partnership with TPL and the USDA Forest Service, with funding from EPA, developed

one such ranking system that identifies high

priority land in a source area and ranks individual parcels for conservation and restoration.

The model is intended to be a practical and

efficient tool for communities to identify land

for protection, restoration, or storm water

management, using available state and local

data layers. 

The following tables outline the GIS overlay process that is used to prioritize land for

surface and groundwater protection.19 The

potential influence of land cover on surface

water quality is represented by the total score

generated by ranking and combining the GIS

layers. If, for example, a site has forest cover,

steep slopes, silty soils, and is located adjacent

to a water body, it would receive high scores for

all six layers and a total score of 18, making it a

high priority for protection (Table 1). By contrast, a level, sandy site, far-removed from the

stream network would have a total score of

only 3. This method accounts for the many

possible combinations of soil, landform, and

location characteristics and amplifies the dif24 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

USING GIS FOR SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS

The EPA’s publication, Source Water Assessment Using Geographic Information Systems, is designed to help states, municipalities,

and water suppliers use GIS to assess water supplies. The report 

provides detailed information about GIS concepts and components;

data, software, and hardware; how to obtain data and build the GIS

database, delineate source protection areas, and analyze the results.

http://www.epa.gov/ ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/gis.htm.

For more information on how to create such a tool, see Using

Technology to Conduct a Contaminant Source Inventory: A Primer for

Small Communities, a publication by The Groundwater Foundation,

www.groundwater.org.
PRIORITIZE LAND FOR PROTECTION 25

TABLE 1 – Generalized GIS overlay process to develop a 

Surface Water Conservation Priority Index22

SCORE

3 2 10

(high) (intermediate) (low) (n/a)

GIS Layer 

Adjacency to water1 (lakes, <30 meters 30 to 60 meters 60 to 90 meters >90 meters

streams, wetlands)

Slope2 >15% 5 to 15% <5% –

Flow accumulation3 >200 grid cells 150 to 200 grid cells <150 cells –

Soil texture4 clays and silts loams sands –

Forest between roads Intersection of 60 m – –

and water features5 buffers for roads

and water features

Land Cover Forest, Wetland,

Open land – – All others

Other layers6 To be determined TBD TBD TBD

1. The 30 meter dimension is dictated by the digital elevation model (DEM) used to represent topography in

the GIS. A 10 meter (33 ft.) resolution DEM is now available from the U.S. Geological Survey for many areas

and could be used if smaller zones are more appropriate.

2. Appropriate thresholds for slope classes will vary in relation to local topography and site conditions. The

slope classes used for mapping presented in Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys are

a good source of site-specific data [county level].

3. Field data from headwater areas and flow accumulation calculated with the GIS are used to represent the

land area associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, respectively. This high resolution

map enhances the stream system shown as a blue line on US Geological Survey maps. The thresholds

(>200, etc.) in this example are appropriate for southern New England. Different values would be suitable for

watersheds in drier climates with deep residual soils (larger values), wet climates with mountainous terrain

(smaller values), et cetera.

4. Soil texture is a useful surrogate for relative rate of water movement into and through soils. It represents

the likelihood of overland flow, likelihood of soil erosion, and associated water quality degradation.

5. Because roads that are close to streams, lakes, and wetlands can have many adverse effects on water

quality, the narrow strip of forestland between the two features is an especially important riparian buffer.

6. Other layers may include floodplain maps, historical and cultural resources, rare or endangered habitat, 

and high biodiversity sites that—along with water quality—would directly benefit from forest conservation.

ferences between the most important and the

least important sites. An equivalent process can

be developed for protecting groundwater supplies (Table 2).20

The University of Massachusetts has developed a guide for communities to use in replicating their modeling methodology, Protecting the

Source: A Guide to Database Compilation and GISBased Watershed Assessment Methods, available

through the University of Massachusetts-US

Forest Service Watershed Exchange and Technology Partnership.21 This publication is available at www.wetpartnership.org.

Some water utilities and government agencies use other characteristics to guide land conservation and watershed management decisions. The New York City Department of

Environmental Protection considers differences in drainage density (miles of first-order

stream per acre), estimated travel time to

reservoirs, and proximity to reservoirs. Baltimore County, Maryland includes zoning and

lot size information in watershed analyses.

TPL includes a range of other measures,

including zoning and parcel information,

impervious areas and channel migration zones,

flood plains, flood protection facilities, aquifer

protection areas, and soil type by land use. TPL

also looks at the fragmentation of land cover

(i.e., forest, vegetation, or lack thereof ) and its
FIGURE 1 – An example of a surface water Conservation Priority Index for a

watershed in central New Jersey. 23

26 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

TABLE 2 – An example of a groundwater Conservation Priority Index for forests

and wetlands in the Squannacook and Nissitissit River watersheds (Nashua

River tributaries), Massachusetts and New Hampshire24

SCORE

3 2 10

(high) (intermediate) (low) (n/a)

GIS Layer 

Public water supply Yes – – no

(wellhead protection area)*

Surficial geology Sand and gravel Floodplain Till or 

deposits alluvium bedrock

Aquifer transmissivity >4,000 2,000 to 4,000 <2,000 No data

(ft2/day)**

Land use Forest, Wetland, 

Open land – – All others

* The spatial extent of the wellhead protection area is estimated with the maximum pumping rate of each

well. A hydrogeologist can refine this delineation with core data collected during well drilling and drawdown

observed in nearby monitoring and domestic wells.

** The dimensions of transmissivity (depth-integrated hydraulic conductivity) are derived by multiplying saturated hydraulic conductivity [(Length3/Time)/Length2] x depth (Length). 
PRIORITIZE LAND FOR PROTECTION 27

impact on water quality.

Some ranking systems identify high priority

parcels for restoration or storm water management based on the existence of potential point

and nonpoint pollution sources—basically a

risk assessment. Information on buffer disturbance, farms, residential or commercial development, impervious surface cover,

contaminated sites, or storm water drainage

pipes might be incorporated into such a ranking system to identify areas in the watershed

where restoration or storm water management

actions might be needed. As with any conservation ranking system, physical assessment of

each site is needed to determine appropriate

remediation strategies.

Ideally, restoration or storm water management ranking systems should incorporate water

quality monitoring data that compares actual

water quality data with information about

potential pollution sources. A comprehensive

monitoring program would provide water

quality data for all major tributaries in the

watershed and allow municipalities and waters

suppliers to link types of land use in a subbasin to impact on water quality—more accurately targeting on-the-ground actions. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. developed a restoration

ranking system based on water quality data

using sediment, phosphorous, and fecal coliform as their primary indicators (figure 2). By

starting with annual pollutant loads for each

indicator, they compare the degree of degradation in each subwatershed, targeting certain

subwatersheds for more intensive restoration

efforts. For example, experts identified the

range of sediment loads coming from each subwatershed (i.e. 0.05 tons/hectare/year to 0.48

tons/hectare/year) and ranked each on a scale

of 1 to 4 (1st quartile to 4th quartile), with 1

having lowest pollutant loads and 4 having

highest pollutant loads. Similarly, they looked

at the proportion of degraded stream length in

each subwatershed (based on soil and land-use

data) and ranked each subwatershed on a scale

of one to four for overall stream stability. By

aggregating the rankings for sediment, phosphorous, fecal coliform, and stream stability,

they identified the subwatersheds with the

greatest need for restoration. 

Some municipalities and water suppliers

have combined GIS-based ranking systems

with other analyses, such as cost-benefit.

Orange County Water and Sewer Authority,

working in partnership with Tetra Tech, has

developed an efficient and cost-effective way

1

1 

1 

1 

11

1 

1 

FIGURE 2: This map and table illustrate the approach of

Tetra Tech, Inc. to ranking watershed lands.

SCORE BY SUBWATERSHED FOR NORTH PRONG LEWIS FORK RIVER

Subwatershed Sediment Phosphorous Fecal Coliform Stream Total

Purlear Creek #27 4 4 3 4 15

Coal Creek #24 3 4 2 4 13

N.P. Lewis Fork #9 1 1 2 2 6

to prioritize parcels for acquisition by using

formulas to estimate potential phosphorous

loads from future development at each site,

then weighing phosphorous loads against the

cost for either acquisition or easements. This

strategy results in a comparative cost of dollars

per unit of phosphorous reduction for each

parcel. Simply put, the parcels with the greatest

potential phosphorous load and the lowest cost

are highest priority for protection.

Data Sources

The success of any approach depends on the

quality of the data within. There are a broad

range of data sources available including:25

General data sources

◆ Many state governments have made digital

maps available for downloading on the Web.

New Jersey’s Department of Environmental

Protection, MassGIS in Massachusetts, and

Georgia’s Spatial Data Infrastructure

North Prong Lewis Fork

Purlear Creek

Coal Creek

Streams

Subwatershed Targeting Classes

1st Quartile

2nd Quartile

3rd Quartile

4th Quartile—Targeted 0 2 4 6 kilometers
(GSID) are good examples of well-organized, professional GIS data support.

◆ Universities may also be excellent sources of

digital data.

◆ Elevation and soil data are available from the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) http://seamless.usgs.gov/ and the National Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) http:www.

nrcs.usda.gov/technical/dataresources/.

Primary data layers

◆ Land use: The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium is developing a 2001 land cover data set that covers the

50 states and Puerto Rico. Mapped zone layers are posted on MRLC’s website for public

download as they become available. Coordinated by USGS, the Gap analysis program

has also produced land-use layers on a stateby-state basis over time. In addition, layers

may be available from specific universities as

well as state and regional efforts.

◆ Elevation or slope: The Digital Elevation

Model (DEM) is available from the USGS’s

National Elevation Dataset,

http://seamless.usgs.gov/.

◆ Soils: The principal source for soils data is

the NRCS SSURGO Web site at

http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html.

SSURGO maps are the most detailed soil

surveys available, however maps have not

been completed for many areas of the country.

◆ Hydrography: Three separate map data layers

are called for: 1) linear water features for

streams and rivers; 2) polygon water features

for lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands;

and 3) the watershed boundary. Hydrographic data is often available from state and federal agencies, including USGS’s National

Hydrography Dataset (http://nhd.usgs.gov/).

The National Wetlands Inventory may provide additional information,

http://wetlands.fws.gov/.

Other useful data layers

◆ Roads: Digital road files are frequently available from state GIS offices or from the state

Departments of Transportation.

◆ Political boundaries: Sources may include

state GIS offices (Department of Natural

Resources, Department of Environmental

Protection, and/or universities.)

◆ Protected land: State-level GIS programs

are, again, the best sources for data. Other

sources may include county and municipal

GIS offices or private conservation NGOs. 

◆ Surficial geology: Check your state GIS

office and/or universities.

◆ Public water supplies (wells, wellhead protection areas): State GIS office and/or universities may provide data. Much of this data

has largely been withdrawn from Web sites

by the U.S. EPA in response to homeland

security issues.

◆ Aquifers: Sources may include state GIS

offices and/or universities.

◆ Tax parcel maps: Maps are generally available from municipal government offices.

They may occasionally be obtained through

state GIS agencies.

Pollutant 

Mitigation Potential 

by Ecosystem

In creating a ranking system for restoration

and protection strategies, it is important to

understand the role that different types of land

cover and hydrologic systems play in removing

pollutants. The pollutant mitigation chart here

summarizes the most current scientific

research on pollutant removal rates and the

role different types of land plays in the ecology

28 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

NAMING TARGETED PROPERTIES

In the course of conservation planning and

prioritization, communities are likely to

develop a list of high-priority privately held

properties whose management is key for

source protection. Determining when to

share this information with the public is an

important consideration. Releasing plans

too early can have unintended consequences, such as increasing the potential

purchase price of a property or straining

relationships with landowners, such that

even technical assistance to support continued private ownership is not welcome. At

this stage, it is recommended that municipalities and water suppliers work at a broad

scale until partnerships, strategies, and

funding resources are in place, developing

and making public the criteria that will be

used to evaluate potential properties, rather

than a list of targeted parcels.

CONSIDER THIS ...
PRIORITIZE

LAND FORPROTECTION 29

Small streams are critical to maintaining water quality in largedrainages because of their large surface-to-volume ratio. Smallstreams have been shown to remove nitrogen at a rate of eight timesthat of large streams.26 Nitrogen is removed in the stream within minutes to hours through the interaction between the water and the

streambed (70–80 percent of nitrogen is taken up by the streambed).Headwater streams typically remove more than half of the nitrogenfrom their watersheds. The rate of removal declines as depth of waterincreases.27

Depending on width, slope, soil type, and other factors, riparianbuffers have been shown to remove 50–95 percent of nutrients andpesticides, 60–96 percent of pathogens, and 75–95 percent of sediment.30 Depending on groundwater flowpaths and depth to water

table, buffers less than 10 meters wide may not effectively filter soluble pollutants, such as nitrogen, because the groundwater can flowbeneath the root zones and reach surface water before organicprocesses take place. However, they can be very effective at removing

sediment and pathogens. More than 95 percent of Cryptosporidiumspores have been shown to be removed by buffers as narrow as fourmeters with slopes up to 20 percent during moderate rainfall.31

Small StreamsSmall streams constitute up to 85 percent oftotal stream length in a watershed and collectmost of the water and pollutants from the land.Minimal ‘new’ water or pollutants enter the system over the banks of large rivers or reservoirs.Riparian ZonesThe riparian zone is where a stream interactswith the land—areas near the stream or riverchannel. A riparian buffer is the protected landdirectly along a waterway that buffers theimpacts of agricultural and urban development. Abuffer may or may not encompass the entireriparian zone. Riparian forests reduce the pollutant loads that reach streams, prevent erosionand flooding, support the vast majority of wildlifespecies, support most wooded areas, and protect water supplies. A river channel without afunctioning riparian area no longer stores waterand accumulates sediment, thus losing many ofits ecological functions.29TABLE 3 – Pollution Mitigation Potential by EcosystemZONE POLLUTANT REMOVAL CAPABILITY PROTECTION PRIORIT

Because of their sizeon planning maps anturbance, such as divtion.28 Restoration anecosystems should bmanagement strategThe National Academrestoration and protepolicy goal. The widtprotection depends opurpose is to trap seseven meters. If the tants, such as nitrate meters wide. If the pprovide recreational entire riparian area smation on how to crmaximum pollutant rCommon Sense Conwww.nhq.nrcs.usda.
30 SOURCE

PROTECTIONHANDBOOK

ForestsAbout 66 percent of the Nation’s precious freshwater resources originate on forest lands, whichcover about one-third of the U.S. land area.32Forests are critical to maintaining the integrity ofground and surface water systems. Wetlands37Wetlands are some of the most productiveecosystems in the world, and provide food, shelter, and nesting sites for birds, fish, mammals,amphibians, and invertebrates. Almost 43 percentof threatened and endangered animal species, aswell as many plant species, are dependent onwetlands for survival. Coastal wetlands provide60–90 percent of commercial fisheries spawninggrounds.38FloodplainsFlooding of rivers is a natural process that happens two to three times a year on the averageriver. In watersheds affected by development,less water infiltrates the soil, resulting in faster,stronger, and more frequent floods that cover awider range. It has not been shown that watershed development exacerbates periodic catastrophic floods (100 or 500 year floods), butdevelopment can significantly increase annualflooding.41

Forested land absorbs rain, traps and filters pollutants, refills underground aquifers, slows storm runoff, sustains late season flows,reduces flooding, maintains watershed stability and resilience, andprovides critical habitat for fish and wildlife.

Studies show that the percentage of forested land in a source

water area is one of the most important factors in determining waterquality. The more forested land in a source area, the better the waterquality and lower the treatment costs. 33 34 Watersheds with less

forested land have higher water temperatures, and also higher levelsof fecal coliform, turbidity, and nutrients.35

Wetlands act as living filters by removing pollution from waters flowing through them. Studies of 14 different man-made and restored wetlands around the country showed average removal rates of 82 percentof sediment, 61 percent of total nitrogen, 62 percent of phosphorousand 79 percent of metals (lead, zinc and iron). 39Floodplains, with their saturated soils and ability to hold and absorbwater, play a critical role in filtering pollutants, recharging groundwaterand minimizing the damaging impact of floods. Floods are one of thegreatest threats to water quality, as flood waters carry heavy loads ofpollutants and organic matter to drinking water sources, making theconsistent and effective treatment of drinking water more difficult.

Forests across the Uremoved and fragmestress on watershedest protection and mand management of quality. When forests ticularly sediment, spting. Even as forests concentrations may under base flow constorms can remain eWetlands are the onprotected under the critical role in filtering tems. Between 1986 wetlands was lost. T58,880 acres annualltion in U.S. wetlands losses were primarily cent), agriculture (26 and rural developmeThe destructive poteby development and clearing, loss of wetopment and paving othe impact of floods lions of dollars in floo

ZONE POLLUTANT REMOVAL CAPABILITY PROTECTION PRIORITTABLE 3 – Pollution Mitigation Potential by Ecosystem
PRIORITIZE LAND FOR PROTECTION 31

sites. The model combines information on

land characteristics such as topography, soil

type, slope, land use, and zoning in order to

rank properties according to their significance

within the watershed. Where digitized parcel

data is available, a numeric score can be given

to each parcel indicating its value within a

defined category—conservation, restoration, or

storm water management. This objective

methodology is then combined with first-hand

understanding of the land—field inspections

and local knowledge—to produce a comprehensive and effective prioritization tool.

The system can generate two types of

maps—highest priority and scored maps—each

with varying levels of detail and use. Highest

priority maps provide a general overview of

land prioritization within a watershed—which

areas could have a disproportionate influence

(positive or negative) on water quality.

Highest priorty maps also utilize different

priority indexes. For instance, a conservation

priority index ranks high priority lands for conservation, such as forests wetlands, grasslands,

and other lands still in natural cover, while a

restoration priority index generally highlights

agricultural lands or lands where the natural

cover has been disturbed but not developed

(power lines, highway corridors, and so on).

Lastly, a storm water management priority

index targets all developed lands, with priority

given to sensitive parts of the watershed 

(close proximity to streams, on hydric soils,

and so on.).

More detailed scored maps provide numeric rankings for conservation, restoration, and

and hydrology of watersheds. Removal rates at

any particular site will vary depending on the

specific characteristics of the site and the

amount of pollutants flowing through it. Usually the percentage of pollutants that any particular site can assimilate will decrease as the

amount of pollutants increases.

CASE STUDY 

Upper Little Tallapoosa River Watershed,

Georgia

In the Upper Little Tallapoosa River (ULTR)

watershed, a 95 square mile area in Carroll

County about an hour west of Atlanta, land use

is steadily moving from traditional farming,

forestry, and low-density housing to residential

and commercial development. Such development has resulted in on-site wastewater

impacts in the northern half of the watershed,

urban runoff from the cities of Villa Rica and

Temple, loss of riparian vegetation along the

main channel and tributaries, and fragmentation of forest habitat that threatens water 

quality. 

Fortunately, county leaders had the foresight to tackle existing problems and threats

head-on. Their efforts got a boost when the

watershed was named a pilot for the national

Source Water Stewardship Project, an EPAfunded program designed to demonstrate

land-use conservation and forest management

practices for source protection through four

pilot project sites. The project combined technical expertise from national partners (The

Trust for Public Land, the University of Massachusetts, and the USDA Forest Service) with a

locally led and driven effort.43

Stewardship partners designed a multiphase source protection strategy that included

1) a source water analysis to assess threats to

drinking water, 2) a stewardship exchange to

gather information from the community and

use national professional experts to offer solutions to source water threats, and 3) an implementation plan with a set of specific

recommendations to ensure the continued

health of the watershed. Planners assessed

threats to the watershed and, using a geographic information system, designed a geographic

information system (GIS) model that clearly

and consistently identifies high priority land

for protection, restoration, or storm water

management. 

The GIS model for identifying high priority land is in use at all four national pilot project

FIGURE 3: Upper Little Tallapoosa Watershed
conveying a consistent and clear message about

the threats to source water by reaching out to

and communicating with their constituents,

with whom they have the most credibility. 

Individuals and organizations will often

support and contribute to source protection

efforts if it meets their goals and objectives,

builds on initiatives they already have underway, and provides information they need to

guide their actions. As a general rule, be certain

to reach out to those individuals or groups who

are interested, those who are impacted, and

those who can help or hinder implementation. 

It may be difficult to determine from the

outset specifically which partners will be needed to design and implement your source protection plan, but it will be clear that:

◆ Local, state, federal, and possibly private

funding and resources will be needed.

◆ Landowner groups, such as farmers, developers, and wood-lot owners, will be important

if nonpoint source pollution is the primary

threat. 

◆ Neighboring jurisdictions that reside in the

watershed or manage the local water supply

will ultimately have to implement regulatory

changes or fund acquisition.

◆ If water supplies are managed privately, suppliers can be involved in funding and implementing strategies to protect their source. 

◆ Business and industry groups, which may

contribute to water quality problems, need to

be part of finding solutions. Their early

involvement is critical to developing successful and broadly supported protection strategies.

◆ Local land trusts, watershed associations, and

other nonprofits are key to public outreach

and education, and support implementation

with their constituent groups.

Planning and implementation partnerships

can also be forged with other governmental

entities—states, counties, cities, towns, and

their various agencies—sometimes culminating

in the joint management of land. Many water

suppliers and local governments rely on other

governmental agencies and planning commissions at the federal, state, and regional levels to

provide technical support such as land-use

planning, inventories, and mapping. EPA and

private consulting firms can provide local partners with resources and support on such issues

as source protection planning, nonpoint source

pollution, and storm water management. 

