United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Nonpoint Source Control Branch

Washington, DC 20460

EPA 841-B-05-005

October 2005
Disclaimer

This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, local

governments, watershed organizations, and the public regarding technical tools

and sources of information for developing watershed based plans to improve and

protect water quality. This document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions

that contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for

those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not

impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes,

local governments, watershed organizations, or the public and may not apply to a

particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, state, territory, local

government, and authorized tribe decision makers retain the discretion to adopt

approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance.

Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the

appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a situation, and EPA will

consider whether or not the recommendations in this guidance are appropriate in

that situation. EPA may change this guidance in the future.

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Contents

Draft i

Contents

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Handbook? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.1.1 How Is This Handbook Different from Other Guides? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.1.2 Who Should Use This Handbook? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.1.3 What if We Already Have a Watershed Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.2 What’s Inside? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.2.1 Chapter Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.2.2 Appendices and Back Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

1.3 How to Use This Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

Chapter 2. Overview of Watershed Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Why Use a Watershed Approach to Manage Water Resources? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2 Common Features of the Watershed Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2.1 Watershed Planning Is an Iterative and Adaptive Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2.2 Watershed Planning Is a Holistic Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.3 Watershed Planning Is Geographically Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.2.4 Watershed Planning Should Be Integrated with Other Planning Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.5 Watershed Planning Is a Collaborative and Participatory Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.3 Steps in the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.4 Watershed Planning for Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.4.1 What Are the Most Common Impairments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.4.2 Watershed Planning Where a TMDL Has Been Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.4.3 Watershed Planning in the Absence of a TMDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2.5 Including Water Quality Standards in Goal Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.5.1 What Are Water Quality Standards and Why Are They Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.5.2 How Are Water Quality Standards Set? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.6 Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan for Impaired Waters

Funded Using Incremental Section 319 Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

Chapter 3. Build Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Why Do I Need Partners? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.2 Identify Driving Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.2.1 Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.2.2 Government Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.2.3 Community-Driven Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.3 Identify and Engage Relevant Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.3.1 Identify Categories of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.3.2 Determine Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.3.3 Provide a Structure to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.3.4 Identify Stakeholders’ Skills and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.3.5 Encourage Participation and Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.3.6 Initiate Outreach Activities to Build Awareness and Gain Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.4 Integrate Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Programs into Your Watershed Planning Effort . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.4.1 Local Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.4.2 State and Regional Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Contents Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

ii Draft

3.4.3 Tribal Programs and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

3.4.4 Federal Programs and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

Chapter 4. Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Why Define the Scope of Your Watershed Planning Effort? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.2 Ask Stakeholders for Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.3 Identify Issues of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.3.1 Draw a Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.3.2 Take Stakeholders Out into the Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.4 Define the Geographic Extent of the Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.5 Develop Preliminary Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.6 Select Indicators to Measure Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.6.1 Select Quantitative Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.6.2 Select a Combination of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4.7 Link Concerns with Goals and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Chapter 5. Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 How Do I Characterize My Watershed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2 Focus Your Data Gathering Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2.1 Build on Earlier Scoping Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2.2 Consider Stakeholder Goals and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.3 Who Has the Data and What Types of Data Do You Need? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.3.1 Local Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.3.2 State Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.3.3 Tribal Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.3.4 Federal Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3.5 Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.4 Physical and Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.4.1 Watershed Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.4.2 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5.4.3 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.4.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4.5 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

5.4.6 Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

5.4.7 Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.5 Land Use and Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.5.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

5.5.2 Land Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

5.5.3 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

5.6 Waterbody and Watershed Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

5.6.1 Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

5.6.2 Water Quality Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

5.6.3 Watershed-Related Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

5.7 Pollutant Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.7.1 Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31

5.7.2 Nonpoint Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

5.8 Waterbody Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

5.8.1 Water Quality and Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

5.8.2 Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-38

5.8.3 Geomorphological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-39
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Contents

Draft iii

5.9 Selected Tools Used to Gather, Organize, and View Assessment Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-40

5.9.1 Geographic Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-40

5.9.2 Remote Sensing Techniques to Collect Land Use/Land Cover Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45

5.10 Create a Data Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

Chapter 6. Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data if Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 How Do I Know if I Have Enough Data to Start My Analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2 Conduct a Data Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6.2.1 Identify Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.2.2 Determine Acceptability of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.3 Determine Whether New Data Collection Is Essential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6.4 Design a Sampling Plan for Collecting New Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.4.1 Select a Monitoring Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

6.4.2 Develop Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

6.4.3 Develop Measurement Quality Objectives and Performance Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

6.4.4 Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6.4.5 Develop Plan for Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

6.5 Collect New Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6.5.1 Watershed Overview/Visual Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6.5.2 Physical Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6.5.3 Geomorphic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6.5.4 Hydrological Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.5.5 Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6.5.6 Assessment of Habitat Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

6.5.7 Biological Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23

Chapter 7. Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed and Pollutant Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Analyze Data to Identify Pollutant Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.1.1 Focus Your Analysis Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.1.2 Use a Combination of Analysis Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.1.3 Consider Geographic Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.1.4 Incorporate Stakeholders’ Concerns and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.2 Analyze Instream and Watershed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.2.1 Confirm Impairments and Identify Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

7.2.2 Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

7.2.3 Spatial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

7.2.4 Temporal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

7.2.5 Other Trends or Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

7.2.6 Stressor Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

7.2.7 Visual Assessments and Local Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14

7.3 Evaluate Data Analysis Results to Identify Causes and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

7.3.1 Grouping Sources for Further Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16

7.3.2 Time Frame for Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-18

7.4 Summarize Causes and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19

Chapter 8. Estimate Pollutant Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 How Do I Estimate Pollutant Loads? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2 Using Monitoring Data or Literature Values to Estimate Pollutant Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.1 Using Monitoring Data to Estimate Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.2 Using Literature Values to Estimate Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
Contents Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

iv Draft

8.3 Watershed Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

8.3.1 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

8.3.2 Using Watershed Modeling Tools to Evaluate Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

8.3.3 Model Selection and Application Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

8.3.4 What Models Are Available? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

8.3.5 Capabilities of the Selected Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

8.4 Model Application Process for the Selected Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

8.4.1 Watershed Delineation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.4.2 Land Use Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

8.4.3 Parameter Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

8.4.4 Model Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34

8.4.5 Estimation of Exising Conditions and Baseline Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.5 Presenting Pollutant Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.5.1 Consider Spatial Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.5.2 Consider Time Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.5.3 Next Steps in the Development of the Watershed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

Chapter 9. Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 How Do I Link the Watershed Analysis to Management Solutions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.2 Translate Watershed Goals into Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

9.3 Select Environmental Indicators and Targets to Evaluate Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9.4 Determine Load Reductions to Meet Environmental Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

9.4.1 Qualitative Linkages Based on Local Knowledge or Historical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.4.2 Mass Balance Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.4.3 Empirical Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

9.4.4 Statistical or Mathematical Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.4.5 Reference Watershed Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

9.4.6 Receiving Water Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10

9.5 Focus the Load Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12

9.6 Summarize Watershed Targets and Necessary Load Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14

Chapter 10. Identify Possible Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 How Do I Link My Management Strategies to My Goals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

10.2 Overview of Types of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3

10.2.1 Nonpoint Source Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

10.2.2 Regulatory Approaches to Manage Pollutant Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6

10.3 Steps to Select Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

10.3.1 Identify Existing Management Efforts in the Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

10.3.2 Quantify Effectiveness of Current Management Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-13

10.3.3 Identify New Management Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14

10.3.4 Identify Critical Areas in the Watershed Where Additional Management Efforts 

Are Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14

10.3.5 Identify Possible Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15

10.3.6 Identify Relative Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-19

10.3.7 Develop Screening Criteria to Identify Opportunities and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-20

10.3.8 Rank Alternatives and Develop Candidate Management Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-23
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Contents

Draft v

Chapter 11. Evaluate Options and Select Final Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 How Do I Select the Final Management Strategy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.2 Factors that Influence the Selection of Approaches Used to Quantify Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.2.1 General Types of Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.2.2 Identify the Types of Indicators You’re Using to Measure Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4

11.2.3 Consider the Scale of Your Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4

11.2.4 Consider the Synergistic Effects of Multiple Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

11.3 Select an Approach to Quantify the Effectiveness of the Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6

11.3.1 Using Literature Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7

11.3.2 Using Models to Assess Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-8

11.3.3 Example Model Applications to Assess Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-21

11.4 Identify Costs and Compare Benefits of Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-26

11.4.1 Identify Cost Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-26

11.4.2 Compare Costs and Effectiveness of Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

11.5 Select Final Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33

11.5.1 Decision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-34

11.5.2 Example Procedures for Selecting Final Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36

Chapter 12. Design Implementation Program and Assemble Watershed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

12.1 What Do I Need to Design My Implementation Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-2

12.2 Develop Information/Education Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-2

12.2.1 Integrate I/E Activities into the Overall Watershed Implementation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-2

12.2.2 Develop an I/E Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-3

12.3 Establish an Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-7

12.4 Develop Interim Measurable Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-8

12.5 Establish a Set of Criteria to Measure Progress toward Meeting Water Quality Standards 

and Other Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-9

12.5.1 Schedule for Implementation of Management Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11

12.5.2 Nature of Pollutants to Be Controlled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11

12.6 Develop a Monitoring Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12

12.6.1 Directly Relate Monitoring Efforts to the Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13

12.6.2 Incorporate Previous Sampling Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-14

12.6.3 Monitor Land Use Changes in Conjunction with Water Quality Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-14

12.6.4 Use an Appropriate Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-15

12.6.5 Conduct Monitoring for Several Years Before and After Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-16

12.6.6 Build In an Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-16

12.7 Estimate Financial and Technical Assistance Needed and the Sources/Authorities that Will 

Be Relied on for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-17

12.7.1 Identify Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-17

12.7.2 Leverage Existing Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-18

12.7.3 Estimating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-18

12.7.4 Identify Technical Assistance Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-22

12.7.5 Identify the Relevant Authorities Needed for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-23

12.8 Develop the Implementation Plan Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-23

12.9 Develop an Evaluation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-25

12.9.1 What Parts of Your Program Should You Evaluate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-25

12.9.2 Using a Logic Model to Develop an Evaluation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-28

12.9.3 Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-29

12.9.4 Timing of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30
Contents Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

vi Draft

12.10 Devise a Method for Tracking Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-30

12.11 Putting It All Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-32

12.11.1 The Final Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-34

12.11.2 Make the Plan Accessible to Various Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-35

Chapter 13. Implement Watershed Plan and Measure Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

13.1 What Do I Do Once I've Started to Implement the Watershed Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-2

13.2 Create an Organizational Structure for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-2

13.3 Implement Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-4

13.4 Prepare Work Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-4

13.5 Share Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-6

13.6 Evaluate Your Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8

13.6.1 Track Progress Against Your Work Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9

13.6.2 Analyze Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-9

13.7 Make Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-12

13.7.1 Not Meeting Implementation Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-12

13.7.2 Not Making Progress Toward Reducing Pollutant Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-13

13.8 A Final Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-15

Appendix A: Resources

Appendix B: Worksheets

Glossary

Bibliography
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Contents

Draft vii

Figures

Figure 2-1. Steps in the watershed planning process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Figure 2-2. Potential relationships between TMDLs and watershed plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Figure 2-3. Incorporating the nine minimum elements into your watershed plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

Figure 4-1. Simplified conceptual model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Figure 4-2. A simple conceptual model involving logging road construction effects on stream aquatic life

(adapted from USEPA 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Figure 4-3. Draft conceptual model for Greens Creek, North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

Figure 4-4. Evolution of goals throughout the watershed planning process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Figure 5-1. Example of NRCS watershed delineations within a USGS 8-digit cataloging unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

Figure 5-2. Examples of medium-resolution and high-resolution NHD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

Figure 5-3. Example map projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

Figure 5-4. Example of GIS datasets at different scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-43

Figure 5-5. Example fields in a data inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

Figure 6-1. Excerpt from Spa Creek Proposed Sampling Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

Figure 7-1. Example graph of observed aluminum concentrations compared to water quality criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

Figure 7-2. Commonly used summary statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

Figure 7-3. Example map of average total dissolved solids concentration throughout a watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

Figure 7-4. Example graph of monthly statistics for fecal coliform bacteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

Figure 7-5. Example load duration curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12

Figure 7-6. Stressor identification process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13

Figure 7-7. Long-term turbidity levels at two stations in Lake Creek, Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15

Figure 8-1. Example of an application of export coefficients to calculate pollutant loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Figure 8-2. Typical model evaluation points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35

Figure 8-3. Sample calibration tests for hydrologic simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

Figure 8-4. Sample model testing graphics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37

Figure 8-5. Presentation of annual sediment loads (lb/ac) by subwatershed, San Jacinto, California. . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform bacteria loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

Figure 8-7. Total sediment load and percentages associated with each source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

Figure 9-1. Process for identifying final watershed goals and targets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

Figure 10-1. Process to identify candidate management practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

Figure 10-2. Percentage of buffer area disturbed and impaired waters in the Troublesome Creek watersheds. . . . 10-15

Figure 11-1. Evaluate candidate management practices to select final strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

Figure 11-2. Using a spreadsheet analysis to evaluate one management practice at a single site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-9

Figure 11-3. Analysis of multiple management practices using multiple indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-22

Figure 11-4. Quantifying the effectiveness of stabilization practices in reducing sediment loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23

Figure 11-5. Quantifying the effectiveness of management practices in improving aquatic habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . 11-24

Figure 11-6. Cost comparison of alternative treatment trains to meet specific water quality and detention 

performance standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-28
Contents Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

viii Draft

Figure 11-7. Example comparing construction cost and pollutant loading for different urban land use types 

with decreasing levels of imperviousness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32

Figure 11-8. Example showing increased cost per pound of total phosphorus removed for urban land 

uses with highest levels of imperviousness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-33

Figure 11-9. Evaluation of stormwater management options for the Town of Cary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-39

Figure 12-1. Logic model components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-28

Figure 12-2. Sample logic model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-29

Figure 12-3. Table of contents from White Oak Creek, Ohio, watershed plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-33

Figure 13-1. Watershed report card for Clermont County, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-7

Figure 13-2. Example adaptive management approach using a logic model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-8
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Contents

Draft ix

Tables

Table 1-1. Relationship of Chapters to the Watershed Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

Table 2-1. Top Ten 303(d) List Impairments in the United States (August 1, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Table 2-2. Summary of Common Pollutants and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Table 4-1. Coal Creek Sediment Loading Indicators and Target Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Table 4-2. Use of Indicators Throughout the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

Table 4-3. Example Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and

Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Table 4-4. Example Indicators Used throughout Watershed Plan Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

Table 4-5. Examples of Performance Indicators That Can Be Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in

Meeting Watershed Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

Table 5-1. Data Typically Used for Watershed Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

Table 5-2. Sources of GIS Data Available on the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

Table 5-3. Sample Costs for Purchasing Remote Sensing Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

Table 6-1. Sources and Associated Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

Table 7-1. Examples of the Types of Data-related Activities Conducted Throughout the Watershed 

Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

Table 7-2. Examples of the Level of Detail and Effort for Typical Types of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

Table 8-1. Example Approaches Used for Estimating Watershed Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Table 8-2. Various Levels of Detail for Simulating Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

Table 8-3. Levels of Detail in Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

Table 8-4. Overview of Several Available Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18

Table 8-5. Water Quality Endpoints Supported by the Selected Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27

Table 8-6. Land and Water Features Supported by the Selected Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28

Table 8-7. Application Considerations of the Selected Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

Table 8-8. Typical Data Needs for Example Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

Table 8-9. Examples of Number and Size of Subwatersheds in Modeling Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

Table 8-10. Example Land Use Categories for Watershed Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

Table 8-11. Typical Calibration Options for Selected Example Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36

Table 8-12. Typical Loading Presentation Categories and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

Table 9-1. Sample Goals Linked to the Sources and Impacts to Define Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

Table 9-2. Examples of Indicators and Targets to Meet Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

Table 9-3. Example Approaches for Linking Indicators and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

Table 9-4. Overview of Various Receiving Water Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-11

Table 9-5. Examples of Different Scenarios to Meet the Same Load Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13

Table 10-1. Examples of Structural and Nonstructural Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5

Table 10-2. Existing Programs and Policies Identified in the Mill Creek Subwatershed Communities . . . . . . . . . 10-12

Table 10-3. Commonly Used Management Practices for Salinity, Sediment, and Total Dissolved Solids . . . . . . 10-17

Table 10-4. Example Management Practice Screening Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-20

Table 10-5. Example Ranking Table to Identify Candidate Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-23
Contents Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

x Draft

Table 11-1. Summary of Management Practice Representation Capabilities of the Selected Models . . . . . . . . . 11-11

Table 11-2. Summary of Management Practice Simulation Techniques of the Selected Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12

Table 11-3. Data Needs for Management Strategy Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-14

Table 11-4. Summary of Other Specialized Models for Management Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-16

Table 11-5. Considerations for Applying Management Practice Unit Cost Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-27

Table 11-6. Example of Discounting Management Practice Cost for Comparison Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-31

Table 11-7. Selected Management Techniques for the Muddy Creek Subwatershed, Virgin River TMDL

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-37

Table 11-8. Summary of Load Reduction Requirements and Expected Removal Efficiencies for Selected 

Management Practices: Muddy Creek Subwatershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-37

Table 12-1. Example Indicators to Measure Progress in Reducing Pollutant Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-11

Table 12-2. Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices from Chesapeake Bay 

Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-20

Table 13-1. Comparison of Example Parameters in a Hypothetical Watershed Plan and 319 Work Plan . . . . . . . 13-5
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Acronyms

Draft xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

There are dozens of acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this handbook. Refer back to this list to help you navigate

through the alphabet soup.

ADB: Assessment Database

ADID: advance identification 

AFO: animal feeding operation

AGNPS: Agricultural Non-Point Source model

AnnAGNPS: Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source model

AIEO: American Indian Environmental Office

ARS: Agricultural Research Service 

ASIWPCA: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators

AU: assessment unit

AVIRIS: airborne visible/infrared imaging spectrometer

AVS: acid-volatile sulfide

BASINS: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources

BEACH: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health

BEHI: Bank Erosion Hazard Index

BLM: [U.S.] Bureau of Land Management

BMP: best management practice

BOR: [U.S.] Bureau of Reclamation

CADDIS: Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System

CAEDYM: Computational Aquatic Ecosystem Dynamics Model

CAFO: concentrated animal feeding operation

CBOD: carbonaceous biological oxygen demand

C-CAP: Coastal Change Analysis Program

CCMP: comprehensive conservation and management plan

cfs: cubic feet per second

CH3D-IMS: Curvilinear-grid Hydrodynamics 3D— Integrated Modeling System

CH3D-SED: Curvilinear Hydrodynamics 3D—Sediment Transport

CN: curve number

CNE: curve number equation

CNMP: conservation nutrient management plan

COD: chemical oxygen demand

CRC: Cooperative Research Center

CREM: Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling

CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRM: crop residue management

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program

CSC: Coastal Services Center

CSO: combined sewer overflow

CSP: Conservation Security Program
Acronyms Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

xii Draft

CSREES: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

CSTR: continuously stirred tank reactor

CTG: composite theme grid

CTIC: Center for Technology Information Center

CWA: Clean Water Act

CZARA: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DEM: digital elevation model

DIAS/IDLMAS: Dynamic Information Architecture System/Integrated Dynamic Landscape Analysis and Modeling System

DLG: digital line graphs

DO: dissolved oxygen

DOI: [U.S.] Department of the Interior

DOT: [U.S.] Department of Transportation

DQO: data quality objective

DRG: digital raster graphic

ECOMSED: Estuary and Coastal Ocean Model with Sediment Transport

EDAS: Ecological Data Application System

EDNA: Elevation Derivatives for National Application

EFDC: Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code

EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

EMC: event mean concentration

EPA: [U.S.] Environmental Protection Agency

EPIC: Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator

EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program

ESA: Endangered Species Act

ETM: enhanced thematic mapper

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

FGDC: Federal Geographic Data Committee

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

FSA: Farm Service Agency

GAP: Gap Analysis Project

GIRAS: Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System

GIS: geographic information system

GISPLM: GIS-Based Phosphorus Loading Model

GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems

GLLVHT: Generalized, Longitudinal-Lateral-Vertical Hydrodynamic and Transport

GPS: global positioning system

GRP: Grasslands Reserve Program

GSSHA: Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis

GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions

HBI: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

HCP: habitat conservation plan

HEC-6: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs

HEC-6T: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Sedimentation in Stream Networks
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Acronyms

Draft xiii

HEC-HMS: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System

HEC-RAS: Hydraulic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System

HSCTM-2D: Hydrodynamic, Sediment and Contaminant Transport Model

HSPF: Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran

HUC: hydrologic unit code

IBI: index of biotic integrity

IDEAL: Integrated Design and Evaluation Assessment of Loadings 

I/E: information/education

IMP: integrated management practices

IPM: integrated pest management

kg/ha/yr: kilograms per hectare per year

kg/yr: kilograms per year

KINEROS2: Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model, v2

lb/d: pounds per day

LID: low impact development

LIDAR: light detection and ranging

LSPC: Loading Simulation Program in C++

LULC: land use/land cover

MDC: minimal detectable change

mg/L: milligrams per liter

MINTEQA2: Metal Speciation Equilibrium Model for Surface and Ground Water

MQO: measurement quality objective

MRLC: Multi-resolution Land Characteristics 

MS4: municipal separate storm sewer systems

MSGP: multi-sector general permit

MUIR: map unit interpretation record

MUSIC: Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization

MVUE: Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAWQA: National Water-Quality Assessment 

NCDC: National Climatic Data Center

NDVI: normalized difference vegetation index

NED: National Elevation Dataset

NEIPCC: New England Interstate Pollution Control Commission

NEMI: National Environmental Methods Index

NEP: National Estuary Program

NGO: non-governmental organization

NHD: National Hydrography Dataset

NIR: near-infrared

NLCD: National Land Cover Dataset

NLFA: National Listing of Fish Advisories

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Acronyms Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

xiv Draft

NPS: nonpoint source

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRI: National Resources Inventory

NSFC: National Small Flows Clearinghouse

NSI: National Sediment Inventory

NTTS: National TMDL Tracking System

NTU: nephelometric turbidity unit

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory

NWIS: National Water Information System 

O&M: operation and maintenance

OMB: [U.S.] Office of Management and Budget

ORSANCO: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

OSM: Office of Surface Mining

P8-UCM: Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and Ponds - Urban Catchment Model

PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PBMS: Performance-Based Methods System

PCS: Permit Compliance System

PGC-BMP: Prince George’s County Best Management Practice Module 

POTW: publicly owned treatment works

PSA: public service announcement

QAPP: quality assurance project plan

QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control

QHEI: Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

QUAL2E: Enhanced Stream Water Qaulity Model

RBP: Rapid Bioassessment Protocol

REMM: Riparian Ecosystem Management Model

RF1: Reach File Version 1

RF2: Reach File Version 2

RF3-Alpha: Reach File Version 3 - Alpha

RMP: resource management plan

RPD: relative percent difference

RSAT: Rapid Stream Assessment Technique

RUSLE: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SAMP: Special Area Management Plan

SAP: sampling and analysis plan

SAR: synthetic aperture radar

SCS: Soil Conservation Service

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act

SED3D: Three-dimensional Numerical Model of Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport in Lakes and Estuaries

SEM: simultaneously extracted metals

SET: Site Evaluation Tool

SLAMM: Source Loading and Management Model

SOP: standard operating procedure
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Acronyms

Draft xv

SPARROW: Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes

SRF: State Revolving Fund

SSO: sanitary sewer overflow

SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database

STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database

STEPL: Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load

STORET: Storage and Retrieval

STORM: Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model

SVAP: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol

SWA: source water assessment

SWAP: Source Water Assessment Program

SWAT: Soil and Water Assessment Tool

SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District

SWCP: soil and water conservation plan

SWMM: Storm Water Management Model

SWP: source water protection

SWPP: source water protection plan

SWPPP: stormwater pollution prevention plan 

TCEQ: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDS: total dissolved solids

TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing

TKN: total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TM: thematic mapper

TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load

TOC: total organic carbon

TP: total phosphorus

TSI: Carlson’s Trophic Status Index

TSP: technical service provider

TSS: total suspended solids

USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

μS/cm: microsiemens per centimeter

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey

USLE: Universal Soil Loss Equation

UTM: universal transverse mercator

VAFSWM: Virginia Field Scale Wetland Model

VFSMOD: Vegetative Filter Strip Model

VSAP: Visual Stream Assessment Protocol

WAMView: Watershed Assessment Model with an ArcView Interface

WARMF: Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework

WASP: Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program

WATERS: Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System
Acronyms Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

xvi Draft

WATERSHEDSS: WATER, Soil, and Hydro- Environmental Decision Support System

WBD: watershed boundary dataset

WCS: Watershed Characterization System

WEPP: Water Erosion Prediction Project 

WHP: wellhead protection

WinHSPF: Interactive Windows Interface to HSPF

WMS: Watershed Modeling System

WQS: water quality standard

WRAS: Watershed Restoration Action Strategy

WRDA: Water Resources Development Act

WWTP: wastewater treatment plant
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 1

Introduction

Draft 1-1

1. Introduction

Read this chapter if...