32 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

storm water management for every square

kilometer in the watershed and for every parcel

in the watershed. Accompanied by mapping

reports, these management tools help decisionmakers target individual parcels for protection. 

The results of this partnership have been

impressive. Citizens passed a special purpose

local option sales tax by an overwhelming

majority (67%), raising $20 million to pay for

land conservation that protects source water

and an additional $60 million for other projects, including improved wastewater management. With TPL’s assistance, the county has

begun identifying and acquiring priority properties, including purchasing a critically important 253-acre forested parcel that was slated for

conversion to a large residential subdivision.

The parcel protects 3,600 feet of the Little

Tallapoosa River and a large wetland at the

confluence of several smaller tributaries. In

addition, funding has been secured through

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to hire a

watershed inspector to enforce soil erosion and

sediment control regulations.

Contact: Amy Goolsby, Department of Community and Economic Development, Carroll County,

770-830-5861, agoolsby@carrrollcountyga.com

BUILD STRONG

PARTNERSHIPS

Water flows according to topography, not

political borders. Most communities’ source

areas lie partially, if not entirely, outside of

their jurisdictions, crossing multiple jurisdictions and even state lines. In a single watershed, there can be dozens of federal, state,

regional, and local governing agencies; hundreds of nonprofit organizations, landowners,

and businesses; and an array of overlapping

policies, laws, and regulations.44 This complexity demands communication and collaboration.

Municipalities and water suppliers must plan

and partner with other local jurisdictions and

suppliers, nonprofit organizations, landowners,

watershed associations, businesses and developers, citizens and volunteers, and others

stakeholders who can directly influence land

use and land management. 

Partners can provide a variety of conservation and watershed protection perspectives and

lend local governments much-needed manpower, technical expertise, and financial support. Partners can also be very helpful in
BUILD STRONG PARTNERSHIPS 33

In some source areas, voluntary watershed

associations, regional government associations,

and other nongovernmental organizations are

serving as coordinating entities for the watershed planning process. As independent third

parties, they often bring together local municipalities and counties that may not have

planned cooperatively in the past. These entities can offer unique skills and organizational

flexibility that can leverage new resources and

encourage new strategies. Included in this category are locally oriented, nonprofit watershed

management councils that provide education

or advocacy for river-basin protection, conservation, and natural resource protection. Membership is usually open to public agency

personnel and private sector stakeholders, with

technical, cultural, and conservation interest in

the watershed.45

There has been a proliferation in watershed management councils in recent years

because of increased public concern for and

understanding of watershed and natural

resource protection. Partnership opportunities

also exist with regional or local watershed corporations. These are typically nonprofit organizations that guide the management of a

watershed, their membership consisting of

elected officials and regulatory and management agency staff from representative communities.

Local governments may also benefit from

academic land-use expertise. Each state has

designated land-grant and sea-grant colleges

that receive federal funds for research and

cooperative extension services. These programs

have helped facilitate partnerships among education, nonprofits, industry, and government. 

MINI CASE STUDY

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant 

College Program

The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program, for example, is one of 29 programs in the

National Sea Grant network. Sponsored by

Purdue University, West Lafayette campus and

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the program serves 104 miles of heavily

urbanized and industrialized shoreline along

the Great Lakes where heavy development

pressure is converting much land from agricultural use and open space to urban uses, impacting the area’s watersheds and water quality (ten

million people get their drinking water from

southern Lake Michigan). Through research,

education, and outreach, program staff work to

inform local leaders and the public about the

economic benefits of these resources and the

short- and long-term costs of local land-use

decisions. The program provides cost-benefit

assessments of local policy changes and their

impact on water quality and estimates the value

of coastal recreation resources and their contribution to local economies.

Finally, cultivating and maintaining relationships with landowners is an integral part of

the source protection process. Their early support is needed to pass regulatory changes and

can pave the way for successful land acquisition

negotiations, as described on page 58.

CASE STUDY

Portland Water Bureau, Oregon 

In the Portland Oregon metro area, a strong

multi-jurisdictional public-private partnership

was forged to protect regional groundwater

supplies. The cities of Portland, Gresham, and

Fairview led the initiative, bringing together a

diverse coalition of business and industry, regulators, citizens, and other stakeholders. Their

three-year, community-planning effort resulted

in a unique wellhead protection program that

significantly expanded regulatory protections

for groundwater supplies in the City of Portland’s Columbia South Shore Well Field

(CSSW).

While Metro Portland residents get the

majority of their drinking water from the Bull

Run watershed, the CSSW is still the second

largest water source in the state and serves as a

critical backup during dry summer months and

in times of emergency. The municipal partners

recognized the need to protect groundwater

sources that feed 25 wells on the south shore of

the Columbia River. 

The most significant elements of the plan

expand the boundary of the protection area

and change the requirements regarding use,

transportation, loading, unloading, and storage

of hazardous materials for affected businesses

operating within the boundary.46 To ensure

compatibility and consistency, the plan was

modeled on provisions of the Uniform Fire

Code that govern handling and storage of such

hazardous materials. Significantly, the new

rules also now regulate previously exempt older
NONPROFIT SOURCE PROTECTION PARTNERS

American Rivers

The mission of American Rivers is to preserve and restore river systems and foster an ethic of river stewardship. Within its

watershed protection program, the nonprofit works in the areas of water infrastructure, urban watersheds, riverfront revitalization, water scarcity, wild rivers, and floodplain reform. American Rivers also brings attention to threatened rivers through

its annual report, Most Endangered Rivers, highlighting alternatives that can improve water quality. Information and technical

resources are available at www.americanrivers.org/riverconservation.html.

Center for Watershed Protection 

The Center for Watershed Protection is a nonprofit organization that provides local governments, activists, and watershed

organizations with the technical tools for protecting watershed land. The Center has developed and disseminated a multi-disciplinary strategy to watershed protection that encompasses watershed planning, watershed restoration, storm water management, watershed research, better site design, education and outreach, and watershed training. The Center’s Web site,

www.cwp.org, provides information about the approach as well as technical tools, publications, and case studies. 

Clean Water Fund 

Clean Water Fund (CWF) is a national nonprofit research and educational organization, with locally staffed environmental and

health protection programs serving communities in over 20 states. CWF’s mission is to develop strong grassroots environmental leadership and to bring together diverse constituencies to work cooperatively for changes that improve their lives,

including clean and safe drinking water. CWF’s water protection programs build on and complement those of Clean Water

Action, another national organization which has helped develop, pass, strengthen and defend the nation’s major water laws

such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. CWF’s Web site is located at www.cleanwaterfund.org.

Environmental Finance Center Network

As the name suggests, EFCN is a network of Environmental Finance Centers. Each center is housed within a university and

there are nine centers altogether, each in a separate EPA region. With multi-disciplinary teams, the network serves the public

and private sector on discreet projects of varying scales, with an emphasis on addressing financial issues of environmental

infrastructure and regulation. For the Unified Source Water Protection Project, the network helps stakeholders develop and

implement source water protection plans for sources that cross jurisdictions and/or are shared by many water systems. More

project details are available at http://efc.unm.edu/sourcewater.htm.

Groundwater Foundation

A non-profit educational organization, the Groundwater Foundation strives to raise awareness about the value, threats and

status of groundwater and related science among children and adults internationally by disseminating information through a

quarterly journal, annual symposium, and various youth activities. The foundation’s Groundwater Guardian Program arms individuals and communities who want to protect groundwater with a host of tools to raise awareness and take steps necessary

to accomplish their goals at the local level. Besides serving as a clearinghouse of information for grassroots efforts, the foundation works directly with individuals, coordinates efforts between communities, and honors outstanding groundwater protection achievements. To join the Groundwater Guardian Program, please visit http://www.groundwater.org/gg/gg.html.

National Rural Water Association

A trade association organized as a federation of state rural water associations, NRWA collectively serves over 24,500 rural

and small community water and wastewater utilities across the country. They provide technical assistance to their members

in formal classroom sessions, conferences, member-site training, and publications. As part of its Source Water Protection Initiative, NRWA has hired technicians to assist local governments in participating states to design and implement source water

plans for high-priority watersheds. For more information on this initiative and other NRWA projects, visit www.nrwa.org.

River Network

River Network is a national nonprofit organization that works to protect rivers and watersheds, by supporting grassroots river

and watershed conservation groups. River Network acquires land, links activists with river information, resources and services, and makes small grants to help communities raise money, build organizations, and monitor and protect rivers and watersheds. Check www.rivernetwork.org/index.cfm for more information.

34 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
BUILD STRONG PARTNERSHIPS 35

businesses, providing a five year phased implementation time frame for these businesses to

come into compliance. 

The planning process was lauded for its

diversity and support from business and industry, whose representatives formed a technical

working group. This group worked to ensure

that the regulatory program requirements are

realistic and practical, maximize risk reduction

for investments, and avoid duplication and conflict.47 According to Rosemary Menard of the

Portland Water Bureau, the agency that governs

drinking water protection for the City of Portland, it was clear that the rules needed to make

long-term sense for businesses, which face steep

financial and legal problems if pollution reaches

drinking water.48

The plan was approved by each of the

municipalities in 2003. In addition to Portland’s sources, the city of Fairview has existing

municipal groundwater supply wells within the

boundary. Gresham is currently in the process

of investigating groundwater resources for

municipal supply purposes; however, test

drilling sites and proposed supply well locations

are outside the boundary as currently drawn.

Contact: Randy Albright, R.G., Engineering Services Division, City of Portland Bureau of Water

Works, 503-823-3421, ralbright@

water.ci.portland.or.us

CASE STUDY

Raritan Basin, New Jersey

Midway between New York City and Philadelphia lies the Raritan Basin, the largest river

basin located entirely within the state of New

Jersey. Spanning parts of 100 municipalities and

seven counties, the basin is a collection of

watersheds containing roughly 2,000 mapped

miles of flowing streams and providing drinking

water to 1.3 million people.

Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the state of New Jersey experienced moderate growth rates accompanied by major shifts

in population from urban to rural areas of the

basin.49 The resulting loss of farmland, wetland,

and open space prompted a region-wide planning initiative to ensure long-term supplies of

clean, plentiful drinking water.50 The result was

the 2003 Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan, a comprehensive plan that addresses

storm water management, nonpoint source pollutants, wastewater treatment plants, development approaches, and open space protection.51

The three-year planning process was

launched by the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) and the

New Jersey Water Supply Authority

(NJWSA), a state-owned water supply utility.

The initiative was paid for with state Watershed Protection Fund money, federal dollars,

and water revenues from NJWSA. 

A diverse group of Raritan Basin interests

initially asked NJWSA to lead the effort. Once

underway, the initiative was characterized by

extensive stakeholder participation and strong

public education. Phase 1 of the initiative, a

preliminary characterization and assessment

report, began with seven partners: New Jersey

DEP, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA–Natural

Resource Conservation Service, South Branch

Watershed Association, Stony Brook–Millstone Watershed Association, Upper Raritan

Watershed Association, Rutgers Center for

Environmental Communication, and the

North Jersey Resource Conservation and

Development Council. These partners provided critical research and education and outreach

services. The initiative was structured to

include a project team, a basin-wide work

group, an executive committee, and one technical committee.52

Public education and stakeholder involvement increased during Phase 2, the development of the plan. A public involvement process

was designed to identify new stakeholders;

encourage on-line participation; provide a

series of workshops targeted to specific interest

groups (farmers, developers, environmentalists,

and municipalities); and increase forums for

public input and education. Organizers recognized the need for two types of public education. The first is designed to educate the

broader public about the watershed, the project, and opportunities for further involvement.

The second type targeted those who wanted to

become more actively involved in watershed

management. 

Included in the public outreach effort was a

basin-wide public opinion survey. Results

showed that central New Jersey residents rank

the importance of water resource protection

higher than reducing taxes, unemployment,

and road congestion. According to the survey,

residents are concerned about local rivers and

lakes, development impacts, and the quality of

their drinking water, and most support

improved regulation and more open space protection to improve water quality by large margins.53
Now that the plan has been released, team

leaders are proceeding with implementation

work, focusing on turning the plan into projects. The team continues to reassess and revise

their organizational structure to ensure ongoing stakeholder participation and public education. Great progress has been made in the area

of protection and preservation thanks to strong

partnerships among municipalities and the

Stony Brook–Millstone Watershed Association

(SBMWA) within the Millstone River region.

SBMWA works individually with each municipality to understand their own source protection goals and vision, creating a partnership

outlined in a formal agreement. The process

involves a review of comprehensive master

plans, environmental resource inventories, and

local ordinances.54 Daniel J. Van Abs,

NJSWA’s watershed protection programs

manager, credits the individual municipal partnership model with the program’s success.

“Each municipality is addressed separately,

rather than as a group,” Van Abs notes, “and

each municipality is compared to its own vision

and goals, rather than to an outsider’s view of

what should be done.” 

A multi-jurisdictional partnership within

the Spruce Run watershed, the Spruce Run Initiative was created in 2001 through an agreement between the NJWSA and five municipal

governments. Development threatens much of

the watershed, of which more than 60 percent

is neither developed nor dedicated to open

space. The NJWSA has dedicated part of its

income to land acquisition within the watershed and is acquiring purchased property in

coalition with municipal, county, state, and

nonprofit entities. 

Watershed-wide, the Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan received a huge boost

in May 2003 when NJWSA and SBMWA

were awarded a $1 million Targeted Watershed

Initiative grant—one of the largest ever. The

grant is being matched by more than $1 million

from the recipients and their partners, NJDEP

and the South Branch Watershed Association.

The project calls for restoration, protection and

preservation, and pollution prevention in

urban, suburban, and rural/suburban watershed

areas.

Contact: Daniel J. Van Abs, Watershed Protection

Programs, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, 908-

685-0315, Ext. 22, dvanabs@raritanbasin.org

BUILD STRONG PARTNERSHIPS

Questions to Consider:

◆ How do political and watershed boundaries overlap? What neighboring jurisdictions share your

community’s water sources? 

◆ Are there regional planning organizations, watershed associations, and other nongovernmental

entities that can help play a coordinating role?

◆ What local land trusts and national conservation organizations are available to help with conservation planning, acquisition, management, and technical support?

◆ Do funding resources and partnership opportunities with federal, state, and private entities exist?

◆ How can you cultivate strong relationships with landowners and keep the public involved and

educated about the conservation process?

36 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

WRAP - U P
DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 37

DESIGN A

COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE

PROTECTION PLAN

Clean drinking water is only assured by erecting multiple barriers that balance remediation

and treatment with prevention, weighing such

factors as cost, effectiveness, types of contaminants and threats, and local resources. Yet the

cost of cleaning up contamination often

exceeds the cost of prevention, making the creation of a comprehensive source protection

plan fundamental.55 Such a plan should focus

on preventing contamination from nonpoint

source pollution by managing and protecting

land that supplies drinking water.

Now is the time to turn the information

you’ve gathered thus far—analyzing watersheds, assessing threats to drinking water, mapping high priority land for protection, and

developing partnerships—into a comprehensive, workable source water protection plan. It’s

an opportunity to use what you know (the scientific and technical findings) and who you

know (public-private partners) to design a

viable plan of action. This section presents the

various components of a source protection

plan—focusing on prevention through land

conservation—and discusses how to mix the

range of tools, techniques, and strategies in a

way that works for the community. 

Throughout the process, always remember

to think watershed-wide and develop the plan

with other partners from your source area.

Also keep in mind the importance of public

education in the planning process; building

community support during this phase will be

critical when it comes time to fund and implement the plan. 

Carefully consider the following framework when creating your plan to protect source

water. 

1) Prevention: Identifying and protecting highly sensitive lands that are vulnerable to

development allows municipalities and

water suppliers to be proactive about protection and avoid costly mitigation or restoration action. Source protection includes land

conservation, land-use controls, regulations,

and best management practices. 

2) Remediation. In most drinking water watersheds there exist contaminants and/or

threats to water quality from septic systems,

agricultural operations, lawn maintenance,

underground storage tanks, and other point

and nonpoint sources of pollution. Source

protection plans should identify the greatest

contaminants and outline a plan to clean up

existing pollution, using such tools as agricultural and residential best management

practices, and riparian restoration. 

3) Preparation. Preparation means knowing

and being ready to deal with potential pollution. Tools include emergency spill response

and mapping potential contaminants such as

underground storage tanks and dry cleaners. 

A variety of factors will inform your decisions about prevention, remediation, and

preparation strategies. As outlined by EPA,

considerations include the physical properties

of the watershed (annual precipitation, soil and

drainage, ground water and surface water

hydrology, and space limitations), land uses and

potential contaminants, types of contamination problems, public acceptance of measures,

cost, maintenance needs, and aesthetics.56

Keep these in mind throughout the planning

process and carefully weigh future drinking

water needs and long-term benefits of each

approach. Such an assessment of each option

will help you determine which tools are most

appropriate for protecting existing resources or

mitigating pollution problems throughout your

watershed.

This report focuses on the prevention of

contamination through the conservation of

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING

Emergency response planning is key to mitigating the harmful

impacts of disaster or system failure. Potential problems range

from routine operating emergencies, such as pipe breakage and

power outages to natural disasters, chemical spills, or even

sabotage.

Emergency response planning is a process by which water

system managers explore vulnerabilities, make improvements,

and establish procedures to follow in an emergency. It requires

a comprehensive exploration of “what ifs” and the contingency plans to address them. As outlined by EPA, elements of

municipal emergency response plans should include information about the water system, potential contamination sources

and their locations, fire-fighting plans, necessary equipment

and supplies, surface spill reporting forms, names and phone

numbers of emergency response contacts, and short- and longterm water supply options. Written plans should be provided to

responding parties, such as police and fire departments, health

officials, public water suppliers, and contractors.

CONSIDER THIS ...
source lands, which is one critical component

of a source protection plan. It also outlines various regulatory and design tools and best management practices, some of which help prevent

contamination while others are designed to

remediate land that is already contaminated. 

The tools available to protect targeted

watershed and aquifer recharge lands fall into

three distinct categories: 

1) Voluntary, incentives-based land protection methods can be used when landowners willingly sell their land or easements and

contractually agree to the approach. 

2) Regulation and zoning can help prevent

development in sensitive areas, control patterns of development and pollution, and

prevent flooding and other costly disasters.

3) Best management practices, which may be

voluntary or regulatory, are useful to change

the behavior of landowners and the community within a watershed.

Given the size and complexity of some

watersheds, a combination of approaches is

necessary to protect public and private lands

identified as important to maintain drinking

water quality. Some of the issues that need to

be considered when designing a comprehensive

source protection plan are outlined in the following Decision-Support Matrix.

38 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

© 1990 NEVADA WIER
DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 39

Ground or surface water. If it’s

ground water, is it shallow and under the

influence of surface water? Or is it deep

and fed by a recharge area that’s not in

the immediate vicinity?

Source Area Size. How large is your

contributing watershed or recharge area?

Is it in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of acres?

Land use. What are the predominant

land uses—urban, agricultural, forest, or

other natural cover and how are those

land uses changing?

Jurisdictions. Does the source area

cross municipal, county, or state boundaries? If so, who has jurisdiction over

land use? How does each jurisdiction’s

approach to water use and protection

vary?

Point Sources. What are the point

sources of pollution that need to be

closely controlled or reduced? Are there

potential point sources of pollution that

need to be monitored or removed?

Nonpoint Sources. What are the primary NPS of pollution? Have they been

clearly identified? How are those

sources changing, based on changing

land use, and what are the likely future

sources?

For surface water and shallow ground water, protection is necessary throughout the

contributing area; headwater streams need to be protected as well as the area immediately around the intake or wellhead. 

For deep aquifers, protection is necessary in the wellhead area, as well as the

recharge area. Depending on the size of the recharge area or time of travel to the well,

protection of the recharge area can be very important for maintaining water quality and

quantity.

If the source area is below 300,000 acres, particularly if it’s smaller than 100,000 acres,

implementing protection and restoration with local partners is most feasible and will

more likely result in measurable improvements within a five year timeframe.

If the source area is greater than 300,000 acres, source protection will require extensive partnering and greater involvement of the state(s)with a longer timeframe for

measurable results.

Regardless of the size of the total contributing area, implementation of protection

and restoration strategies should be focused at the subwatershed level (usually below

50,000 acres) whenever possible.

In high growth areas where development is replacing agricultural or forested lands,

there is likely to be greater support for protection measures, either more restrictive

zoning or acquisition financed with public dollars.

In predominantly agricultural areas, conservation easements in high priority riparian

areas and cost-share programs for BMP implementation will be most feasible.

In areas with extensive forest or other natural cover where the goal is to maintain

high quality water, it may be necessary to find other, more pressing motivations and

incentives for protecting water resources.

If the source area is contained entirely in one jurisdiction with authority to regulate land

use, zoning or other regulatory approaches to protection can be very successful, as

can some un-funded voluntary approaches.

If the source area crosses multiple jurisdictions, each with its own land use controls

and varied approaches to water resource protection, or where there are no regulatory

land use controls, publicly-funded voluntary strategies, such as land acquisition or BMP

cost-share programs will likely be necessary for long-term protection.

If point sources of pollution are the primary threat to source water, regulatory

approaches to monitoring, controlling, or removing them will be necessary, as well as

ensuring that additional point sources are not created. Planning and funding enforcement of the regulations is equally as important as creating them.