• You want to know if this handbook is intended for you

• You want an overview of all the chapters

• You want tips on how to skip around to various sections in the handbook

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Purpose of handbook

< Intended audience

< Chapter summaries

< Tips for using the handbook
Chapter 1

Introduction

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

1-2 Draft

A watershed is the land area that drains to a

common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary,

wetland, or ultimately the ocean. 

Watershed plans are a means to resolve and

prevent water quality problems that result from both

point source and nonpoint source problems.

Although the primary focus of this handbook is on

waters listed as impaired under section 303(d) of

the Clean Water Act, watershed plans are intended

to provide both an analytic framework to restore

water quality in impaired waters and to protect

water quality in other waters adversely affected or

threatened by point source and nonpoint source

pollution.

1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Handbook?

This handbook provides information on developing and implementing watershed

plans that help to restore and protect water quality. Experience over the past decade

has shown that effective watershed management includes active

participation from stakeholders, analysis and quantification of the

specific causes and sources of water quality problems,

identification of measurable water quality goals, and specific

actions needed to solve those problems.

Don’t be daunted by the size of this handbook. Although it is

comprehensive in terms of providing resources and tools for each step of the

watershed planning process, it is laid out in an easy-to-read format with shortcuts and

road maps along the way so you can flip to specific sections for more in-depth

information. You might not need to read all the sections if you

have already completed some stages of the watershed planning

process. Read the highlights at the beginning of each chapter to

determine whether you can skip to the next section.

This handbook is intended to serve as the basis for developing

and implementing watershed plans to meet water quality

standards and protect water resources. Although watershed plans

are useful for all watersheds to protect and restore water

resources, as well as to meet other community resource goals,

they are critical for impaired or threatened waterbodies. The most

recent national water quality assessment (2000) reported that 40

to 50 percent of the nation’s assessed waterbodies are impaired

or threatened. This handbook is designed to provide a framework to help you develop

a scientifically defensible plan that will lead to measurable results and an overall

improvement in the water quality and watershed conditions that are important to your

community.

Developing watershed plans does not have to be an exhaustive, expensive endeavor.

This handbook shows you how to effectively and efficiently collect the information

you need to answer the right questions. The level of effort you expend preparing a

watershed plan will depend on several factors, such as the available

information, the size of the watershed, and the pollutants of concern.

Federal, state, and local organizations have developed many watershed

guides. EPA intends for this handbook to supplement, rather than

replace, those guides. KAppendix A includes a list of some of the

watershed planning guides for your reference.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 1

Introduction

Draft 1-3

A waterbody is impaired if it does not attain state

water quality standards. Threatened waters are

those that meet standards but exhibit a declining

trend in water quality such that they will likely

exceed standards.

1.1.1 How Is This Handbook Different from Other Guides?

This handbook is more rigorous and goes into greater detail than most watershed

planning guides. It provides tools to quantify existing pollutant loads, develop

estimates of the load reductions designed to meet water quality standards, and

identify reductions associated with the management measures expected to achieve

load reductions to meet water quality standards. Using these tools enables you to then

develop effective management measures to reduce the loads. The handbook also

provides tools to track progress once the plan is implemented to ensure that the

management measures are helping to improve water quality.

1.1.2 Who Should Use This Handbook?

We have designed this handbook to be used by agencies and organizations that

develop watershed plans. It is specifically intended for those working in a watershed

where there are impaired or threatened waters. To use this handbook effectively, you

should have a basic level of understanding about watersheds, their processes, and the

major components to be included in a watershed plan. You might have to enlist the

support of experienced professionals such as engineers, hydrologists, statisticians,

biologists, and database managers to provide specific information for your watershed

plan.

The primary audiences that will benefit from this handbook are the following:

Watershed organizations that are developing new plans, updating existing plans to

meet funding requirements, or considering other watershed issues.

Local agencies that are developing or updating a watershed plan or need references

to research a particular subject related to watershed planning.

State and tribal environmental agencies that are developing

and reviewing watershed plans, participating as stakeholders on

watershed planning committees, or providing guidance to

watershed associations.

Federal environmental agencies that have similar planning

programs to help identify overlapping activities, provide sources

of data, and offer other kinds of financial and technical

assistance.

1.1.3 What if We Already Have a Watershed Plan?

EPA recognizes that many states and local groups already have in place or are

developing watershed plans and strategies at varying levels of scale, scope, and

specificity that might contribute significantly to the process of developing and

implementing watershed plans using the approach outlined in this handbook. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

1-4 Draft

Table 1-1. Relationship of Chapters to the

Watershed Planning Process

Chapter

Steps in Watershed

Planning and

Implementation

Process

1 Introduction

2 Overview of

Watershed Planning

Process

3 Build Partnerships Build Partnerships

4 Define Scope of

Watershed Planning

Effort

Characterize the

Watershed

5 Gather Existing Data

and Create an

Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps

and Collect Additional

Data if Needed

7 Analyze Data to

Characterize the

Watershed and

Pollutant Sources

8 Estimate Pollutant

Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Set Goals and

Identify Solutions

10 Identify Possible

Management

Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and

Select Final

Management

Strategies

12 Design

Implementation

Program and

Assemble Watershed

Plan

Design

Implementation

Program 

13 Implement Watershed

Plan and Measure

Progress

Implement

Watershed Plan

Measure Progress

and Make

Adjustments

The existing plans and strategies should be adapted as

appropriate or used as building blocks for developing and

implementing watershed plans that contain the nine

minimum elements that EPA recommends including in

watershed plans that address impaired or threatened

waterbodies. This can be accomplished by adapting existing

plans to include the omitted components, incorporating by

reference existing assessments or other information in a

newly developed plan, or merging existing information into

an updated plan that includes all the basic components.

Where existing plans and strategies have been developed at

a basin-wide or other large geographic scale, they will

usually need to be refined at the smaller watershed scale to

provide the information needed to develop a watershed plan.

The assessment, monitoring, and other data collection

requirements for larger basin studies typically are not as

detailed as those for watershed plans or assessments

generated for site-level work plans.

1.2 What’s Inside?

The handbook is divided into 13 chapters that move through

the watershed planning and implementation process (table

1-1). Each chapter includes information that addresses the

key issues for each step, along with highlights to illustrate

how to apply these concepts to your own situation. In

addition, the appendices provide more detailed information

on additional resources and worksheets that can be used as

part of your watershed planning efforts.

1.2.1 Chapter Summaries

Chapter 1: Introduction includes the purpose of the

handbook, intended audiences, and guidelines on how to use

the information provided.

Chapter 2: Overview of Watershed Planning Process

provides an overview of the watershed planning process and

highlights common features of typical watershed planning

processes.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 1

Introduction

Draft 1-5

Chapter 3: Build Partnerships provides guidance on initial activities to organize and

involve interested parties, such as identifying stakeholders, integrating other key

programs, and conducting outreach.

Chapter 4: Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort discusses the preliminary

activities you undertake to start scoping out your planning effort. It includes

information on defining issues of concern, developing preliminary goals, and

identifying indicators to assess current conditions.

Chapter 5: Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory discusses the first step in

watershed characterization—gathering existing information and creating a data

inventory. It includes the collection of information from existing reports and datasets.

Chapter 6: Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data if Needed discusses

how to identify data gaps and collect additional data if needed. This chapter includes

a discussion on quality assurance/quality control procedures and the development of

sampling plans.

Chapter 7: Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed and Pollutant Sources

discusses the primary data analyses needed to identify problems and support

development of the plan. It includes information on the types of data analyses that

can be conducted and the tools used. It also discusses how to link the impairments to

the causes and sources of pollutant loads.

Chapter 8: Estimate Pollutant Loads provides guidance on using watershed models

and other tools to estimate pollutant loads. It discusses computer models, identifies

the types of models available, and tells how to select appropriate models for your

watershed study.

Chapter 9: Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions discusses how to set

management and water quality goals, develop management objectives, and determine

the load reductions needed to meet the goals. It provides guidance for identifying

critical areas to which management efforts can be targeted.

Chapter 10: Identify Possible Management Strategies gives an overview of various

management measures that might be selected, discusses how to identify existing

management efforts in the watershed, and provides considerations for selecting

management options.

Chapter 11: Evaluate Options and Select Final Management Strategies discusses

how to screen and research candidate management options, evaluate possible

scenarios, and select the final management measures to be included in your

watershed management plan.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

1-6 Draft

You can download a pdf version of this document at

Kwww.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.

Chapter 12: Design Implementation Program and Assemble Watershed Plan

provides guidance on establishing milestones and implementation schedules and

identifying the technical and financial resources needed to implement the plan,

including information/education (I/E) activities and monitoring and evaluation

components. It discusses how to use various analyses and products to assemble and

document the watershed plan.

Chapter 13: Implement Watershed Plan and Measure Progress provides guidance

on using adaptive management techniques to make changes to your watershed plan

and on analyzing the monitoring data to determine whether milestones are being met.

It also provides guidance on using a watershed plan to develop annual work plans.

1.2.2 Appendices and Back Matter

Appendix A: Resources is an expanded list of resources provided to guide you to

more detailed information on various aspects of the watershed planning process.

Appendix B: Worksheets provides a complete set of all the

worksheets and checklists included in the handbook as full-size

sheets that you can photocopy and use with your planning

group.

A Glossary is provided after appendix B to define key terms

used in the handbook.

A Bibliography that lists the sources used to prepare the handbook is included.

1.3 How to Use this Handbook

Although there is no cookie-cutter approach to developing a watershed plan, plans

that seek to identify and address threats or impairments to water quality have some

common elements. This handbook provides various tools for you to consider when

developing your watershed plan and includes many Web links for more in-depth

information on particular topics. The document is structured so you can proceed step

by step through the watershed planning process or can go directly to a section that

highlights a specific technical tool for use in your watershed planning effort.

Some common themes are repeated throughout the handbook to reinforce the

concepts presented, provide shortcuts, and help you to focus your efforts. These tips

are identified by the following icons:

Nine Elements of Watershed Plans. One of the purposes of this handbook is to

show how the nine elements presented in the Clean Water Act section 319 guidelines

are used to develop effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 1

Introduction

Draft 1-7

Many organizations already have plans that include some of these elements but might

require additional information on other elements. Note that most of the nine elements

are presented in chapters 10–13.

7 Targeting Your Efforts. Although the handbook includes various options to be

considered in each step of the watershed planning process, planners must target their

efforts to move the process forward to achieve measurable progress in reducing

specific pollutant loads. You might already have a good idea of the problems in your

watershed and want to identify targeted management measures to address them. Or

perhaps your watershed has only one pollutant of concern. The 7 icon highlights

places in the planning process where it makes sense to target your efforts so you can

focus your resources to identify the most likely problems and solutions for your

watershed.

Watershed planning is not an exact science. Often we have to make

decisions based on our best professional judgment to move the process

forward. However, there are several places along the way where you should stop and

assess what you know, what information you have, and what additional information

you need. If you see the stop sign, take a minute to read the information to make sure

you’re going down the right path with the right information.

KThis icon indicates where the topic is discussed elsewhere in the document, or

where more information is provided in the text, the Resources appendix (appendix

A), other documents or the Internet.

O Worksheets and Checklists. Worksheets and checklists are provided throughout

the handbook to help you work through the watershed planning process with the

stakeholders. The worksheets are noted with a O. A complete set is provided in

appendix B to facilitate photocopying.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

1-8 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-1

2. Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Read this chapter if...

• You are unfamiliar with watershed planning concepts

• You want to know more about water quality standards

• You don’t know the most common water quality impairments in the United

States

• You want a list of the nine minimum elements to be included in section 319-

funded watershed plans

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Using a watershed approach

< Common features in watershed

planning

< Steps in the watershed planning

process

< Watershed planning for impaired

waters

< Common watershed impairments

< Summary of nine minimum elements

to be included in a watershed plan

for impaired waters
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-2 Draft

EPA defines an impaired waterbody as a waterbody

that does not meet criteria that support its designated

use. The criteria might be numeric and specify

concentration, duration, and recurrence intervals for

various parameters, or they might be narrative and

describe required conditions such as the absence of

scum, sludge, odors, or toxic substances.

If the waterbody is impaired, it is placed on the section

303(d) list. For each pollutant listed, the state or tribe

must develop a restoration target called a Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

KAppendix A includes a selected list of

watershed guides published by various state

and federal agencies. These guides might

help you to fulfill state-specific requirements

or provide more in-depth information on

specific issues.

2.1 Why Use a Watershed Approach to Manage Water

Resources?

Since the late 1980s, watershed organizations, tribes, and federal and state agencies

have moved toward managing water quality by using a watershed approach. A

watershed approach is a flexible framework for managing water resource quality and

quantity within specified drainage areas, or watersheds. This approach includes

stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and

appropriate technology. The watershed planning process works within this

framework by using a series of cooperative, iterative steps to characterize existing

conditions, identify and prioritize problems, define management objectives, develop

protection or remediation strategies, and implement and adapt selected actions as

necessary. The outcomes of this process are documented or

referenced in a watershed plan. A watershed plan is a strategy

that provides assessment and management information for a

geographically defined watershed, including the analyses,

actions, participants, and resources related to developing and

implementing the plan. 

Using a watershed approach to restore impaired waterbodies is

beneficial because it addresses the problems in a holistic

manner and the stakeholders in the watershed are actively

involved in selecting the management strategies that will be

implemented to solve the problems. Nonpoint source pollution

poses the greatest threat to water quality and is the most

significant source of water quality impairment in the nation.

Therefore, EPA is working with states, tribes, and watershed

groups to realign its programs and strengthen support for

watershed-based environmental protection programs. Such programs feature local

stakeholders joining forces to develop and implement watershed-based plans that

make sense for the conditions found in local communities. Specific features of the

watershed approach are explained below.

2.2 Common Features of the Watershed Planning Process

Although each watershed plan emphasizes different issues and reflects

unique goals and management strategies, some common features are

included in every watershed planning process. The watershed planning

process is iterative, holistic, geographically defined, integrated, and

collaborative.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-3

Although watershed plans are

recommended to implement TMDLs,

they should be developed holistically

to consider other impairments and

threats in the watershed. TMDLs

might focus on specific waterbody

segments, sources, or pollutants,

whereas the watershed plan should

incorporate the pollutant- and sitespecific TMDL into the larger context

of the watershed, including

• Additional water quality threats

• Additional pollutants

• Additional sources

• Threatened waterbodies

• Synergistic effects

• Water quantity issues

• Development pressures

• Habitat protection

• Wetland restoration/creation

• Source water protection

2.2.1 Watershed Planning Is an Iterative and Adaptive Process

EPA recognizes that the processes

involved in watershed assessment,

planning, and management are iterative

and that targeted actions might not result

in complete success during the first or

second cycle. It is expected, however, that

through adjustments made during the

management cycles, water quality

improvements can be documented and

continuous progress toward attaining

water quality standards can be achieved.

Watershed plans should address all the

sources and causes of waterbody

impairments and threats; that is, the plans

should address not only the sources of the immediate water quality impairment but

also any pollutants and sources of pollutants that need to be addressed to ensure the

long-term health of the watershed.

EPA recognizes the difficulty in obtaining watershed-related information

with precision and acknowledges that a balanced approach is needed to

address this concern. On one hand, it is absolutely critical that watershed

planners make a reasonable effort to identify significant pollutant sources,

specify the management measures that will most effectively address those

sources, and broadly estimate the expected load reductions that will result.

Without this analytic framework to provide focus and direction, it is much

less likely that projects implemented under the plan can efficiently and

effectively address the nonpoint sources of water quality impairments.

On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even if reasonable steps are taken to

obtain and analyze relevant data, the information available during the

planning stage (within reasonable time and cost constraints) might be limited.

Preliminary information and loading estimates might need to be updated over

time, accompanied by midcourse corrections in the watershed plan and the

activities it promotes. In many cases, several years of implementation may be

needed for a project to achieve its goals. EPA fully intends that the watershed

planning process described in this handbook be implemented in a dynamic

and adaptive manner to ensure that implementation of the plan can proceed

even though some of the information in the watershed plan is imperfect and

might need to be modified over time as better information becomes available.
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-4 Draft

The Center for Watershed Protection conducted a broad

assessment of the value of planning documents in

protecting water resources and identified a number of

reasons why some plans had failed:

• Planning activities were conducted at too great a scale.

• The plan was a one-time study rather than a long-term

management process.

• Stakeholder involvement and local ownership were

lacking.

• The plan skirted land use/management issues in the

watershed.

• The document was too long or complex.

• The recommendations were too general.

2.2.2 Watershed Planning Is a Holistic Process

EPA supports the implementation of holistic watershed plans because this approach

usually provides the most technically sound and economically efficient means of

addressing water quality problems and is strengthened through the involvement of

stakeholders that might have broader concerns than solely attainment of water quality

standards (e.g., water supply, aesthetics). This approach will help to expedite

cooperative, integrated water resource planning and successful implementation of

needed management, thereby facilitating the restoration of water quality. It will also

help to ensure that watersheds are addressed in a holistic manner that accounts for the

broad variety of stressors and resource protection concerns in the watershed.

2.2.3 Watershed Planning Is Geographically Defined 

By definition, watershed planning focuses on a watershed,

a geographic area that is defined by a drainage basin. A

watershed plan should address a geographic area large

enough to ensure that implementing the plan will address

all the major sources and causes of impairments and threats

to the waterbody under review. Although there is no

rigorous definition or delineation of this concept, the

general intent is to avoid a focus on single waterbody

segments or other narrowly defined areas that do not

provide an opportunity for addressing watershed stressors

in a rational, efficient, and economical manner. At the same

time, the scale should not be so large that it hampers the

ability to conduct detailed analyses or minimizes the

probability of involvement by key stakeholders and

successful implementation. If you select a scale that is too

broad, you might be able only to conduct cursory

assessments and will not be able to accurately link the

impacts back to the sources and causes.

Plans that bundle subwatersheds with similar sets of problems or address a common

stressor (e.g., sediment, nutrients) across multiple related watersheds can be

particularly useful in terms of planning and implementation efficiency and the

strategic use of administrative resources. KChapters 4 and 7 provide more specific

guidance on defining the geographic extent of your planning effort.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-5

• Source water assessments

• TMDL implementation plans

• Stormwater management plans

• Master plans

• Facility plans

• Wetland assessments

2.2.4 Watershed Planning Should Be Integrated with Other Planning

Efforts

It is likely that many federal, state, tribal, and local planning efforts

are occurring simultaneously with your watershed planning effort. At

a minimum, you should be aware of these programs; ideally, you

should integrate these planning activities into your watershed planning

effort through stakeholder participation, data sharing, and

implementation of management measures. KChapter 3 provides a

summary of specific programs that have a planning component or

conduct related activities that you might want to integrate with your

watershed planning effort. You might also want to include staff from

these programs as partners in the development of your watershed plan.

This approach can help in gaining additional technical expertise,

leveraging resources, and sharing responsibilities for implementation. 

2.2.5 Watershed Planning Is a Collaborative and Participatory Process

One of the key characteristics of the watershed planning process is that it is

participatory. The Center for Watershed Protection conducted research that showed

that implementation of a watershed plan has the greatest chance of success when

stakeholders are brought into the process at the very beginning of the watershed

planning effort (CWP 1996). This finding is supported by the fact that

implementation of the plan usually rests with members of the community, and if they

are involved up front and see that their concerns are addressed, they will be more

likely to participate in developing management options and supporting plan

implementation. KChapter 3 discusses how to involve stakeholders to enhance the

watershed planning process and implementation of the plan.

2.3 Steps in the Watershed Planning and Implementation

Process

The parts of the watershed planning process can be illustrated in a number of ways,

such as steps, phases, or portions of a circle. In general, all watershed planning

efforts follow a similar path from identifying the problems to, ultimately,

implementing actions to achieve the established goals.

This handbook organizes the watershed planning process into the following major

steps: 

1. Build partnerships.

2. Characterize the watershed to identify problems.

3. Set goals and identify solutions.

4. Design an implementation program.
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-6 Draft

The term pollutant load refers to the amount of

pollutants entering a waterbody. Loads are usually

expressed in terms of a weight and a time frame, such

as pounds per day (lb/d).

Much of this handbook focuses on how to identify

pollutant loads and how to determine the load

reductions needed to meet water quality goals.

5. Implement the watershed plan.

6. Measure progress and make adjustments.

Within each step, several activities are

conducted before moving on to the next

step. Many of these activities are

repeated in different steps. For example,

information/education (I/E) activities

occur in the first step when building

partnerships but also occur throughout

the process, especially when

implementing the plan. 

Figure 2-1 shows some of the activities

and tools used in each step of the

watershed plan development and

implementation process. The figure

provides a road map for the watershed

planning process, as well as a road map for this document. You might want to refer

back to it from time to time to find out where you are in the process and where you

need to go. Note that steps 1 through 4 feed into the development of the plan, but the

watershed planning process continues with plan implementation. Once the plan is

implemented, annual work plans are prepared, monitoring activities are conducted to

quantitatively measure progress toward meeting water quality goals, and plan

adjustments based on evaluation information received (and other inputs, such as

changes in resources or watershed conditions) are continually made.

2.4 Watershed Planning for Impaired Waters

EPA recognizes the need to focus on developing and

implementing watershed plans for waters that are impaired in

whole or in part by nonpoint sources. For these waterbodies it

is imperative to select on-the-ground management measures

and practices that will reduce pollutant loads and contribute in

measurable ways to the restoration of impaired waters to meet

water quality standards.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-7

Figure 2-1. Steps in the watershed planning process.
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

1

 Data were accessed on August 1, 2005, and are based on a review of the most recent state data available. The

state lists included in the national summary range from 1998 to 2002. The national summary of 303(d) listings is

available at http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control. 

2-8 Draft

2.4.1 What Are the Most Common Impairments?

Waterbodies can be impaired by one source or a combination of sources. Across the

country, a wide variety of waters are listed as impaired by a range of pollutants.

Based on the most recent state 303(d) lists, there are approximately 34,000 impaired

waters in the United States and more than 59,000 associated impairments.1

Pathogens, metals, nutrients, and sediment are the most common pollutants included

on state lists, and the top 10 listed impairments account for over 75 percent of the

total listings in the nation (table 2-1). Since January 1, 1996, EPA has approved

almost 15,000 TMDLs, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the nationwide

listings. 

Table 2-1. Top Ten 303(d) List Impairments in the United States (August 1, 2005)

General Impairmenta

Number

Reported

Percent

Reported

Cumulative

Percent

Metals 11,526 19.2 19.2

Pathogens 7,896 13.2 32.4

Nutrients 5,585 9.3 41.7

Sediment/siltation 5,045 8.4 50.1

Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen 4,406 7.3 57.4

Fish consumption advisories 3,178 5.3 62.7

pH 2,904 4.8 67.6

Other habitat alterations 2,389 4.0 71.6

Thermal modifications 2,200 3.7 75.2

Biological impairment 2,116 3.5 78.7

a “General impairment” might represent several associated pollutants or impairment listings.

For example, the metals category includes 30 specific pollutants or related listings (e.g., iron,

lead, contaminated sediments). 