If nonpoint sources of pollution are the primary threat, a wider variety of strategies will

be required to protect or improve water resources. Regulatory strategies, such as zoning or land-use restrictions, will need to be blended with voluntary strategies, such as

acquisition and BMP implementation. Because land use changes constantly, as does

its impact on water quality and quantity, it will need to be monitored and tracked over

time to ensure the primary sources of pollution are prevented or remediated.

TABLE 4 – DECISION-SUPPORT MATRIX

Characterize the source area.

Identify current and future threats to water resources.

continued next page
Emphasize Land Conservation

Approaches

The most fundamental and failsafe way to protect drinking water supplies is by preventing

the development of watershed and aquifer

recharge lands. Land conservation approaches

include the sale or gift of private real estate for

permanent public use and management. Since

these particular techniques are voluntary and

incentive-based, they generally enjoy stronger

public support than regulations. Although the

price tag is often higher, they also provide more

permanent protection and are faster to implement.

Because it involves real estate, the conservation of land is inherently complex and variable; properties come and go for a variety of

reasons without regard to a community’s

source protection goals, and funding may be

unpredictable. The uncertainty of the process

demands flexibility. That said, it is important

to map out appropriate strategies to reach

long-term conservation goals and prevent the

most immediate threats to water quality.

Strategies for each subwatershed as well as

individual properties should be developed in

accordance with the type of conservation land,

landownership, and available resources. 

Own and manage. The most straightforward

approach is outright acquisition and management of the land. Acquisition provides full

ownership of the land and the most permanent

protection, giving the buyer full rights to the

property and the title. It is also the most costly,

making it an unlikely option to protect all the

sensitive land within large watersheds. 

Own and others manage. This involves

acquiring title to the property and simultaneously developing a management agreement

with an appropriate third party, such as a nonprofit land trust. This approach helps the

acquiring entity save on long-term management responsibilities and costs. 

Resell to third party. Some properties can be

protected by acquiring and reselling to a suitable third-party owner and manager. Sometimes the third-party buyer is found after the

land is purchased, and often the buyer is

involved from the start. A land trust can act as

an intermediary, negotiating with both the

landowner and buyer. Examples include a

farmer willing to purchase land restricted to

agricultural use, or a nonprofit interested in

running an ecological preserve for public education and research. Generally, however, it is

40 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

Resources. Who has the technical,

financial, or political resources that you

will need to implement protection or

restoration? 

Audience. Who needs to be informed

of and encouraged to use best practices

and approaches to protect water

resources?

Existing Initiatives. Are there other

existing initiatives underway to protect

land or water resources? How can you

build on these efforts?

Identifying and engaging the stakeholders in the watershed greatly increases the likelihood of successful implementation and improves the efficiency of the planning

process. Stakeholders with access to technical, financial and political resources should

be involved in the earliest phases of planning.

Identifying and educating the land and business owners, residents, and other stakeholders whose actions impact water quality will be necessary to ensure long-term protection, as these are the individuals that must support regulatory changes and public

funding, and who ultimately must change their behavior to protect water resources.

If residents and landowners in the source area do not receive drinking water from

the sources in question, you need to understand their interests and motivations for

protecting local water resources.

If partnerships and momentum exist around other land and water protection efforts,

such as habitat, recreation, or meeting clean water regulations, find ways to build

source protection goals into these initiatives. The more you can build on existing

efforts, the easier it will be to attract partners and resources.

DECISION-SUPPORT MATRIX CONTINUED

Identify potential partners and stakeholders.
DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 41

not easy to find such buyers, nor are they

always legally obligated to restrict the land.

Allow limited development. Sometimes portions of a property can be developed without

sacrificing the overall protection goal. Such

limited developments usually entail developing

less environmentally sensitive portions of a

land parcel and selling these to a private buyer.

The portion of the property with the most valued resources may be retained by the acquiring

entity or sold to a third party with conservation restrictions. While the developer may subsidize protection of part of the land, such a

process is complex, time-consuming, and risky.

Similarly, it may make sense to consider selling

existing buildings on the property, such as

those outside a watershed boundary, while protecting targeted parcels.

Acquire partial interest. Owning real estate

may be thought of as owning a “bundle of

rights” that may be divided or shared in almost

limitless ways. There is a range of opportunities to protect land by acquiring, through purchase or donation, only a few of the rights.

Acquisition of a partial interest is usually less

expensive than buying the land, and it can be

acceptable to a landowner who is unwilling to

part with the land. There are several options in

this category:

◆ Conservation easement. The most well

known means of conveying a partial interest

is through a conservation easement. The

acquisition or donation of a conservation

easement either entirely eliminates or greatly

restricts the type and amount of development that may occur on the property, and

can also include provisions for management

and public access. The buyer, in turn, accepts

responsibility for monitoring the property to

ensure the landowner complies with the

terms of the easement. The purchase of conservation easements are complicated, sometimes more so than outright acquisition.

That’s because the landowner and buyer

must carefully negotiate a unique set of rights

and restrictions over the property. Easements

are generally less expensive than outright fee

purchases.

◆ Other partial interests. There are other

forms of partial interests that can be acquired

to protect a property. These include use rights

for minerals, timber, or water (as well as

rights conveyed through conservation easements), deferred interests, which usually involve

the landowner selling or donating land while

retaining rights to live on it, and partial undivided interests in which rights are acquired from a

partial owner, such as a tenant in common.

Transfer development rights (TDR). In some

parts of the country it is possible to acquire

development rights through government TDR

programs. This is a complex mechanism that is

not widely used. Put simply, city or county

planning bodies can establish areas designated

for additional development and areas designated for no development. Someone wanting to

build in the area designated for new development must purchase development rights from a

landowner owning land in an area where

development is restricted. When development

rights are sold from a property, permanent

restrictions are imposed.

Leasing land. Leasing conservation land typically provides the lessee with exclusive use or

access rights to a property for a set period of

time. This arrangement can be attractive

because it offers a trial period to manage the

property, build public support for long-term

protection, and cultivate a relationship with the

© 1994 PHIL SCHERMEISTER
landowner. With a purchase leaseback arrangement, the buyer agrees to lease land back to the

seller, subject to restrictions. 

Donations of land. Donating land for conservation purposes typically provides the

landowner with significant tax benefits. A

landowner can make an outright donation,

allowing for immediate protection, or defer the

donation through a bequest or reserved life

estate. In the case of a bequest, the landowner

retains ownership until death and does not

benefit from income tax deductions. In the

case of a life estate, the landowner donating the

property retains it for lifetime use.

Consider Regulatory and 

Design Tools 

Land-use controls such as zoning and subdivision requirements are the most powerful regulatory tools for protecting source lands, giving

local governments the legal authority to control

activities that threaten drinking water supplies.57 Such techniques offer an important

vehicle to address nonpoint source pollution

on privately owned land, which makes up a

majority of most source areas.

Like voluntary approaches, regulation can

evolve from a smart growth or conservation

visioning process and enjoy public acceptance

and support. Often, however, regulations are

seen as unfair and burdensome, subject to legal

challenge, and impractical for communities

whose source area lies outside its jurisdiction.

In addition, many communities have relied too

heavily on regulatory strategies in the past,

which have been subject to change over time.

Land-use regulations should thus be balanced

with voluntary acquisition and cost-share programs in order to be politically viable and

effective over the long-term.

Zoning Controls. Zoning regulations can be

used to control the types of development

allowed in a particular area. Special zoning

options that may be appropriate for use in high

priority water supply areas include: 

1) cluster zoning and incentive zoning: Cluster

zoning provides for a higher concentration

of development on a smaller portion of land;

only a portion of the parcel is developed

while the remaining open space is permanently protected through conservation easement. Incentive zoning allows developers to

expand the number of lots in exchange for

dedicating additional open space. Incentives

are offered to developers for clustering new

houses in the least environmentally sensitive

areas while permanently preserving as open

space the more vulnerable areas (e.g., riparian zones, wetlands, and buffers); 

2) watershed/aquifer overlay zoning techniques

identify and limit by ordinance or regulation

certain harmful activities in environmentally

sensitive watershed or aquifer areas (e.g.,

prohibiting land uses not compatible with

source protection or limiting the density of

residential housing in the overlay district); 

3) open space dedications require developers to

dedicate a certain amount of land as permanently protected open space when building a

new development, or they can be required to

pay a cash fee which can be used to purchase

land elsewhere in the town for open space

purposes.

Subdivision Controls. Subdivision regulations

establish general site design standards, which

can greatly reduce harmful impacts on sensitive

land and receiving waters. Examples of protective subdivision controls include: 

1) ensuring that septic systems and storm water

infiltration structures do not contaminate

groundwater; 

2) implementing erosion and sedimentation

controls in areas undergoing development;

and 

3) requiring certain site design measures, such

as aquatic buffers, on-site storm water management, and preservation of certain trees.

Towns can also adopt separate road and

drainage standards as part of their subdivi42 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

GUIDE TO REGULATORY

TOOLS

For more information about alternativezoning tools and other regulatory land

use controls, refer to Source Water Protection: A Guidebook for Local Governments, a publication of the National

Association of Counties, www.naco.org.
ing and reduce pollution in receiving waters.

Techniques include bio-retention, rain gardens,

wet and dry swales, constructed wetlands, and

infiltration basins. 

Non-Storm Water Management Measures.

Communities can also address polluted runoff

from non-storm water sources, such as septic

systems, sanitary sewers, car washing, residential pesticide use, and road maintenance. Regulations may include land-use controls such as

proper placement and design of septic systems,

and mandatory sanitary setbacks, as well as best

management practices such as public outreach

and education and spill prevention programs.

Eminent Domain. Finally, if land is needed for

a public purpose such as a school or road, the

government may take possession of the land

via eminent domain. Eminent domain may be an

appropriate option for securing extremely critical and threatened watershed lands. The owner

is compensated for the value of the property,

and the approach provides government with a

tool to acquire targeted properties when other

acquisition techniques are unworkable. Yet the

method is rarely the first option to pursue due

to high costs of acquisition, litigation, and necessary public relations.

DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 43

sion regulations and make other site proposal changes to limit the impact of development on water supplies.

Sediment and Erosion Control Measures.

Sediment and erosion control measures

address runoff from agricultural operations and

construction sites. Proposed development

plans may contain provisions to control accelerated erosion and sedimentation and reduce

the danger from storm water runoff at a proposed site. 

Storm Water Management Measures. Storm

water discharges are generated by rain or

snowmelt runoff from land and impervious

areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and

building rooftops, and often contain pollutants

that impact water quality. Most urban storm

water discharges are considered point sources

and require permitting through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES).58 Storm water management measures are designed to delay, capture, store, and

treat rain runoff from impervious surfaces and

other types of disturbed areas (e.g., housing

subdivisions, municipal storm sewer systems,

construction sites) in order to mitigate flood-

© 1995 PHIL SCHERMEISTER
Incorporate Best Management 

Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are

actions you can take to reduce human impact

on land and water resources. Regulatory or voluntary, these procedures help mitigate contamination from homes, businesses, agricultural

and forestry operations, or industry, and can be

applied to specifically manage publicly or privately owned lands within subwatersheds. 

Non-structural BMPs specify procedures to

reduce runoff and pollutants and emphasize

educational activities to change individual

behavior. Structural BMPs are constructed systems or devices designed to filter pollutants.59

These tools should be integrated with a

community’s other source protection efforts;

alone they cannot adequately address all source

protection challenges. Along with public education, BMPs can help change behavior over

time.

A summary of BMPs that relate to the

management of conservation lands follows.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but is

intended as an overview of land protection and

management practices.

◆ Protect wetlands and create natural buffer

strips around streams and lakes that can help

filter pollutants; wooded buffers offer the

greatest protection

◆ Design buffers to meet unique needs, varying

width based on such ecological factors as

stream-bank slope, vegetation, and stream

size60

◆ Install natural storm water management

techniques for all new development

Forestry related BMPs:

◆ Use trees, shrub roots, duff, and grasses to

slow the flow of runoff, hold buffers in place,

and prevent erosion

◆ Provide the best possible forest cover

throughout the watershed; forest cover can

help manage sediment runoff and help control nonpoint source pollution61

◆ Where practical, replace deciduous trees with

conifers in order to reduce tannins and

humics that give rise to disinfection byproduct precursors

◆ Use BMPs in forestry operations: practices

such as removing trees without disturbing

ground cover and maintaining buffer zones

of standing trees and undisturbed soils along

streams will mitigate impacts to water

resources62

Agricultural BMPs:

◆ Use conservation tillage to help reduce erosion and runoff from agricultural fields

◆ Employ planting methods such as contouring

and strip cropping

◆ Use established irrigation practices to prevent salinization of the soil water

◆ Use buffer zones which prevent pesticide

drift

◆ Develop a program of integrated pest management

◆ Develop and implement nutrient management plans

◆ Fence livestock out of streams

Implement a Plan that Creates 

Real Change

Whatever mix of source protection strategies

you incorporate into your plan, keep in mind

that the ultimate goal is the implementation of

on-the-ground action steps that meet the following objectives:

◆ protecting or restoring natural lands and

hydrologic processes in order to maintain a

healthy watershed and buffer water resources

from pollution;

◆ successful containment, mitigation, or elimination of existing sources of contamination;

and

◆ transforming the behavior of residents,

landowners, businesses, and governments to

minimize the impact of their activities on

water quality.

GUIDE TO BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

For more information on BMPs, seeSource Water Protection: Best Management Practices and Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies, produced

by the USEPA Drinking Water Academy,

www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/swpbmp.pdf.

EPA’s Source Water Protection Practice Bulletins are also useful. 

44 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
Your plan should combine strategies in a

way that meets these objectives and addresses

local source protection challenges.

CASE STUDY

Merrimack Village District Water Works,

New Hampshire

The town of Merrimack, New Hampshire, is a

perfect example of a community that has used

a multiple barrier approach to safeguard its

drinking water. Strategically located between

the state’s two largest cities and about an hour

each from Boston, the seacoast, and the mountains, the town of Merrimack, with a population of 27,000, combines a traditional rural

flavor with newer suburban-style residential

enclaves and light industry. Bordered on the

east by the Merrimack River, the south by the

Naticook Lake, and split down the middle by

the Southegan River, the town’s drinking water

is drawn from underground sources. The

groundwater is pumped from six wells located

throughout the town of Merrimack as well as

well-sites in nearby Hollis. 

The delivery of clean drinking water is the

purview of the Merrimack Village District

(MVD), a municipally managed, independent

corporation. 

The MVD’s success is the result of years of

comprehensive and community-wide planning,

culminating in the adoption of a Source Water

Protection Program (SWPP). For five years

running, Merrimack has been awarded official

Groundwater Guardian status from the

Groundwater Foundation, a national organization that recognizes communities that are dedicated and committed to local groundwater

protection, ensuring a safe water supply. Merrimack is the only town in New Hampshire

awarded this status.

The impetus for the Source Water Protection Program was trichloroethylene (TCE)

contamination discovered in the town’s

groundwater in 1995, an occasion that prompted the MVD to establish a Wellhead Protection Committee. Among its members were the

town planner, the wastewater treatment officer, a state representative, a town selectman, a

Zoning Board official, a Conservation Commission member, and a community leader.

Working with MVD staff, the committee conducted extensive research and public outreach;

using what it learned to design the SWPP; the

program is now managed by the committee

and the MVD. A surcharge on customer water

rates helps fund implementation. Their efforts

entailed:

◆ Regulatory protection. The committee

defined its source area (the town’s six wells)

and drafted a town ordinance to protect

them as a Wellfield Protection Area District

and an Aquifer District. These areas were

determined by wellhead delineation, one of

the four components of an EPA Source

Water Assessment Program (SWAP). Development regulations were then instituted

within the defined areas.63

◆ Land conservation. The committee created a

Land Acquisition Program that has, thus far,

protected 150 acres of land within recharge

areas, using fee-simple acquisition, transfer

of development rights, and conservation

easements. 

◆ Promoting best management practices

through public education. An education

coordinator from the District has implemented a series of lessons to show school

pupils how water is a vital part of daily life.

School workshops are designed to teach students about water distribution systems, water

usage, and conservation. This innovative

education strategy is teaching town residents

how to change behavior through actual

hands-on instruction.

DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 45

© JERRY AND MARCY MONKMAN
DESIGN A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN

Questions to Consider:

◆ Define the community’s long-term vision for conservation, growth, and source protection—

how will you protect water supplies over 30, 50, or 100 years?

◆ How can you best balance source protection strategies—prevention, remediation, and preparation—to address contamination?

◆ What are the most appropriate considerations for mixing tools and techniques? Such an

assessment will help you determine where to protect existing resources or mitigate pollution

problems in the watershed.

◆ What tools are available to protect source lands? 

◆ What areas within the watershed demand permanent protection? 

◆ Are funds available in your municipalities or in partnership with others that can help secure

properties in targeted areas?

◆ How can best management practices and public education change behavior of landowners

within your watershed?

◆ How can you educate the public about the importance of source protection and the planning

that is underway?

priority areas, and conducting ongoing public

education and outreach.64 According to EPA,

the plan’s success is measured in a number of

ways. First, the local planning board is incorporating water protection into its decision making process, whether or not the proposed

development lies within an aquifer district. In

addition, existing threats to the town’s drinking

water from household hazardous waste and

septic tanks has been reduced as a result of the

public education program.65

Contact: Bob Kelley, Water Quality Testing and

Operational Data, Merrimack Village District, 603-

424-9241, rnkmvd1@inr.net

46 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

◆ Alternative landscape project. Through a

demonstration landscape project, the MVD

offers homeowners practical solutions to preserving water quality, such as planting

drought-resistant, hardy native vegetation

and utilizing rainwater for irrigation. 

◆ Contingency planning: An extensive contingency plan for emergency response was

developed in conjunction with the local fire

and police departments. 

Overall, the town followed a tried-andtrue formula for groundwater: establishing a

committee, defining the wellhead and aquifer

recharge areas, identifying current and future

threats to supplies, protecting and managing

WRAP - U P
options) and a strategy to secure the money

(either legislatively or through the passage of a

voter approved conservation measure.) Water

suppliers have unique funding options and

considerations, and may have more flexibility

to raise funds without voter approval.

A summary of local financing options for

both local government and water suppliers is

provided here, followed by strategic considerations. The process of winning a voter approved

conservation funding measure is also outlined

briefly. For complete information, refer to

TPL’s Conservation Finance Handbook at

www.tpl.org.

Identify Local Financing Options

The tools local governments may use to raise

funds for land conservation are diverse and

continually expanding. In many cases, money

comes from traditional revenue sources, such as

sales and property taxes. In other places,

unusual options such as the local income tax

and cell phone tax are being tapped. Water

suppliers have unique options, such as a water

utility or storm water fee, which can help fund

land conservation. 

The availability of financing options

depends on state enabling legislation and local

regulations, and takes the form of “pay-as-yougo,” long-term borrowing, or a combination of

the two.

“Pay-as-you-go” approaches and

non-taxing tools

With “pay-as-you-go,” a government spends

revenues from general appropriations or a dedicated funding source. These funding sources

can include property taxes, sales-taxes, setasides, real-estate transfer taxes, and even onetime environmental fines and budget surpluses.

Such channels can be attractive to debt-resistant voters and public officials.66 Pay-as-you-go

means year-by-year accountability and no borrowing costs. It also means relatively small

annual revenues that may be too small to pay

for large capital projects. Pay-as-you-go can be

difficult to sustain as the politics and leadership of a community change.

◆ Water utility rates or storm water utility

fees. In order to increase available funds for

watershed land conservation, utilities may

incorporate dedicated water utility fees as a supplement to their rate structure. Alternatively,

a storm water utility is a type of a special assessment district created to generate funding

FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 47

FINANCE LAND

CONSERVATION

A municipality or water supplier can benefit

from conserving source lands—preserving

clean water, avoiding costly treatment and filtration, and protecting open space and quality

of life. Yet land conservation is also a big

investment that requires significant, predictable, and steady funding. 

Fortunately, most communities have a variety of potential fiscal options and financing

techniques available to them, from federal and

state grants to local taxes and bonds. Water

suppliers also have funding options available so

as to protect land within their watersheds. By

tapping into every option, local partners can

create a funding quilt that increases overall dollars

and avoids too great a reliance on a single,

potentially unpredictable funding source. 

For any specific project, there may be a

wide range of funding sources, including: a

state grant matched by local funding; local

funding that is supplemented by a private

fundraising campaign; a private conservation

effort that leverages a federal grant; and others.

(Using one funding source to leverage others is

essential. 

When funding any type of conservation

program to protect local water supplies, the

primary responsibility rests with local governments and water suppliers; they must raise

funds via legislative or voter approval of a conservation tax or bond, or utility fees. Federal,

state, and private funds are limited and in high

demand and should serve only as incentives or

supplements to locally generated conservation

dollars. 

This section outlines several different

funding strategies:

◆ Create and maintain dedicated local public

funding sources

◆ Identify and secure state and federal funding

federal sources 

◆ Explore private funding sources

Create and maintain dedicated local

public funding sources

Local funds mean local control and local commitment, which in turn make it easier to generate federal, state, and private matching

grants. The process of securing local public

funds requires research (to identify financing
specifically for storm water management,

including maintenance, drainage 

systems, flood control measures, and water

quality programs. Fees are imposed on property owners to pay for storm water management. Methods of determining storm water

utility charges vary considerably around the

country. Typically, charges are based on the

amount of runoff generated from the property, the amount of impervious areas on 

the property, or the assessed value of the

property. Unlike general fund tax revenues,

storm water utility taxes are imposed only on

those who directly benefit from the improvements.67

◆ Budget appropriation. A budget appropriation, as approved by the governing body,

involves either a reallocation of existing

resources or a legislatively approved tax levy. 

◆ Property tax levy. Voters across the country

have been willing to increase their property

taxes, particularly when revenues are earmarked for park and open-space protection

and spending accountability is guaranteed. 

◆ Sales tax. Levied on the sale of goods or

services, sales tax can generate large sums,

even at small taxing increments, and can tap

into tourism profits generated by open-space

amenities. On the downside, tax revenues

can drop when the economy slows, and the

tax is often criticized as regressive, falling disproportionately on lower-income people. 

◆ Real estate transfer tax. Real-estate transfer

tax is levied on the sale of property, increasing with the value of the property being sold.

The tax can create substantial funds for park

and open-space acquisition, particularly in

fast-growing communities. Yet revenues can

plummet in a soft real-estate market. Winning approval for the tax in the face of opposition from real-estate interests has proven to

be a tough challenge for many communities.

◆ Impact fee. Development impact fees are a

special kind of user fee that charge new

development to fund capital projects and

services necessitated by new growth. Like

user fees, beneficiaries should be charged for

government services and goods based on

their consumption. The fees can legally be

assessed when 1) there is a reasonable connection between the need for additional public facilities and the growth spawned by a

new development, 2) the fee represent the

development’s proportionate share of the

costs of public facilities, 3) the fees benefit

48 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

UTILITIES USE SURCHARGE FEES TO ACQUIRE THREATENED

WATERSHED LAND

Numerous water sources and differences in service elevations makeSalt Lake City’s water system one of the most complex in the

world. Adding to these structural challenges are unprecedented rate of

growth, several years of drought, and the 185-square mile Wasatch

Front canyon watershed, one of the city’s primary sources of drinking

water that is also heavily used for recreational activities.72

The city and its utilities have taken significant steps to protect water

supplies through its watershed preservation fund, which gets its revenues from a 50-cent surcharge on residents’ monthly water bills. In

addition to expanding public education and outreach, creating alliances

among valley stakeholders, and implementing land-use measures, the

city has acquired watershed lands threatened by development. In 2001,

the city and state worked together, placing a conservation easement on

154 acres of watershed land in Big Cottonwood Canyon that was

scheduled for development. In recent years, the city has spent $4.1

million on about 1,250 canyon acres that were threatened by development.73 Salt Lake City now protects more than 24,000 acres. 

Water utility surcharges can generate sizable funds for land conservation. The San Antonio Water System (SAWS), a public utility owned

by the City of San Antonio, levies a surcharge on water rates/usage (a

water supply fee) to help fund the Sensitive Land Acquisition Program

(LAP). Since 2000, SAWS and its partners have preserved more than

10,000 acres of land at a cost of roughly $5.6 million. Of this amount,

SAWS contributed $1.8 million from its water supply fee and effectively

leveraged additional city, state, and private dollars. Voters also agreed to

foot part of the bill, approving a one-eighth cent sales tax for land acquisition within the Edwards Aquifer that has generated about $65 million.

The Portland Water District in Maine also uses utility revenues to

acquire land or conservation easements around its drinking water

source, Sebago Lake. In 1993, legislation was passed allowing water

utilities to set aside up to 5 percent of the prior year’s revenues for

drinking water source protection. The District has since used $1.06 million to acquire twelve properties surrounding the shoreline or tributaries. Approximately $200,000 has also been used for demolishing

buildings and replanting vegetation on the lots.

The city of Lenexa, Kansas is levying a storm water utility charge at

a rate of $30 per year per household in order to create a series of natural, park-like detention basins that are designed to lessen the impact of

flooding. The innovative Rain into Recreation program relies on natural

features of the land to move water along the system, improving water

quality in the process. Connected by greenway corridors, the basins

will collect trash and silt after heavy rains and double as sites for ball

fields and other recreational uses when dry. Over ten years, planners

expect cost-savings of millions from the new program, offsetting the

price tag for flood damage and repairs to the old system. In addition to

the storm water utility charge, voters approved a 1/8-cent sales tax for

storm water/recreation improvements to fund the investment. Other

potential financing sources include a capital fee for new development,

and revenue from existing sources such as the mill levy and funds from

the county storm water management program.
the development, though not exclusively, and

4) the fees are earmarked for the purposes

for which they were imposed. Impact fees

have been used to help fund the acquisition,

construction, and maintenance of parks and

recreational facilities near new development,

and more and more states are adopting

impact fee enabling legislation. 

◆ Mitigation land bank. A mitigation land

bank is a parcel of land that is paid for, or

restored by, developers who are compensating for the adverse impacts of development—

often the degradation of wetlands. This land

can be adjacent to development or in a location other than the development site. Mitigation is often the best option when

development violations have already

occurred on-site or when key natural areas

are targeted for protection. The approach

also offers local governments flexibility in

their land use decisions and gives communities the ability to protect a single, larger area

rather than smaller, scattered tracts of land. 

◆ Tax incentives. Many state and local governments offer tax incentives that encourage the

donation of land. 

◆ Special districts. Special assessment districts

are separate units of government that manage specific resources within defined boundaries. Districts vary in size, encompassing a

single community or several counties. They

can be established by the local government or

by voter initiative, depending on state laws

and regulations. As self-financing legal entities, these districts have the ability to raise a

predictable stream of money (through taxes,

user fees, or bonds) directly from the people

who benefit from the services—often parks

and recreation.

◆ Benefit assessment district. A benefit

assessment district may assess a defined constituency and provide benefits to those residents, from water and roads to parks and

recreational facilities. Unlike special assessment districts, benefit assessment districts

lack a partnership, structure, or separate governmental body with management responsibilities. 

Borrowing 

Borrowing presents its own set of opportunities and obstacles. On the one hand, borrowing

in the form of bonds can provide a community

with the revenue and flexibility it needs upfront to fund land conservation projects, the

cost of which is presumably less today than it

will be tomorrow. On the other hand, many

bonds require voter approval, and convincing

voters of the merits of incurring debt and paying financing costs can be challenging. Two

types of bonds commonly used in conservation

measures include:

◆ General obligation (g.o.) bonds. A g.o. bond

is secured by a pledge of the issuer’s limited

or unlimited taxing powers. G.O. bonds of

local governments are often paid from ad

valorem property taxes and other general

revenues. In some cases open space bond

money can be included in a general capital

funding measure or paired with related environmental programs such as agricultural land

preservation, soil conservation, or storm

water management. General obligation

bonds are a popular open space financing

tool at the state and local levels—they allow

for the immediate purchase of land that is

often quickly rising in value. On the downside, G.O. bonds typically require voter or

legislative approval, or both. Interest charges

also add costs, debt ceilings limit the amount

of bonds a community can issue, and there is

generally stiff competition for the bonds

among the many local programs in need of

financing. 

◆ Revenue bonds. Revenue bonds are usually

easier to approve and costlier to repay than

G.O. bonds. Voter approval is not typically

FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 49

© KEN SHERMAN
required since the government is not obligated to repay the debt if the revenue stream

does not flow as expected. The revenue

stream could be user fees, utility rates, or

other project revenues, or a tax levied specifically to fund the project. Unlike G.O. bonds,

revenue bonds are not constrained by debt

ceilings.

◆ Short-term debt instruments. Short-term

debt instruments, such as promissory notes

and bond and tax anticipation warrants, can

also provide communities with park and

open space financing options. Although more

costly to the borrower, these mechanisms can

help local governments with sufficient

income to cover the debt service of a loan,

but that have limited long-term bonding

capacity. 

Alternative Financing Techniques

◆ Lease/purchase contracts can be used when

a decision has been made to buy a property

but up-front funds are unavailable. Under

such an arrangement, an acquisition can be

paid for in installments that include principal, interest, and associated costs. The contract can grant possession or use for a specific

or indeterminate period, until purchase

funds are in hand. The nature of the transaction, however, may be complicated and the

transaction costs high. Land trusts, such as

TPL, often play a middle-man role between

landowners and public agencies, paying

landowners and contracting directly with

agencies so as to provide the agency with

time to raise funds and acquire the property.

◆ Certificates of participation (COPs) are a

variation on the leasing theme. Structured to

allow for investment in lease/purchase agreements, COPs allow a government to pay for

a leased property over time; the transaction is

not formally considered debt and therefore

neither requires a referendum nor impacts a

community’s debt limit. Although fairly new,

COPs are becoming an increasingly important tool for protecting open space at the

local level.

Design a Strategy to Secure 

Local Funds

Local or regional conservation funding can take

the form of a budget appropriation, tax

increase, dedicated fee, or debt issuance by the

legislative body. Carefully assess the political

and fiscal landscape, as well as the potential

support of local elected officials, to determine

the most viable course. Often, local leaders

find that the price tag, the politics, and the

legal options demand approval by the voters.

Ballot measures may be referred by the legislative body (termed a referendum) or placed

on the ballot by citizen petition (termed an

initiative). Some measures are advisory in

nature, others create statutory obligations, and

yet others may amend government charters. 

Voter approval for conservation is reaching

record levels. Despite a weak economy, American voters displayed overwhelming support for

conservation-related ballot measures in 2003,

approving 99 measures in 23 states generating

$1.8 billion in new conservation-related funding. In 2002, state and local conservation

measures created roughly $5.7 billion in new

public funding for parks and open space.68

More than 70 percent of all measures were

approved each year since 1998, when TPL

began tracking conservation finance data. Furthermore, results from a national public opinion poll conducted by TPL in 2004 showed

overwhelming support for the conservation of

land that protects drinking water. Voters consistently cite drinking water quality as a valid

reason for purchasing and protecting land; a

strong majority of voters support tax increases

in order to protect their water supply through

land conservation.69

Successful measures are the result of careful planning, hard work, and an understanding

of public priorities. The process involves

assessing public opinion about conservation

and taxation and designing a measure that is

compelling, affordable, and accountable.70

50 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

CONSERVATION FINANCE

HANDBOOK

For more detailed information on how to

design a strategy to secure local funds,

refer to TPL’s Conservation Finance 

Handbook, available at www.tpl.org/ 

publications.
FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 51

◆ Land preservation benefits must be viewed

by voters as a compelling need. Whether

addressing water quality protection, farmland

preservation, or urban parks and playgrounds, proponents must understand voters’

priorities. 

◆ The tax must be affordable. Voters have a 

specific taxing threshold, even to support

benefits they find compelling. Find out how

much voters are willing to spend (not what

the ideal program would cost) and design

your measure accordingly.

◆ Voters must have confidence that those in

charge of spending the money will be

accountable and responsible. Fiscal safeguards written into a measure can assure

anxious voters that their tax dollars are being

spent wisely. Safeguards include fiscal audits,

administrative cost caps, citizen advisory

committee reviews, and sunset clauses.

Once such a measure is designed, a campaign must be conducted that builds broad

support from community leaders and organizations and communicates the key benefits of the measure to undecided voters. “If a campaign does its

work well,” notes TPL consultant Steven Glazer, “the measure should have minimal opposition, and the focus of the public debate will be

on the measure’s benefits and accountability.”71

So how do you design a compelling, affordable, and accountable measure and communicate its benefits to voters? The answer lies in

careful research and polling, intelligent measure design, and sound campaign strategy.

Research will inform you about local funding

options, potential funding levels, costs to 

taxpayers, election trends, and any legal constraints that may impede the measure en route

to the ballot. Research will also help guide the

design of a public opinion poll that accurately

assesses attitudes about public funding for

open space and conservation of source lands. 

If research and polling indicate sufficient

support, the next step is to design a measure

that reflects voters’ priorities and spending tolerance. It is important to solicit advice from

local leaders, advisory board members, and

other conservation stakeholders. 

Once on the ballot, supporters should

launch a campaign to help secure its passage.

County officials and community activists can

work together to support the measure by forming a campaign committee outside the auspices

of local government. By following these steps, a

community can secure the local support needed to protect watershed lands and other targeted open space lands. 

© 1996 TOM LAMB
Identify and secure state and federal

funding sources 

There is no single formula for securing conservation grants and matching funds from federal,

state, and private sources. A variety of factors

come into play, including programmatic objectives, competing applicants, and available

resources.

Yet there are some fundamental considerations. First and foremost, a local government

should have its source protection plan completed and local funding resources committed.

A plan, a budget, and local funding will either

be required by the agency contributing the

funds or will significantly increase the likelihood of securing grants or matching funds

from outside sources. In some cases, however,

state and private funding precedes local dollars. 

In addition, local leaders should research

potential funding sources to determine where

there is geographical or programmatic convergence. What programs exist that could help

fund local open space and watershed protection goals? What grants have been awarded to

neighboring counties, cities and towns, or communities with similar objectives? Are there

new legislative developments that impact

potential funding? EPA, state and local government associations such as the National Association of Counties, TPL, and others can help

answer these questions.

The availability of most federal and state

conservation funds fluctuates annually with the

political and economic climates and budget

allocations. In the arena of conservation funding, states provide local governments with two

important tools: direct funding (grants and

incentives), and the authority to raise local

funds. Local water utilities may also be able to

purchase land through grants from a regular

state program. For example, Rhode Island’s

Water Supply Board, through its Watershed

Land Acquisition Program, provides grants to

public water suppliers to protect watershed

supply lands. The so-called “penny per hundred” program, named for its levy of about 1

cent per hundred gallons, was enacted by the

Rhode Island State Legislature in 1989 and

generates approximately $2.2 million annually

statewide for the purpose of acquiring land and

protecting raw water supply. 

Common characteristics of states with successful conservation funding programs include:

◆ a clear vision for source protection and clean

drinking water

◆ a skill for leveraging federal funding and

using funds creatively and effectively

◆ constant support for integrating source protection programs at all levels. 

The state of New Jersey, for example, has

maintained a long-term commitment to the

protection of open space, including a steady

funding stream, incentives and financing

options for local conservation, and the use of

federal dollars to protect watershed land. New

Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection has used the state’s Green Acres Program

to leverage federal Clean Water State Revolving Funds—typically a source of money for

storm water, waste water, and nonpoint source

pollution management— to help local governments protect watershed land. The Green

Acres Program, which funds land preservation

throughout the state, gives financing priority to

those projects that protect source waters. 

At the federal level, appropriations, grants,

and incentives are made available to state and

local governments, water utilities, or nonprofit

organizations. Many federal programs require

matching funds, underscoring the need to

secure state, local, and private dollars. There

are three distinct types of federal funding for

land conservation and watershed management: 

1. State-directed programs, in which states

receive grants from the federal government,

but are given broad discretion to allocate

funds (Clean Water and Drinking Water

State Revolving Funds); 

2. Direct federal programs, in which the federal government makes direct grants in partnership with states to local recipients,

usually local governments (Forest Legacy

Program); and

3. Direct federal acquisition, such as Forest

Service or National Park Service acquisition). 

State directed federal programs

include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund

(CWSRF), the Nonpoint Source Grant Program (Section 319), and the Drinking Water

State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The revolving funds, which have traditionally funded

infrastructure improvements, provide water

52 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 53

quality improvement grants to states, which

then make loans to local governments, and in

some cases nonprofits, private citizens, and

others. States are given a great deal of flexibility in the allocation and management of statedirected federal funds and are strongly

encouraged to use their share to address

threats from nonpoint sources of pollution at

the local level. Local stakeholders can also

impact how state-directed federal program

dollars are spent by communicating with state

program administrators, generating applications for projects that address nonpoint source

pollution and source water, and encouraging

states to implement innovative grant and loan

program that leverage other local and state

dollars. 

One such state is Ohio, where in 2000 the

state EPA created the Water Resource

Restoration Sponsor Program. The program

addresses nonpoint source pollution threats by

offering drastically reduced loan rates to utilities and local governments for traditional

wastewater treatment work if the loan recipient either implements or “sponsors” a watershed protection or restoration project. The

savings they receive through the reduced interest rate is then granted to the watershed protection project. This results in new grant

dollars for watershed protection projects and a

lower overall total repayment cost for loan

recipients. 

Direct federal programs, in addition to

state-directed programs, provide state governments, local governments, and nonprofit

organizations with appropriations, grants, and

incentives. Although none of these funding

sources are directed specifically at source protection activities, many maybe used for land

protection strategies targeting source waters.

You should think creatively about how funds

from the following direct federal programs can

be leveraged to support local source protection

goals.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act

(NAWCA)

This program promotes voluntary public-private partnerships to conserve wetland ecosystems for waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, NAWCA and matching funds may be

used only for wetlands acquisition, creation,

enhancement, and/or restoration. The maximum grant size is $50,000 for the small grants

program and $1 million for the large grants

program. 

Farm and Ranchland Protection Program

(FRPP)

Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), this program provides federal

matching funds of up to 50 percent to states,

municipalities, and nonprofit organizations

acquiring conservation easements over active

agricultural properties. The cooperating entity

acquires, manages, and enforces the easement.

Proposals are selected based on agricultural

importance. Interested municipalities should

contact the state NRCS office or district conservationist. 

Forest Legacy Program

Administered by the U.S. Forest Service, this

program provides federal matching funds of up

to 75 percent to states for the purchase of conservation easements, or in some cases outright

acquisition, of high-priority forestland. The 25

percent of nonfederal monies can include state,

municipal, and private funds. Municipalities

and land trusts can work with private

landowners to submit applications to their

state Divisions of Forestry. Projects are ranked

based on a set of criteria including the degree

of threat, property size,and proximity to protected land. Congress directly earmarks funding for specific projects, based on the priorities

of each state and the comments of the U.S.

Forest Service. Applications should be submitted approximately two years in advance, if possible. 

Transportation Efficiency Act for the 

21st Century (TEA-21)

Administered by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, TEA-21 is a six-year transportation funding bill, which in addition to

traditional road building includes money for

land acquisition and infrastructure development of pedestrian and bike trails, historic site

preservation, conversion of railway corridors to

trails, scenic or historic highway programs, and

water pollution mitigation. The program is

administered through each state’s Department

of Transportation (DOT). Municipalities

work with their regional planning organization

to submit applications to DOT, which selects

projects based on local and regional priorities. 
54 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

USING STATE REVOLVING FUNDS TO PROTECT SOURCE LANDS

Federal rules allow for state revolving funds and nonpoint source grant funds to be used for a wide variety of water quality projects, including land conservation. Through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, states can provide loans to

water systems to acquire critical lands and implement protection measures. The Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund

(CWSRF) program provides assistance to communities, water systems, and other organizations—including land conservation organizations—for projects that protect source water and enhance water quality.74 The Clean Water Act also provides

for the Nonpoint Source Grant Program and the Estuary Program.

Revolving fund programs operate like banks, making no- or low-interest loans to finance water quality projects. States

have wide discretion over the programs funded, and must approve a source of loan repayment as part of the application

process (developer fees, recreational fees, drinking water fees, dedicated local tax revenues, and nonprofit donations,

among others). Some states have been innovative in their funding strategies, using state revolving fund dollars to maximize the protection of local source lands and minimize the impact of nonpoint pollution sources. Techniques include:

◆ Allowing for private borrowing and maximizing protection dollars. Nonprofit land trusts, for example, can leverage additional private resources for water quality improvement. 

◆ Providing flexible interest rates and establishing linked deposit plans. Maryland’s linked deposit program allows the state

to enter into partnerships with community lending institutions, providing a simple and convenient way for borrowers to

access nonpoint source capital improvement dollars.

◆ Creating an integrated priority ranking system. By integrating CWSRF, NPS, and Estuary Programs and prioritizing funding decisions based on identified water quality problems or threats, states can fund a wider variety of projects. 

◆ Establishing incentives for nonpoint source protection programs. Ohio’s EPA offers greatly reduced loan rates to utilities

and local governments for traditional wastewater treatment work if they implement or “sponsor” a watershed protection

or restoration project. Sponsored projects may include partnerships, land trusts, park districts, and others.

Through the CWSRF, states have the flexibility to target resources to their particular environmental needs, including

source protection and brownfield remediation—two issues closely linked when brownfield sites are abandoned, thus contaminating drinking water supplies. The state of Wisconsin has a strong history of support for local brownfield remediation,

including using CWSRF dollars to help municipalities clean up brownfield sites. Wisconsin’s efforts began in the early

1990’s when the state adopted a legislation package that provides incentives and regulatory flexibility for local clean-up

efforts. Funding came a few years later when a special committee identified the Clean Water State Revolving Funds

(CWSRF) money as a potential source.75

In 1997 the Land Recycling Loan Program (LRLP) was created, earmarking $20 million from the federal CWSRF for

municipalities to clean up properties. The loan program combines the federal dollars with state funds generated through

state-issued revenue bonds. The LRLP now provides no-interest loans of up to 20 years for cleanup of sites where environmental contamination affects surface water or groundwater. Counties, municipalities, and redevelopment and housing

authorities are eligible. A set of criteria determines project eligibility based on environmental and human health impacts.

Highest scores are awarded to projects with impacted drinking water supplies. Points are also awarded to sites with contaminated soil, sediment, or groundwater.76

For more information about protecting drinking water with state revolving funds, contact the Clean Water State Revolving Fund at www.epa.gov/owm/finan.htm and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund at

www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html.