Source: EPA’s National Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet

(http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control)

Most watershed plans will address some combination of these major pollutants:

pathogens, metals, nutrients, sediment, and thermal impacts. The next several

chapters of the handbook highlight various types of data and analysis tools that you

can use to support watershed plan development. 7Knowing the major impairments

might help you to focus your data collection efforts and determine what types of

analyses to conduct.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-9

If a waterbody is impaired, it is placed on the 303(d)

list. For each impaired waterbody, a state or tribe must

develop an accounting of loads that would result in the

waterbody’s meeting water quality standards. This is

called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

A TMDL is the amount, or load, of a specific pollutant

that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the

water quality standards. The “load” is allocated among

the current pollutant sources (point, nonpoint, and

background sources), a margin of safety, and

sometimes future growth.

The typical steps for developing a TMDL include the

following:

1. Identify linkages between water quality problems

and pollutant sources

2. Estimate total acceptable loading rate that achieves

water quality standards

3. Allocate acceptable loading rates between sources

4. Package the TMDL for EPA approval

To provide a better understanding of the major pollutants

contributing to waterbody impairments, the typical sources of

pollutants and the associated impacts on waterbodies and their

designated uses are summarized in table 2-2. This summary

provides a starting point for you to think about the types of

data you’ll collect and analyses you’ll conduct to characterize

watershed conditions. 

When collecting and analyzing your data, it’s also important

to keep in mind the entire watershed and the general problems

and goals. For example, some of the watershed problems

might not be those officially recognized as impairments on the

303(d) lists. Broader issues like wetland degradation and

adequate water supply could also be priorities in your

watershed. 

Although watershed plans should be holistic and include

information on the broad array of attributes, problems, and

protection strategies needed in a watershed, plans that include

impaired waters should also contain quantified estimates of

current (and sometimes future) problem pollutant loads and

reductions designed to achieve water quality standards and

other watershed goals. Nonpoint source TMDLs and

watershed plans that address quantifiable loading estimates and load reduction

strategies provide the analytic link between actions on the ground and attainment of

water quality standards. To strengthen this link, the load reductions should be

separated by source category to enable you to identify the specific actions and

locations of management strategies as part of your implementation efforts. In the

absence of such a framework, it’s difficult to develop and implement a watershed

plan that can be expected to achieve water quality standards or other environmental

goals, or to determine the causes of failure when nonpoint source projects do not

result in expected water quality improvements.

The watershed planning process described in this handbook emphasizes the

restoration (and, in some cases, protection) of nonpoint source-affected waters

through the development of an analytic framework that accommodates waters with or

without approved TMDLs. 
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-10 Draft

Table 2-2. Summary of Common Pollutants and Sources

Pollutant

Potential Sources

Impacts on Waterbody Uses

Point Sources Nonpoint Sources

Pathogens • WWTPs

• CSOs/SSOs

• Permitted

CAFOs

• Discharges from

meat processing

facilities

• Landfills

• Animals (domestic, wildlife, livestock)

• Malfunctioning septic systems

• Pastures

• Boat pumpout facilities

• Land application of manure

• Land application of wastewater

• Primarily human health risks

• Risk of illness from ingestion or from

contact with contaminated water

through recreation

• Increased cost of treatment of drinking

water supplies

• Shellfish bed closures

Metals • Urban runoff

• WWTPs

• CSO/SSOs

• Landfills

• Industrial

facilities

• Mine discharges

• Abandoned mine drainage

• Hazardous waste sites (unknown or

partially treated sources)

• Marinas

• Aquatic life impairments (e.g., reduced

fish populations due to acute/chronic

concentrations or contaminated

sediment)

• Drinking water supplies (elevated

concentrations in source water)

• Fish contamination (e.g., mercury)

Nutrients • WWTPs

• CSOs/SSOs

• CAFOs

• Discharge from

food- processing

facilities

• Landfills

• Cropland (fertilizer application)

• Landscaped spaces in developed areas

(e.g., lawns, golf courses)

• Animals (domestic, wildlife, livestock)

• Malfunctioning septic systems

• Pastures

• Boat pumpout 

• Land application of manure or

wastewater

• Aquatic life impairments (e.g., effects

from excess plant growth, low DO)

• Direct drinking water supply impacts

(e.g., dangers to human health from

high levels of nitrates)

• Indirect drinking water supply impacts

(e.g., effects from excess plant growth

clogging drinking water facility filters)

• Recreational impacts (indirect impacts

from excess plant growth on fisheries,

boat/swimming access, appearance,

and odors)

• Human health impacts

Sediment • WWTPs

• Urban

stormwater

systems

• Agriculture (cropland and pastureland

erosion)

• Silviculture and timber harvesting

• Rangeland erosion

• Excessive streambank erosion

• Construction

• Roads

• Urban runoff

• Landslides

• Abandoned mine drainage

• Stream channel modification

• Fills pools used for refuge and rearing

• Fills interstitial spaces between gravel

(reduces spawning habitat by trapping

emerging fish and reducing oxygen

exchange)

• When suspended, prevents fish from

seeing food and can clog gills; high

levels of suspended sediment can

cause fish to avoid the stream

• Taste/odor problems in drinking water

• Impairs swimming/boating because of

physical alteration of the channel

• Indirect impacts on recreational fishing
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-11

In some cases, stakeholders might want to protect

waters that are affected by nonpoint source

pollution but are not included on the 303(d) list. Of

particular concern are high-quality waters that are

threatened by changing land uses when unique

and valuable aquatic resources (e.g., habitat for

salmon migration, spawning, and rearing) are at

serious risk of irreparable harm. Watershed project

sponsors can use the tools presented in this

handbook to develop watershed plans for waters

that are not impaired by nonpoint source pollution

to ensure that they remain unimpaired.

Table 2-2. (continued)

Pollutant

Potential Sources

Impacts on Waterbody Uses

Point Sources Nonpoint Sources

Temperature • WWTPs

• Cooling water

discharges

(power plants

and other

industrial

sources)

• Urban

stormwater

systems

• Lack of riparian shading

• Shallow or wide channels (due to

hydrologic modification)

• Hydroelectric dams

• Urban runoff (warmer runoff from

impervious surfaces)

• Sediment (cloudy water absorbs more

heat than clear water)

• Abandoned mine drainage

• Causes lethal effects when

temperature exceeds tolerance limit

• Increases metabolism (results in higher

oxygen demand for aquatic organisms)

• Increases food requirements 

• Decreases growth rates and DO

• Influences timing of migration

• Increases sensitivity to disease

• Increases rates of photosynthesis

(increases algal growth, depletes

oxygen through plant decomposition)

• Causes excess plant growth

Note: WWTP = wastewater treatment plant; CSO = combined sewer overflow; SSO = sanitary sewer overflow;

CAFO = concentrated animal feeding operation; DO = dissolved oxygen.

2.4.2 Watershed Planning Where a TMDL Has Been Developed

States may use a portion of the funding they receive under section 319 of the Clean

Water Act to develop TMDLs and to develop and implement watershed plans that are

consistent with those TMDLs. In addition, states may develop and implement

watershed plans in advance of TMDLs where none exist. In cases where a TMDL for

affected waters has already been developed and approved or is being developed, the

watershed plan should be crafted to achieve the load reductions called for in the

TMDL.

2.4.3 Watershed Planning in the Absence of a TMDL

If a TMDL has not yet been developed, the plan should be

designed to attain water quality standards if possible, in

addition to other environmental goals. EPA encourages states

to include in their watershed plans all the significant sources

and causes of impairments and threats to the waterbodies of

concern. Therefore, watershed plans should address not only

the sources of water quality impairment but also any

pollutants and sources of pollution that need to be addressed

to ensure the long-term health of the watershed. If a TMDL is

later completed and approved, the plan might need to be

modified to make it consistent with the TMDL. EPA

continues to encourage the development of TMDLs or, where

applicable, sets of such TMDLs on a watershed basis. Figure

2-2 illustrates the potential relationships between TMDLs and

watershed plans. 
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-12 Draft

Figure 2-2. Potential relationships between TMDLs and watershed plans.

2.5 Including Water Quality Standards in Goal Setting

Each watershed management plan will address different issues and include unique

goals and site-specific management strategies to achieve those goals. All plans

should also include attainment of water quality standards for surface waters in the

management area. Because water quality standards are the foundation of EPA’s water
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-13

• Growth and propagation of fish

• Water contact recreation

• Drinking water

• Agricultural water supply

• Industrial supply

• Wildlife

• Swimming

quality protection efforts, this handbook includes a brief description of what they are

and how they’re used in watershed management programs.

2.5.1 What Are Water Quality Standards and Why Are They Important?

An important cornerstone of the Clean Water Act is the requirement that states,

tribes, and territories adopt water quality standards to protect public health, support

wildlife, and enhance the quality of life within their jurisdictions. Water quality

standards set the goals, pollution limits, and protection requirements for each

waterbody. Meeting these limits helps to ensure that waters will remain

useful to both humans and aquatic life. Standards also drive water

quality restoration activities because they help to determine which

waterbodies must be addressed, what level of restoration is required,

and which activities need to be modified to ensure that the waterbody

meets its minimum standards.

Standards are developed by designating one or more beneficial uses for

each waterbody, establishing a set of measurable criteria that protect

those uses, and implementing policies and procedures that keep higherquality waters from degrading.

2.5.2 How Are Water Quality Standards Set?

Water quality standards are composed of three elements:

• Designated (beneficial) uses

• Numeric and narrative criteria

• Antidegradation policies and procedures

Designated Uses

Designated or beneficial uses are descriptions of water quality

expectations or water quality goals. A designated use is a legally

recognized description of a desired use of the waterbody, such as aquatic

life support, body contact recreation, fish consumption, or public drinking

water supply. These are uses that the state or authorized tribe wants the

waterbody to be healthy enough to fully support.

The Clean Water Act requires that waterbodies attain or maintain the

water quality needed to support designated and existing uses. State and

tribal governments are primarily responsible for designating uses of

waterbodies within their jurisdictions. Some water quality agencies have

many use designations and differentiate among various categories of uses for aquatic

life support, irrigation, and even cultural uses for tribal waters. Other agencies
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-14 Draft

It’s important to note that numeric criteria

are invaluable when setting specific,

measurable goals for waterbody cleanup

plans because they provide a very clear

indication of when water quality meets the

criteria. However, federal, state, and tribal

numeric criteria development is complex

and expensive in terms of time and

resources. Narrative criteria provide a

means to convey the context, conditions,

and full intent of water quality protection

efforts in the absence of numeric criteria

development and monitoring efforts.

designate uses by broad categories or classes, with uses requiring similar water

quality conditions grouped under each class.

Criteria

Criteria define minimum conditions, pollutant limits, goals, and other requirements

that the waterbody must attain or maintain to support its designated use(s). Criteria

describe physical, chemical, and biological attributes or conditions as measurable

(e.g., parts per million of a certain chemical) or narrative (e.g., no

objectionable odors) water quality components. Together, the various

criteria for a particular designated use paint a picture of the water

quality necessary to support the use.

EPA and states establish water quality criteria for various waterbody

uses as part of their water quality standard programs. In general, states

and tribes must adopt the minimum federal criteria for uses such as

aquatic life support, human health, and contact recreation unless they

can demonstrate that site-specific, time-sensitive, or other criteria are

appropriate to reflect the unique conditions or uses of a waterbody.

Numeric Criteria

EPA, states, and tribes have set numeric criteria or limits for many

common water quality parameters, such as concentrations of bacteria,

suspended sediment, algae, dissolved metals, minimum/maximum

temperatures, and so on. Numeric criteria for protecting aquatic life are

often expressed as a concentration minimum or maximum for certain

parameters and include an averaging period and a frequency or recurrence interval.

For example, a criterion for a parameter of concern might state that concentrations of

the parameter must not exceed 5 parts per million, averaged from five samples

collected within a 30-day period, and recurring more than once in a 3-year period.

Criteria for protecting human health are derived from epidemiological studies and

laboratory studies of pollutant exposure involving species like rats and mice.

Numeric criteria established to prevent acute conditions are more strict than those

focusing on chronic exposure to parameters of concern.

Narrative Criteria

Narrative criteria are nonnumeric descriptions of desirable or undesirable water

quality conditions. An example of a narrative criterion is “All waters will be free

from sludge; floating debris; oil and scum; color- and odor-producing materials;

substances that are harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life; and nutrients in

concentrations that may cause algal blooms.”
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-15

(a) The State shall develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and

identify the methods for implementing such policy pursuant to this subpart.

The antidegradation policy and implementation methods shall, at a minimum,

be consistent with the following: 

(1) Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to

protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. 

(2) Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water,

that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after

full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation

provisions of the State's continuing planning process, that allowing lower

water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social

development in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing such

degradation or lower water quality, the State shall assure water quality

adequate to protect existing uses fully. Further, the State shall assure that

there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for

all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable

management practices for nonpoint source control. 

(3) Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource,

such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters

of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall

be maintained and protected. 

(4) In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated with

a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and implementing

method shall be consistent with section 316 of the Act. 

www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-D.htm

Biocriteria

A comprehensive assessment of a waterbody might include a description of its

biological characteristics. Biological criteria, or “biocriteria,” have been developed to

quantitatively describe a waterbody with a healthy community of fish and associated

aquatic organisms. Components of biocriteria include the presence and seasonality of

key indicator species; the abundance, diversity, and structure of the aquatic

community; and the habitat conditions required for these organisms. Monitoring of

these biological indicators provides a simple and often inexpensive way to screen

waters that are supporting their uses without a lot of expensive chemical and other

testing. In addition, biological assessments can capture the impacts of intense, shortterm pollution that might go undetected under conventional chemical testing. Even if

states have not yet adopted official biocriteria for their waters, biological sampling

can be an important part of watershed monitoring to show progress in meeting load

reductions and attaining narrative criteria.

Antidegradation

The antidegradation requirements cited in

federal, state, and tribal water quality

standards provide an excellent and widely

used approach for protecting waters

threatened by human activities that might

cause a lowering of water quality. Under

these provisions, which are required under

the Clean Water Act, a public agency

designated as the federally delegated water

quality authority must adopt both an

antidegradation policy and methods for

implementing the policy. The policy must

protect existing waterbody uses, i.e.,

ensure that water quality is sufficient to

meet narrative and numeric criteria for all

designated uses (Tier I). There are two

other parts or “tiers” of the antidegradation

policy. Under Tier II, waters that exceed

quality levels necessary to support existing

uses must be protected unless the

delegated water quality agency

(1) determines that there are important

economic or social justifications for

lowering water quality, and (2) meets

relevant public participation and

intergovernmental coordination provisions

of the state or tribal continuing planning
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-16 Draft

 Shows you where one or more of the nine

minimum elements are specifically discussed.

process. The antidegradation policy must also ensure that the quality of all

outstanding national resource waters is maintained and protected (Tier III).

Implementation methods or procedures for antidegradation policies generally include

antidegradation reviews for all new and expanded regulated activities that might

lower water quality, such as wastewater treatment, stormwater, CAFO, and other

effluent discharges subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits; activities governed by Clean Water Act section 404 “dredge and

fill” permits; and other activities regulated by federal, state, tribal, or other

authorities. In the past, permit approval processes for these activities mostly focused

on whether they would maintain water quality to meet existing uses, i.e., ensure that

water quality criteria were met (the Tier I level). However, the Tier II antidegradation

provisions require that higher-quality waters be protected unless there is a

demonstration of important economic or social development in the area in which the

waters are located, and public participation and intergovernmental coordination

requirements are met. States often include, as a part of the “Tier II” review,

requirements to examine possible alternatives to proposed activities that would lower

water quality, and an analysis of the costs associated with the alternatives.

KFor more in-depth descriptions of water quality standards and criteria, go to

www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/.

 2.6 Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed

Plan for Impaired Waters Funded Using Incremental

Section 319 Funds

Although many different components may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has

identified a minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in

water quality. (KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html for a copy of the FY

2004 Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and

Territories). 

EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for watershed

plans funded using incremental section 319 funds and strongly

recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans that

are intended to remediate water quality impairments. Figure 2-3

highlights where the nine elements fit into the overall watershed

planning process. Once the plan has been developed, plan sponsors

can select specific management actions included in the plan to develop work plans

for nonpoint source section 319 support and to apply for funding to implement those

actions (chapter 12).

The nine elements are provided below, listed in the order in which they appear in the

guidelines. Although they are listed as a through i, they do not necessarily take place
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-17

Figure 2-3. Incorporating the nine minimum elements into

your watershed plan.

sequentially. For example, element d asks

for a description of the technical and

financial assistance that will be needed to

implement the watershed plan, but this can

be done only after you have addressed

elements e and i.

Explanations are provided with each

element to show you what to include in

your watershed plan. In addition, chapters

where the specific element is discussed in

detail are referenced.

Nine Elements

a. Identification of causes of impairment

and pollutant sources or groups of similar

sources that need to be controlled to

achieve needed load reductions, and any

other goals identified in the watershed

plan. Sources that need to be controlled

should be identified at the significant

subcategory level along with estimates of

the extent to which they are present in the

watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle

feedlots needing upgrading, including a

rough estimate of the number of cattle per

facility; Y acres of row crops needing

improved nutrient management or

sediment control; or Z linear miles of

eroded streambank needing remediation).

(Chapters 5, 6, and 7.)

What does this mean? 

Your watershed plan should include a map of the watershed that locates the major

sources and causes of impairment. Based on these impairments, you will set goals

that will include (at a minimum) meeting the appropriate water quality standards for

pollutants that threaten or impair the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the

watershed covered in the plan.

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures. 

What does this mean?

You will first quantify the pollutant loads for the watershed. Based on these pollutant

loads, you’ll determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards.
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-18 Draft

You will then identify various management measures (see element c below) that will

help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a

result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in

precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time. 

Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope

component in paragraph a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle

feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks). For waters for which EPA has approved

or established TMDLs, the plan should identify and incorporate the TMDLs.

Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water delivered to

a downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the

pollutant of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for

reductions in pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL

as necessary to attain the applicable water quality standards. (Chapters 8 and 9.)

c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be

implemented to achieve load reductions in paragraph 2, and a description of the

critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

What does this mean?

The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to

achieve the load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any

additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan. It should also

identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the

plan. This can be done by using a map or a description. (Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.)

d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated

costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this

plan.

What does this mean?

You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the

entire plan. This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance

of management measures, I/E activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You

should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing

the plan. Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private

funds or resources that might be available to assist in implementing the plan.

Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed

in the plan. (Chapter 12.)

e. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of

the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting,

designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be

implemented.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Draft 2-19

What does this mean?

The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach

activities or actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may

support the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management

practices and support stakeholder involvement efforts. (Chapters 3 and 12.)

f. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in

this plan that is reasonably expeditious. 

What does this mean?

You need to include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined

in your watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g.

(Chapter 12.)

g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint

source management measures or other control actions are being implemented.

(Chapter 12.)

What does this mean?

You’ll develop interim, measurable milestones to measure progress in implementing

the management measures for your watershed plan. These milestones will measure

the implementation of the management measures, such as whether they are being

implemented on schedule, whereas element h (see below) will measure the

effectiveness of the management measures, for example, by documenting

improvements in water quality.

h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are

being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining

water quality standards.

What does this mean?

Using the milestones you developed above, you’ll develop a set of criteria (or

indicators) with interim target values to be used to determine whether progress is

being made toward reducing pollutant loads. These interim targets can be direct

measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load

reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You must also indicate how you’ll

determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not

met and what process will be used to revise the existing management approach.

Where a nonpoint source TMDL has been established, interim targets are also needed

to determine whether the TMDL needs to be revised. (Chapters 12 and 13.)

i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts

over time, measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above.
Chapter 2

Overview of Watershed

Planning Process

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

2-20 Draft

What does this mean? 

The watershed plan must include a monitoring component to determine whether

progress is being made toward attainment or maintenance of the applicable water

quality standards. The monitoring program must be fully integrated with the

established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring

component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being

achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is

being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of

multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have

to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly

relevant to the project. (Chapters 6, 12, and 13.)

The remainder of this handbook proceeds through the watershed planning process,

addressing these elements in detail to show you how to develop and implement

watershed plans that will achieve water quality and other environmental goals.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-1

3. Build Partnerships

Read this chapter if...

• You want to find out what kinds of stakeholders should be involved in the

development of your watershed plan

• You want to get stakeholders involved early in the process

• You don’t know what kinds of programs you should integrate into your planning

efforts

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Identifying driving forces 

< Identifying stakeholders

< Keeping stakeholders engaged

< Integrating with key local, state, tribal,

and federal programs

< Initiating outreach activities
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-2 Draft

3.1 Why Do I Need Partners?

Bringing together people, policies, priorities, and resources through a watershed

approach blends science and regulatory responsibilities with social and economic

considerations. The very nature of working at a watershed level means you should

work with at least one partner to improve watershed conditions. In addition,

watershed planning is often too complex and too expensive for one person or

organization to tackle alone. Weaving partners into the process can strengthen the

end result by bringing in new ideas and input and by increasing public understanding

of the problems and, more important, public commitment to

the solutions. Partnerships also help to identify and eliminate

redundant efforts. For example, a watershed organization

might be interested in developing a volunteer monitoring

program but is unaware that the local parks department is

working on a similar program. Researching and identifying

partners can help to avoid reinventing the wheel or wasting

time and money.

Budgets can be unpredictable, and resources for watershed

improvement efforts, such as fencing cows out of streams, are

limited. Resources like technical assistance, mapping abilities,

and funding are always strained, but working with partners

might provide some of the resources that can get your effort

closer to its goals more efficiently.

Before you begin to identify and recruit potential partners,

you should ask yourself, “Why are we developing a watershed plan?” To answer that

question, you should identify the driving forces behind the need for the watershed

plan.

3.2 Identify Driving Forces

Watershed plans can be initiated for various reasons and by various organizations.

For example, a local agency might want to develop a watershed plan to comply with

new federal and state water quality regulations. Or perhaps a watershed organization

wants to develop a watershed plan to help coordinate future land-use planning efforts

to protect sensitive environmental areas in the community. It’s important to identify

the driving forces that are motivating you to develop a watershed plan. These driving

forces will set the foundation for the development of your plan’s goals and

objectives. The typical watershed planning drivers are described below. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-3

3.2.1 Regulatory Issues

Water resource or other regulations sometimes require a planning or management

document that contains some or all of the elements required in a watershed plan.

Communities pursuing efficient, effective approaches to planning often initiate a

comprehensive watershed planning effort to streamline multiple planning tasks, such

as the following:

• Clean Water Act section 303(d) requirements for development

of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

• Clean Water Act section 319 grant requirements

• Federal and state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater permit regulations

• NPDES discharge permit requirements

• National Estuary Program (NEP) and coastal zone

conservation/management plan requirements

• Federal and state source water assessment and protection

program regulations

• Baseline and monitoring studies to implement federal and

state antidegradation policies

• Endangered Species Act requirements

3.2.2 Government Initiatives

Dozens of federal, state, and local initiatives target geographic areas like the

Chesapeake Bay or the Great Lakes, or attempt to focus on one aspect of a

management program, such as the following:

• EPA-supported, geographically targeted programs (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Great 

Lakes)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiatives (e.g., 2002 Farm Bill

program, Forest Service planning)

• Other federal water resource initiatives (e.g., those sponsored by the Bureau of

Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration)

• Stream or river restoration planning (e.g., by cities, counties, states)

• River authority and other state-enabled (or required) watershed planning

initiatives

• State initiatives like Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program or Michigan’s

Clean Michigan Initiative
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-4 Draft

The Pajarito Plateau Watershed Partnership (PPWP) began in 1998

in response to a draft watershed management plan prepared by the

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The development of LANL's

plan did not initially include the stakeholders in the hydrologic

watershed. Instead, the plan was for LANL's property. LANL decided

to work with the stakeholders, including tribes, Los Alamos County,

the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and others, to develop

a complete watershed plan. As the plan was developed, however,

the partnership began to have trouble keeping the group engaged.

Some stakeholders lost interest, and others limited their

participation. 

It wasn't until after a controlled burn went out of control in May 2000

and burned almost 50,000 acres of the watershed that the group

found a common purpose—post-fire rehabilitation. The group has

received section 319 grant money for rehabilitation activities, such as

seeding, reforestation, and trail maintenance, throughout the

watershed. A watershed assessment was completed, and the group

has shifted its focus to sediment erosion issues in one

subwatershed. KFor more information, see the PPWP Web site at

www.ppwatershed.org.

Before you start identifying stakeholders, find

out if your state has developed a watershed

planning guide. You might find useful

information that will help you to identify the relevant

stakeholders and programs for your watershed

planning effort.

3.2.3 Community-Driven Issues

Often the decision to develop a watershed plan

comes from within the community. People have a

desire to protect what they have or to restore

water resources for future generations. Some

compelling issues include the following:

• Flood protection

• Increased development pressures

• Recreation/aesthetics (e.g., river walks,

boating, fishing, swimming)

• Protection of high-quality streams or wetlands

• Post-disaster efforts

• Protection of drinking water sources

If you’re reading this document, you might be

part of the group that is leading the development

of a watershed plan. In general, the leader’s role

involves identifying and engaging other

stakeholders who should be participating in plan

development and implementation. Section 3.3

discusses the importance of stakeholder

involvement and provides some information on

how to identify and involve stakeholders.

3.3 Identify and Engage Relevant Stakeholders

Successful development and implementation of the watershed plan will depend

primarily on the commitment and involvement of community

members. Therefore, it is critical to build partnerships with key

interested parties at the outset of the watershed planning effort.

People and organizations that have a stake in the outcome of

the watershed plan are called stakeholders. Stakeholders are

defined as those who make and implement decisions, those

who are affected by the decisions made, and those who have

the ability to assist or impede implementation of the decisions.

It is essential that all of these categories of potential

stakeholders are identified and included, not just those who volunteer to participate.

Key stakeholders also include those who can contribute resources and assistance to

the watershed planning effort and those who are working on similar programs that

can be integrated into a larger effort. Keep in mind that stakeholders are more likely

to get involved if you can show them a clear benefit to their participation. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-5

The staff of the American Samoan Coastal Program

created a Religious Consciousness Project to help

spread the word about the islands' environmental

problems. For years, program staff had tried

unsuccessfully to get village mayors involved in efforts

to protect coastal water resources. Through the project,

program staff offered to present information on water

quality, population growth, and nonpoint source

pollution during church gatherings. As a result of the

church partnership, a village mayors workshop was

held, ultimately leading to the start of a new water

3.3.1 Identify Categories of Stakeholders

It is daunting to try to identify all the players that could be involved in the watershed

planning effort. The makeup of the stakeholder group will

depend on the size of the watershed (to ensure adequate

geographic representation), as well as the key issues or

concerns. In general, there are at least five categories of

participants to consider when identifying stakeholders:

• Stakeholders that will be responsible for implementing the

watershed plan

• Stakeholders that will be affected by implementation of

the watershed plan

• Stakeholders that can provide information on the issues

and concerns in the watershed

• Stakeholders that have knowledge of existing programs or

plans that you might want to integrate into your plan

• Stakeholders that can provide technical and financial

assistance in developing and implementing the plan

As a starting point, consider involving these entities: 

• Landowners 

• County or regional representatives

• Local municipal representatives

• State and federal agencies

• American Indian tribes

• Business and industry representatives

• Citizen groups

• Community service organizations

• Religious organizations

• Universities, colleges, and schools

• Environmental and conservation groups

• Soil and water conservation districts

• Irrigation districts

The development of the stakeholder group is an

iterative process. Don’t worry about whether you have

complete representation at the outset. Once the

stakeholders convene, you can ask them if there are any gaps in representation.

KSection 3.4 provides more detailed information on possible local, state, tribal, and

federal program partners that you might want to include in your stakeholder group.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-6 Draft

Ohio has adopted a program philosophy that strong and

effective local watershed stakeholder groups are necessary

to develop and implement integrated watershed plans.

According to Ohio, the key to watershed organization

capacity-building is active stakeholders that provide

technical knowledge, financial ability, networking ability,

organizational skills, and legitimacy (decisionmakers with

the authority to implement and support problem and solution

statements and recommended action items). 

Additional information about Ohio’s philosophy for strong

and effective watershed groups is available at

www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/NPSMP/WAP/

WAPccsustainable.html.

3.3.2 Determine Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities

Before contacting potential stakeholders, you should ask yourself the following

questions and have at least a rough idea of the answers. This exercise will help you to

determine the level of effort needed for the stakeholder process and will provide

initial guidance to stakeholders.

• What is the role of the stakeholders?

• How will decisions be made? 

• Are stakeholders expected to develop any work products?

• What is the estimated time commitment for participation?

Begin by contacting the people and organizations that have an interest in water

quality or might become partners that can assist you with the watershed planning

process. Consider who would be the most appropriate person to contact the potential

partner. Those who might have a stake in the watershed plan should be encouraged to

share their concerns and offer suggestions for possible solutions. By involving

stakeholders in the initial stages of project development, you’ll increase the

probability of long-term success through trust, commitment, and personal investment.

3.3.3 Provide a Structure to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation

Once you’ve identified and contacted relevant

stakeholders, you’ll organize them to help prepare and

implement a watershed plan. Stakeholder groups range

from informal, ad hoc groups to highly organized

committees. The method you choose will likely depend

on the makeup of the stakeholders willing to participate,

the time and financial resources available, and your

capabilities with respect to facilitating the plan

development effort. The following examples provide

some indication of the range of options available for

stakeholder participation:

Decisionmakers. The governing boards of some state

river authorities require representation from a broad array

of public agencies and private entities, including business

interests, recreational organizations, and environmental

groups. Giving decisionmaking power to stakeholders

often increases the amount of analysis and time needed to

make decisions, but it can provide a venue for generating
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-7

KTo find more detailed information on forming

watershed stakeholder groups, keeping a group

motivated, conducting outreach, resolving conflict, and

making decisions using consensus, download a pdf

version of Getting In Step: Engaging and Involving

Stakeholders in Your Watershed from

www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents.

KThe Center for Technology Information Center (CTIC)

has developed a series of documents to help you know

your watershed. This information clearinghouse for

watershed coordinators helps to ensure measurable

progress toward local goals. The clearinghouse is

available at www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW.

O WORKSHEET 3-1

Skills in Stakeholder Group

• Accounting

• Graphic design

• Computer support

• Fund-raising

• Public relations

• Technical expertise (e.g., geographic

information systems, water sampling)

• Facilitation

Resources Available

• Contacts with media

• Access to volunteers

• Access to datasets

• Connections to local organizations

• Access to meeting facilities 

• Access to equipment (please describe)

• Access to field trip locations

needed support and resources for watershed planning and

management activities.

Advisors. Many watershed planning initiatives involve stakeholders

as part of a steering committee or advisory group. Although

stakeholders do not have the power to make and enforce decisions,

they can create momentum and support for moving the process

forward in the directions they choose if they are somewhat united

and cooperative in their approach.

Supporters. Sometimes stakeholders are invited to participate

because of their ability to provide technical, financial, or other

support to the watershed planning process. Under this approach,

watershed planners will seek out stakeholders that have assessment

data, access to monitoring or project volunteers, educational or

outreach networks, or other assets that can be used to enhance the

watershed plan. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

might be invited to provide water quality monitoring data, such as

flow data from the many gauging stations across the country.

3.3.4 Identify Stakeholders’ Skills and Resources

For the group of stakeholders that have agreed to participate in the

planning effort, determine what resources and skills are collectively

available to support the planning phases. Stakeholders might have

access to datasets, funding sources, volunteers, specialized technical

expertise, and communication vehicles. Use O Worksheet 3-1 to

determine your stakeholders’ skills and resources. KA fullsize worksheet is provided in appendix B.

3.3.5 Encourage Participation and Involvement

As stakeholders begin to show an interest, you will likely

note that the type and degree of effort that individuals or

organizations are willing to put forth will vary. Some

stakeholders will want to be directly involved in the detailed

technical process of planning, whereas others will simply

want to be periodically updated on progress and asked for

feedback. Still others won’t want to plan at all, but instead

will want to know what they can do now to take actions that

will make a difference. In other words, you will likely be

faced with managing planners, advisors, doers, and watchers.

A key step, therefore, will involve organizing the effort to
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-8 Draft

At Home

• Reading brochures

• Visiting a Web site

• Completing a survey

• Adopting practices that conserve water and protect

water quality at home or at work 

Out in the Community

• Management practice tours and watershed fairs 

• Coffee shop discussions

• Educational presentations

Action-oriented Activities

• Storm drain stenciling

• Volunteer monitoring

• Stream cleanups

At the first stakeholder meeting, give each person a blank sheet of paper. Tell

everyone to “draw a map of your community.” Many will want more guidance on

what to do, but just repeat the initial instructions.

When the participants are finished, ask them to exchange papers with each other.

Then ask the group the following questions:

• What does this map tell you about this person’s community?

• What appears to be the “center” of the community? What are its boundaries?

• What does this map suggest about this person’s perception of the

environmental character of the community?

• Who included people, water resources, roads, trees, administrative buildings?

This exercise helps the stakeholders to get to know each other and to start getting

a feeling of their values and how they use the resources in the community.

—Adapted from KCommunity and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a

help stakeholders plug in at the level that is most comfortable

for them and taps their strengths.

If you’re not talking about issues that are important to the

stakeholders, they’ll be less likely to participate in the process.

Here are some tips to remember when working with

stakeholders to help ensure their long-term participation and

support.

Focus on issues important to the stakeholders. If they can’t

see how their issues will be addressed in the watershed plan,

you need to change the plan or clearly show them where their

issues are addressed.

Be honest. Much of the process is about trust, and to build

trust you must be honest with the stakeholders. That’s why

it’s important to tell them how decisions will be made. If their

role is advisory, that’s OK, but they should know up front that

they will not be involved in the decisionmaking process. 

Start early. Involve stakeholders as soon as possible in the

watershed planning process. This approach also helps to build

trust by showing them that you have not developed a draft document and just want

them to review it. They will help to shape goals, identify problems, and develop

possible management strategies for the watershed.

Recognize differences early in the

process. It’s OK if everyone does not

agree on various issues. For example,

not all data compiled by some

stakeholders, such as tribes, will be

shared with a group if there are

cultural concerns to be considered. If

you ignore these differences, you’ll

lose credibility and any trust that the

stakeholders had in the process.

Communicate clearly and often.

The watershed planning process is

long and complex. Don’t leave

stakeholders behind by failing to

communicate with them using terms

familiar to them. Regular

communication and updates can be

done through Web sites, newsletters,
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-9

fact sheets, and newspaper inserts. Also remember that sometimes it will take time

before reluctant stakeholders come to the table, so you need to have a means of

communicating with them and keeping them up-to-date. When they do decide to

participate in the process, they’ll already be well informed.

3.3.6 Initiate Outreach Activities to Build Awareness and Gain Partners

Information/education (I/E) activities are key to building support for the watershed

planning effort as well as helping to implement the plan. I/E activities (also called

outreach) are needed at the very beginning of the watershed planning effort to make

potential partners and stakeholders aware of the issues, recruit them to participate,

and educate them on the watershed planning process. Often a separate outreach and

education committee is created under the umbrella of the watershed planning team.

This committee can help develop related materials and a strategy for integrating I/E

into the overall watershed planning effort. Eventually, outreach will be most

successful if individual stakeholders reach out to their constituents or peer groups

about actions that need to be taken to improve and maintain water quality. The

education committee can help support this effort by developing materials for

stakeholders to use to educate their constituents. KChapter 12 provides more detail

on the I/E component.

Developing and distributing effective messages through outreach materials and

activities is one the most important components of getting partners and stakeholders

engaged in the watershed planning and implementation processes. Outreach materials

and activities should be designed to raise public awareness, educate people on wise

management practices, and motivate people to participate in the decisionmaking

process or in the implementation of actions to restore and protect water quality. To

achieve these objectives, you should communicate effectively with a wide range of

audiences or groups. At the outset of your watershed planning effort, you might

consider developing an informational brochure and a slide presentation for your

stakeholder group that explains current issues in the watershed and the need to

develop a watershed plan. Once the stakeholder group convenes, it can tailor these

materials and determine the preferred formats for disseminating information to

various audiences. Remember that your I/E activities should be targeted to specific

audiences and will change over time as you develop and implement your watershed

plan.

Watershed plan organizers might need to sponsor a broad spectrum of activities to

engage and involve most of the stakeholders effectively. People differ widely in how

much time and energy they’re willing to expend on community-based activities.

Some people might want simply to be informed about what’s going on in their

community, whereas others might want a voice in the management decisions made

and how they’re implemented. By offering many different types of participation

opportunities that involve varying levels of effort, the program is likely to attract

more willing participants.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-10 Draft

• Stormwater management programs

• Parks and recreation departments

• Local elected officials and councils

• Planning and zoning programs

• Soil and water conservation districts

• Cooperative extension

• Solid waste programs

3.4 Integrate Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Programs into

Your Watershed Planning Effort

Because the development and implementation of watershed plans will most likely

involve a combination of at least some local, state, tribal, and federal partners, it’s

important to identify any potential programs and activities that

might be relevant to your watershed planning effort and

determine whether representatives from these programs should

participate in your stakeholder group. Many such programs

have planning components, collect monitoring data, implement

controls, or develop regulations that you might want to

incorporate into your watershed plan. In addition, some states

have developed multiagency partnerships for the support of

monitoring and management practice implementation, which

local groups can access. Including partners from these

organizations in the watershed management process can help to

ensure that any available datasets are identified and that any

potential funding opportunities are noted.

The various local, state, tribal, and federal programs that might

provide personnel and resources to strengthen your stakeholder group, as well as

technical assistance in the development of your watershed plan, are briefly described

below. KChapter 5 provides more detail on specific datasets that might be available

from these programs.

You’re not expected to involve all of these programs, but you should be aware of

them if they address issues and concerns that are

important to your planning effort.

7 Start at the local level and then broaden your

search to include state and tribal programs. Then

research which federal programs are relevant to

your watershed planning effort. Most likely, the

federal programs will already be represented to

some extent at the state level. If these programs

exist at both the state and local levels, they are

included here under the Local Programs heading

because the local offices probably have the

information most relevant to your watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-11

3.4.1 Local Programs

Because implementation of the watershed plan will largely rest with local

communities, it’s critical that they be involved from the beginning. They usually

have the most to gain by participating and the most up-to-date information on the

structure of the community. In addition, some of the most powerful tools for

watershed implementation, such as zoning and regional planning, reside at the local

level. “Local” might mean city, county, or township; some states have all three. It’s

important to learn how the various local governments assign responsibility for

environmental protection.

Local Elected Officials

Local elected officials and local agency staff should be closely involved in the plan

development and implementation process. Although responsibilities vary among

localities, most local government officials are responsible for establishing priorities

for local programs and services, establishing legislative and administrative policies

through the adoption of ordinances and resolutions, establishing the annual budget,

appropriating funds, and setting tax rates. There are also opportunities to make others

aware of the watershed management planning process through local government

newsletters and presentations at board meetings, which are often televised on local

cable television networks.

Local Cooperative Extension Offices

The county cooperative extension offices are part of a state cooperative extension

network run through academic institutions. Extension agents conduct research,

develop educational programs, and provide technical assistance on a broad range of

problems from traditional agricultural management and production issues to farm

business management, soil and water conservation, land and water quality, the safe

use of pesticides, integrated pest management, nutrient management, models, forestry

and wildlife, and commercial and consumer horticulture. KA link to local extension

offices is available from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service at www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html.

Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Most rural counties have local soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs),

sometimes referred to simply as conservation districts. These districts are established

to provide leadership, technical assistance, information, and education to the counties

on proper soil stewardship, agricultural conservation methods, water quality

protection, nonpoint source pollution, streambank stabilization, stream health,

conservation planning (e.g., developing conservation plans), and various other topics

related to watershed planning. Local SWCDs also offer volunteer opportunities for

citizens, and they can often provide topographic, aerial, and floodplain maps;
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-12 Draft

established erosion and sediment control programs; educational programs;

information on the installation and maintenance of management practices; and

financial assistance for installing management practices. KGo to www.nacdnet.org

for a directory of all SWCD locations.

Parks and Recreation Department

Local parks and recreation departments are responsible for maintaining recreational

facilities and parks in a locality. They manage recreational facilities such as boat

ramps, nature trails, and swimming pools. They often have support groups that focus

on a particular park or topic, such as the development of trails or bird-watching

activities. These groups can provide insight as to the values of the community in

terms of natural resources.

Planning and Zoning Programs

Among the most effective tools available to communities to manage their water

resources are planning and zoning. For example, local or regional planning and

zoning programs can play a particularly significant role in establishing critical

watershed protection areas through overlay zoning; identifying critical water resource

areas (e.g., wetlands, springs); and designating protective vegetated buffer areas.

Professionals in these local programs can provide valuable information on the

economic development plans of the region and help to identify current policies to

manage growth. The zoning programs are usually linked to a community’s overall

master plan, so be sure to obtain a copy of the master plan. 

Be sure to use local resources to find helpful information about planning and zoning

programs for your community. KChapter 5 provides information on developing

ordinances as part of your management program, including model language, and

information included in master plans.

Regional Planning Councils

Many urban areas have regional councils represented by the participating local

governments. These organizations focus on various issues, such as land use planning

and the environment. For example, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

represents seven counties, and staff work to support local environmental planning

initiatives like watershed management. Kwww.semcog.org. These organizations can

provide valuable resources and expertise useful in your watershed planning effort.

Solid Waste Programs

Many local governments have solid waste programs that address the disposal of solid

waste and yard waste. They might also handle the recycling, illegal dumping, and

household hazardous waste programs that you might want to incorporate into your

outreach activities during the plan implementation phase.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-13

Stormwater Management Programs

The NPDES stormwater permitting program for Phase I and Phase II cities provides

one of the most direct links between local government activities and watershed

planning/management. Under the stormwater program, communities must comply

with permit requirements for identifying and addressing water quality problems

caused by polluted urban runoff from sources such as streets and parking lots,

construction sites, and outfall pipes. Watershed planning programs can provide

important guidance to constituent cities on what types of pollutants or stressors need

to be addressed by their stormwater programs, what resources are available, and what

other cities are doing. KAdditional information about the two phases of the NPDES

stormwater program is available at

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphases.cfm.

Volunteer Monitoring Programs

Across the country, volunteers monitor the condition of streams, rivers, lakes,

reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and wells. Volunteer monitoring

programs are organized and supported in many different ways. Projects might be

entirely independent or associated with state, interstate, local, or federal agencies;

environmental organizations; or schools and universities. If there is an active

volunteer monitoring program in your community, it can be a valuable resource in

terms of data collection and a means to educate others about watershed issues and

concerns. To find out if your community has a volunteer monitoring program, refer

to KEPA’s Directory of Environmental Monitoring Programs at

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer.

Water and Sewer Programs

Most local governments provide water supply and wastewater treatment services for

residents. They can help determine whether there are source water protection areas in

the watershed and locate water supply and wastewater discharges. They might have a

water conservation program that you could incorporate into your watershed outreach

program.

Watershed Organizations

Across the country there are thousands of watershed organizations, which have

varying levels of expertise and involvement. These organizations will be a valuable

resource in your watershed planning efforts if you can harness their members for

problem identification, goal setting, and implementation of the watershed plan. If

you’re not sure about the organizations in your community, start by looking at

KEPA’s database of watershed organizations at www.epa.gov/adopt/network.html.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-14 Draft

• Statewide watershed or basin planning

frameworks

• State water protection initiatives

• Coastal zone management programs

• Source water assessment and

protection programs

• State cooperative extension programs 

3.4.2 State and Regional Programs

Most watershed groups draw on local organizations and resources to

develop and implement their projects, and some have effectively

involved state programs in their efforts. In states that have adopted a

statewide watershed management framework, watershed plans should be

integrated into the larger watershed or basin plans sponsored under the

state framework. Likewise, nonpoint source work plans for local or sitelevel projects funded under section 319 must be derived from the

applicable watershed plan. In cases where there are no larger basin or

subbasin plans, the plan under consideration should seek to integrate the

full range of stressors, sources, and stakeholders that are likely to emerge

as important during or after the planning and implementation process.

The following are some key state and regional programs and resources that can also

be tapped to develop and implement watershed plans.

Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

State and local drinking water utilities develop SWAP programs under the 1996

amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect sources of drinking water,

including ground water sources. Many of these waters are affected by nonpoint

source pollution. SWAP assessments delineate protection areas for the source waters

of public drinking water supplies, identify potential sources of contaminants within

the areas, determine the susceptibility of the water supplies to contamination from

these potential sources, and make the results of the assessments available to the

public. Partnering with state SWAP programs and local drinking water utilities to

develop joint watershed assessments provides an excellent opportunity for both

watershed groups and utilities to pool funds, produce better assessments, and

consider surface water and groundwater interactions. KFor a list of state source

water protection contacts, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/source/contacts.html.

State and Interstate Water Commissions

Several interstate water commissions, such as the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

Commission (ORSANCO) and the New England Interstate Pollution Control

Commission (NEIPCC), address both water quality and water quantity issues. The

Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators

(ASIWPCA) is a national organization representing the officials responsible for

implementing surface water protection programs throughout the nation. KFor a

listing of state, tribal, and interstate water agencies, go to www.asiwpca.org and click

on the links.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-15

State Coastal Zone Management Programs

These programs address nonpoint source pollution under section 6217 of the Coastal

Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). These programs can

provide a venue for developing or consolidating watershed plans in coastal areas.

Under CZARA, states are required to identify and adopt management measures to

prevent and control nonpoint source pollution, ensure that enforceable mechanisms

exist, enhance cooperation among land and water use agencies, identify land uses that

might cause degradation of coastal waters, identify and protect “critical coastal

areas,” provide technical assistance, provide opportunities for public participation,

and establish a monitoring program to determine the extent and success of

management measure implementation. Projects within the approved 6217

management area will use the EPA management measures guidance to provide

planning objectives for sources covered in the 6217 program. KCoastal zone

management measures guidance documents are available at

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.

State Departments of Transportation

In recent years state DOTs have placed new emphasis on environmental performance

related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities. In the past DOTs

focused mainly on environmental compliance, but agencies across the country now

take a more holistic approach to meeting environmental stewardship goals.

Incorporating stewardship priorities into construction and maintenance helps DOTs

achieve continuous improvement in environmental performance.

State Fish and Wildlife Programs

Most states have agencies responsible for issuing hunting and fishing permits,

maintaining wildlife protection areas, protecting and managing wetlands, and

protecting threatened and endangered species. These agencies develop management

plans for invasive species control, wildlife management, and habitat protection. They

often have very active volunteer programs that you might be able to access to help

identify community values and concerns and to help with locating key datasets as

part of the characterization process.

State Health Departments

Many state health departments have an environmental health division that manages

information on source water protection programs, septic system management

programs, well testing and monitoring, and animal feeding operation permits. Some

state programs provide online information and maps with fish consumption

guidelines instituted because of pollutant (often mercury) contamination.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-16 Draft

Refer to A Guide for Local Governments:

Wetlands and Watershed Management, which

was developed by the Institute for Wetland

Science and Public Policy of the Association of

State Wetland Managers. The document

provides recommendations for integrating

wetlands into broad watershed management

efforts and more specific water programs.

Kwww.aswm.org/propub/pubs/aswm

wetlandswatershed.pdf.

State Nonpoint Source Programs

State nonpoint source programs help local governments, nonprofit entities, and

numerous other state, federal, and local partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution

statewide. State nonpoint source programs provide technical assistance, as well as

funding sources, to develop watershed management plans to implement nonpoint

source activities. KA directory of state nonpoint source coordinators is available at

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts.html.

State Water Protection Initiatives

Many states have initiated statewide or region-specific watershed management

programs or have aligned management and water quality monitoring activities around

a watershed framework. You should coordinate with these programs and try to

integrate their framework with your goals and objectives; they should be aware of

your watershed planning issues and concerns. For example, Minnesota’s Adopt-aRiver program encourages Minnesota volunteers to “adopt” a section of a lake, river,

wetland, or ravine to ensure its long-term health through annual cleanups. To find out

whether your state has any of these initiatives, go to the environmental department

section of your state’s Web site (e.g., Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental

Protection).