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Program

Created in 2002 and administered by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), this program funds grants to

states and local governments for the cost of

land acquisition and restoration in a state’s

coastal zone. Federal funds must be matched

by nonfederal funds, including cash, in-kind

contributions, or other acquisitions. This is a

relatively new program, and although NOAA

recently drafted guidelines, to date, grants have

been appropriated by Congress through federal

earmarks. To pursue a grant, municipalities

should contact their congressional delegation

or state coastal zone manager.

For current and detailed information on

federal funding sources for land acquisition

search TPL’s Federal Programs at www.tpl.org.

For detailed information on federal funds for
FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 55

all watershed protection activities use the

EPA’s online searchable Catalog of Federal Funding

Sources for Watershed Protection at www.epa.gov/

safewater/dwsrf.html.

Explore private funding sources

Private funds from foundations, corporations,

and individuals can provide an important boost

to local or regional open space protection

efforts. These funds can leverage public monies

while building local support and enthusiasm

for land conservation projects. Like federal and

state funds, however, private dollars are best

relied on as supplements to municipal funding.

Keep in mind as well that although foundations can make capital grants for land acquisition, they are more likely to give funding for

planning, GIS work, and citizen outreach and

education. 

Partnerships are incredibly important in

attracting private funds. Local leaders should

develop relationships early on with organizations and individuals that can assess the potential for raising private contributions. These

partners may include corporate leaders, experienced community volunteers, local land trusts,

or regional and national nonprofits.

Nonprofit conservation partners can be

particularly instrumental in helping to raise

funds from private foundations, corporations,

and individuals. The tax status of these organizations allows donors to make tax-deductible

donations, and many foundations and corporations prefer to make grants to nonprofits

rather than to government entities. Nonprofit

partners also often have the staff, expertise,

and infrastructure to plan and execute effective

fundraising campaigns. 

Municipalities do have the ability, however,

to create special foundations to support conservation efforts, entities that can be a useful

vehicle for raising private donations. Developing such a foundation should be considered if

the community is embarking on a series of

projects without a nonprofit partner. 

What follows is a brief summary of guidelines for raising private funds for land acquisition. Each project and community is unique,

and it is difficult to make broad recommendations. If you are planning a campaign of significant size, it may be well worth the cost to

engage a private fundraising consultant to help

prepare and execute your campaign.

Foundations

The most promising foundation sources for

local efforts will be community based, since

large national foundations do not generally

give to local projects, unless there is a special

connection between the foundation and the

community. 

To identify potential foundation prospects,

helpful resources include the Foundation Center and Environmental Grantmakers. Next,

look carefully at the annual reports and press

coverage of local nonprofits and projects to

identify those who support initiatives in your

area. Finally, determine specifics such as grant

application procedures and timing, and proceed accordingly. It is important to keep in

mind that most small foundations should be

treated similarly to individuals, with personal

contact and cultivation strategies.

Corporations

The best corporate prospects will also be locally based or have large local operations. As with

foundations, it is essential to develop a case for

why a particular company should support your

project. It is valuable to identify and secure one

corporation that will commit to the project

early, as it is often easier to convert subsequent

potential donors by saying, “Company X is

committed to supporting this at the $5,000

level. Can you do the same?”

Try to make contact at the highest corporate level possible, ideally through a board

member or the chief operating officer. Before

your meeting, find out how many employees

© BILLY WEEKS
are locally based and how close the project is to

their facilities. It is also important to develop a

strategy to acknowledge the company’s support, as it will likely want to receive press coverage and other public relations benefits based

on its contribution. 

Individuals

When it comes to securing individual donations, a fundraising committee is key. This

group of influential community members must

be willing to identify and solicit donations

from friends, family, neighbors, business associates, and others. The committee may also

recruit others to raise money. 

The committee should cast a wide net and

determine the best strategy for soliciting specific donations from each contact. If you are

part of a fundraising committee, ask the following questions when creating a list of potential supporters:

◆ Who will benefit the most from this project?

◆ Who are the closest neighboring property

owners?

◆ Who are the most committed conservationists in the community?

◆ Are there families with long histories in the

community who would be motivated to support this project?

◆ Are there any individuals who are not fulltime residents who might be interested in

supporting the campaign?

Major gifts should be solicited in face-toface meetings. Save the mail campaign for last,

when only a small fundraising gap remains.

Before launching the campaign, provide committee members and potential donors with a

case statement that explains why the project is

important and the difference private donations

will make. Likewise, formal training for committee members and volunteers working the

front lines will prove invaluable.

CASE STUDY

Suffolk County and its Towns, New York

Located at the eastern end of Long Island, an

area rich in ecological importance and scenic

beauty, Suffolk County and its towns have pioneered local land conservation for more than 25

56 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

© JOHN DEAN
years. These efforts have included programs for

the protection of farmland, open space, and

drinking water. 

County residents get all of their drinking

water from groundwater, particularly from the

vast supplies underlying the Pine Barrens, a

federally designated sole source aquifer. Heavy

development in past decades threatened supplies and led to the creation of the Suffolk

County Drinking Water Protection Program.

The program to acquire critical recharge land is

funded with one-quarter cent of the sales tax,

first approved in 1987 and extended by voters

in 2000. The tax generates about $8 million

annually and has funded the acquisition of

about 13,000 acres. Additional funds are leveraged through the State.

Despite the success of the County’s program, development still threatened critical

source lands. This led to the Long Island Pine

Barrens Protection Act, a national model for

groundwater protection that created a

100,000-acre preserve above the recharge

area, effectively eliminating development in the

core half and setting aside the other half for

limited use. Various land-use and zoning tools

are used to accomplish the preservation goals

of the Act, including transfer of development

rights, cluster zoning, and conservation easements. 

Local leaders and voters throughout the

county have long recognized the value of land

conservation as a tool to protect natural

resources and quality of life, and the importance of working together to fund source protection projects. The County has fostered

multi-jurisdictional partnerships in many of its

programs, including a Land Preservation Partnership Program that splits costs between the

County and its towns to pay for various land

acquisition projects, including the protection of

drinking water supplies. The County’s Drinking

Water Protection Program also has a revenue

sharing component based on population and is

set aside by the town. 

Voters in many towns have also approved

local measures to protect open space and source

lands. In 2002, for instance, the Town of

Brookhaven passed a bond measure that provides $20 million for preservation of open

space and environmentally important lands that

protect drinking water. In addition, five towns

in eastern Suffolk County have enacted a local

real estate transfer tax (2 percent of sales above

$150,000) that has raised an impressive $200

million in the past 5 years. The program will be

in effect until 2025. Finally, there are also several bond issues proposed for the November

2004 election to further fund land acquisitions,

including $100 million in Brookhaven, $75 million in Suffolk, and $50 million in Nassau.

Contact: Thomas Isles, Planning Department,

Suffolk County, 631-853-5190, tom.isles@ 

co.suffolk.ny.us

FINANCE LAND PROTECTION 57

FINANCE LAND CONSERVATION

Questions to Consider:

◆ What options are available at the local level to fund conservation? How can you secure political and public support for local funding, either through budget appropriation or the passage of

a voter-approved conservation funding measure? What role can a water supplier play?

◆ What is your plan to secure local funds and how can it be used to attract support from federal,

state, and private sources? 

◆ What conservation funding support is provided by your state? Does your state have a dedicated funding source? How creatively does your state use federal funds to protect water quality?

How can you impact the allocation of state-directed federal funds to benefit local source protection?

◆ What federal funds are available for local source protection? What is the focus of the program,

and how are funds administered?

◆ Are there private funding sources, including foundations, corporations, individuals, and water

supplies that can help fund source protection?

WRAP - U P
58 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

PROTECT PRIORITY

LANDS

The world of real estate is often complex,

time-consuming, and risky; large sums of

money are at stake, legal issues are complicated,

and the value of a given piece of property can

be quite subjective. That’s why it’s critical to

understand the acquisition process and partner

with experts whenever possible. This section is

designed to familiarize readers with the fundamentals of land acquisition. Keep in mind that

this is merely a summary; for more detailed

information see Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying

Land for Conservation, a detailed look at the land

acquisition process created by TPL and the

Land Trust Alliance.

A key initial step is to develop a prioritized

list of specific land parcels, and use it as a

guide to approach landowners about doing

deals. Consider this step a compilation and

assessment of the information gathered thus

far: GIS mapping and conservation ranking

systems help you understand the importance 

of a particular piece of property to the health

of the watershed; source protection planning

helps you decide which protection approach is

most appropriate for a given parcel. Once a

piece of property is on a priority list, additional

information about the parcel and the needs of

the landowner are essential. This process is

described in the “doing deals” section to follow.

Doing Deals

The section “Doing Deals” was adapted from the

following sources: Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying

Land for Conservation, written by the Trust for Public Land and published by the Land Trust Alliance

and the Trust for Public Land, 1995; “Community

Open Space: New Techniques for Acquisition and

Financing,” developed by the Trust for Public Land

and published in the MIS Report by the International

City/County Management Association; co-editors

are TPL’s D. Ernest Cook and urban consultant

William P. Ryan.

Buying land or conservation easements

requires a fundamental understanding of real

estate—its unique terminology, accepted practices, and legal risks. While it is not necessary

to be a real estate expert, it is essential to work

knowledgeably and comfortably with conservation partners and other experts throughout the

process. While local governments will likely be

the predominant land buyer and landowner,

public water authorities and private utilities are

increasingly acquiring source lands. For the

purposes of this discussion, the terms public

agency and local government are most often

used to describe the parties in the land acquisition process. Yet whether a transaction is ultimately facilitated by a land trust partner, local

government, or water supplier, the steps

involved remain the same: information gathering, negotiations, and due diligence 

Information Gathering

Once you’ve decided to pursue a property, it’s

time to begin a process of information gathering and analysis—about the land, the landowner, potential partners, and sources of funding.

You’ll probably follow these lines of inquiry

simultaneously, exploring each to the degree

demanded by the projects and reacting to

opportunities and roadblocks as they arise.

Fact-finding begins with the land and

landowners and includes: 

◆ History of the land and its geographic features and resources. Understand the land’s

size and physical characteristics by visiting

the property, talking with the landowners

and neighbors, and examining existing public

documents and maps. 

◆ Landowners. Investigate ownership constraints and motivations for selling the land.

The landowner’s character, background,

social and professional affiliations, financial

status, and relationship to the land can all

influence negotiations and decisions about

the deal.

◆ Development capacity. Explore the practical

and legally allowed uses of the land—its

development potential. This will help you

determine desirable and allowable protection

strategies, estimate the market value of the

land, assess the feasibility of limited development, and predict the development of adjacent land that might adversely affect your

protection efforts. 

◆ Likely cost of owning and managing land.

Short- and long-term costs may include site

stabilization and improvements, insurance

premiums, building maintenance and repairs,

utilities, inventories, fencing, weed management, easement monitoring, and staffing. 

◆ Current and projected land value. The value

of a piece of property is estimated through a
PROTECT PRIORITY LANDS 59

subjective analysis of size, shape, and terrain;

access to roads and facilities; applicable landuse regulations; development and land value

trends in the area; restrictive easements or

covenants; and improvements on the land.

Professional appraisers are essential.

◆ Level of community support. The community can help with a range of tasks, including

information-gathering, fundraising, gaining

political approvals, and managing the technical aspects of a transaction. With enough

public support almost every project can be a

success. 

The sources for information are extremely

varied: human resources include landowners,

neighbors, community leaders, professional

realtors, assessors, and so on; public documents

include property tax records, title reports,

existing appraisals, recorded surveys, existing

inventories, local general plans and watershed

planning studies, environmental impact

reports, land-use regulations, and more. How

exhaustive your research needs to be will

depend on the circumstances of the projects,

available time, and financial restraints.

Planning and negotiations

Careful information-gathering and analysis can

pave the way for successful negotiations—the

most sensitive and critical step in any acquisition. Ultimately, a successful negotiation with

the landowner will result with you obtaining

site control, adequate legal safeguards, and

enough time to secure funding. 

There are typically two phases to the negotiation process, preliminary and final. Phase one,

preliminary negotiations, should be used to establish a relationship with the landowner and

reach common ground on the basic framework

of the deal. In the final negotiations stage, conceptual agreements are formalized in a legal document, including details of the financing

arrangements. 

During preliminary negotiations, focus

your efforts on finding common ground with

the landowner. Work to get the landowner on

your side, develop a personal rapport, explore

shared goals for the land, and help the

landowner understand the value of his/her

property for water quality protection. You and

© GRAHAM STEFF
60 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

the landowner should also establish areas of

agreement and disagreement—exploring purchase options, price, restrictions, deposits, and

timing. Keep in mind that everything you

learned to date—about the land and the

landowner—is drawn upon and synthesized as

you develop your negotiation strategy.

It is also essential to acquire site control at the

earliest time possible. Site control is the legally

binding right to acquire the land on terms

established in a legal agreement. There are a

variety of forms of site control agreements; the

most secure is an acquisition agreement that

specifies the full range of circumstances that

will govern the transfer of the property:

◆ Purchase-and-sale agreement. The most

common acquisition agreement, the purchase-and-sale contract obligates the seller to

sell and the buyer to buy, subject to specified

conditions and basic terms, such as the time

frame for closing, price, legal description of

the property, and required condition of sale.

◆ Option. An option is essentially a purchaseand-sale agreement under which the owner

of the land gives the other party, in exchange

for some form of consideration, the right (but

not the obligation) to buy the land within a certain period. An option provides the option

holder time to consider the merits of the

project and to put together a feasible deal. 

◆ Earnest money contracts. A variation of a

purchase-and-sale agreement, an earnest

money agreement is a deposit made by a

buyer of real estate (typically of a house) as a

sign of good faith. Unlike an option, this is a

contract to buy the property.

◆ Donation agreement. A donation agreement

formalizes the transfer of donated property. 

There are also many arrangements short of

formal site control that are good halfway measures to secure a property in the interim. Socalled site influence agreements may be formal

or informal, yet all require the continuing goodwill of the landowner.

◆ Letter of intent. Letters of intent anticipate

future relationships and are often used to

document an agreement, whether expressing

the parties’ intention to enter into a fully

drafted agreement or detailing the understanding of how the property will be managed. 

© 1996 SUSAN LAPIDES
PROTECT PRIORITY LANDS 61

◆ Right of first refusal/right of first offer. A

right of first refusal requires a landowner to

sell the property for the same price and

terms that he/she is willing to accept from a

third party. A right of first offer guarantees a

designated buyer the right to make an offer

to purchase the property before a landowner

can sell it to a third party, and also prevents

the landowner from selling to a third party at

a lower price than was offered. 

◆ Lease. A lease typically provides exclusive use

or access rights to a property for a set period

of time. This arrangement can be attractive

because it offers a trial period to manage the

property, build public support for long-term

protection, and cultivate a relationship with

the landowner. A “lease-option” gives the lessee the option of purchasing the land at the

end of the lease.

◆ Will and bequests. If the landowner puts

your organization or agency in his/her will,

you retain complete control of the land at the

time of the owner’s death. Until that time,

however, the landowner is free to change the

will.

◆ Management agreement. Less formal than a

lease, a management agreement specifies a

plan under which the property will be managed, either by the landowner or by the

acquiring entity. 

◆ Registration program. Some land trusts

operate programs to “register” significant

conservation properties. This regulation

involves drafting a nonbonding agreement

stating that the landowner will not develop

the land, or at least certain parts of it, and

will provide notification of any threats to the

property or plans to sell the property. 

Once site control or site influence has been

established, it’s time to develop an acquisition

action plan that details the work ahead, the

timing, and the resources available. Think

backwards from your protection goal to identify all the steps you need to take, including

acquisition (option, appraisal, title report, etc.),

financing arrangements and due dates,

fundraising activities, political endorsements or

approvals, and preparation for stewardship

(baseline data collection, and management).

Work with others to develop the plan, brainstorming alternatives and considering worstcase scenarios. Call upon experts to

double-check your budgets and timelines. Look

at each and every aspect of the project: determine major constraints, set milestones, identify

and order tasks, anticipate delays, monitor and

track progress, and develop a comprehensive

budget. 

During final negotiations, conceptual agreements are made formal and the fine points of

the deal are hammered out—the estate to be

acquired, the consideration/deposit, the terms

of seller financing, title, environmental liability,

and defaults and remedies. Move as quickly as

possible to a preliminary draft of the acquisition agreement as circumstances change constantly, competing offers may be made, the

landowner’s financial situation may change, or

the landowner may die. The culmination of

this process is the closing, the point at which

ownership of the land is transferred. Be

advised, however, that it is time-consuming to

generate a sound legal document and the

process can be prolonged by any number of

factors. 

Due Diligence

It is important to minimize any risk associated

with land ownership by performing a survey,

appraisal, environmental assessment, and title

search—referred to as due diligence. For land

known to be rich in archaeological resources,

an archaeological or cultural resources study

may also be important. Be certain to follow

due diligence steps carefully during final planning and negotiations. The following is a

description of each step and some points to

keep in mind when retaining professional consultants to perform the work.

◆ The survey. A survey is a map showing the

measurements, area, boundaries, and contours of a property. Just as a title report provides information about the land’s

ownership, a survey provides information

about the land’s physical features–information that can be extraordinarily useful in your

negotiations, in your evaluation of the property for your intended uses, or as baseline

data. If developing a portion of the property

is part of the protection strategy, a survey is

critical.

◆ The appraisal. Appraisals are tools for evaluating the market value of a piece of property.

They are a qualified professional’s opinion of

value, expressed in a formal document called

an appraisal report. Appraising is not an exact

science. The industry is governed by guidelines, not rules; there is not one standard or

format for reports, and the qualifications of
62 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

an appraiser are difficult to define. Appraisals

should always be held open to critical scrutiny, analysis, and challenge. 

◆ Environmental Assessment. Contamination

can result from agricultural operations,

industrial or commercial operations, mining

and timber operations, or the construction of

residential buildings, particularly those that

contain asbestos or lead-based paint. Under

many federal and state environmental liability laws, local governments are liable for

cleanup of contaminated sites that come into

their possession. That’s why assessing the

environmental hazards of a site before acquisition is essential.

The purpose of the assessment is to determine the possible presence of a contamination

problem, and the nature and cost of cleaning it

up. Whether or not there is a known problem,

officials must negotiate an acquisition agreement that gives the acquiring entity the greatest possible protection from liability. It is

important to work closely with an attorney at

all stages of assessing the environmental health

of a property and drafting an agreement. 

◆ Title Report and Title Insurance. The term

“title” means evidence of ownership—that is,

the legal documentation of an owner’s right

to the property. There are a variety of ways in

which title can be secured, as outlined by the

table on page 63. A title report is a document

indicating the current state of title for a

property, including the owner of record;

easements, covenants, or liens affecting the

property; and any clouds on the title. The

search is performed either by a title insurance company, or in some states by attorneys

or title “abstractors.” From this investigation,

the title insurance company creates the title

report, or abstract of title. The title report is

usually accompanied by a “title commitment,” a statement by the title company that

says it is willing to insure the existing state of

title to the property, excluding any defects or

clouds specifically listed in the report. Title

insurance, which is available for both land

and conservation easements, protects the

holder from any loss sustained due to defects

in the state of title other than those stated in

the policy. Local governments like private

landowners, are vulnerable to title problems

and usually need title insurance.

Forge Partnerships for Doing Deals

The section was adapted from Preserving Urban

and Suburban Gardens and Parks: The Trust for Public Land and Its Partners, by William Poole, in Land

Conservation through Public/Private Partnerships,

edited by Eve Endicott and published by the Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy (Washington, D.C.: Island

Press, 1993).

Many local partners lack the resources or

expertise to execute land transactions effectively, especially in volatile urban markets. This

is particularly true of complicated transactions,

which may involve delicate timing, the splitting

or combining of land parcels, or complex tax or

legal circumstances.

Moreover, public agencies are constrained

by political considerations and by mandated

procedures and regulations. Appropriated

monies may fail to cover a land transaction or

may not be available when a desired parcel

comes on the market. Some landowners distrust government, making negotiations difficult. And rarely does exactly the right piece of

land come on the market at exactly the right

price and exactly the right time. 

For all these reasons, private, third party

partners can play an important role in local

land acquisition, ownership, and management.

Much of the work of a third party involves

adjusting such variables as time, price, and land

configuration to meet the needs of both the

landowner and the acquiring agency. An

understanding of potential partnership opportunities is essential before launching into a

deal.

Timing Transactions

Local governments and other public agencies

frequently face hurdles in timing public funding when desired properties are for sale. A local

partner may anticipate authorization of funds,

the passage of a bond act, or the sale of bonds

at a future date, but meanwhile it needs to

make sure a targeted property remains available for purchase. There are two basic strategies for providing interim protection. The first

is to negotiate an option on the property. If an

option is unavailable, a fall-back strategy is to

get assistance from a “friendly” third party—

often a land trust—who is willing to take the

risk of buying the property and holding it until

the government is able to proceed with the

acquisition.

An option gives the purchaser the right—but
PROTECT PRIORITY LANDS 63

TECHNIQUE

Fair market value sale

Bargain sale

Outright donation

Bequest

Donation with

reserved life estate

Land exchange

Eminent domain

Tax foreclosure

Agency transfer

*Conservation easements can also be acquired by these means.

This table was adapted from Tools and Strategies: Protecting the Landscape and Shaping Growth, 1990, the

Regional Plan Association, New York. The information was also published in “Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying Land

for Conservation,” written by the Trust for Public Land and published by TPL and the Land Trust Alliance; 1995.