State Wetland Programs

Many states and counties have developed wetland protection

programs. These programs offer a variety of services, including

developing educational and training materials, working to reduce loss

of wetlands, providing landowners with the tools and means to

manage wetlands on their property, and coordinating monitoring of

wetlands. Some programs propose the use of grants to help share the

costs of wetland restoration and help reduce taxes on wetland

property and other conservation lands. Some states, such as

Wisconsin, require decisions on federal wetland permits to meet state

wetland water quality standards.

Regional Geographic Watershed Initiatives

In addition to statewide watershed protection programs, there are several large-scale

initiatives that focus on specific regions of the country. These programs collect

substantial data that you might use to help characterize your watershed. The

programs include the following.

The Columbia River Initiative is a proposed water management program for the

Columbia River. In 2004 the former Governor of Washington (Gary Locke) proposed

this program to allow the basin's economy to grow and maintain a healthy watershed.

The program would offer a plan to secure water for new municipal, industrial, and
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-17

irrigation uses and to improve stream flows for fish. The proposal also provides for

funding. Work on the Columbia River Initiative is on hold until further review by the

legislature. For more information on the Columbia River Initiative, visit

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cri/crihome.html.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership that has directed the

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. Partners of the program include the

states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the

Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; EPA representing the

federal government; and participating citizen advisory groups. An overview of the

Chesapeake Bay Program is available at www.chesapeakebay.net/overview.htm. For

additional information about the program, visit www.chesapeakebay.net.

Since 1970 much has been done to restore and protect the Great Lakes. Although

there has been significant progress, cleaning up the lakes and preventing further

problems has not always been coordinated. As a result, in May 2004 President Bush

created a cabinet-level interagency task force and called for a “regional collaboration

of national significance.” After extensive discussions, the group now known as the

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was convened. The Collaboration includes the

EPA-led federal agency task force, the Great Lakes states, local communities, tribes,

non-governmental organizations, and other interests in the Great Lakes region. The

Collaboration has two components: the conveners (mostly elected local and regional

officials) and the issue area strategy teams. The ambitious first goal of the

Collaboration is to create within 1 year a workable strategy to restore and protect the

Great Lakes. More information about the Regional Collaboration is available at

www.epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration.

Another collaborative effort for the Great Lakes is the Great Lakes Initiative, which

is a plan agreed upon by EPA and the Great Lake states to restore the health of the

Great Lakes. Also called the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes

System, the Great Lakes Initiative started in 1995 to provide criteria for the states’

use in setting water quality standards. The plan addresses 29 pollutants and prohibits

mixing zones for bioaccumulative chemical of concern. For more information on the

Great Lakes Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/waterscience/gli.

3.4.3 Tribal Programs and Organizations

If your watershed planning effort includes, or might affect, tribal lands or waters, or

if you are a member of a tribe and are developing a watershed management plan, you

should be aware of the various policies and initiatives regarding Indian Country.

There are currently 562 federally recognized tribes. The sovereign status of American

Indian tribes and special provisions of law set American Indians apart from all other

U.S. populations and define a special level of federal agency responsibility. The

Bureau of Indian Affairs administers and manages 55.7 million acres of land held in
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-18 Draft

trust by the United States for American Indians and Alaska Natives. KFor more

information go to www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.

In addition, EPA’s American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) coordinates the

Agency-wide effort to strengthen public health and environmental protection in

Indian Country, with a special emphasis on building the capabilities of tribes so they

can administer their own environmental programs. The AIEO provides contact

information for all federally recognized tribal governments, maintains a list of tribes

that have developed water quality standards, and provides lists of resources. KGo to

www.epa.gov/indian for more information.

EPA’s Tribal Nonpoint Source Program provides information on techniques and

grant funding for tribes to address nonpoint source pollution. The program’s Web site

(www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal.html) includes guidelines for awarding section 319

grants to American Indian tribes, as well as the Tribal Nonpoint Source Planning

Handbook. EPA also conducts training workshops for tribes interested in becoming

involved in tribal nonpoint source programs and obtaining funding. 

3.4.4 Federal Programs and Organizations

Various federal programs and agencies are involved in watershed protection activities

like data collection, regulation development, technical oversight, and public

education. In addition, federal land and resource management agencies sponsor or

participate in watershed planning and management processes.

Most federal agencies have regional or state liaisons to help administer their

programs. For example, EPA divides the country into 10 regions. Each region is

responsible for selected states and tribes and provides assistance for all of its

programs. KTo find the EPA regional office associated with your watershed, go to

www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm and click on a region.

Abandoned Mines Programs

The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of Surface Mining (OSM) works with

states and tribes to protect citizens and the environment during mining and

reclamation activities. OSM manages the Clean Streams Program, which is a broadbased citizen/industry/government program working to eliminate acid mine drainage

from abandoned coal mines. If your watershed includes abandoned mines, contact

OSM. KFor more information on the Clean Streams Program, go to

www.osmre.gov/acsihome.htm.

Agricultural Conservation Programs

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is an important partner for

many water resource projects. It provides valuable support for funding the
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-19

implementation of agricultural management practices, wetland restoration, land

retirement, and other projects associated with watershed plans. NRCS has local

offices established through partnerships with local conservation districts. KGo to

www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/organization/regions.html#regions to find state and local

contact information.

As part of its watershed protection effort, NRCS administers the USDA Watershed

Program (under Public Law 83-566). The purpose of the program is to assist federal,

state, and local agencies; local government sponsors; tribal governments; and other

program participants in protecting watersheds from damage caused by erosion,

floodwater, and sediment; restoring damaged watersheds; conserving and developing

water and land resources; and solving natural resource and related economic

problems on a watershed basis. The program provides technical and financial

assistance to local people or project sponsors, builds partnerships, and requires local

and state funding contributions. KFor more information on this program, go to

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed.

Agricultural Support Programs

USDA’s Farm Services Agency (FSA) has several programs that support watershed

protection and restoration efforts. Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

farmers receive annual rental payments, cost sharing, and technical assistance to plant

vegetation for land they put into reserve for 10 to 15 years. The Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) targets state and federal funds to achieve

shared environmental goals of national and state significance. The program uses

financial incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily protect soil,

water, and wildlife resources. The Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) uses 30-year

easements and rental agreements to improve management of, restore, or conserve up

to 2 million acres of private grasslands. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is

a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the

conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and

other conservation purposes on tribal and private working lands. KFor more

information about FSA, go to www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp. KFor more

information on other conservation programs, go to www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs.

Coastal Programs

The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 by amendments to the

Clean Water Act that seek to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant

estuaries of the United States. There are currently 28 active NEPs along the nation’s

coasts. NEP programs have identified a number of nonpoint source stressors as

sources of estuary degradation, and they can provide valuable assistance in working

with local governments and other partners to develop and implement watershed

plans. KTo find out if your watershed is in an NEP-designated area, go to

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-20 Draft

Federal Transportation Programs

Two offices in the Federal Highway Administration, a part of the U.S. Department of

Transportation, focus on environmental protection and enhancement—the Office of

Natural and Human Environment and the Office of Project Development and

Environmental Review. Kwww.fhwa.dot.gov.

Natural Resources

The USGS maintains vast resources of information on physical processes and

features such as soil and mineral resources, surface and ground water resources,

topographic maps, and water quality monitoring programs. Regardless of whether

you include representatives from USGS in your stakeholder group, USGS will most

likely be a valuable resource in the characterization phase. KGo to www.usgs.gov to

find state contacts. 

Public Lands Management

The Forest Service, an agency within USDA, manages the 195 million acres of public

lands in national forests and grasslands. Each national forest and grassland in the

United States has its own management plan. The plans establish the desired future

condition for the land and resources and set broad, general direction for management.

Most plans for the national forests were approved in the 1980s, and, by law, national

forests revise their plans every 15 years or sooner. KYou can reach your local Forest

Service managers and their resource staff through the Forest Service Web site at

www.fs.fed.us. DOI’s Bureau of Land Management manages 261 million surface

acres of America’s public lands, primarily in 12 western states. KFor more

information go to www.blm.gov.

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection Programs

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration jointly administer the federal Endangered Species Act. USFWS has a

program called Endangered Species Program Partners, which features formal or

informal partnerships for protecting endangered and threatened species and helping

them to recover. These partnerships include federal partners as well as states, tribes,

local governments, nonprofit organizations, and individual landowners. KGo to

http://endangered.fws.gov/partners.html.

Water Quantity Issues

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is a water management agency within DOI that

works with western states, American Indian tribes, and others to meet new water

needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. If your

watershed planning effort is in one of these states and water quantity is likely to be a

key issue, consider involving BOR. KFor more information go to www.usbr.gov.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Draft 3-21

Wetland Protection Programs

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the dredging and filling of wetlands.

This program is jointly administered by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In addition, USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource

agencies have important advisory roles. If your watershed includes wetlands, you

might want to contact representatives from one of these agencies to identify what

management programs exist or what data are available. KGo to

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands for links to laws, regulations, guidance, and scientific

documents addressing wetlands; state, tribal, and local initiatives; landowner

assistance and stewardship; water quality standards and section 401 certification for

wetlands; monitoring and assessment; wetlands and watershed planning; restoration;

education; and information about wetland programs across the country.

Advance Identification (ADID) and Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are

two types of wetland/watershed planning efforts that EPA and other stakeholders use

to enhance wetland protection activities. ADID is a process that involves collecting

and distributing information on the values and functions of wetland areas so that

communities can better understand and protect the wetlands in their areas. EPA

conducts the process in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in

consultation with states or tribes. Because ADID efforts are usually based on

watershed planning, they are extremely compatible with geographic and ecosystem

initiatives like the watershed approach.

SAMPs are developed to analyze potential impacts at the watershed scale, to identify

priority areas for preservation and potential restoration areas, and to determine the

least environmentally damaging locations for proposed projects. SAMPs are designed

to be conducted in geographic areas of special sensitivity under intense development

pressure. These efforts require the participation of multiple local, state, and federal

agencies. The Corps of Engineers initiated the development of SAMPs and works

with EPA. KTo find out if a SAMP has been conducted in your watershed, go to

www.spl.usace.army.mil/samp/samp.htm.
Chapter 3

Build Partnerships

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

3-22 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-1

4. Define Scope of

Watershed Planning Effort

Read this chapter if...

• You want to engage stakeholders in identifying issues of concern

• You want to take stakeholders out into the watershed

• You want to develop a conceptual model that links sources of pollution to

impairments

• You’re unsure of the extent of the watershed boundaries for your project

• You want to develop preliminary goals for the watershed plan

• You want to select indicators that will be used to assess current environmental

conditions in the watershed

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Identifying issues of concern

< Using conceptual models

< Setting preliminary goals

< Developing quantitative indicators
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-2 Draft

4.1 Why Define the Scope of Your Watershed Planning Effort?

To ensure that your watershed planning effort remains focused, effective, and

efficient, defining the scope of the effort is critical. The term scope is used to

describe the boundaries of a program or project, which can be defined in terms of

space (the area included in the watershed plan) or other parameters. This handbook

defines the scope of your watershed planning effort as not only the geographic area to

be addressed but also the number of issues of concern and the types (and breadth) of

the goals you want to attain. If your scope is too broad, it will be difficult to “keep it

all together” and make the best use of your financial and human resources as you

develop and implement the watershed plan. It might also hamper your ability to

conduct detailed analyses or minimize the probability of involvement by key

stakeholders and, ultimately, successful plan implementation. A scope that is too

narrow, however, might preclude the opportunity to address watershed stressors in a

rational, efficient, and economical manner. If you define your scope and set

preliminary goals early in the planning process, you’ll find it easier to work through

the later steps in the process.

The issues in your watershed and the geographic scope will also affect the temporal

scope of the implementation of the watershed plan. Although there are no hard and

fast rules, watershed plans are typically written for a time span of 5 to 10 years. Even

if you do not achieve your watershed goals in 10 years, much of the information

might become out-of-date, and you’ll probably want to update the watershed plan.

The stakeholders will provide critical input into the watershed planning process that

will help identify issues of concern, develop goals, and propose management

strategies for implementation. Information from the stakeholders will help shape the

scope of your watershed planning effort.

4.2 Ask Stakeholders for Background Information

The stakeholders will likely be a source of vast historical knowledge of activities that

have taken place in the watershed. Ask them for any information they might have on

the watershed, including personal knowledge of waste sites, unmapped mine works,

eroding banks, and so on. They might have information on historical dump sites,

contaminated areas, places experiencing excessive erosion, and even localized water

quality sampling data. Stakeholders might be aware of existing plans, such as

wellhead or source water protection plans. 7 Collecting this background information

will help focus your efforts to identify the issues of concerns and solutions. Use

OWorksheet 4-1 to work with your stakeholders to determine what information is

already available. A blank copy of the worksheet is provided in appendix B.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-3

O

[Hand out to stakeholders at the beginning of a meeting, or use as a guide to work through each question as a group]

1. What are the known or perceived impairments and problems in the watershed? 

2. Do we already know the causes and sources of any water quality impairments in the watershed? If so, what are they?

3. What information is already available, and what analyses have been performed to support development of a TMDL,

watershed plan, or other document?

4. Have the relative contributions from major types of sources of the pollutant or stressor causing impairment been

estimated?

5. Are there any historical or ongoing management efforts aimed at controlling the problem pollutants or stressors?

6. Are there any threats to future conditions, such as accelerated development patterns?

7. Have any additional concerns or goals been identified by the stakeholders?

4.3 Identify Issues of Concern

One of the first activities in developing a watershed management plan is to talk

with stakeholders in the watershed to identify their issues of concern. These

issues will help to shape the goals and to determine what types of data are

needed. As a project manager you might think you already know the problems,

such as not meeting designated uses for swimming and fishing. The issues of

concern are different in that these are the issues that are important to the

community. For example, stakeholders frequently list trash in the streams as an

issue even though it doesn’t necessarily affect water quality.

Set up a meeting with the stakeholders to gather their input as to what they

believe are the major concerns in the watershed, and begin to identify possible causes

and sources of these concerns. The stakeholders might provide anecdotal evidence,

such as “There aren’t any fish in the stream anymore (impact) because the

temperature is too warm (stressor) and there is too much dirt going into the stream

(stressor) since they removed all the trees along the streambank (source).” This

information provides an important “reality check” for watershed plan sponsors, who

might have very different notions regarding problems, and it serves as the starting

point for the characterization step described in chapter 5.

At this stage you can even start to link problems seen in the watershed with their

possible causes or sources. For example, stakeholders might say they are concerned

about beach closures, which could lead to a discussion of sources of bacteria that led

to the closures. As you move through the process and gather more data, these links

will become more discernible. Understanding the links between the pollutants or
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-4 Draft

Figure 4-1. Simplified conceptual model.

Figure 4-2. A simple conceptual model involving logging

road construction effects on stream aquatic life (adapted

from USEPA 1998).

“stressors” and the impacts in the watershed is key to successful

watershed management. In the initial stages of watershed planning,

many of the links might not be thoroughly understood; they will more

likely be educated guesses that generate further analyses to determine

validity.

4.3.1 Draw a Picture

It is often useful to diagram these links as you move through the

watershed planning process and present them as a picture, or a

conceptual model (figure 4-1). These diagrams provide a graphic

representation that you can present to stakeholders, helping to guide the

subsequent planning process. In many cases, there will be more than

one pathway of cause and effect. You can also present this concept to

stakeholders verbally, as if-then links. For example, “If the area of

impervious surface is increased, then flows to streams will increase.

If flows to streams increase, then the channels will become more

unstable.” Figure 4-2 shows a simple conceptual model based on the

construction of logging roads.

The conceptual model can be used to start identifying relationships

between the possible causes and sources of impacts seen in the

watershed. You don’t have to wait until you have collected additional

information. In fact, the conceptual model can help to

identify what types of data you need to collect as part

of the characterization process. Figure 4-3 illustrates a

conceptual model that was developed for a watershed

planning effort in Greens Creek, North Carolina. The

Greens Creek watershed covers approximately 10

square miles in the southwestern part of the state.

Greens Creek is classified as a C-trout habitat stream,

typical of most of the mountain streams in the region.

The watershed is subject to considerable development

pressure from vacation homes and has highly erodible

soils and steep slopes. Locals have observed

significant problems related to road construction and

maintenance. 

To facilitate the identification of problems and their

probable causes, an initial conceptual model of

impairment in the Greens Creek watershed was

developed. The conceptual model was presented to

stakeholders for discussion at a meeting, at which

they identified upland loading of sediment and 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-5

Figure 4-3. Draft conceptual model for Greens Creek, North Carolina.

subsequent impacts on water clarity (turbidity) as the key risk pathway for support

of uses in Greens Creek. KFor more information on the development of conceptual

models as part of the watershed planning process, refer to EPA’s Guidelines for

Ecological Risk Assessment, which can be downloaded at

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460&partner=ORD_NCEA.

Build your own conceptual model using Oworksheet 4-2, provided in appendix B.
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-6 Draft

4.3.2 Take Stakeholders Out into the Watershed

Conducting visual watershed assessments with the stakeholders, such as stream

walks, “windshield surveys,” or flyovers, can provide them with a unique perspective

about what’s going on in the watershed. They’ll be able to make visual connections

between sources, impacts, and possible management approaches. Visual assessments

show stakeholders the watershed boundaries, stream conditions, and potential sources

contributing to waterbody impairment.

Stream surveys can be used at several points in the watershed planning process.

Visual assessments might be conducted initially to help stakeholders develop a

common vision of what needs to be done in a watershed. Later, they might be used to

help identify areas where additional data collection is needed, identify critical areas,

or select management measures.

Stream surveys can provide an important means of collecting data for identifying

stressors and conducting a loading analysis. For example, streambank erosion can be

a considerable source of sediment input to a stream and illegal straight pipes can

discharge a variety of pollutants. Both sources might be identifiable only through a

visual inspection of the stream or through infrared photography.

In addition to visual assessments, photographic surveys can be used to document

features like the courses of streams, the topography of the land, the extent of forest

cover and other land uses, and other natural and human-made features of the

watershed. Photographs provide valuable pre- and post- implementation

documentation. You can make arrangements to take photos, or you might be able to

obtain aerial photographs (current and historical) from

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), or other sources.

K Several protocols for conducting visual assessments

are discussed further in section 6.5.1 and are listed in

appendix A.

4.4 Define the Geographic Extent of the

Watershed

As the stakeholders identify concerns in the watershed,

their findings will help to define the geographic extent of

the watershed that the plan will address. The plan might

address a small urban watershed with wide-ranging

stressors and sources or a large river basin with only a

few problem parameters. If your plan addresses a small

drainage system within a watershed covered by a
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-7

Watershed Boundary Definition Example

A region, the largest drainage basin,

contains the drainage area of a major

river or the combined drainage areas of

several rivers.

Mid-Atlantic (02)

Subregions divide regions and include

the area drained by a river system.

Chesapeake Bay

watershed (0207)

Basins divide or may be equivalent to

subregions.

Potomac River

watershed

(020700)

Subbasins divide basins and represent

part or all of a surface-drainage basin, a

combination of drainage basins, or a

distinct hydrologic feature.

Monocacy

watershed

(0207009)

Watersheds divide subbasins and

usually range in size from 40,000 to

250,000 acres.

Monocacy River

watershed

(0207000905)

Subwatersheds divide or may be

equivalent to watersheds and usually

range in size from 10,000 to 40,000

acres.

Double Pipe Creek

subwatershed

(020700090502)

If you’re confused by the new numbering, don’t worry. The Federal

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) released the Federal Standards

for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries in October 2004 to

delineate hydrologic unit boundaries consistently, modify existing

hydrologic units, and establish a national Watershed Boundary Dataset

(WBD). The guidelines establish a new hierarchy for hydrologic units,

including six levels and superseding previous number schemes. Go to

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed for more

information.

separate plan, make sure your planned

activities are integrated with those broaderscale efforts.

One way to identify the geographic extent of

your watershed planning effort is to consult

the USGS map of hydrologic units. A

hydrologic unit is part of a watershed mapping

classification system showing various areas of

land that can contribute surface water runoff to

designated outlet points, such as lakes or

stream segments. USGS designates drainage

areas as subwatersheds (including smaller drainages) numbered with 12-digit

hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), nested within watersheds (10-digit HUCs). These are

combined into larger drainage areas called subbasins (8 digits), basins (6 digits), and

subregions (4 digits), which make up the large regional drainage basins (2 digits). 

Another way to identify watershed boundaries more precisely is to use a topographic

map. These maps are available at USGS map centers and outdoor supply stores and at

K http://topomaps.usgs.gov. When working in very small watersheds of just a few

square miles, it’s better to obtain more detailed

topographic information from city or county

planning departments. From these maps lines can

be drawn following the highest ground between

the waterways to identify the watershed

boundaries, or ridge lines. In areas with storm

sewers, maps that show how this “plumbing”

might have changed watershed boundaries are

often available from local or municipal

government offices.

Most watershed planning efforts to implement

water pollution control practices occur at the 10-

or 12-digit HUC level, although smaller drainage

areas within subwatersheds might be used if they

represent important water resources and have a

significant variety of stressors and sources. It is

still helpful to factor in large-scale basin planning

initiatives for strategic planning efforts that

address interjurisdictional planning and solutions

to widespread water quality problems. The key to

selecting the geographic scope of your planning

effort is to ensure that the area is small enough to

manage but large enough to address water quality

impairments and the concerns of stakeholders.
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-8 Draft

KMore information on delineating watershed boundaries is provided in

section 5.4.1.

4.5 Develop Preliminary Goals

After stakeholders provide information on issues of concern, they will begin

to identify the vision or goals for the watershed that they would like to see

addressed in the watershed plan. Getting this input is critical to ensuring that

you address the issues important to them and keep them involved in the

planning and implementation effort. In some cases you’ll also incorporate

goals from other watershed planning activities. For example, if a TMDL has

already been developed in your watershed, you can include the goals

outlined in the TMDL, such as the required loading targets to be achieved.

These goals are very specific.

Often stakeholders will recommend very broad goals such as “Restore lake water

quality,” “Protect wetlands,” or “Manage growth to protect our water resources.”

These goals might start out broad, but they’ll be refined as you move through the

watershed characterization process (chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8). For each goal identified,

specific management objectives should be developed (chapter 9). The objectives

should include a measurable target needed to achieve the goals and specific

indicators that will be used to measure progress toward meeting the objectives.

The more specific you can make your goals at this stage, the easier it will be to

develop concrete objectives to achieve the goals. You should also set goals and

objectives to guide the process of engaging and informing

those who contribute to water quality degradation and

motivating them to adopt more appropriate behaviors. For

example, a goal for a river might be to restore recreational

uses (fishing and swimming). This goal might be further

defined as improving cold-water fisheries by reducing

sediment in runoff, increasing dissolved oxygen

concentrations, and reinstating swimming by lowering

bacteria counts during the summer. A wide range of specific

objectives should be developed and implemented to support

each aspect of the goal. Make sure that the goals link back to

the issues of concern.

As you move through the watershed planning process you

should build onto your goals, developing indicators to

measure progress toward achieving your goals, developing specific management

objectives to show how you will achieve your goal, and finally, developing

measurable targets to determine when you have achieved your goals (figure 4-4).

• Meet water quality standards for dissolved oxygen.

• Restore aquatic habitat to meet designated uses for

fishing.

• Protect drinking water reservoir from excessive

eutrophication.

• Manage future growth.

• Restore wetlands to maintain a healthy wildlife

community.

• Protect open space.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-9

Targets

Objectives

Indicators Indicators

Goals Goals

ID causes 

and sources

Set targets

ID load 

reductions

Objectives

Indicators

Goals

Figure 4-4. Evolution of goals throughout the watershed planning process.