TABLE 5: Acquiring Title

EXPLANATION

Land is sold at its value at

highest and best use.*

Part donation/part sale—property is sold at less than fair

market value.* 

A donation by landowner of

all interest in property.*

Landowner retains ownership

until death.*

Landowner donates during

lifetime but has lifetime use.

Exchange of developable land

for land with high conservation value.

The right of the government

to take private property for

public purposes upon payment of just compensation.*

Government acquires land by

tax payment default.

Certain government agencies

may have surplus property

inappropriate for their needs

that could be transferred to a

parks agency for public use.

ADVANTAGES

◆ Highest sales income (cash inflow)

to seller.

◆ Often the landowner is eligible for a

tax deduction for the difference

between the sale price and the fair

market value.

◆ Allows for permanent protection

without direct public expenditure. 

◆ Tax benefits to seller since property’s fair market value is considered

a charitable contribution.

◆ Management responsibility usually

deferred until donor’s death.

◆ Landowner retains use but receives

tax benefits from donation.

◆ Little or no government funds

required.

◆ Landowner may defer capital gain

recognition.

◆ Provides government with a tool to

acquire desired properties if other

acquisition techniques are not

workable.

◆ Limited expenditure.

◆ Land might not be appropriate for

public open space, but can be sold

to provide funds for open space

acquisition.

◆ Limited expenditure.

DISADVANTAGES

◆ Can be expensive.

◆ Seller must be willing to sell at

less than fair market value. Can

be expensive.

◆ Very few landowners willing to

consider.

◆ Date of acquisition is uncertain. 

◆ Donor does not benefit from

income tax deductions.

◆ Landowner can change will.

◆ Date of acquisition is uncertain.

◆ Properties must be of comparable

value.

◆ Complicated and time-consuming.

◆ Landowner and public opposition.

◆ Can result in speculation on 

targeted properties.

◆ Potentially expensive and timeconsuming litigation.

◆ Cumbersome process.

◆ Surplus property available may not

be appropriate for park use or 

the owning agency may want to

sell to a private party to generate

revenues.
64 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

not the obligation—to buy the property at some

time in the future. Because an option binds the

landowner to hold the property off the market

without any assurance that the sale will be concluded, most owners insist that the prospective

purchasers pay for the option, providing as consideration some amount between one dollar

and ten percent (or even more) of the purchase

price. Many landowners prefer a purchase-and-sale

agreement to an option. A purchase-and-sale

agreement generally requires both buyer and

seller to proceed with the transaction, but the

agreement can be loaded with various conditions (e.g., “subject to available public funds”)

and escape clauses that make it essentially

equivalent to an option. The services of qualified counsel are essential to prepare or review

either form of agreement.

Many local governments and most land

trusts use options. Options are powerful tools

for facilitating public park and open space

acquisition, often enabling the holder of the

option to leverage millions of dollars or potential acquisitions through relatively small option

payments. However, many public agencies are

prohibited from entering into such agreements,

and others may not have the funds needed—or

be willing to place public funds at risk—to purchase option rights. A private partner or land

trust may be the best solution.

In addition to providing interim protection,

an option may serve the public agency by highlighting a desirable opportunity and stimulating

voter or legislative support to provide the necessary funding. Optioning the land creates an

atmosphere for acquisition and allows planners

and advocacy groups to say, “This land is available if we want it.” 

Not all landowners are willing to consider

an option or any form of agreement that does

not require a firm commitment to buy in the

immediate future. In these cases, help from a

nonprofit conservation group that is willing to

purchase the property outright may be the only

means for a local government to preserve the

chance to create new parkland. Many land

trusts have accumulated revolving funds from

donations, earnings, and loans that can “bridge”

financing until a public agency is able to acquire

a parcel. Once the land has been conveyed to

protective ownership, the funds are returned to

the revolving account to be used again. 

Assembling and Splitting Parcels

Sometimes a local government or public agency

can afford only a portion of an offered parcel.

Or it may need to acquire multiple parcels from

different owners to accomplish a single project.

Governments are often forbidden by statute or

regulation from assuming the risks of holding,

splitting, combining, and reselling parcels on

the open market. Private partners, on the other

hand, can do this work—often in multiple

transactions—and can then transfer the land to

the acquiring agency in the precise configuration required.

Helping with Negotiations

A land trust may be asked to step in as an independent third party if negotiations between a

landowner and a public agency reach an

impasse. In other instances, a local government

may enjoin negotiations by procedural, legal, or

regulatory encumbrances. For their part, some

landowners do not trust government agencies.

This is often the case when a local government

is in the awkward position of regulating the use

of a property while simultaneously seeking to

buy it. Negotiations are most successful when

they are confidential, especially regarding the

landowner’s financial circumstances. Many

owners fear that direct negotiations with the

local government will expose their personal

affairs to public scrutiny. 

In all of these situations, a private partner

who represents neither the local government

nor the landowner is often in the best position

to negotiate. 

Often, the key to placing land in public

ownership is finding a solution sensitive to the

financial and legal needs of landowners. A land

trust or other private partner may be in a better

position than a government representative to

counsel landowners confidentially on the tax

benefits of bargain sales, showing them how

deductions based on charitable donations of

land can offset in some measure a lower selling

price.

Finding and Maximizing Funds

Frequently, a financial issue prompts a local

government to call on a nonprofit partner for

assistance. A private partner can promote a taxdeductible bargain sale to bring down the price

of a project. By acquiring or optioning a highprofile property, nonprofits can also help generate funds from individual, corporate, or

philanthropic sources, and help educate voters

about a conservation finance measure. With

their inherent flexibility, nonprofit partners can

often combine funds for an acquisition from

two or more public or private sources. They
PROTECT PRIORITY LANDS 65

may, for instance, combine local government

money with foundation grants, development

mitigation funds, low-interest loans, or private

gifts. Sometimes, a nonprofit partner can

schedule payments on a transaction to fit the

budget or timing of an acquiring agency. And

finally, in some instances, funds can be generated through a partial development transaction.

This is done by splitting the parcel, selling a

minor portion for development and using the

proceeds to help secure the major portion for

public use. 

Owning and Managing Land

Third party partners, such as land trusts, can

often manage lands with greater efficiency at

reduced costs. Ownership can also be simplified by having a land trust hold a piece of property for a determined amount of time. There

are a variety of options, as described in detail in

the section on land conservation approaches,

on pages 40 and 41.

CASE STUDY

Waynesville, North Carolina

At the western end of North Carolina, near

the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains,

lies the small but growing community of Waynesville, population 10,000. While neighboring towns struggle to protect their water supplies in the face of new development, Waynesville has the unique distinction of owning

its entire watershed—every parcel between its

drinking water reservoir and the hundreds of

surface streams and underground springs that

feed it.77 Still, final decisions and public debate

about long-term land ownership and management continue into 2004.

The protection of the community’s watershed, known as Allen’s Creek, began 100 years

ago with the town’s first acquisition of key

land. By 1997, the town supplemented its own

funds with grant money from the state’s Clean

Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF),

the Environmental Protection Agency and the

state’s Division of Water Resources, to acquire

the final 690-acres. The grant from the

CWMTF required the town to place a conservation easement on that land, the easement

was then conveyed to the state to ensure permanent protection.78

Town funds later matched additional

CWMTF funds to pay for a survey of 6,000

acres of protected watershed land. The town

also then agreed to donate a conservation easement on the watershed, to be conveyed to the

Conservation Trust for North Carolina.79

Countless drafts of the easement document

have been written, reviewed, and rewritten

since 1997 and a number of partner organiza-

© 2002 KEN SHERMAN
66 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

tions have been added to the project to bolster

community support.

The broad-based coalition of state, nonprofit, and local partners formed to design and

monitor the easement, includes CWMTF, the

Conservation Trust for North Carolina, the

Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy,

Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, Haywood

Waterways Association and Western Carolina

University. Town officials solicited public input

at town meetings, which were attended by residents and participating members of the conservation community. Residents expressed

support for the conservation easement, as there

is currently no mechanism for protection of

the watershed. There was some concern about

the town’s desire to retain the right to manage

the forests in the watershed, but the primary

concern was a lack of public forums as this

project evolved over the last eight years. The

town’s Board of Alderman now has plans for

continued public involvement in the decisionPROTECT PRIORITY LANDS

Questions to Consider:

◆ What is the most appropriate and effective conservation tool available to protect a parcel of

watershed property?

◆ What do you know about the piece of property, its history, landowners, and contaminant

threats?

◆ What are the common techniques, accepted practices, and legal risks of doing a deal? 

◆ What is your plan for protecting a piece of property, including timing, budget, negotiations,

acquisition options, and preparation for stewardship?

◆ How can experts help you facilitate the negotiations and secure the deal?

making process.

The proposed conservation easement contains numerous requirements and restrictions

based on scientifically driven decision-making,

regular water quality testing, and the oversight

of two experienced conservation organizations

and the State of North Carolina. Any forest

management activities would be done in accordance with a protective forest management

plan and would be strictly governed and monitored. Management activities could be halted at

any step, and all must comply with the primary

objective of protecting high quality water. 

Proponents of the easement, which is more

restrictive than the state’s Best Management

Practices, hail it as a model for sustainable forest management for source water protection.

Final decisions about the conservation easement are expected in 2004.

Contact: Rusty Painter, Land Protection and Conservation Projects, Conservation Trust for North Carolina, 919-828-4199, rusty@ctnc.org

WRAP - U P
MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS 67

MANAGE PROTECTED

LANDS

Whether source lands are developed or undeveloped, privately owned or publicly protected,

proper land stewardship can have a tremendous impact on water quality.

Perhaps surprisingly, land protection does

not automatically equal improved water quality.

How conserved land is managed—from

restoration to maintenance to public access—

can affect water quality. Source lands that are

permanently protected by a local government,

water supplier, local land trust, or other partner

have their own, albeit sometimes overlapping,

set of management tools and challenges. It is

important to consider management and public

access before property is purchased, and take

into account issues that influence who you

partner with and which entity will own the

land. This chapter touches on stewardship of

private lands, but the primary focus is on stewardship of publicly protected lands.

Stewardship of Private Lands 

Promoting good land stewardship depends on

the voluntary actions of private landowners

and requires outreach, education, technical

assistance, and sometimes financial incentives.

The goal is to improve how individuals manage

their land by building their understanding of

the watershed they live or work in and how

their actions can impact water quality. As noted

by EPA in its comprehensive report on watershed management, “environmentally responsible land management does not mean that people must cease certain activities or make drastic

changes to their business, rather that they rethink the way they go about their activities.”80

The nonprofit Center for Watershed Protection has developed a six-point program, as

outlined below, to promote effective watershed

stewardship.81 Consider these points when

designing a program to facilitate proper stewardship of private lands. For more details, see

www.cwp.org/stewardship.htm.

◆ Watershed advocacy. Advocacy lays the

foundation for public support and more

effective watershed stewardship. Grassroots

watershed management organizations and

local governments have important roles to

play in an advocacy effort.

◆ Watershed education. Education programs

can raise awareness (signs, storm drain stenciling, maps), encourage personal stewardship, provide professional training to the

development community, and engage the

public in protection and restoration activities. 

◆ Watershed maintenance. Most watershed

protection tools require ongoing maintenance, including maintenance of septic systems and sewer networks, as well as

managing storm water practices. Maintenance may also require some replanting of

natural vegetative cover.

◆ Pollution prevention. Some businesses may

need special training on how to manage their

operations to prevent pollution and protect

the watershed.

◆ Monitoring. Public agencies, as well as private

© 1997 SAM KITTNER
68 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

corporations, citizen groups, and even

landowners should seriously consider monitoring to provide appropriate data that will

answer their own questions and allow them

to design and target management strategies.

◆ Restoration. An urban restoration process

should include storm water retrofitting,

source control through pollution prevention,

and stream enhancement.82

There are a variety of specific tools and

techniques for proper stewardship of developed land within this framework, from the

proper disposal of waste to the appropriate use

of vegetation cover. For example, landowners

should be encouraged to develop environmentally sensitive landscapes that rely on native

plants with dense root systems and apply proper lawn maintenance techniques, such as aerating soils and planting climate-appropriate

species of grasses that need the least chemical

assistance. Farmers should use conservation

tillage, crop rotations, contour strip farming,

and animal grazing management that reduce

loss of pesticides and nutrients to the environment and sediment.83

Stewardship of Public Lands

Once a municipality or water supplier acquires

a tract of watershed land, it faces the significant task of owning and managing it. To guarantee the adequate protection and

enhancement of water resources, the creation

of a well-planned and well-funded land management program is essential. Such a program

should balance the protection of water and

other natural resources with the recreational

and usage needs of the public—while ensuring

public safety. 

A management plan guides the protection

and enhancement of acquired land over the

short- and long-term. Your plan should include

strategies for immediately protecting acquired

property, balancing competing land-use

demands, and addressing long-term costs and

management issues. For properties with significant natural and biological resources, such as

water supplies, it is also important to consider

a specific resource stewardship plan as part of a

more general management plan. In fact, a

number of different yet overlapping management approaches may be needed for a piece of

property, depending on the type of land and

natural resources protected. These may include

forest management, ecosystem management,

species management, trails and resource management, agricultural production, and grazing

management. This section discusses the steps

involved in the creation of a management plan

and the special considerations for developing a

specific resource stewardship plan to protect

watershed supplies.

Keep in mind that the acquisition of conservation easements requires its own distinctive planning and management. The easement

holder is responsible for monitoring and

enforcement—essentially making sure that the

terms of the easement are being followed. Such

management requires a good relationship with

the property owner, an easement document

with clear and enforceable restrictions, and a

program of regular, systematic, and well-documented monitoring. Ongoing funding is essential to ensure the program is viable over the

long-term. 

Creating a management program—

a summary of action steps

Once a piece of property is acquired, planners

must stabilize the site. This entails determining

what types of public access are permitted, and

what immediate improvements and/or

NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE

I

n the Dust Bowl days of the late 1920s, when America’s

prime farmland was suffering from depletion and erosion,

Congress appropriated its first dollars to the study of soil conservation. By the mid-1930s, President Roosevelt established

the Soil Conservation Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which later became the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 

Today, the NRCS supports the conservation of soil, water,

and other natural resources on America’s private land.

Through its 22 programs, the NRCS provides a range of services, helping farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners

address issues such as erosion control, energy efficiency,

water conservation, sustainable grazing management, water

quality, and wetlands restoration. The NRCS support services

include technical assistance, cost shares, and financial incentives, while fostering partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, and policymakers.

The Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, which

provides matching funds to help purchase development rights

and keep productive farmland in agricultural uses, is also

administered through the NRCS. The NRCS Web site is located at www.nrcs.usda.gov/.
MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS 69

enforcements are necessary. When new property is acquired, public access is often restricted

until a management plan is in place and shortterm improvements are made, including the

construction of trails and signage, visitor management and safety guidelines, permittingprocess procedures, and resources and

facilities-management strategies.

Short-term site stabilization is followed by

longer-term assessments of goals for the property: the property should be studied, public

input solicited, and most appropriate uses

determined. This information forms the basis

for the management plan—the document that

guides the protection and enhancement of

acquired land. 

Long-term land-management planning

requires an inventory and evaluation of the land.

An inventory involves a close accounting of the

land, its natural resources, plant and animal

species, and infrastructure. This process helps

land managers gain an understanding of the

land, its physical setting, and social context.

The type of evaluation depends on the type of

resources found on the property. For instance,

an environmental-resource evaluation will

examine soils, plants, wetlands, birds, butterflies and other insects, and small and large

mammals. Cultural evaluations may include

reviews by archeologists and interviews with

local residents and knowledgeable professionals. Mapping the resources identified through a

geographic information system (GIS) then

provides a clear picture of the land’s natural

and cultural resources, with overlays that

demonstrate appropriate management techniques and recreational uses. Keep in mind

that some of this information may have been

gathered earlier in the information-gathering

process. At this point, however, a more exhaustive evaluation may be needed.

Budgeting and human resource planning is

essential. This step calls for determining

staffing needs, the management role of partners, and short- and long-term management

costs. Consider what will be necessary to

administer the program (record keeping, budgeting, insurance, and community relations),

how public programs will be managed (recreational programs, public education, and so on),

and what monitoring and enforcement provisions will need implementing (trespassing,

overuse, vandalism, safety hazards such as fire

and flooding, and other potential problems).

Determine your overall budget and evaluate

potential revenues that could offset management costs, such as park entrance fees, harvesting contracts, or agricultural leases. Flexibility

is important: management plans and projections may continue to evolve with changes in

the natural systems of the property, available

resources, or the recreational needs of the 

public. 

SPECIAL WATER SUPPLY LAND

STEWARDSHIP CONCERNS

Lands in public water supply watersheds and

aquifer protection areas may need to be managed differently than other open space lands in

order to protect the drinking water supply. An

effective resource stewardship plan will consider major threats and how to address them,

compatible uses for the land, and restoration

and maintenance. 

Consider compatible uses. Watershed lands

can help a community meet a range of conservation goals, including resource protection,

research and education, historic preservation,

and wildlife habitat protection. In many cases a

piece of land can help a community meet multiple conservation objectives. The preservation

of significant cultural or archaeological

resources, for example, may be important to

the community and compatible with other

watershed protection goals. 

In fact, incorporating water quality protection with other local priorities can help secure

the political and public support to successfully

implement a plan. Communities in the arid

west, for instance, are often underserved by

parks and water-based recreation; building

public awareness of the compatible uses of

water supply lands can increase support for

land protection and financing. 

The potential benefits of providing for

CONSERVATION EASEMENT

HANDBOOK

The Conservation EasementHandbook, updated and republished

by the Trust for Public Land and the Land

Trust Alliance in winter 2005, provides

comprehensive information about the

monitoring and enforcement of conservation easements. For more information,

visit the Web at www.tpl.org.
70 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

appropriate public access to source land are

considerable; the process itself can open the

door to a wide array of potential partners and

funding sources. Think carefully about land

management, public access issues, and potential partnerships. State, local, or federal park or

land management agencies and local land

trusts can facilitate land management and help

balance public uses with resource protection. 

When considering compatible uses, begin

by asking yourself and your partners whether a

piece of property can adequately protect water

supplies while offering recreational opportunities or even allowing public access. 

In general, any human use will have an

impact on the land, and there is evidence that

certain types of recreation can adversely affect

the quality of surface drinking water supplies.

Yet the impacts of dispersed, or more passive,

recreation may be manageable, so long as the

water supply is well buffered from potential

impacts, in particular the transport of

pathogens through poorly controlled sanitation. The challenge is to carefully weigh the

public demand for access with the potential

impact to water quality, determine what is

acceptable, and mitigate impacts. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and

Recreation, Division of Water Supply Protection (DCR/DWSP)—formerly the Metropolitan District Commission—is the state agency

that oversees the management of watershed

lands in Massachusetts. The agency considers

the following factors when evaluating the compatibility of recreational activities and water

supply management:

◆ Type and intensity of proposed public access

and use

◆ Physical features of the area being considered

for public activities

◆ Potential for impacts to water quality from

the activities of visitors

◆ Resources needed to properly manage any

particular use on its properties

The DCR evaluates each potential activity

in accordance with its goals, guiding legislation,

and regulations. It also considers the environmental impacts to land resources and water

quality, costs in terms of staffing and administration, legal issues, public access points, and

public safety and education.84

Each watershed is unique and public access

should be considered on an individual basis.

The designation or prohibition of public access

may also vary within a watershed, depending

on size, scope, and characteristics of the land

within. That said, it’s important to consider

best practices and qualitative guidelines

© 1999 J. MCKEITH
MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS 71

throughout the development of your management plan. 

In its publication entitled Drinking Water from

Forests and Grasslands, a Synthesis of the Scientific Literature, the USDA Forest Service examines the

effects of concentrated high-impact recreation

and dispersed recreation.85 The impacts from

activities will depend on such unique factors as

soil conditions, the presence of vegetation, and

existing infrastructure. The following is a summary of key findings about recreational impacts

on source lands, primarily from the USDA

report. Keep in mind, however, that the field of

recreation ecology is relatively new and there is

limited research on the quantitative impacts of

recreation on drinking water supplies.86

Concentrated recreation

Like urbanization, concentrated recreation

impacts water quality through wastewater

treatment and urban runoff. Pollutants

from concentrated recreation include fuel

residues from moving vehicles (cars, boats,

snow mobiles, and other gas-powered vehicles), wastewater flow from service facilities,

such as toilets, showers, restaurants, laundries, and soil and construction materials

carried to surface waters with runoff during

construction. 

◆ The impacts of concentrated camping on

drinking water quality are similar to those

found in dispersed recreation, such as hiking and horseback riding, but more severe.

Carefully assess the need for wastewater

facilities and understand that camping

tends to generate significant amounts of

trash that can impact water supply management.

◆ The use of gasoline with methyl tertiary

butyl ester (MTBE) in motorboats, contaminates surface water.

◆ The effects of swimmers on drinking water

supplies are an emerging problem that has

prompted some utilities to limit or ban

recreation on drinking water reservoirs.

Concentrated swimming may cause

microbial contamination of drinking

water supplies. In fact, the link between

water contact activities, such as swimming

and wading, and the spread of waterborne disease is well-documented.87

◆ Vehicular traffic in forests and grasslands

may impact drinking water quality

through the deposit of MTBE and 

nitrogen.

Dispersed recreation

The impact of non-motorized recreation

activities on source waters is generally less

significant than motorized recreation.

Proper management of non-motorized,

dispersed recreation can go a long way

toward preventing contamination. Every

affordable effort should be made to provide

appropriate facilities to visitors and educate

them on how to dispose of human waste

appropriately.

◆ Shoreline fishing may be acceptable along

reservoirs and streams. 

◆ Horseback riding, and dogs and other pets, if

allowed access to drinking water supply

lands, may cause contamination and erosion. 

◆ Hiking, nature study, bird watching, cross-country

skiing, snow shoeing, hunting, and other types

of passive recreation may be suitable

within a watershed. 

◆ Bicycle riding may be acceptable in designated areas.

Keep in mind that conflicts may arise over

the best uses of open space land and how much

public access and recreational use should be

allowed. Classifying the property and publicly

clarifying why the land was acquired may 

help mitigate conflicts and guide management

decisions.

UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURE

Farmland and agricultural operations can pose

unique challenges and opportunities. By purchasing a permanent conservation easement, a

community may be able to meet multiple conservation goals of protecting its farming heritage, preventing development, and preserving

water supply lands. Yet agricultural operations

may generate unsafe levels of runoff from pesticides and animal waste. When considering a

conservation easement, you should assess

whether the resource can be sufficiently protected by an easement or if a fee interest is

necessary. You should also encourage best management practices and public education to protect water supplies.

Through its voluntary Watershed Agricultural Program, the New York City Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP) promotes

best management practices to be used on agricultural land within its watersheds. The program is administered by the nonprofit

farmer-led Watershed Agricultural Council,

whose mission is to help farming and forestry
72 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

communities adopt best management practices

for water quality protection and economic 

viability. This includes whole farm planning,

forest management planning, executing conservation easement programs, and implementing forestry best management practices. For

more information, refer to the Web at

www.nycwatershed.org.

RESTORE CONTAMINATED LAND

Contamination can come from a variety of

sources: agricultural waste, fertilizer and pesticide run-off, public usage, walking trails and

motorized vehicle roadways, and other point

and nonpoint sources of pollution. The majority of pollutant loads typically come from a few

specific sub-basins or stream reaches where

land management policies are impairing water

quality. In urban watersheds, impervious surfaces increase runoff and can change the

boundaries, shape, and sediment load of a

stream; the restoration of streams degraded by

past development and contamination may be

essential. Depending on the body of water, this

process may involve any of the following three

types of stream restoration projects: storm

water retrofitting, source control through pollution prevention, and stream enhancement.

Costs associated with remedial activities can

include infrastructure repair and replacement,

flood control improvements, storm water management, and erosion control.88 For a complete

overview of watershed restoration techniques,

refer to the CWP’s article, “Assessing the

Potential for Urban Watershed Restoration,”

www.cwp.org.

MONITOR AND MAINTAIN PROTECTED LAND

Continuous monitoring of watershed lands is

essential to the management of protected land.

Data collected in earlier planning stages will

allow you to understand the health of the land

and assess the impact of your management

practices over time. Such monitoring should be

conducted on all major stream networks,

allowing you to assess and target management

efforts within subwatersheds. Monitoring may

also be important to future land conservation

efforts, giving you the information you need to

maintain public and political support for the

program. Refer to page 20 and 21 for more

background on watershed monitoring.

Forge Land Management 

Partnerships

Careful planning, budgeting, and funding, as

well as strong technical expertise, are required to

implement a plan for the long-term stewardship

of lands surrounding drinking water sources.

Federal and state agencies, neighboring municipalities, nonprofit land trusts, community

groups, water utilities, and professional contractors can all help improve and manage watershed

lands—often with impressive efficiency at a reasonable price. Connecticut’s Department of

Environmental Protection, Division of Forestry,

for example, provides free technical advice and

assistance to owners of forestland, including

individuals, municipalities, and conservation

groups. And their Cooperative Extension System has experts available in such areas as forestry

stewardship, wildlife habitat management, and

wetlands and water quality management. As

mentioned earlier, if you are willing to consider

public recreation, you can open the door to a

much wider array of potential partners and

funding sources.

Some of the most important partnerships

are those that involve other governmental agencies—state, counties, cities and towns, and their

various agencies. These partnerships may involve

land-management agreements that protect

jointly-owned county/town land. For example,

in New Jersey, when property is jointly acquired,

counties and townships often become partners—

tenants-in-common. Both jurisdictions are listed

on the deed and a management agreement or

similar document is created that outlines management responsibilities. 

Local land trusts can be particularly helpful

with land management. Consider these benefits:

◆ Nonprofits can hire new management staff

and contractors more quickly than a government agency

◆ Nonprofits are not governed by regulations

that can slow the bidding process.

◆ The use of land trusts frees up a public

agency’s staff and funds

◆ Land trusts may be able to use their own land

management staff and volunteers for new

projects

◆ In some cases, the commitment to manage the

land enables the trust to get it protected

Volunteers can also assist local governments

with the management of the watershed land,

helping with a variety of tasks that include

watershed monitoring. 
MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS 73

Fund Land Management

Public ownership of watershed lands requires

careful budgeting and planning. Many factors

must be considered depending on the condition of the property, compatible uses, endangered species habitat, the type of protection

(owned or under easement), local prices, and

so on. 

To come up with a land-management price

tag, planners must understand the initial costs

of stabilizing and improving a site, the day-today costs of managing the land, and the potential risks involved in owning a piece of

property. Potential costs include surveying,

resource evaluation, fencing (a potentially significant cost that may be shared with adjacent

property owners), watershed monitoring, trash

removal and equipment (more potentially

costly items), building removal, and weed management. Public access presents a host of additional issues, such as installing and maintaining

facilities and liability costs. Keep in mind that

some costs may be optional or deferred, particularly if public access is not immediately

planned.

The national nonprofit Center for Natural

Lands Management has developed a computer

program that analyzes the natural resource

characteristics and stewardship needs of a

property. The program determines management tasks and estimates costs of managing a

piece of property. The software also considers

issues such as potential liabilities, administrative costs, inflation, and contingency funds,

while helping land managers carefully assess

the purposes for which the land will be managed. The CNLM Web site is www.cnlm.org.

Complete information about funding conservation easements can be found in the Conservation Easement Handbook, a publication of

the Trust for Public Land and the Land Trust

Alliance. 

So how do you pay for land management,

restoration, monitoring, liability, and other

ongoing costs? Many communities dedicate

management or maintenance funds, setting

aside a percentage of the acquisition costs or

establishing a permanent funding source. Typically, general obligation bonds, a common

acquisition-funding source, may not be used to

pay for ongoing maintenance and management

costs. As a result, communities must make use

of federal and state grants, local budget appropriations, or private funds for land management. Organizations and agencies also set aside

funds solely for monitoring and defending

conservation easements. There are a variety of

funding options: soliciting a cash contribution

from the donor, raising money from other

sources, and dedicating a percentage of each

year’s budget to a monitoring fund. 

CASE STUDY

Manchester, New Hampshire

The picturesque Lake Massabesic watershed

provides drinking water to about 140,000 people in the Manchester area of southern New

Hampshire. Supplementing the lake supply is

an upland man-made impoundment known as

Tower Hill Pond, which is located in the towns

of Auburn and Candia. The flow of tap water

and the management of watershed land is the

primary responsibility of the Manchester

Water Works, the state of New Hampshire’s

largest water utility, which has developed a land

management plan that protects supplies while

allowing for sustainable public access and

recreation. 

Of the 42-square mile watershed area, the

Manchester Water Works owns about 13

square miles. Certain recreational activities

have historically been permitted on this land,

which is located just three miles from downtown Manchester. Balancing public access with

stronger land stewardship controls was

addressed in a public management planning

process that began in 1999 when Manchester

Water Works contracted a private consulting

firm to conduct a watershed-wide assessment

of Lake Massabesic. Manchester Water Works

put forth a draft of the plan for public review

and encouraged dialogue among local interested groups and community organizations,

including the Audubon Society of New Hampshire and recreation groups representing the

interests of horseback riders, mountain bikers,

snow mobilers, and boaters. The result of the

community-based planning process is a strong,

balanced management plan that allows for regulated outdoor recreational activities (hiking,

boating, biking, and fishing) within defined

areas while ensuring a stable, high quality

drinking water supply. 

The input of the public and community

groups did not end with the completion of the

plan. Local groups have voluntarily supported

the upkeep of natural areas—trails and

bridges—and have offered innovative ideas to
74 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS

There are often multiple goals for the management of a piece of land—habitat protection, forest management, agricultural and grazing management—that must be balanced along with the protection of drinking supplies. Background information and a few links to water utilities that own and manage source land are provided here. 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation/Division of Water Supply Protection

In Massachusetts, the Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Water Supply Protection (DCR/DWSP)

manages and protects the drinking water supply watersheds for nearly 2.2 million residents of Massachusetts, primarily in the greater Boston area. The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority handles distribution. Source waters

include the Quabbin Reservoir, Ware River, and Wachusett Reservoir and their contributing watersheds. The DWSP also

manages and protects the Sudbury Reservoir system, which is greater Boston’s reserve drinking water supply.

DCR/DWSP continuously updates its comprehensive plans and monitors their implementation to maintain the quality of its drinking water. Printed copies of complete plans are available for review at libraries in the watershed region or

Department of Conservation field offices. The Web site, www.mass.gov/mdc/dwmplans.htm, includes the following

plans, along with those most recently updated:

◆ Wachusett Reservoir Watershed Protection Plan Update (2003)

◆ Ware River Land Management Plan (2003)

◆ Wachusett Reservoir Watershed Public Access Plan Update (2003)

◆ Sudbury Reservoir Watershed System Public Access Plan Update (2002)

◆ Wachusett Reservoir Land Management Plan (2001)

◆ Quabbin Reservoir and Ware River Watershed Protection Plan Update Executive Summary (2000)

◆ Ware River Watershed Access Plan Update (1999)

Seattle Public Utilities

The Cedar River Watershed is a large natural area in the Cascade Mountains that drains the Cedar River. The watershed

is used by the City of Seattle to provide two-thirds of the drinking water (municipal and industrial water) for about 1.3

million people in the Seattle metro area, and provides a system of locks and habitat for the spawning, hatching, and

rearing of salmon.

The City of Seattle through Seattle Public Utilities owns all but a few acres of the 90,546-acre watershed. Over the

years, the watershed has been used for a variety of “secondary” purposes, including public education, scientific

research, limited recreation in some areas, and commercial timber harvest by former private landowners, the U.S. Forest Service, and the City.

To address the declining populations of salmon, steelhead, and other species of fish and wildlife, Seattle developed

a Habitat Conservation Plan, as required by the Endangered Species Act. Included are provisions to establish an ecological reserve on about 64 percent of the land and manage the commercial harvest of timber on lands outside the preserve. For health, safety, and security reasons, the municipal watershed is closed to unsupervised public access.

The Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan is available at www.cityofseattle.net/util/CedarRiverHCP/.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

The complex drinking water supply and delivery system for the city of Los Angeles is managed by the Los Angeles

Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the nation’s largest municipal utility. Of the 2.2 million acres of Eastern Sierra watershed land that supplies drinking water, the LADWP manages roughly 314,000 acres, primarily in the Owens

Valley floor. (The rest is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management). 

The vast majority of these lands are undeveloped watershed with recreation and grazing comprising the main land

uses. Nearly 80 percent of LADWP land is leased to cattle ranchers that use a combination of irrigated pastures and

upland dry grazing for forage. Cultivated crops, mainly alfalfa, are also present but to a lesser extent. LADWP works

with individual ranchers to develop ranch management plans that protect drinking water supplies and other natural

resources while providing for sustainable agriculture. Best Management Practices are implemented to insure the existing land uses are compatible with maintaining a healthy watershed. Lease policies are set forth in Range Management

Guidelines for DWP Leased Lands. LADWP’s Web site is located at www.ladwp.com.
MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS 75

simultaneously protect water supplies and

improve recreational opportunities. Watershed

patrol officers employed by Manchester Water

Works monitor the water department’s watershed land, while educating the public and

enforcing regulations. The water department

also sponsors an annual science fair for fourth

grade students in Manchester and surrounding

communities. The event further educates

today’s generation about the importance of

watershed protection and drinking water 

purity. 

Management of the watershed also

includes an active forestry program. Under the

direction of a professional forester the Manchester Water Works annually harvests about

500,000 board feet of timber. The program is

designed to ensure effective tree cover and root

systems for the forest environment and promote controlled water retention and runoff,

while generating a source of local income and

timber supply. 

To help pay for some of its ongoing source

protection efforts, Manchester Water Works

has received funds from the Drinking Water

State Revolving Fund. Administered through

NHDES, the funds have been used to help pay

for the construction of a storm water retention

pond, erosion and sediment controls, and for

studies on urbanized areas of the watershed.

Contact: David Paris, Water Supply Administrator, Manchester Water Works, 603-624-6482

CASE STUDY

Contra Costa Water District, California

The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), a

county water district in San Francisco’s East

Bay Area, serves roughly 450,000 people and

several major industries in central and eastern

Contra Costa County and is one of the largest

urban districts in California. Pulling drinking

water from the Central Valley’s SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta that lies to the east, CCWD

has experienced challenges with water quality

and quantity for years: high salinity levels

caused by tidal influences of the Bay and the

export of freshwater to the San Joaquin Valley

and Southern California; reduced flows caused

by upstream agricultural water uses; water

quality degradation resulting from drainage

and discharges from upstream agricultural

lands and urban areas; and the demands of

population growth and agricultural uses that

have taxed supplies. 

CCWD took an important step in improving drinking water quality by initiating a major

reservoir project in the 1980’s, thereby creating

a system to store supplies and better regulate

the quality of water delivered to its customers.

Voters backed them up by approving a ballot

measure in 1988 authorizing CCWD to issue

revenue bonds to construct the Los Vaqueros

Reservoir. CCWD subsequently acquired

more than 19,000 acres of watershed land and

completed the $450 million project. The Project, including the land, is owned entirely by

the CCWD. 

The Contra Costa Water District has

worked to balance the high demand for public

recreation, grazing uses, and source water protection on its watershed land surrounding the

Los Vaqueros Reservoir. CCWD adopted a

comprehensive public recreation plan in 1998,

following a seven-year planning and public

outreach process. The watershed offers hiking

and multi-use trails, picnic facilities, fishing, an

interpretive center, and boating. The 55-mile

regional trail system was constructed and made

available to the public in December 1999. Public access is well organized and activities are

strictly controlled, allowing, for instance, only

electric-powered boats owned and maintained

by CCWD. CCWD has placed 10 professional

staff on-site on the watershed to protect and

care for these resources. A law enforcement

contract with the County Sheriff assures compliance with rules and regulations and recreational fees established to protect water quality

and the natural and cultural resources on the

watershed.

CCWD’s investment in safe and responsible public recreation extends beyond the Los

Vaqueros Reservoir to a Central Valley Project

(CVP) facility operated by CCWD. The district invested $2.2 million into a swimming

lagoon at Contra Loma Reservoir to protect

the water supply from fecal coliform contamination resulting from body-contact recreation

while still meeting the recreational needs of the

public—and made the water safer to swim in at

the same time.

In 1999, soon after the completion of the

recreation plan, a comprehensive Resources

Management Plan for Los Vaqueros became

final, outlining watershed management policies

for recreation, biological resources, cultural

resources, fire management, and water quality

monitoring. One important element of the

plan is that it requires continuation of historically allowed agricultural grazing in the water-
76 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

shed but in a manner that meets strict resource

management guidelines to protect water quality and endangered species habitat. For

instance, the reservoir and all wetlands and

major riparian corridors have been outfenced

to provide important habitat buffers for several

species such as red-legged frogs, tiger salamanders and western pond turtles. In total, there

are close to a thousand acres of out-fenced

buffer to exclude grazing animals at times and

to allow their short-term use within the buffer

when necessary to conserve riparian and associated upland habitats. In compliance with

state and federal Endangered Species Acts,

critical habitats are provided for the California

Kit Fox, Alameda Striped Racer, Red-Legged

Frog, Tiger Salamander, Vernal Pool Species,

various Raptors, Alkali Plants and other candidate and locally rare species of concern.

CCWD conducts long-term monitoring and

reporting for all of these species on a quarterly

and annual basis. The environmental compliance program also includes Integrated Pest

Management of noxious animals and plants

and a predator control program for species that

prey on protected animals. 

In all, CCWD grazes 65 percent of the

rangelands on the watershed utilizing cattle on

10,000 acres and sheep on 1,570 acres.

Approximately 50 percent of the lease revenue

is used to support rangeland improvements in

ways that optimize agricultural production

while enhancing the habitat for protected and

unprotected animals and plants. Grazing these

11,570 acres is necessary to meet federal

requirements for kit fox, tiger salamanders,

burrowing owls and golden eagles and it is also

necessary to meet fire hazard reduction

requirements. Sheep are used in cultural

resource areas of significance, along roadsides

to eliminate the use of herbicides and in areas

where fencing is not desirable. Sheep are carefully controlled by on-site herders using temporary electric fences and sheep dogs. Routine

water quality monitoring of the reservoir and

its key tributaries indicates that all contaminants of concern at Los Vaqueros have been

eliminated or reduced to trace amounts that

are of no concern to drinking water quality.89

Contact: Robert Nuzum, Watershed and Lands

Department, Contra Costa Water District, 925-688-

8028, nuzum@ccwater.com

MANAGE PROTECTED LANDS

Questions to Consider:

◆ What tools can you use to promote responsible land stewardship on privately owned source

lands? Can you combine outreach, education, and technical assistance with financial incentives?

◆ What are the goals and appropriate uses of publicly protected property, and how can defined

objectives best be reached?

◆ How can you evaluate and manage competing demands for the land? 

◆ What steps must you take to immediately protect acquired property? 

◆ What are the long-term considerations, costs, and management issues for the property? Is

restoration of contaminated land part of the picture?

◆ How will you pay for land management, restoration, monitoring, liability, and other ongoing

costs?

WRAP - U P
77

CONCLUSION 
78 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK
79

Assuring drinking water quality in the

long term will depend in great measure on the quality of land in the

watershed. Conservation of watersheds and

aquifers will increasingly be used as a tool for

water managers to reduce treatment costs and

control land-use activities for water quality

protection. This is particularly critical in areas

of high growth, where development of source

lands—nature’s water filters—threatens the

quality and quantity of clean, fresh drinking

water. 

The conservation of source lands must

become an integral part of a multiple-barrier

approach to protecting drinking water supplies

that includes filtration, treatment, and distribution system integrity. The potential benefits

are considerable: the protection of watershed

and aquifer recharge lands can protect public

health, lower treatment costs, ensure consumer

confidence, and maintain community character

and quality of life. 

Successful source protection initiatives

require the coordination and cooperation of

public agencies at the federal, state, regional,

and local levels, as well as nonprofit organizations and private stakeholders. Partnerships are

flourishing in many areas, as renewed federal

emphasis on source protection is being met

with increasingly integrated state and local initiatives. The completion of state assessments

required through the federal Source Water

Assessment Program (SWAP) marks a pivotal

point in these efforts: though not federally

mandated or funded, states such as Washington, Georgia, and Connecticut are demonstrating continued commitment to their source

protection programs, while others, like Massachusetts and New Jersey, have proposed new

funding for implementation. At the organization level, groups such as the American Association of Drinking Water Suppliers (AADWS)

and the American Water Works Association

(AWWA) provide valuable technical support

and training. The AWWA Source Water Protection Symposium, for instance, brings

together experts in the field to address the latest developments, learn new strategies, and

build partnerships. 

Still, it is ultimately a local responsibility to

provide drinking water that meets federal and

state standards; comprehensive and sustained

planning, funding, and acquisition efforts at

the local level are essential. The process is

multi-faceted: success requires intensive planning, strong local leadership, public-private

partnerships, and considerable resources.

Municipalities and water suppliers are increasingly taking a leadership role in promoting

watershed planning, advocating source protection, and showing the benefits of a multiple

barrier approach. It’s an involved and evolving

undertaking, but an important step for source

water protection. The good news is that land

conservation organizations and planners are

becoming partners and further exploring why

and how to use land conservation as a fundamental source protection tool.

CONCLUSION: 

MOVING TOWARD SUCCESS

© SUSAN LAPIDES
80 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

Aquifer

An underground layer of rock, gravel, or

sediment containing water. An aquifer may

be confined between two impervious surfaces, or it may be unconfined.

Ballot Measure

When voters are presented with a piece of

legislation to approve that will create funding for public initiatives, such as land conservation. The vast majority of ballot

measures are so-called "referenda," which

are referred by a legislature (county commission, city council, town meeting, etc.).

There are a handful of "initiatives" that are

initiated by ballot measure proponents,

bypassing the legislature.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Regulatory or voluntary procedures that can

reduce the threat to water supplies posed by

normal activities in homes, businesses, or

farms.

Emerging Contaminants

Diseases or chemicals that either are new to

the environment or have been recently

identified as potential health threats.

Fee Simple Ownership

The acquisition or donation of full title to

land and all rights associated with land.

GIS Mapping and Modeling

Tools that enhance geography-related decision making. Maps and models are created

from spatial and attribute data, and they are

housed in a computerized Geographic

Information System (GIS)

Nonpoint Source Pollution

Pollution that occurs when surface water

runoff from rainfall or snowmelt moves

across or into the ground, picking up pollutants and carrying them into streams, lakes,

wetlands, or groundwater.

Pathogen

Any microbiological agent capable of producing disease in healthy peoples, plants or

animals.