4.6 Select Indicators to Measure Environmental Conditions

The stakeholders will help to select indicators that will be used to measure the current

health of the watershed and to provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the

watershed goals. Indicators are direct or indirect measurements of some valued

component or quality in a system. Indicators are also extremely useful for assessing

and communicating the status and trends of the health of a watershed. Indicators,

however, do not tell you the cause of the problem. For example, you might use a

thermometer to measure stream temperature. An elevated temperature might indicate

a problem, but it does not specifically tell you what the problem is, where it is, or

what caused it. Your stakeholder group will begin by identifying the indicators that

will be used to quantify existing conditions in the watershed.

Indicators are selected, refined, added to, and modified throughout the watershed

planning and implementation process. As you complete the characterization phase

and develop goals and management objectives, you’ll shift your indicators from those

which assess current conditions to those which quantitatively measure progress

toward meeting your goals. For example, in the Coal Creek watershed, the goal is to

reduce sediment loadings to meet water quality standards and support all beneficial

uses. Table 4-1 shows the indicators used and the target values for measuring

progress toward reducing the sediment load. You’ll learn how to develop these target

values in chapter 9.

Table 4-1. Coal Creek Sediment Loading Indicators and Target Values

Sediment Loading Indicator Target Value

5-year mean McNeil core percent subsurface fines < 6.35 mm 35 percent

5-year mean substrate score > 10

Percent surface fines < 2 mm < 20 percent

Clinger richness > 14 
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-10 Draft

Validity

• Is the indicator related to your goals and objectives?

• Is the indicator appropriate in terms of geographic and

temporal scales?

Clarity

• Is the indicator simple and direct?

• Do the stakeholders agree on what will be measured?

• Are the methodologies consistent over time?

Practicality

• Are adequate data available for immediate use?

• Are there any constraints on data collection?

Clear Direction

• Does the indicator have clear action implications

depending on whether the change is good or bad?

Be aware that you might have to refer back to this section as you develop your

watershed plan to develop additional indicators to measure performance and the

effectiveness of plan implementation. Table 4-2 illustrates where indicators are used

to develop and implement your watershed plan.

Table 4-2. Use of Indicators Throughout the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process

Planning Step Description of How Indicators are Used

Assess Current Conditions Indicators are used to measure current environmental conditions, e.g., water quality, habitat,

aquatic resources, land use patterns

Develop Goals Indicators are used to determine when the goal will be achieved, e.g., reducing nutrient loads to

meet water quality standards 

Develop Pollution Load

Reduction Targets

Indicators are used to measure the targets for load reductions, e.g., phosphorus concentration

Select Management

Strategies

Indicators are used to track the implementation of the management measures, e.g., number of

management practices installed

Develop Monitoring

Program

The monitoring program measures the indicators that have been developed as part of the

management strategies and information/ education program

Implement Watershed Plan Indicators are used to measure the implementation of the watershed plan, tracking dollars spent,

resources expended, management practices implemented, and improvements in water quality

4.6.1 Select Quantitative Indicators

In developing the watershed plan, you’ll conduct

watershed assessments and analyses to quantify source

loads, characterize impacts, and estimate the load

reductions needed to meet your goals and objectives.

Sometimes the source loads and load reductions will be

expressed in slightly different terms, such as the number

of miles of eroded banks and the miles of vegetated

buffers needed to address the problem. Regardless of the

approach, the important point to remember is that

quantification is the key to remediation. If you can’t

somehow measure the problems you’re facing, it will be

almost impossible to know whether you’re making any

headway in addressing them.

For watershed planning purposes, indicators should be

quantitative so that the effectiveness of management

measures can be predicted. For example, if one of the

goals identified by stakeholders is “restore aquatic habitat

to meet designated uses,” and you believe the habitat has

been degraded because of elevated levels of nutrients

entering the waterbody, what indicators will be used to

measure progress toward achieving that goal? A specific

value should be set as a target for the indicator,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-11

Regardless of the approach, the important point to

remember is that quantification is the key to remediation.

If you can’t somehow measure the problems you’re

facing, it will be almost impossible to know if you’re

making any headway in addressing them.

representing desired levels. For example, phosphorus can be used as an indicator to

directly measure the reduction in loadings. Table 4-3 provides examples of

environmental indicators and possible target values, or endpoints. Targets can be

based on water quality standards or, where numeric water quality standards do not

exist, on data analysis, literature values, or expert examination of water quality

conditions to identify values representative of conditions supportive of designated

uses. KChapter 9 goes into more detail on how to develop targets for your goals and

objectives.

If a TMDL exists, important indicators have already been

defined and you can incorporate them when selecting

appropriate management actions to implement the load

reductions cited in the TMDL. If no TMDL exists, select

indicators that are linked to your water quality restoration or

protection goals, such as pollutant concentrations or other

parameters of concern (e.g., channel instability, eroding

banks, channel flow, flow cycles). The indicators selected should consider the

impacts, impairments, or parameters of concern in the waterbody and the types and

pathways of watershed stressor sources that contribute to those impacts.

4.6.2 Select a Combination of Indicators

You’ll use different types of indicators to reflect where you are in the watershed

management process and the audience with which you are communicating. You’ll

first select environmental indicators to measure the current conditions in the

watershed and help to identify the stressors and the sources of the pollutants. As you

develop your management objectives and actually assemble your watershed plan

(chapter 12), you’ll add performance indicators, such as social and programmatic

indicators, to help measure progress toward meeting your goals. Table 4-4 provides

examples of indicators used throughout the watershed plan development and

implementation effort.

The Audience

Keep in mind that indicators provide a powerful means of communicating to various

audiences about the status of the watershed, as well as demonstrating the progress

being made toward meeting goals. Select indicators that will help to communicate

these concepts to nontechnical audiences. For example, using a 30-day geometric

mean for E. coli bacteria to demonstrate reduction in pathogens to the waterbody

won’t mean much to most people. But using the number of shellfish beds that have

been reopened because of the reduction of pathogen inputs is easier to understand. Or

being able to count the number of failing septic systems that have been located and

repaired shows people how the sources of pathogens are being reduced.
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-12 Draft

Table 4-3. Example Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and

Environmental Conditions

Issue Indicator

Example Target

Value Why You Would Use It

Sediment Pebble counts (%

surface fines < 2

mm)

< 20% Pebble counts provide an indication of the type and distribution of bed

material in a stream. Too many fines can interfere with spawning and

degrade the habitat for aquatic invertebrates.

Stream channel

stability 

No significant

risk of bank

erosion

Channel stability uses a qualitative measurement with associated

mathematical values to reflect stream conditions.

Total suspended

solids (TSS)

Monthly avg.

concentration

< 40 mg/L

Solids can adversely affect stream ecosystems by filling pools,

clogging gills, and limiting the light penetration and transparency

critical to aquatic flora.

Turbidity < 25 NTU Turbidity measures the clarity of water and can also be used as an

indirect indicator of the concentration of suspended matter.

Eutrophication Chl-a (benthic) Maximum < 100

mg/m2

In flowing streams, most algae grow attached to the substrate. Too

much benthic algae can degrade habitat; alter the cycling of oxygen,

nutrients, and metals; and result in unaesthetic conditions.

Chl-a (water

column)

Geometric mean

< 5 ug/L

Chlorophyll-a is an indirect measure of algal density. Excess levels

may result in harmful swings in dissolved oxygen (DO)

concentrations, decrease water clarity, and alter the natural food

chain of a system.

Nitrate + nitrite Monthly average

< 1.5 mg/L

Elevated levels of nitrate + nitrite are good indicators of runoff from

irrigation, residential lawn care fertilizers, and effluent waste streams.

These parameters can indicate leaching from septic systems and

erosion of natural deposits. Nitrogen is a limiting nutrient to algal

production in many estuarine and arid freshwater systems.

Orthophosphate Monthly average

< 0.05 mg/L

Orthophosphate measures the form of phosphorus that is readily

available to aquatic systems. Too much phosphorus can often cause

excessive aquatic vegetation growth in freshwater systems.

Total nitrogen Monthly average

< 5 mg/L

Total nitrogen (often measured as the sum of nitrate + nitrite and total

Kjeldahl nitrogen) measures the total ability of the waterbody to supply

nitrogen to support algal growth after microbial processing.

Ammonia < 15 mg/L Excess ammonia can cause toxicity in fish. The toxicity of ammonia is

dependent on pH and temperature.

Total phosphorus Monthly average

< 0.10 mg/L 

Total phosphorus includes phosphorus that is bound to sediment

particles or in organic compounds, some of which can become

available in the water column. It is often the limiting nutrient for growth

of aquatic vegetation in freshwater systems.

Pathogens Fecal coliform

bacteria

30-day

geometric mean

of < 200/100 mL

This bacterial indicator is often used to monitor for the presence of

human/animal waste in a waterbody, which might lead to sickness in

human populations. It also indicates compromised sanitary discharge

and septic systems.

E. coli bacteria 30-day

geometric mean

of < 125/100 mL

This bacterial indicator is often used to monitor for the presence of

human/animal waste in a waterbody, which might lead to sickness in

human populations. It also indicates compromised sanitary discharge

and septic systems.

Metals Copper < 7.3 μg/L Many metals are toxic to various forms of aquatic life, and water

quality criteria have been developed. Criteria for most metals vary

with the hardness of the water. Lead < 82 μg/L

Zinc < 67 μg/L
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-13

Table 4-3. (continued)

Issue Indicator

Example Target

Value Why You Would Use It

Habitat Temperature Instantaneous

< 33 oC, daily

avg. < 29 oC

Many aquatic organisms are adapted to survive and prosper within

specific temperature ranges.

Physical habitat

quality

Rapid

Bioassessment

Protocol (RBP)

value

The assessment of physical habitat quality can be used to determine

the potential of waterbodies to sustain healthy aquatic systems.

General Water

Quality

Total dissolved

solids (TDS)

700 mg/L TDS is a direct measurement of the dissolved mineral content in

stream ecosystems. High TDS can be harmful to aquatic organisms

and can restrict the beneficial use of water (e.g., for irrigation).

Conductivity < 1,000 μS/cm Conductivity is a good indicator of the dissolved mineral content in

stream ecosystems. It is also a good measure of salinity in the water.

DO > 5.0 mg/L DO is an important measure of the quality of the habitat and overall

health of the ecosystem. Oxygen depletion can indicate a number of

undesirable physical, chemical, and biological activities in the

watershed.

pH 6 < pH < 9 pH is a measure of the acidity (hydrogen/hydroxide ion concentration).

Most aquatic organisms have a preferred pH range, usually pH 6 to 9.

Beyond that range aquatic organisms begin to suffer from stress,

which can lead to death. High pH levels also force dissolved ammonia

into its toxic, un-ionized form, which can further stress fish and other

organisms.

Oil and grease Minimize Oil and grease indicate impacts from general vehicular impervious

surfaces and illicit disposal activity.

Flow Dry weather flows 95% of daily

flows > 5 cfs

As impervious surface area increases, often stream base flow

decreases, resulting in decreased aquatic habitat and exacerbating

problems with high temperature and low dissolved oxygen.

Frequency of

overbank flood

events

< 1 in 2 years The frequency and magnitude of flood events is influenced by

increased urbanization and can affect channel stability. This indicator

is also easily understood by the public.

Peak flow Achieve predevelopment

conditions for

response to

2-year storm

Urbanization often leads to increased storm flow peaks, which in turn

set off instability in the stream channel.

Biology Biological indexes Varies by index,

assemblage,

stream size,

ecoregion

Several indexes under various acronyms (IBI, ICI, SCI, RIVPACS)

have been developed to directly measure the health of fish,

macroinvertebrate, and periphyton assemblages. See Barbour et al.

(1999) for an introduction to the use of these indexes.

EPT richness Varies by stream

type and

ecoregion

This metric is the richness of the sample in taxa that are mayflies

(Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), or caddisflies (Trichoptera).

Invertebrates that are members of these groups are generally

understood to be sensitive to stressors in streams, whether the

stressors are physical, chemical, or biological. Consequently, these

taxa are less common in degraded streams. Component of most

macroinvertebrate biological indexes. 

DELT anomalies < 0.1% The percentage of fish in a sample with external deformities, fin

erosion, lesions, or tumors. These anomalies increase with both

conventional organic pollution and toxic pollution. Component of some

fish biological indexes.
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Table 4-3. (continued)

Issue Indicator

Example Target

Value Why You Would Use It

4-14 Draft

Beck’s Biotic Index > 11.0 A weighted sum of the number of pollution-sensitive

macroinvertebrate species in a standardized sample. Highly sensitive

taxa receive 2 points; sensitive taxa receive 1 point. Similar to EPT

richness, but more appropriate in low-gradient streams. Component of

some macroinvertebrate biological indexes.

Hilsenhoff Biotic

Index (HBI)

< 3.8 The abundance-weighted average tolerance of all taxa in a

macroinvertebrate sample. The HBI score increases with pollution and

degradation as tolerant taxa replace intolerant (sensitive) taxa. See

Barbour et al. (1999). Component metric of many macroinvertebrate

biological indexes.

Observed taxa/

expected taxa (O/E)

> 0.8 This is the measurement endpoint of what are termed RIVPACS, or

predictive model indexes. This indicator measures the

macroinvertebrate taxa actually observed at a site in relationship to

those expected to occur under undisturbed conditions, adjusted for

site-specific features (e.g., stream size, elevation). See Wright et al.

2000.

Environmental Indicators

Environmental indicators are a direct measure of the environmental conditions that

plan implementation seeks to achieve. The indicators should be directly related to the

indicators selected for your management objectives. By definition, the indicators are

measurable quantities used to evaluate the relationship between pollutant sources and

environmental conditions. Targets goals are defined by the values of the selected

indicators. Frequently these targets reflect water quality standards for designated

uses. In other cases, qualitative standards for water quality and habitat protection

need to be interpreted to establish the criteria. For example, if the indicator was

phosphorus, the target could be a reduction of the instream concentration value or a

total allowable load that is expected to protect the resource.

Programmatic Indicators

Programmatic indicators are indirect measures of resource protection or restoration

(e.g., the number of management practices or the number of point source permits

issued). These don’t necessarily indicate that you’re meeting your load reductions,

but they do indicate actions intended to achieve a goal. When you develop the

implementation plan (chapter 12), look for important programmatic actions that can

be tracked over time. Programmatic indicators include measures such as recording

the number of people attending workshops, the number of projects approved, the

number of monitoring samples taken, and dollars spent. 
	
	

	

	

	

		
		



	




	
	
	



	




 4-15

	







	



	


	
	



	



	

	




	
	

		

		

	


		
	



	
		
	
	

	




		

	




	



 

		

!	

!





	
	!	!		
"#!$




%
	

	




	

&


	

	









	
	
	'

(	
	

	




	)*)+



	


	



	
		





	
	

	





	





 

: No fish in stream due to heavy sedimentation 

!: Reduce sedimentation into stream to meet designated uses

"#: Install management practices streamside to reduce sedimentation by 15 percent

$
%

	 

	 &	

Environmental

(baseline conditions)

Turbidity, flow, total suspended

solids (TSS), channel stability

Direct water quality measurements,

photographs, watershed surveys

Programmatic # brochures mailed for

management practice workshop

Mailing lists

Programmatic # participants at management

practice workshop

Attendance lists

Social # follow-up phone calls requesting

information

Phone records

Social Increased awareness of watershed

issues

Pre- and post- surveys, focus groups

Social # landowners requesting assistance

to install management practices

Phone records

Social # landowners aware of technical

and financial assistance available

for management practice

installation

Pre- and post- surveys, interviews

Programmatic # management practices installed Tracking database

Environmental (measure

implementation progress)

Turbidity, flow, TSS, channel

stability

Direct water quality measurements,

photographs, watershed surveys
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-16 Draft

Table 4-5. Examples of Performance Indicators That Can Be Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in

Meeting Watershed Goals

Environmental Programmatic Social

• Number (or percentage) of

river/stream miles, lake acres, and

estuarine and coastal square miles

that fully meet all water quality

standards

• Number (or percentage) of

river/stream miles, lake acres, and

estuarine and coastal square miles

that come into compliance with one or

more designated uses

• Number (or percentage) of

river/stream miles, lake acres, and

estuarine and coastal square miles

that meet one or more numeric water

quality standards

• Demonstrated improvement in water

quality parameters (e.g., DO, pH,

TSS)

• Demonstrated improvement in

biological parameters (e.g., increase

in numbers or diversity of

macroinvertebrates)

• Demonstrated improvement in

physical parameters (e.g., increased

riparian habitat)

• Reduction in the number of fish

consumption advisories, beach

closures, or shellfish bed closures

• Number of river/stream miles, lake

acres, and estuarine and coastal

square miles removed from the

“threatened” list

• Reduction in pollutant loadings from

nonpoint sources

• Reductions in frequencies of peak

flows in developing areas

• Increase in the number of acres of

wetlands protected or restored

• Reduction in the amount of trash

collected in stormwater drains

• Number of management measures

implemented in a watershed (e.g.,

number of stream miles fenced,

number of riparian buffers created)

• Number of approved or certified plans

(e.g., sediment and erosion control

plans, stormwater plans, nutrient

management plans)

• Number of ordinances developed 

• Number of hits on watershed Web

site

• Number of residents requesting to

have their septic systems serviced

• Number of illicit connections identified

and corrected

• Number of permits reissued

• Elapsed time from permit violation

reports to compliance

• Number of public water systems with

source water protection plans

• Reduction in the amount of

impervious surface area directly

connected to buildings

• Participation rates in education

programs specifically directed to

solving particular nonpoint source

pollution problems

• Increase in awareness, knowledge,

and actions designed to change

behavior patterns 

• Participation rates in various nonpoint

source activities such as citizen

monitoring and watershed restoration

activities

• Increase in participation at watershed

stakeholder meetings

• Increase in the number of residents

signing watershed stewardship

pledge

• Number of homeowners requesting

an inspection of their septic systems

4.7 Link Concerns with Goals and Indicators

It’s important to help stakeholders to link their concerns with goals. It’s also

important to develop indicators that measure the current conditions in the watershed,

as well as to identify possible indicators to measure progress once the watershed plan

is implemented. Work with the stakeholders to fill out worksheet O 4-3 to link the

concerns with the goals they have identified. For each of the concerns they identify,

ask them to write down the potential causes of the problem. Ask them how they

would measure the current conditions in the watershed. Then for each goal selected,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Draft 4-17

O

What are the

problems/concerns

in the watershed?

What do you

think caused the

problems?

How can we assess

current conditions?

(Indicators)

What would you like

to see for your

watershed? (Goals)

How will we measure

progress toward meeting

those goals? (Indicators)

No more fish in the

stream

Sedimentation

from eroding

streambanks

Visual assessment of

eroding banks,

turbidity

Meet designated uses

for fishing

Turbidity, TSS, fish

assemblages

E. coli contamination Failing septic

systems 

Fecal coliform

concentrations

Meet water quality

standards for

pathogens

30-day geometric mean

concentration of fecal

coliforms, number of failing

septic sytems repaired

Trash in the stream Stormwater runoff,

people littering

Photographs of trash Reduce trash found in

stream

Pounds of trash removed,

comparison of photographs

taken before and after

implementation

they should develop indicators that they want to use to measure progress in meeting

those goals. The more specific you can be at this stage, the more focused your datagathering efforts will be in the next phase. KA blank copy of the worksheet is

provided in appendix B.
Chapter 4

Define Scope of Watershed

Planning Effort

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

4-18 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-1

5. Gather Existing Data

and Create an Inventory

Read this chapter if...

• You’re not sure where to look for data on your watershed

• You don’t know what types of data you need to develop the watershed plan

• You want to know where to obtain maps of your watershed

• You want to know how to use GIS and remote sensing to help characterize your

watershed

• You want to know how to create a data inventory

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Determining data needs

< Identifying available data

< Locating the information

< Gathering and organizing necessary

data

< Creating a data inventory
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-2 Draft

Before you start searching for and gathering data,

revisit the conceptual model developed during the

scoping process (chapter 4). The watershed

problems, potential sources, and goals illustrated in

the conceptual model will focus your data

gathering, as well as the subsequent analyses

5.1 How Do I Characterize My Watershed?

Once you’ve formed partnerships, you’ll begin to characterize the watershed to

develop an understanding of the impacts seen in the watershed, identify possible

causes and sources of the impacts, and subsequently quantify the pollutant loads.

Characterizing the watershed, its problems and pollutant sources provides the basis

for developing effective management strategies to meet watershed goals.

Because it’s rare for any watershed planning effort to require starting from scratch,

the challenge is to understand and build on existing information. The characterization

and analysis process is designed to help you focus the planning efforts strategically to

address the most pressing needs and target your data collection and analyses to your

specific watershed.

The next four chapters focus on the characterization process:

• Gather existing information and create a data inventory (chapter 5)

• Identify data gaps, and collect new data, if needed (chapter 6)

• Analyze data (chapter 7)

• Estimate pollutant loads (chapter 8)

Although these phases are presented sequentially, several iterations of gathering data,

identifying gaps, and analyzing data might be needed within each phase. This chapter

focuses on gathering existing information to create a data inventory.

Gathering and organizing data is a major part of developing a

successful watershed plan. You’ll gather data and conduct data

analyses to characterize the condition of your watershed and its

waterbodies, identify pollutant sources, and support quantification

of the pollutant loads. Estimates of source loads are often a

component missing from past and current planning efforts, and

filling this gap is critical to successfully controlling sources,

restoring watershed health, and meeting watershed and water

quality goals. Without an understanding of where pollutants are

coming from, it’s almost impossible to understand their impact on

watershed resources and to target your control efforts effectively. This section

provides information on how to target your data-gathering efforts and explains what

types of data and information are useful in developing a watershed plan.

5.2 Focus Your Data Gathering Efforts

Although the data-gathering and analysis phases of the watershed planning process

are very important in estimating source loads, they can also be very challenging. The

types and amount of data available vary by watershed, and there is often a variety of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-3

data, making it difficult to decide which data (and analyses) are necessary. You

should decide which types of data and how much data you need to complete your

watershed plan. 7To make these decisions easier, your data-gathering efforts should

be guided by your earlier scoping efforts, during which you developed a conceptual

model, identified preliminary watershed goals, and listed stakeholder concerns

(chapter 4).

5.2.1 Build on Earlier Scoping Efforts

The conceptual model, discussed in section 4.3, is a graphic representation of the

watershed processes and problems. The conceptual model allows you to visualize the

pollutants causing impairment, their potential sources and pathways, and interactions

between pollutants, related stressors, and impairments.

7The information and links depicted in the conceptual model will help you to

determine what information to collect for analysis and also prioritize the information.

Data compilation can be an almost endless process—there’s always something more

to find out about your watershed. You should decide what you need and tailor your

data gathering efforts accordingly. It is often time-consuming to gather data and to

analyze and make sense of them. You’ll want to be careful not to spend your budget

on compiling data and information that you don’t need—data that will not help you

understand the watershed problems and meet your goals. For example, if the primary

concern in your watershed is elevated bacteria posing human health risks and

prohibiting recreational opportunities, you will probably not need to gather extensive

information on vegetation types in the watershed or habitat and biological data (e.g.,

fish populations, macroinvertebrate data). Instead, your data compilation and analysis

efforts will focus on data that will help to characterize the likely sources of bacteria

loads to the streams, such as livestock operations, wildlife populations and their

distribution, and septic systems. In addition, because bacteria are not typically related

to other water quality parameters, you won’t need to gather extra monitoring data.

Alternatively, some water quality impairments are related to several parameters and

affected by many factors, requiring more data and analyses to understand the

dynamics of the problem. For example, excess nutrients can increase algal growth

(chlorophyll a) and lead to processes that deplete dissolved oxygen, lower pH, and

produce ammonia at potentially toxic levels. These parameters are interrelated: when

evaluating one, you must often evaluate all of them. Therefore, identifying these

types of relationships and interactions in your conceptual model is crucial to

efficiently gathering data and conducting useful analyses.

5.2.2 Consider Stakeholder Goals and Concerns

7Another factor that will focus your data gathering is the goals and concerns

identified by the stakeholders during the initial phases of the watershed planning

process. The conceptual model relates to the watershed goals identified with the

stakeholders by identifying potential watershed sources causing the problems and,
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-4 Draft

Remember to check first for the availability of local

data and ground-truth other datasets if possible.