Physical, Chemical and Biological Monitoring

Three measurable components of water

quality monitoring: Physical measurements

may include temperature, flow, water color,

and the condition of streambanks and

lakeshores. Dissolved oxygen, suspended sediments, nutrients, metals, oils, and pesticides

are examples of chemical measurements. The

abundance and variety of aquatic plant and

animal life are biological measurements.

Point Source Pollution

Pollution from a distinct, identifiable source,

such as a feedlot or factory.

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and

Conservation Easements

Agreement in which the residential, commercial, or industrial development rights of 

a particular parcel are transferred from

landowner(s) to a different party, usually a

nonprofit or governmental entity. In most

cases, PDR and conservation easement are

interchangeable terms. 

Riparian Zones

Vegetated areas abutting lakes, rivers, and

streams that function as filters for polluted

runoff, stabilize banks and channels, and 

provide habitat for fish and wildlife.

Source Water Assessment Program

A 1996 amendment to the Safe Drinking

Water Act requiring every state to examine

Glossary
81

existing and potential threats to the quality

of all public water supplies by delineating

source areas, inventorying potential contamination sources, determining the 

susceptibility of the water supply to contamination, and making the results public.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

The amount of a particular pollutant that a

stream, lake, estuary, or other body of water

can contain without violating state water

quality standards.

Zoning 

Land use regulations that can be used to

control the types of development allowed in

a particular area.

© 2002 RICH REID
82 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

This listing is a compilation of the resources

and Web links highlighted throughout the

report. 

Making the Case

Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and

the Future of America’s Drinking Water. Published by the Trust for Public Land, this report

provides the economic, public health, and environmental justifications for using land conservation as a source protection strategy, and

provides a set of best practices and case studies

to guide implementation in the field. Protecting

the Source is the companion publication to the

Source Protection Handbook and is available

for free download or to order on TPL’s Web

site at www.tpl.org/publications.

Understand Your Watershed

Source Protection Contact information for

state source water and EPA’s regional source

water representatives is available at

www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/ contacts.html.

EPA’s Watershed Academy Web site offers a

variety of self-paced training modules that represent a basic and broad introduction to the

watershed management field. www.epa.gov/

watertrain/monitoring/

EPA’s Surf Your Watershed Web site helps you

locate, use, and share environmental information about your state and watershed. The site

includes a database containing hundreds of

links to environmental resources that can help

you assess the condition of your watershed.

www.epa.gov/surf/

EPA’s WATERS (Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results) database

unites previously unavailable water quality

information in the form of maps and reports.

www.epa.gov/waters/

Elements of a State Water Monitoring and

Assessment Program is an EPA guide that recommends ten basic elements of a holistic, comprehensive water quality management and

monitoring program. www.epa.gov/owow/

monitoring/repguid.html

Community Watershed Assessment

Handbook, by the Chesapeake Bay Program, is

designed to help Chesapeake Bay community

groups and local governments conduct comprehensive environmental assessments of their

watersheds. www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/

watershed.assess/index.htm

EPA’s State Source Water Assessment Program description is available on the Web, along

with links to individual state SWAP Web pages,

state source water contacts, and potential federal funding sources. www.epa.gov/safewater/ protect/swap.html

Prioritize Land for Protection

Using Technology to Conduct a Contaminant

Source Inventory: A Primer for Small Communities. Published by The Groundwater Foundation, the report outlines the use of Geographic

Information Systems as a means to map threats

to source water. www.groundwater.org

Resources
RESOURCES 83

Source Water Assessment Using Geographic

Information Systems is an EPA publication

designed to help states, municipalities, and

water suppliers use GIS to assess water supplies. The report covers GIS concepts and

components, data software and hardware, and

how to obtain data, build the GIS database,

delineate source protection areas, and analyze

the results. The publication can be ordered at

www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/gis.htm.

ESRI is the leading provider of GIS (geographic information system) software and technology. ArcGIS is an integrated collection of GIS

software products for building a complete GIS.

www.esri.com

CommunityViz is the leading software provider

in the market of scenario building tools, offering decision support software products optimized for ESRI ArcGIS. ArcGIS is an

integrated collection of GIS software products

for building a complete GIS. 

www.communityviz.com

Design a Comprehensive Source 

Protection Plan

Source Water Protection: Best Management

Practices and Other Measures for Protecting

Drinking Water Supplies. Developed through

EPA’s Drinking Water Academy, this training

manual provides information on source water

contamination prevention measures to technical assistance providers. www.epa.gov/

watertrain/pdf/swpbmp.pdf

Source Protection: A Guidance Manual for

Small Surface Water Supplies in New England. Published by EPA in partnership with

the New England Interstate Water Pollution

Control Commission, the report includes

descriptions of new SDWA programs, source

protection case studies, information on pollutants and their sources, funding and implementation assistance, and source protection

planning. www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/

watersys.html

© 1999 BILL SILLIKER
84 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

Source Water Protection: A Guidebook for

Local Governments, by the National Association of Counties, helps local governments

ascertain how to protect surface and ground

water sources for drinking water supplies, with

information on federal source protection

requirements, why source protection is important, what the threats are to source waters, and

the actions that can be taken to prevent or

minimize threats. www.naco.org

Leadership in Watershed Management:The

County Role. Distributed by the National

Association of Counties, this publication

describes how counties can take a leadership

role in watershed management. The report

offers extensive case studies to guide implementation. www.naco.org

Finance Land Protection

EPA’s Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for

Watershed Protection is a searchable database

with details on all federal funding sources that

can be used for any aspect of watershed protection or management. http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/

EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund

(www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/index.htm) and

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html) Web sites

provide detailed information on how to protect drinking water sources with state revolving

funds.

Conservation Finance Handbook, by the Trust

for Public Land’s conservation finance experts,

is a handbook for communities seeking to raise

conservation funds at the ballot box—from initial demographic research to post election

analysis. www.tpl.org/publications

TPL’s Federal Programs Web page provides

detailed information on federal funding

sources for land acquisition. www.tpl.org

TPL’s Conservation Finance Web page provides detailed information on state funding

sources for land acquisition. www.tpl.org

Protect Priority Lands

Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying Land for Conservation. Published by the Trust for Public

Land and Land Trust Alliance, this book is a

detailed guide to land protection techniques

and strategies, including information on working with landowners, surveys, appraisals, working with government agencies and negotiating.

www.lta.org

Manage Protected Lands

Conservation Easement Handbook, an update

of the 1988 original, will be published by the

Trust for Public Land and the Land Trust

Alliance in 2005. This new edition is the

definitive practical and technical resource on

conservation easements and best practices for

their use. The use of conservation easements

has evolved to address a wide array of landscapes, and this handbook will assist conservation professionals with navigating the legal

complexities of their protection efforts. This

publication will be available at www.tpl.org/

publications

The Center for Watershed Protection’s Stewardship Web site outlines a six-point program

to promote effective watershed stewardship,

providing local governments, activists, and

watershed groups with technical tools and support. www.cwp.org/stewardship.htm
85

1 Source Water 2000: Drinking Water Protection Strategies

for Small Towns and Rural Communities, National

Association of Towns and Townships,

www.natat.org/ncsc/Pubs/Source%20Water/sou

rce_water_2000.htm, p. 20.

2 Action Guide for Source Water Funding: Small Town and

Rural County Strategies for Protecting Critical Water

Supplies, National Association of Towns and

Townships, www.natat.org/ncsc/Pubs/Source%

20Water/Action_Guide_intro.htm, p. 6.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Source Protection Programs, “Source Water

Protection: Best Management Practices and

Other Measures for Protecting Drinking

Water Supplies,” www.epa.gov/

ogwdwooo/dwa/electronic/ swp/swp.pdf, p. I8.

4 Trust for Public Land’s Protecting the Source: 

Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking

Water. www.tpl.org.

5 American Water Works Association Journal, reporting

on the results of a 1991 study by the American

Water Works Association Research Foundation

(Denver: American Water Works Association

Research Foundation, 1991). 

6 “The Safe Drinking Water Act,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/ 

safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html. 

7 Source Water 2000, p. 23.

8 “Community Involvement in Drinking Water

Source Assessments”, US Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

protect/factsh4.html.

9 This number is anecdotal, based on TPL’s

knowledge of source protection initiatives

around the country. However, AWWA and

EPA define mid-sized source areas in their

water supplier surveys as ranging in size from

100,000 to 300,000 acres.

10 It is also important to understand the limitations of GIS mapping, including somewhat

limited availability and varying degrees of scale

and accuracy.

11 “Watershed Assessment Overview,” Center for

Watershed Protection, www.cwp.org/tools_

assessment.htm.

12 “Overview of Watershed Monitoring,” U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed

Academy Web, www.epa.gov/watertrain/monitoring/.

13 Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed; March 2003. www.epa.gov/

owow/monitoring/repguid.html.

14 Joel Salter, Water Programs Coordinator, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

(Personal communication, May 11, 2002).

15 Portland Water Bureau, www.portlandonlin.

com/water/index.cfm?c=29459.

16 2002 Water Quality Report, Portland Bureau of

Water Works, http://www.portlandonline.

com/water/index.cfm?c=29814.

17 Portland Water Bureau, www.portlandonline.

com/water/index.cfm?c=29817.

18 Paul K. Barten, Avril L. de la Cretax, Matthew

J. Donzella, and Yanli Zhang, “Protecting the

Source: An Overview of Modeling Methods,”

Trust for Public Land, May 23, 2002, p 1.

19 Paul Barten, et al, 2003a. “Land conservation

for source water protection: Mapping, assessment, and implementation.” Proc. International

Congress on Watershed Management for

Water Supply Systems, M.J. Pfeffer, D. van Abs,

and K.N. Brooks (Editors), New York, NY, July

2003, American Water Resources Association.

20 Recent papers by Barten and Ernst (2004) and

Barten and others (2003) describe the adaptation and application of this GIS method on

four pilot sites in the eastern U.S. as part of an

EPA-funded source water protection project.

Detailed reports and background information

can be found on the TPL Web site (Box 1 and

de la Crétaz et al. 2004).

Endnotes
86 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

21 Avril L. de la Crétaz, Yanli Zhang, et al, 2004.

“Protecting the Source: A Guide to Database

Compilation and GIS-Based Watershed

Assessment Methods (v. 1)”, University of

Massachusetts-US Forest Service Watershed

Exchange and Technology Partnership in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of

Conservation and Recreation, Amherst, MA.

22 Paul K. Barten, and Caryn Ernst., 2004. “Land

Conservation and Watershed Management for

Source Protection.” Journal of American Water

Works Association 96(4):121-135.

23 Paul K. Barten, Yanli Zhang, and Avril L. de la

Cretaza, 2003, “Conservation, Restoration, and

Stormwater Management Priorities for Source

Water Protection in the Metedeconk River

Watershed, New Jersey: Map Set for Supplemental Report,” 15 pp.

24 Paul K. Barten Yanli Zhang, and Avril L. de la

Crétaz, 2003b, “Conservation, Restoration, and

Stormwater Management Priorities for Source

Water Protection in the Nissitissit and Squannacook River Watersheds, Massachusetts and

New Hampshire: Supplemental Analyses for

the Stewardship Exchange and Implementation

Phase,” 40 pp.

25 Avril L. de la Crétaz, Yanli Zhang, David Kimball, Nathanael Lloyd, and Paul K. Barten, “Protecting the Source: A Guide to Database

Compilation and GIS-Based Watershed

Assessment Methods (Version 1).” University of

Massachusetts and U.S. Forest Service, Watershed Exchange and Technology Partnership, in

cooperation with the University of Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation.

26 Nitrogen is removed by small streams at a rate

of about 8 percent per kilometer of stream

length, compared with a rate of less than 1 percent per kilometer for large streams. “Support

of Total Maximum Daily Load Program Using

Spatially References Regression Models,” Gerard McMahon, Richard Alexander, and Song

Qian, Journal of Water Resources Planning and management, July/ August 2003, p. 322.

27 Bruce Peterson, et al, “Control of Nitrogen

Export from Watersheds by Headwater

Streams,” Science, Washington, vol. 292, no. 5514,

pp. 86-90, April 6, 2001.

28 D.A. Levy, et al, “Drinking Water from Forests

and Grasslands,” taken from “Surveillance for

Waterborne-disease Outbreaks—United States,

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(ss-5); 1-

34, p. 63.

29 “Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for

Management”, Water Science and Technology

Board, Board on Environmental Studies and

Toxicology, National Academy of Sciences,

2004, books.nap.edu/books/0309082951/

html/index.html.

30 “Buffer Strips: Common Sense Conservation,”

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United

States Department of Agriculture,

www.nrcs.usda.gov/ feature/ Buffers.html.

31 Edward Atill, et al, “Efficacy of vegetative buffer

strips for removal of amphixenotic Cryptosporidium parvum from runoff of dairies and

grazed agricultural land,” Veterinary Medicine

Teaching and Research Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of CaliforniaDavis, Tulare, CA 93274, Department of Land,

Air, and Water Resources, University of California-Davis, CA 95616; Department of Agronomy

and Range Science, Univeristy of CaliforniaDavis, CA 95616.

32 James Sedell et al, Water and the Forest Service,

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, FS660, January 2000, p. i.

33 W. T. Swank and P.V. Bolstad, “Cumulative

Impacts of Land use on Water Quality in a

Southern Appalachian Watershed,” Journal of the

American Water Resources Association, Vol. 33, No. 3,

June 1997.

34 Trust for Public Land Water Supply Survey.

35 S.W. Golladay, J.R. Webster, “Catchment Disturbance and Stream Response: An Overview of

Stream Research at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory,” J.R. Webster, et al, River Conservation and

Management, 1992; E.F. Benfield, “Changes in

stream morphology and storm transport of seston following watershed disturbance,” Journal of

North American Benthological Society (6)1:1-

11, 1987.

36 J.R. Webster, and E.F. Benfield, “Changes in

stream morphology and storm transport of seston following watershed disturbance,” S.W. Golladay, Journal of North American Benthological Society

(6)1:1-11, 1987.

37 Defined as an ecosystem in which water is either

at the surface or within the root zone, with

hydric soils and where the vegetation is adapted

to or tolerant of saturated soils.

38 Tools for Watershed Protection, p. 5-18

39 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of the Wetlands

in the Coterminous United States, 1986 to 1997,

Summary of Findings, wetlands.fws.

gov/bha/SandT/SandTSummaryFindings.html.

40 Ibid.
87

41 United States Congress, Federal Incentives Could

Help Promote Land Use that Protects Air and Water

Quality, (United States General Accounting

Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,

2001) GAO-02-12.

42 James Sedell et al., Water and the Forest Service,

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, FS660, January 2000, p. 10. 

43 Caryn E. Ernst, “Upper Little Tallapoosa River

Watershed, Source Water Stewardship

Exchange Team Report,” Trust for 

Public Land, April 2002, pp. 2–9, http://

www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=11

586&folder_id=249.

44 Watershed Management Professional Program,

Executive Leadership Institute; www.eli.

pdx.edu/watershed/law_policy.html.

45 Peter F. Ffolliott, Malchus B. Baker, Jr., Carleton B. Edminster, Madelyn C. Dillon, Karen

L. Mora, “Land Stewardship through Watershed Management; Perspectives for the 21st

Century” (New York: Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers, 2002), p. 54.

46 “Safe Drinking Water Focus of Wellhead Protection Program,” The Plans Examiner, City of

Portland Bureau of Development Services,

November 2002, p. 4.

47 The Columbia South Shore Well Field Wellhead Protection Program, Portland Water

Bureau, www.portlandonline.com/

water/index.cfm?c=29890.

48 “Portland, OR Moves to Protect Water

Reserves,” WaterTech Online, June 26, 2003,

waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID

=41327, as originally reported by The Oregonian.

49 “The Report on the Setting of the Raritan

Basin,” Raritan Basin Watershed Management

Project Fact Sheet #1, www.raritanbasin.org/

education.htm#Public%20Opinion%20Survey.

50 “Raritan Basin Watershed Planning Underway,”

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection News Release, October 26, 2000,

www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/ releases/00_0125.htm.

51 “Raritan Basin Watershed Management Plan,”

December 2003, www.raritanbasin.org

52 “Watershed Management for the Raritan River

Basin, General Scope of Work, Phase 2,” submitted by the New Jersey Water Supply

Authority, September 2000, p. 6.

53 “Central New Jersey Survey Finds High Support for Water Quality Improvements,” New

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Release, January 10, 2002, pg. 1. The

survey was conducted on behalf of the New

Jersey Water Supply Authority by TechnoMetrica. A total of 801 residents were surveyed; the

margin of error is +/- 3.5 percent.

54 Daniel J. Van Abs, “Raritan Basin Targeted

Watershed Grants: Update on the First Year,”

Watershed Update, American Water Resources

Association Technical Committee, Volume 2,

No. 2, March-April 2004, 

pp 1-3. 

55 Steven Ainsworth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source Water Protection, Best Management Practices and Other Measures for Protecting

Drinking Water Supplies, August 2002,

www.epa.gov/safewater /dwa/electronic/presentations/swp/swpbmp.pdf, p. 46.

56 Ibid.

57 Source Protection: A National Guidance Manual for Surface Water Supplies, New England Interstate

Water Pollution Control Commission, 2000, p.

30.

58 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Storm Water Program summary, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm? program_id=45.

59 Source Water Protection: Best Management Practices and

Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies,

p. 1-36

60 Richard M. Stapleton, Protecting the Source (San

Francisco, The Trust for Public Land, 1997).

61 Land Use Effects of Water Quality, Instittute of

Water Research, 1997,www.iwr.msu.edu/

edmodule/water/luwqual.htm.

62 Ibid.

63 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source

Water Protection, case study, www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/casesty/merrimack.html.

64 Developing a Local Wellhead Protection Plan,

Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection,

Drinking Water Program, November 2001, p. 1.

65 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source

Water Protection, case study, www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/casesty/merrimack.html.

66 Phyllis Myers, GreenSense,(Boston: Trust for

Public Land, Spring 1997).

67 Janice Kaspersen, “The Stormwater Utility:
88 SOURCE PROTECTION HANDBOOK

Will It Work in Your Community?” Stormwater:

The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals,

2001, www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html.

68 LandVote 2002 (Boston and Washington D.C.:

Trust for Public Land and Land Trust Alliance,

2003), p. 1.

69 Poll conducted for the Trust for Public Land

and the Nature Conservancy by Fairbank,

Maslin, Maullin & Associates and Public Opinion Strategies. A total of 1,500 registered voters

were tested in April 2004 for a margin of error

of +/- 3.5 percent.

70 Steven Glazer, LandVote 2001 (Boston and

Washington D.C.: Trust for Public Land and

Land Trust Alliance, 2002), pp. 16-17.

71 Steven Glazer, pp. 16-17.

72 Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities,

Wasatch Front Watershed, www.slcgov.com/

Utilities/watershed;default.htm.

73 Dennis Romboy, “Don’t Frolic in Water – Its

for Drinking,” Deseret Morning News, September

25, 2003, http://deseretnews.com/

dn/view/o,1249,515034299,00.html.

74 “Protecting Drinking Water with the Clean

Water State Revolving Fund,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/

owmitnet/cwfinance/cwsrf/cwsrf8.pdf.

75 “Funding Brownfield Remediation with the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund,” US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 832-F-98-

006, October 1998.

76 Robert H. Ramharter, “Wisconsin’s Land

Recycling Program: Using the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund for Brownfield Remediation,” www.brownfields2002.org/ proceedings2002/PDFS/B03%20RAMHARTER.pdf.

77 Becky Johnson, “Watershed Logging Potential

Creates a Stir,” Smoky Mountain News, 

May 5, 2004, www.smokymountainnews.

com/issues/05_04/05_05_04/fr_watershed_l

ogging.html.

78 Jon Ostendorff, “Waynesville Leaders Delay

Vote on Watershed,” Citizen-Times, April 29,

2004, http://cgi.citizen-times.com/

cgi-bin/story/haywood_news/54060.

79 Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Board

of Trustees Meeting Agenda, January 12, 2004,

www.cwmtf.net/january04agenda.htm.

80 Source Water Protection, Best Management Practices and

Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

www.epa.gov/watertrain/stepstonesourcebmp.

html.

81 “Watershed Stewardship,” Center for Watershed Protection, www.cwp.org/

stewardship.htm. Additional information is

available in Article 27, The Tools of Watershed

Protection, from CWP’s The Rapid Watershed

Planning Handbook. 

82 R. Claytor, “Assessing the Potential for Urban

Watershed Restoration,” Watershed Protection Techniques, Center for Watershed Management, 1995. 1(4):

166-172.

83 Source Water Protection, Best Management Practices and

Other Measures for Protecting Drinking Water Supplies.

84 “Metropolitan District Commission, Division

of Watershed Management, Public Access Plan

Update,” Wachusetts Resource Watershed,

2003.

85 Miriam Ibarra and Wayne C. Zipperer, Drinking

Water from Forests and Grasslands, A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature, George E. Sissmyer, Ed., USDA

Forest Service, Southern Research Center,

General Technical Report, SRS-39, p. 78; David

Cole, Drinking Water from Forests, p. 81.

86 Ibid.

87 Metropolitan District Commission, Division of

Watershed Management, Public Access Plan

Update; Wachusetts Resource Watershed,

2003.

88 J. Craig Fischenich, “Technologies for Urban

Stream Restoration and Watershed Management,” Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Technology News from the Ecosystem Management

and Restoration Research Program, May 2001,

p. 4.

89 Contra Costa County, California, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/casesty/contracosta.html.