State and federal data can provide a broad set of

information but might be coarse or out-of-date.

Check for recent changes, especially changes in

land use and land management that might not be

reflected in available datasets. Consider the date

when the data were originally generated and

processed and compare the data what you and the

stakeholders know about the watershed.

Much of the data you need for characterizing your watershed

might have been partially compiled and summarized in

existing reports, including

• TMDL reports

• Watershed Restoration Action Strategies

• Source water assessments

• CWA section 208 plans

• Clean Lake Plans (CWA section 314)

Although some of these plans might be outdated and

represent historical conditions, they can provide a valuable

starting point for gathering data and characterizing historical

and current conditions in your watershed.

therefore, the sources that must be controlled to meet the goals.

For example, if a perceived problem in the watershed is the

degradation of fisheries, the conceptual model will identify

possible causes of that problem (e.g., low dissolved oxygen) and

the associated pollutant sources (e.g., increased nutrient inputs

from fertilizer application and subsequent runoff). Similarly, if

the stakeholders identified development pressures as a concern,

you’ll want to collect information on land use patterns, building

permits, and current zoning practices. If they identified the

protection of wetlands as a goal, you should identify the

wetlands in the watershed and any current protection strategies

in place.

5.3 Who Has the Data and What Types of Data Do You Need?

Building from the information provided by the stakeholders, you’ll identify existing

reports, plans, studies, and datasets from various sources that can be used to help

characterize the watershed. These sources include various local, state, tribal, and

federal programs and organizations.

Many of the data types discussed in this section might

already be summarized or available through existing

programs, reports, and plans. For example, TMDLs

completed for the watershed might include information

on water quality, land use, and sources in the watershed.

It’s helpful to identify environmental studies that have

already been conducted in your watershed because they

might provide information on several different data

types and guide you toward important stakeholders or

sources of additional data. This section provides a

variety of information that might help you identify

existing plans and studies in your watershed. Another

way to find them is an Internet search on your watershed

or waterbodies—a broad search through a general

browser or more specific searches through relevant state

or federal environmental agencies.

Before you begin to identify the types of data you need, it’s helpful to have an

understanding of the different data sources. The following descriptions are meant to

familiarize you with these various sources and provide context for the discussions of

specific data types in the subsequent sections.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-5

Because local governments are organized differently,

sometimes it’s difficult to find the information you need. The

best approach is to start with the local planning or

environmental department and ask them to steer you in the

right direction for other types of information. Local

governments typically provide the following services: 

• County and city planning offices: master plans, zoning

ordinances

• Environmental departments: recycling policies, water

quality monitoring program

• Soil and water conservation districts: agricultural land use

information, topographic maps, soil surveys, erosion

control information

• Departments of economic development: census data, tax

records, demographic data

• Water and sanitation department: stormwater plans, maps

of water intakes and sewer lines

• Public health department: septic system inventories,

records of outbreaks of illness or ailments from poor water

quality

• Transportation department: transportation master plans,

permits, road and bridge construction information

5.3.1 Local Sources of Information

Identifying existing information at the local level is critical to supporting the

development of a watershed plan that is based on local current or future planning

efforts (e.g., information on zoning, development guidelines and restrictions, master

planning, wastewater plans, transportation plans, future land use plans). This

information will not only support the characterization of the watershed but also

identify any major changes expected to occur in the watershed (e.g., new

development, addition of point sources, change from septic systems to city sewer).

The sources for local information will depend on the kinds of land uses in your

community (urban or rural).

To know what is available and how to get county-level

information, it is necessary to become familiar with

state-, county-, and city-level agencies. It’s important to

understand the authority and jurisdictions of the

agencies in the watershed. This understanding facilitates

the search for information and also provides valuable

insight into the activities most likely to be implemented

in the watershed. For example, it’s important that the

watershed plan identify control actions or management

practices that people or agencies in the watershed have

the authority and jurisdiction to implement. This will

help you select the management strategies that you

know can be adopted at the local level with existing

authorities. KGo to section 3.4.1 for a description of

various local and regional programs and organizations.

Other “local” sources of watershed data include

universities and environmental non-governmental

organizations (NGOs). Although a university or NGO

might not be located in or near your watershed, it might

be active in the watershed and hold relevant local data. 

Universities can be important sources for demographic,

climate, or spatial data. Many state climatology offices

are associated with universities. In addition, university

faculty or students regularly conduct environmental research related to their field of

study or expertise, sometimes providing data and information relevant to local

watershed planning efforts (e.g., water quality, soils, land use changes). However, it

might be difficult to identify any relevant studies and data without already knowing

the specific project or contact. Universities have a variety of schools and

departments, and no two are likely to be organized in the same way. Hopefully, if a

university has conducted research in your watershed, one or more of the key

stakeholders will be aware of it and can lead you in the right direction.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-6 Draft

Before you start gathering data check to see if your state has

developed guidance or support materials for watershed

planning. Whether comprehensive technical manuals or

introductory brochures, these documents can provide

information on available data sources, state and local

government organizations, and various state-specific issues

(e.g., laws, unique environmental conditions). For example,

the California Watershed Assessment Manual

(http://cwam.ucdavis.edu) was developed to help watershed

groups, local agencies, and private landowners evaluate the

condition of their watershed. The manual discusses the

watershed assessment process and includes discussions of

California-specific agencies, data types and sources, and

environmental concerns. Check with your state environmental

agency to see if they have programmatic or technical

documents on watershed planning.

NGOs (e.g., Trout Unlimited, Issak Walton League) often have information on

stream conditions, habitat and long-term changes in watershed characteristics (e.g.,

habitat, water quality). As with university information, it’s difficult to identify NGOs

active in your watershed and relevant data without already knowing they exist.

Typically, if an NGO has an active interest in your watershed or has collected data,

you or one of the involved stakeholders will know about it.

5.3.2 State Sources of Information

State environmental agencies routinely collect

biological, hydrological, and water quality information

for the waters in the state. State environmental agencies

include several divisions and offices, many of which

might be useful in characterizing your watershed and

some of which might be irrelevant. Environmental

agencies typically have a division or office dedicated to

watershed or water quality issues. A variety of other

offices deal with environmental issues (e.g., wastewater,

mining, air quality) and will likely have information

relevant to your watershed. 7It’s useful to go to your

state’s environmental agency’s Web site to learn what

types of offices work in your state and identify potential

sources of relevant information.

In addition to state environmental agencies, several

other state agencies might be useful in characterizing

your watershed and potential sources. For example, the

Division of Natural Resources or Department of Fish and Game can provide

information on wildlife habitats and populations, and the Department of Agriculture

can provide agricultural statistics for counties in your state. KGo to

section 3.4.2 for a description of various state programs and organizations.

5.3.3 Tribal Sources of Information

In watersheds that include tribal lands, tribal sources of watershed

information can be important. Often, data and information for lands and

waterbodies within reservation boundaries are limited at the state level and

you must rely on tribal contacts for monitoring or anecdotal information. 

Watershed characterization for tribal lands can be obtained from a variety

of sources. First search the Web to see if the specific tribe has a Web site

with historical data or background information or reports. KGo to section

3.4.3 for a description of various tribal programs and organizations.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-7

Physical and Natural Features 

• Watershed boundaries

• Hydrology

• Topography

• Soils

• Climate

• Habitat

• Wildlife

Land Use and Population Characteristics

• Land use and land cover

• Existing management practices

• Demographics

Waterbody Conditions

• Water quality standards

• 305(b) report

• 303(d) list

• TMDL reports

• Source Water Assessments

Pollutant Sources 

• Point sources

• Nonpoint sources

5.3.4 Federal Sources of Information

Several federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, and USGS, generate information

that will be useful in characterizing your watershed. With the various offices,

divisions, and agencies in the federal government, there are likely several federal

sources of every type of data used in watershed characterization. KGo to section

3.4.4 for a description of various federal programs and organizations. The remainder

of this chapter identifies these data types and their corresponding sources. 

5.3.5 Data Types

In general, there are five broad categories of data used to adequately

characterize the watershed:

• Physical and natural features

• Land use and population characteristics

• Waterbody conditions

• Pollutant sources

• Waterbody monitoring data

Within these categories are dozens of reports and datasets that you can

access to populate your data inventory. Table 5-1 identifies the types

of data typically needed for watershed characterization and describes

how the data might be used. Each data type is discussed in the

following sections. Be careful not to collect existing information just

because it’s available. The data should help to link the impacts seen in

the watershed to their sources and causes.

The data discussed in this section come in a variety of forms,

including tabular data and databases, documents and reports, and

geographic information system (GIS) data. Tabular data include water

quality and flow monitoring data consisting of a series of numeric

observations. Documents and reports include TMDLs or previous

watershed studies that provide background information and summaries

of watershed characteristics and conditions. They might address

specific topics such as fisheries habitats or particular pollutants, or

they might cover a range of watershed topics. GIS data are available

for a wide range of watershed characteristics, such as land use,

locations of monitoring stations or flow gauges, vegetation, and population

distribution.

Many of the data discussed below can be gathered, organized, and viewed using

various tools. The two most popular tools, GIS and remote sensing, are specifically

discussed in Ksection 5.9 to provide guidance on how to use these tools, highlight

their limitations, and identify the most common datasets.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-8 Draft

Table 5-1. Data Typically Used for Watershed Characterization

Data Type Typical Uses of Data

Physical and Natural Features

Watershed

boundaries 

• Provide geographic boundaries for evaluation and source control

• Delineate drainage areas at desired scale

Hydrology • Identify the locations of waterbodies

• Identify the spatial relationship of waterbodies, including what segments are connected and how

water flows through the watershed

Topography • Derive slopes of stream segments and watershed areas (e.g., to identify unstable areas, to

characterize segments and subwatersheds in watershed modeling)

• Evaluate altitude changes (necessary when extrapolating precipitation from one area to another)

Soils • Identify potential areas with higher erosion rates, poor drainage, or steep slopes

• Use to delineate subwatersheds and develop input data for models

Climate • Provide information about loading conditions when evaluated with instream data (e.g., elevated

concentrations during storm events and high flow)

• Drive simulation of rainfall-runoff processes in watershed models

Habitat • Describe area’s ability to support aquatic life, and identify areas at risk of impairment

• Support defining stressors that could be contributing to impairment

• Identify shading or lack of riparian cover

• Support identification of potential management or protection areas

Wildlife • Identify special wildlife species to be protected

• Identify potential sources of bacteria and nutrients

Land Use and Population Characteristics

Land use and land

cover

• Identify potential pollutant sources (e.g., land uses, pervious vs. impervious surfaces)

• Provide basis for evaluation of sources, loading, and controls

• Provide unit for simulation in watershed models

Existing land

management

practices

• Identify current control practices and potential targets for future management

• Identify potential watershed pollutant sources

Demographics • Provide information on demographics, employment statistics, educational levels

• Provide information on growth rates and potential future growth

Waterbody and Watershed Conditions

Water quality

standards

• Identify protected uses of the waterbody and associated water quality standards

305(b) report • Identify the status of designated use support in watershed waterbodies

• Identify potential causes and sources of impairment 

303(d) list • Identify known pollutant impairments in the watershed

• Identify geographic extent of impaired waterbody segments

• Identify potential causes and sources of impairment

Existing TMDL reports • Provide information on watershed characteristics, waterbody conditions, sources, and pollutant loads

(for specific waterbodies and pollutants)

Source Water

Assessments

• Identify water supply areas to be protected

• Identify potential sources of contamination to the water supply
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-9

• USGS 8-digit watersheds:

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service 14-digit watersheds:

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/

datasets/watershed

Table 5-1. (continued)

Data Type Typical Uses of Data

Pollutant Sources

Point sources • Characterize potential point sources for quantifying loads

Nonpoint sources • Characterize potential nonpoint sources for quantifying loads

Waterbody Monitoring Data

Water quality and flow • Characterize water quality and flow conditions throughout the watershed

• Provide information on critical conditions, temporal trends, spatial variations, impairment magnitude,

etc.

Biology • Provide information on general health of the watershed, considering long-term effects

Geomorphology • Describe river/stream pattern, profile, and dimension

• Characterize drainage basin, channel/bank morphology

• Classify river/stream type, based on morphology

• Assess changes to morphology over time

Many of the datasets discussed in the following sections are provided as GIS

data. GIS data can be critical in developing your watershed plan, but they can

be often misinterpreted by first-time or novice users unfamiliar with the data types

and their application. You might need to do some research or attend training to learn

how to use GIS effectively before gathering the associated data—data that could be

useless or misleading without the knowledge to use them properly. KFor more

information on using GIS and what information to gather when compiling GIS data,

go to section 5.9.1.

5.4 Physical and Natural Features

This section discusses information on the physical and natural features of

your watershed, including what data are available, why they are

important, and where you can find them. Information on the physical and

natural characteristics of your watershed will define your watershed

boundary and provide a basic understanding of the watershed features

that can influence watershed sources and pollutant loading.

5.4.1 Watershed Boundaries

Defining the geographic boundaries of your watershed planning effort is the first step

in gathering and evaluating data. Up to this point, the watershed boundary might

have been a theoretical boundary. You know for what watershed you are writing a

plan, but you might not have documentation of its physical boundary and the

waterbodies contained in it. Depending on the size of your watershed, its boundary

might already have been delineated by a state or federal agency.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-10 Draft

Watershed Boundary Dataset

8-digit Cataloging Unit (14060004)

Reach File, v1

NHD waterbody, medium resolution

NHD flowline, medium resolution

10 0 10 Miles

Figure 5-1. Example of NRCS watershed delineations within a

USGS 8-digit cataloging unit.

USGS Hydrologic Units

Major watersheds throughout the country were previously

classified according to the USGS system into four

levels—regions, subregions, accounting units, and cataloging

units. The hydrologic units were arranged within each other,

from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions).

Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit

code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four

levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system.

Although the nomenclature for hydrologic units has been

revised based on an interagency effort (see section 4.4), the

delineation of major watersheds and their hydrologic unit

codes remain. There are 2,150 cataloging units (now called

“subbasins”) in the United States. GIS coverages of the cataloging units are available

by EPA region in EPA’s BASINS modeling system (www.epa.gov/ost/basins).

KThe coverages can also be downloaded from USGS at

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.

Most likely, your watershed is smaller than the USGS-designated cataloging units.

(Most of the cataloging units in the nation are larger than 700 square miles.) It’s

important, however, to know what cataloging unit includes your watershed because

many sources of data are organized or

referenced by HUC.

NRCS Watershed Boundary Dataset

During the late 1970s the USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

initiated a national program to further

subdivide USGS’s 8-digit cataloging units

into smaller watersheds for water resources

planning (figure 5-1). By the early 1980s this

11-digit hydrologic unit mapping was

completed for most of the United States.

During the 1980s several NRCS state offices

starting mapping watersheds into

subwatersheds by adding 2 or 3 digits to the

11-digit units. By the late 1980s and early

1990s, the advent of GIS made the mapping

of digital hydrologic unit boundaries feasible.

Through an interagency initiative in the early

1990s, NRCS used GIS to start delineating

and subdividing hydrologic units into smaller

units for the entire United States.

Although most watershed planning efforts focus on

areas much smaller than an 8-digit hydrologic unit

(subbasin), it’s useful to know in what cataloging unit

your watershed is included. Many databases (e.g.,

monitoring, GIS) are organized or referenced by HUC.

To find your data and navigate through data

repositories and search engines, it’s necessary to know

the HUC for your watershed.

KIf you don’t know your HUC, visit EPA’s “Surf Your

Watershed” Web site (www.epa.gov/surf) to find it.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-11

A goal of this initiative is to provide the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)—a

hydrologically correct, seamless, and consistent national GIS database of watersheds

at a scale of 1:24,000. The new levels are called watershed (fifth level, 10 digits

[formerly 11 digits]) and subwatershed (sixth level, 12 digits [formerly 14 digits]).

The size at the watershed level is typically 40,000 to 250,000 acres; at the

subwatershed level, it is typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres, with some as small as

3,000 acres. An estimated 22,000 watersheds and 160,000 subwatersheds will be

mapped to the fifth and sixth levels.

GIS coverages of the WBD are publicly available through the Internet

(www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed); however, because the

mapping is ongoing, there is limited availability of the subwatershed coverage. As of

January 2005, NRCS had completed the coverages for Alabama, Georgia, Utah,

Montana, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Vermont, and Maryland. KTo check the status of the 12-digit subwatershed

coverages and availability for your watershed, go to

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/status-maps.html.

The WBD is also available through USGS’s Elevation Derivatives for National

Application (EDNA) database and interactive map (http://edna.usgs.gov). EDNA

uses the USGS’s National Elevation Dataset (NED) and National Hydrography

Dataset (NHD) to derive and provide nationwide hydrologic data layers at a scale of

1:24,000. EDNA includes the WBD, as well as tools and data to delineate watersheds

for any point in the United States. 

Regional, State, and Site-specific Watershed Boundaries

In addition to the USGS and NRCS classification, many states have created their own

watershed or planning unit delineations that break the USGS cataloging units into

smaller watersheds. For example, California has delineated watersheds with a

hierarchy of watershed designations that has six levels of increasing specificity.

These state watersheds are generally much smaller than the national 8-digit HUCs

and are better suited for local watershed planning activities.

An example of a regional dataset or tool for watershed delineation is the Digital

Watershed Mapper (www.iwr.msu.edu/dw) from the Institute of Water Research at

Michigan State University. The Digital Watershed Mapper delineates a watershed

based on an address or a selected point on a map. It also provides land use, soils, and

curve number coverages for the delineated watershed.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-12 Draft

If your state does not have watershed boundaries available or your watershed is not specified in the state coverages, you might

have to create your own watershed boundary based on coverages of the stream network and elevation or topography,

discussed in K section 5.4.3. There are also tools available to delineate watersheds automatically. For example, BASINS

includes an Automatic Watershed Delineation tool that segments watersheds into several hydrologically connected

subwatersheds. (KBASINS software is free from EPA and available for download at www.epa.gov/ost/basins.) The Automatic

Watershed Delineation is used in ArcView and requires that the Spatial Analyst (version 1.1 or later) and Dialog Designer

(version 3.1 or later) ArcView extensions be installed on your computer. The delineation process also requires a Digital

Elevation Model (DEM) in ArcInfo grid format and optionally a stream network coverage (e.g., RF3 or NHD) in ArcView shape

format. In addition, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Web site provides several applications for using NHD data,

including NHD Watershed, an ArcView (3.x) extension that enables users to delineate a watershed from any point on any NHD

reach. The ArcView 3.x Spatial Analyst extension (version 2.0) is required to delineate watersheds from any point. Without

Spatial Analyst, watershed delineation can be performed only upstream from an NHD reach confluence. Delineating watersheds

using this tool also requires National Elevation Dataset (NED) data in the 8-digit HUC of interest. (KNED data can be

downloaded from USGS’s Seamless Data Distribution System at http://seamless.usgs.gov.) In addition, 10-meter DEMs can be

used in place of NED data, where they are available. (KYou can check the availability of 10-meter DEMs at

http://geography.usgs.gov/www/products/status.html.) 

Web Sites for Downloading Waterbody

Coverages

• USGS’s NHD: http://nhd.usgs.gov

• EPA BASINS RF1 and RF3 by HUC:

www.epa.gov/waterscience/ftp/basins/gis_data/huc

5.4.2 Hydrology

Information on the hydrology of your watershed is necessary to visualize and

document the waterbody network, including the locations of all the waterbodies and

how they are connected to one another. When water flows through the stream

network, it carries pollutant loads, and therefore the conditions of upstream segments

can significantly affect the conditions of downstream segments.

When evaluating source impacts on watershed conditions, it is

crucial to understand the hydrologic network of a watershed.

Not only is this information important for characterizing your

watershed and evaluating sources and waterbody conditions,

but it is also necessary input when modeling the watershed.

Reach File

The EPA Reach Files are a series of national hydrologic databases that uniquely

identify and interconnect the stream segments or “reaches” that compose the

country’s surface water drainage system. The three versions of the Reach File

currently available are known as RF1, RF2, and RF3-Alpha, and they were created

from increasingly detailed sets of digital hydrography data produced by USGS. RF1,

at a scale of 1:500,000, contains only major waterbody features in the country,

providing too broad a scale to be useful at the watershed planning level. RF2 and

RF3 are at a scale of 1:100,000, a scale useful for watershed planning. However, RF3

has been superseded by USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), which

provides more waterbody features (e.g., ponds, springs).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-13

A map's scale is expressed as a ratio

between a distance on the map and a

distance on Earth. For example, a scale of

1:100,000 means that 1 unit of measure

on the map represents 100,000 of the

same units on Earth.

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S#S #S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

NHD flowline, high resolution

#S NHD springs/wells, high resolution

NHD waterbody, high resolution

NHD flowline, medium resolution

NHD waterbody, medium resolution

Figure 5-2. Examples of medium-resolution and high-resolution NHD.

KReferences documenting the content, production, and history of the Reach Files are

available at www.epa.gov/waters/doc/refs.html. KThe GIS coverages of the Reach

Files are available free for download through EPA’s BASINS modeling system at

www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm.

National Hydrography Dataset

The NHD is a comprehensive set of digital spatial data for the entire

United States that contains information about surface water features such

as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, springs, and wells. In the NHD, surface

water features are combined to form reaches, which provide the

framework for linking water-related data to the NHD surface water

drainage network. The NHD is based on USGS’s Digital Line Graph

(DLG) hydrography data, integrated with reach-related information from

EPA’s RF3. The NHD supersedes DLG and RF3 by incorporating them,

not by replacing them.

The full national coverage of the NHD is currently based on 1:100,000 scale data, but

the NHD is designed so that it can incorporate higher-resolution data. It is also

designed so that improvements and corrections to the dataset by individual users can

be incorporated into the national dataset. A 1:24,000 scale NHD is being developed

for many parts of the country. The 1:100,000-scale NHD is referred to as the

“medium-resolution NHD”; finer scales such as 1:24,000 are referred to as “highresolution NHD” (figure 5-2). The attribute information for each waterbody feature is

the same in medium- and highresolution NHD; however,

because of the finer scale,

high-resolution NHD contains

more waterbodies, including

smaller-order streams and

additional springs. KTo check

the status of the 1:24,000 NHD

and download coverages for

your watershed at no cost, go

to http://nhd.usgs.gov. This

Web site also includes more

information on the NHD, its

contents, and related tools.

Specifically, the Concepts and

Contents technical reference

(Khttp://nhd.usgs.gov/techref.

html) identifies and describes

NHD contents and features.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-14 Draft

• USGS's EROS Data Center:

http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata

• GIS Data Depot: http://data.geocomm.com

USGS has been the primary civilian mapping agency of the

United States since 1879. The best-known USGS maps are the

1:24,000-scale topographic maps, also known as 7.5-minute

quadrangles. More than 55,000 7.5-minute maps were made to

cover the 48 conterminous states. This is the only uniform map

series that covers the entire area of the United States in

considerable detail. The 7.5-minute map series was completed

in 1992. To order hard-copy USGS topographic maps, Kgo to

http://topomaps.usgs.gov/ordering_maps.html. USGS primary

series topographic maps (1:24,000, 1:25,000, 1:63,360 scales)

cost $6.00 per sheet, with a $5.00 handling fee for each order.

They are also available through a variety of other sources, such

as TopoZone (www.topozone.com). Electronic versions of

topographic maps, called Digital Raster Graphics (DRGs), are

also available (http://topomaps.usgs.gov/drg). USGS distributes

DRGs on CDs, and there is a base charge of $45.00 per order,

plus $5.00 shipping and $1.00 for each DRG quadrangle

purchased. 

In addition, many state environmental agencies might have created state-specific

hydrography coverage, whether based on NHD, aerial photos, or other sources. For

example, the Utah Division of Water Quality has a coverage of waterbodies for the

state that includes irrigation diversions and canals—features that might not be

captured in the national datasets. Check your state environmental department’s Web

site to see if your watershed has already-created GIS coverages.

Floodplain Maps

To address flooding and control water quality, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) requires municipalities to perform floodplain mapping and develop

management plans to receive federal flood insurance. This information is also

relevant to water quality protection and restoration activities because floodplains,

when inundated, serve many functions and provide important habitats for a variety of

fish and wildlife. Floodplains are important for spawning and rearing areas.

Floodplain wetlands act as nutrient and sediment sinks, which can improve water

quality in streams. They also provide storage that can decrease the

magnitude of floods downstream, which can benefit fish and

landowners in riparian areas. In addition, streams that are actively

connected to their floodplains are less prone to severe downcutting

and erosion. Therefore, it’s important to incorporate protection of

these benefits of floodplain areas into watershed management

planning. Check with your local government planning office to see if

floodplain maps are available, or search the FEMA map store at

www.store.msc.fema.gov.

5.4.3 Topography

Characterizing the topography or natural features of

the watershed can help determine possible sources of

pollution. For example, steep slopes might contribute

more sediment loads to the waterbody than flat

landscapes. Topographical information is also needed

in many watershed models to route movement of

runoff and loading across the land and to the

waterbody. Digital elevation models (DEMs) are

grid-based GIS coverages that represent elevation.

They can be displayed in a GIS and are used for

delineating watersheds and displaying topography.

One DEM typically consists of thousands of grid cells

that represent the topography of an area. DEMs are

available with 10-meter, 30-meter, and 90-meter cell

sizes. The smaller cell sizes represent smaller areas

and provide more detailed and accurate topographic

data. However, GIS coverages with small grid cell
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-15

Local conservation districts can provide

information on soils in your watershed and how

they affect sources and pollutant delivery.

KTo see if your conservation district is online, visit

www.nrcs.usda.gov/partners/districts.html or the

National Association of Conservation Districts,

www.nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html. 

sizes often have large file sizes and can be difficult to work with over large areas.

The 30-meter and 10-meter DEMs are appropriate for smaller watersheds, such as a

single 8-digit cataloging unit or smaller.

5.4.4 Soils

Soils can be an important factor in determining the amount of erosion and stormwater

runoff that occurs in your watershed. Soils have inherent characteristics that control

how much water they retain, how stable they are, or how water is transmitted through

them. Understanding the types of soils in your watershed and their characteristics

helps to identify areas that are prone to erosion or areas more likely to experience

runoff.

Historically, USDA and the local soil and water conservation

districts have been instrumental in carefully mapping and

classifying soils at the county level. Soils are also grouped into

hydrologic soil groups according to their runoff potential. These

datasets are essential to the development of input data for models

that predict runoff and erosion and for the evaluation of land

management techniques and alternatives.

NRCS is the principal source of soil data across the nation, and

you can access that information through the Soil Data Mart at

Khttp://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. NRCS’s Soil Data Mart

includes more than 2,000 soil surveys with spatial and tabular information and

another 800 soil surveys with tabular (soil attribute) data only. The spatial data on the

Soil Data Mart are available for download at no charge and include the following:

• State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. Soil maps for the STATSGO

database are produced by generalizing the detailed soil survey data. The mapping

scale for STATSGO is 1:250,000 (with the exception of Alaska, which is

1:1,000,000). The level of mapping is designed to be used for broad planning and

management uses covering state, regional, and multistate areas.

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo

• Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Mapping scales for SSURGO

generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360, making them the most detailed level

of soil mapping done by NRCS. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil

survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, township

personnel, and county natural resource planners and managers.

www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-16 Draft

5.4.5 Climate

Local climatological data are often needed in a watershed characterization to help

understand the local water budget for the region and also for modeling purposes.

Current and historical climate data can be obtained from the National Climatic Data

Center (NCDC), maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). KThe NCDC data are available online at

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html and include information such as precipitation,

wind speed, temperature, and snow and ice cover at multiple stations throughout the

United States. Stations within or near a watershed can be found in the NCDC

database by using a variety of search tools, and data are provided (for a fee) in a raw

format that can be read by a word processing or spreadsheet program.

Hourly or daily precipitation data, as well as temperature, evaporation, and wind

speed, are necessary for simulating rainfall-runoff processes in watershed models.

However, if weather data are being used only to generally characterize weather

patterns in the watershed, daily or monthly averages are sufficient. Daily and

monthly temperature and precipitation data are available online at no cost. The data

are available by station through the regional climate centers and often through state

climate offices. KThe Western Regional Climate Center provides a map of regional

climate centers with links to their Web sites: www.wrcc.dri.edu/rcc.html.

Climatological data can be organized relatively easily to provide insight into wet and

dry seasons, which can be important considerations in characterizing watershed

problems and sources. Elevation can have an important impact on precipitation;

therefore, in watersheds with significant differences in topography, it is

recommended that data be presented from at least two locations (upper and lower).

5.4.6 Habitat

When characterizing your watershed, it’s important to gather data not only to identify

potential pollutant sources but also to identify areas for protection. Maintaining highquality wildlife and aquatic habitat is typically an important goal when developing

watershed plans. This section discusses information and programs available to help

you identify and characterize critical habitats—terrestrial and aquatic—in your

watershed. 

National Wetlands Inventory

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of

the nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. The NWI

has a new feature, Wetlands Mapper, that allows you to map wetland habitat data.

KGo to www.nwi.fws.gov. Identifying wetlands is crucial to protecting natural

habitats in your watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-17

Wetland Assessments

Many programs use a wetland assessment or survey to serve as a baseline for future

management activities. The survey might include global positioning system (GPS)

coordinates of sample plots, a general plot description and condition assessment (land

use impacts), canopy information or measurements, and digital pictures of sampling

areas. In addition, the survey might document flora and fauna diversity observations.

These datasets can be used to help characterize the watershed and identify wetland

areas. In addition, State Wetland Conservation Plans are strategies for states to

achieve no net loss and other wetland management goals by integrating regulatory

and nonregulatory approaches to protecting wetlands. For more information on

state wetland conservation planning activities, go to

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact27.html.

EPA’s Web site for state, tribal, and local wetland initiatives

(www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative) provides links to a variety of wetland

information, including state/tribal regulatory programs; state/tribal watershed

planning; local initiatives; and state, tribal, and local partners. The Web site also

provides a link to the Association of State Wetland Managers’ Web site, which

provides links to state and local wetland programs. EPA also provides a link to

wetland efforts throughout the EPA regions at

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regions.html.

National Wetlands Status and Trends Report

The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 requires the USFWS to conduct

status and trend studies of the nation’s wetlands and report the results to Congress

each decade. The report provides the most recent and comprehensive estimates of the

current status and trends of wetlands in the United States on public and private lands.

KTo download a copy of the most recent report, go to http://wetlands.fws.gov.

Natural Heritage Program

The NHP is a nonprofit program operated in every state under cooperative

agreements with many state and federal agencies, such as the National Park Service,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Defense, and USFWS, to monitor the status of

the state’s rare, threatened, and endangered plants. State NHPs are part of a network

established by The Nature Conservancy and currently coordinated by NatureServe,

an international nonprofit organization. All NHP programs use a standard

methodology for collecting, characterizing, and managing data, making it possible to

combine data at various scales to address local, state, regional, and national issues.

State NHP programs provide a variety of information, including statewide lists of

tracked species and communities, plant atlases and maps, rare plant field guides, lists

of rare plants (including rarity status, counties of occurrence, and flowering and

fruiting times), synonyms for the scientific names of rare plants, and descriptions of
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-18 Draft

how rare plants are treated under federal and state laws. Go to

www.natureserve.org/visitLocal/usa.jsp to find local programs and datasets for your

area.

Habitat Conservation Plans

Private landowners, corporations, state or local governments, and other non-federal

landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harm

(or “take”) wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened must first obtain an

incidental take permit from the USFWS. To obtain this permit, the applicant must

develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), designed to offset any harmful effects

the proposed activity might have on the species. HCPs describe the impacts expected

from the proposed operations or activities (e.g., timber harvesting) and detail the

measures to mitigate the impacts. HCPs can provide valuable information on critical

habitat in your watershed and also identify stakeholders and current management

measures to be integrated into the watershed planning process. KGo to

http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp for more information on the HCP program.

5.4.7 Fish and Wildlife

Identifying the types of wildlife in your watershed can help to identify areas for

protection in your watershed plan. Previous watershed reports might provide

information on wildlife in your watershed. In addition, local and state fish and

wildlife offices can provide you with information on wildlife species and distribution

in their jurisdictions. KGo to http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html for a list of and

links to state and territorial fish and wildlife offices. It’s especially important to

consider wildlife habitat in your watershed plan when endangered or threatened

species occur in your watershed. KTo find out more about endangered species, go to

http://endangered.fws.gov. That page also includes links to endangered species

contacts in your area (http://endangered.fws.gov/contacts.html).

Understanding the types of wildlife in your watershed can not only identify critical

habitat areas to protect but sometimes also identify pollutant sources affecting water

quality. For example, waterfowl can be a significant source of bacteria and nutrients

to reservoirs and lakes. Although wildlife are an important component of the

watershed ecology and should be protected, it’s important to understand their impact

on waterbody conditions when developing a watershed plan.

5.5 Land Use and Population Characteristics

This section discusses data and information for determining the distribution of land

use and population in your watershed. Land uses are an important factor influencing

the physical conditions of the watershed, as well as an indicator of the types of

sources active in the watershed. Together with land use characteristics, population
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-19

GIS coverages

• MRLC/NLCD data:

www.mrlc.gov/index.asp

• USGS's LULC data:

http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata

Survey-based land use data

• U.S. Census of Agriculture:

www.nass.usda.gov/census

• National Resources Inventory:

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI

Many of the land use datasets discussed in this section are

products of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)

consortium. Because of the escalating costs of acquiring

satellite images, in 1992 several federal agencies agreed to

operate as a consortium to acquire satellite-based remotely

sensed data for their environmental monitoring programs. The

original members of the MRLC consortium were USGS, EPA,

NOAA, and the Forest Service. The National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) and the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) joined the consortium later. 

During the 1990s the MRLC created several mapping

programs, including (1) the Coastal Change Analysis Project

(C-CAP) administered by NOAA; (2) the Gap Analysis Project

(GAP) directed by the Biological Resources Division of USGS;

and (3) the National Land Cover Data (NLCD) project directed

by USGS and EPA. The data developed by these projects are

available publicly through download or by contacting the

agencies involved.

For more information on the MRLC and its data products, go to

www.epa.gov/mrlc.

can help you to understand the potential growth of the area and possible

changes in land uses and sources.

5.5.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data

Evaluating the land uses of a watershed is an important step in understanding

the watershed conditions and source dynamics. Land use types (together with

other physical features such as soils and topography) influence the

hydrologic and physical nature of the watershed. In addition, land use

distribution is often related to the activities in the watershed and, therefore,

pollutant stressors and sources. Sources are often specific to certain land

uses, providing a logical basis for identifying or evaluating sources. For

example, sources of nutrients such as grazing livestock and fertilizer

application associated with agricultural land uses would likely not contribute

to loading from other land uses such as urban or forest land uses. Likewise,

urban land uses typically have specific pollutants of concern (e.g., metals, oil

and grease) different from those associated with rural land uses. Evaluating land use

distribution and associated sources also facilitates identifying future implementation

efforts because some management practices are most effective when applied to a

certain land use.

This section discusses some of the most common

sources of land use data. Typically, land use and land

cover data are obtained from aerial photographs,

satellite images, and ground surveys. Because in some

areas land uses continually change, it’s important to

keep in mind the type and date of available land use

data when reviewing the sources of land use data for

use in developing your watershed plan.

National Land Cover Data

Satellite data from the early 1990s are available for the

entire United States as part of the National Land Cover

Data (NLCD) program, made available by the

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium

(MRLC). The NLCD data are classified using a

standard land use classification system and are

available as 30-meter grid cell GIS coverages that can

be displayed and queried in a GIS. The NLCD includes

21 land use classifications within the following broad

categories:

• Water

• Developed
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-20 Draft

NLCD 1992 was derived from the early to mid-1990s

Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite data purchased

under MRLC 92. Currently, the entire United States is

being mapped through NLCD 2001 using imagery

acquired circa 2000 from Landsat-7's enhanced TM

(ETM). This project entails re-mapping the lower 48

states, as well as covering Hawaii and Alaska for the first

time. Classification schemes for the two rounds of

classification are similar but not identical. For a list and

definitions of the classifications, go to

www.epa.gov/mrlc/classification.html.

NLCD 2001 is a Landsat-based land cover database that

has several independent data layers, thereby allowing

users a wide variety of potential applications. Primary

components in the database include

• Normalized imagery for three time periods

• Ancillary data, including a 30-m DEM, slope, aspect,

and a positional index

• Per-pixel estimates of percent imperviousness and

percent tree canopy

• 21 classes of land-cover data derived from the imagery,

ancillary data, and derivatives using a decision tree

• Classification rules, confidence estimates, and

metadata from the land cover classification

KTo check the status of NLCD 2001 and determine

whether it is available for your watershed, go to

www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_overall_status.asp.

• Barren

• Natural Forested Upland (non-wet)

• Natural Shrubland

• Non-natural Woody

• Herbaceous Upland Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation

• Herbaceous Planted/Cultivated

• Wetlands 

KDefinitions of the land use classifications are included at

http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.asp.

KThe NLCD data can be downloaded from the NLCD

Web site at www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd.html or through

USGS’s Seamless Data Distribution Center

(http://seamless.usgs.gov). The entire United States is

being mapped using imagery acquired circa 2000 as part of

the MRLC 2001 land use project. KTo check the status of

NLCD 2001 and whether it is available for your watershed,

go to www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_overall_status.asp.

Land Use and Land Cover Data

USGS’s Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data consist of

historical land use and land cover classification data based

primarily on the manual interpretation of 1970s and 1980s

aerial photography. Secondary sources include land use

maps and surveys. Along with the LULC files, associated

maps that provide additional information on political units,

hydrologic units, census county subdivisions, and federal

and state land ownership are included. LULC includes 21

possible categories of cover type within the following

Anderson Level I codes:

• Urban or Built-up

• Agricultural

• Rangeland

• Forest

• Water

• Wetland

• Barren

• Tundra

• Perennial Snow or Ice

LULC data are available for the conterminous United States and Hawaii, but

coverage is not complete for all areas. The data are based on 1:100,000- and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-21

1:250,000-scale USGS topographic quadrangles. The spatial resolution for all LULC

files depends on the format and feature type—GIRAS (Geographic Information

Retrieval and Analysis System) or CTG (Composite Theme Grid). Files in GIRAS

format have a minimum polygon area of 10 acres with a minimum width of 660 feet

(200 meters) for man-made features. Non-urban or natural features have a minimum

polygon area of 40 acres (16 hectares) with a minimum width of 1,320 feet (400

meters). Files in CTG format have a resolution of 30 meters.

KAll LULC data are available for free by download at http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata.

LULC data in ArcInfo export format are also available from EPA in 1:250,000 scale

only (www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/spdata/EPAGIRAS).

State and County Land Use Databases

In addition to national coverages, several states and counties have statewide or local

land use and land cover information available. Specialized local land use or land

cover sets might include land parcel or land ownership, impervious surfaces, wetland

or forest coverage, sewer areas, land use zoning, or future land use projections. For

example, King County, Washington’s GIS Center (www.metrokc.gov/gis) has an

online database of available GIS data for the area, including 2001 Landsat land cover.

Regional examples of land use datasets include land use data for southern California

counties available from the San Diego Association of Governments

(www.sandag.cog.ca.us) and Southern California Association of Governments

(www.scag.ca.gov/index.htm). The Internet is an excellent tool for locating land use

data available from local and regional agencies.

Many GIS Web sites, including KGeography Network

(www.geographynetwork.com), have links to local, state, and federal GIS sources

and provide query engines to identify available GIS data by geographic location or

content. In addition, states often have GIS groups as part of their environmental

agencies and provide access to the data on the Internet. KExamples of state GIS Web

pages are included in section 5.9.

Survey-based Data

In addition to GIS coverages and databases of land use distribution, there are several

survey-based inventories of land use information. Two examples are the USDA

National Resources Inventory (NRI) and the USDA Census of Agriculture. Be

careful when using NRI and Census of Agriculture data to evaluate land use in your

watershed because these inventories are built on a more gross scale than is typically

needed for watershed planning. The NRI is based on data collected at thousands of

sites across the country to evaluate state, regional, and national trends in resources.

The Census of Agriculture includes county-level data on agriculture characteristics

that might or might not reflect the characteristics of your watershed. If these data are
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-22 Draft

evaluated for your watershed, they should be used to gain a general sense of the

sources and conditions, not as hard facts on the watershed.

USDA National Resources Inventory (NRI)

Survey-based land use data are available from the KUSDA’s NRI

(www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI). The NRI is a statistical survey of information on

natural resources on non-federal land in the United States that captures data on land

cover and land use, soil erosion, prime farmland soils, wetlands, habitat diversity,

selected conservation practices, and related resource attributes. The NRI includes

inventories such as highly erodible lands, land capabilities, and land uses.

With data collected during each survey from the same 800,000 sample sites in all 50

states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and some Pacific Basin locations, the

NRI is designed to assess conditions and long-term trends of soil, water, and related

resources. Previously, data were collected every 5 years, with information available

at each sample point for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997. Since 2001 the NRI has been

updated continually with annual releases of NRI data. The NRI provides information

for addressing agricultural and environmental issues at the national, regional, and

state levels.

NRI data are provided on a county or cataloging unit level. Therefore, at the smaller

watershed level they are likely useful mainly for providing “big picture” information

on trends in land use over the years. However, NRI data are useful at the watershed

level when evaluating the erodibility of agricultural land in your watershed. When

developing watershed models, for example, NRI can be an important source of

information on site-specific soil characteristics for agricultural lands (e.g., cropland,

pastureland) in your area. It’s also important to note that the NRI data are provided as

inventories and are not in GIS format.

USDA Census of Agriculture 

Additional survey-based land use data are available from KUSDA’s Census of

Agriculture (www.nass.usda.gov/census). Prepared by the USDA’s National

Agricultural Statistics Service, the census includes comprehensive data on

agricultural production and operator characteristics for each U.S. state and county,

including area of farmland, cropland, and irrigated land; livestock and poultry

numbers; and acres and types of crops harvested.

Unfortunately, Census of Agriculture information is provided at the county

level—often a more gross scale than is useful for watershed planning. The Census of

Agriculture information is also provided as inventories and is not in GIS format,

preventing you from isolating data for only your watershed. You must be careful

about using county-level information to evaluate your watershed because farming

practices can vary widely across a county.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-23

Specialized Land Use Datasets

In addition to the national datasets discussed previously in this section, there are

several specialized datasets on land use focusing on specific regions (e.g., coastal

areas, forested areas) or on specific types of land uses (e.g., mineral areas).

The following are examples of these types of data. KYou can find more examples at

the following MRLC Web site: www.epa.gov/mrlc/data.html.

The NOAA Coastal Services Center is developing a nationally standardized database

of land cover within the coastal regions of the United States as part of the Coastal

Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). C-CAP includes land cover and change data for

the nation’s coastal zone, designed to assist coastal resource managers in their

decisionmaking processes. These land cover products inventory coastal intertidal

habitats, wetlands, and adjacent uplands with the goal of monitoring changes in these

habitats on a 1- to 5-year cycle. KFor more information on the C-CAP and related

data, go to www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca.

Another type of specialized land use dataset is the BLM’s Land and Mineral Use

Records. The Land and Mineral Use Records Web site allows users to search, locate,

and map the BLM’s land and mineral use authorizations and mining claims on public

lands throughout the United States. Land and mineral use authorizations include such

things as oil and gas leases, right-of-ways, and mineral leases. KTo search the Land

and Mineral Use Records, go to

www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/lsis_home/home/index.html.

5.5.2 Land Management Practices

Information on how the land is managed in a watershed is helpful to identify both

current control practices and potential targets for future management This

information not only will support the characterization of the watershed but also will

be important in identifying current watershed sources, future management efforts,

and areas for additional management efforts.

Nonpoint Source Projects 

Under Clean Water Act section 319, states, territories, and tribes receive grant money

to support a wide variety of activities, including implementation of BMPs to improve

water quality. To find out if there are any current nonpoint source projects in your

watershed, contact your state environmental department. KEPA’s Web site for

nonpoint source pollution (www.epa.gov/nps) provides a variety of links, including

section 319 information, publication and information resources, background on the

state-EPA nonpoint source partnership, and outreach information. KA list of state

nonpoint source coordinators is available at

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-24 Draft

Conservation districts are local units of government

responsible for the soil and water conservation work within

their boundaries. A district’s role is to increase voluntary

conservation practices among farmers, ranchers, and other

land users. Depending on the location of the districts, their

programs and available information vary. For example,

districts in agricultural areas can provide assistance with

erosion control, agriculture-related water quality projects,

and nutrient and pesticide management plans. Districts in

suburban or urban areas might focus on protection of

streams from impacts of urban activities and erosion control

for construction activities. 

Local conservation districts can be a good source of

information on potential watershed sources, as well as

restoration activities in your watershed. KTo see if your

conservation district is online, visit

www.nrcs.usda.gov/partners/districts.html or the National

Association of Conservation Districts, 

www.nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html. 

Local Ordinances

Local ordinances that establish construction-phase erosion

and sediment control requirements, river corridors and

wetland buffers, and other watershed protection provisions

are often included as part of a watershed plan

implementation strategy. Check to see what current

ordinances are in place for your community through the

planning or environmental department. KGo to CWP’s

Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center, which provides

examples of real-world and model ordinances

(www.stormwatercenter.net/intro_ordinances.htm) that can

be used to guide future growth while safeguarding local

natural resources. The intent is to provide language and

ideas that communities and stormwater managers can

incorporate when writing an ordinance for their local area.

The Web site includes a sampling of ordinances from

across the nation and can help watershed managers

understand what ordinances might exist in their watershed.

KOther references for model ordinances are provided in

appendix A.

Master Plans

Economic development plans for counties or multi-county regions often have

significant impacts on water resources. The designation of future development areas,

sewer service districts, and drinking water sources should address how water

resources will be protected through watershed planning/management, antidegradation

policy implementation, and other measures. Integrating watershed planning with

economic development master planning builds efficiencies and effectiveness in both

processes and ensures compatibility among activities that might have competing

objectives. In addition, master planning studies might provide information on future

land uses and growth projections. Contact your local government planning

department to find out if your community has a master plan.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans

Federal regulations require many industrial facilities and most construction sites

disturbing more than 1 acre of land to obtain a stormwater permit. Each covered

industrial facility or construction site is required to develop and implement a

stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that describes the activities that will

be conducted to prevent stormwater pollution. If you’re interested in how a certain

industrial facility or construction site plans to control stormwater pollution, you can

often obtain a copy of the SWPPP from your state environmental agency, EPA
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-25

regional office, or local municipality. KAdditional information is available at

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater.

BLM Resource Management Plans

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 262 million surface acres of

America’s public lands, primarily in 12 western states, and 700 million acres of

mineral estate. The BLM’s 162 resource management plans (RMPs) form the basis

for every action and approved use on public lands throughout the country. The RMPs

typically establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for public

lands administered by the BLM and might address a combination of the following

issues:

• Air quality

• Cultural resources

• Soil and water resources

• Vegetation

• Grazing and rangeland

• Lands and realty management

• Wildlife habitat 

• Fisheries management

• Mineral and mining resources

• Oil and gas resources

• Recreation and off-highway

vehicle use

• Visual resource management

• Special management designations

• Soil and water resources

• Hazardous materials

An RMP in your watershed could provide information on potential sources, as well

as general background information on watershed activities and conditions.

KThe BLM’s national planning Web site (Planning, Assessment, and Community

Support Group) allows you to search for BLM management plans by state—

www.blm.gov/planning/plans.html.

5.5.3 Demographics

Demographic data include information on the people in the watershed,

such as the number of persons or families, commuting patterns, household

structure, age, gender, race, economic conditions, employment, and

educational information. This information can be used to help design

public outreach strategies, identify specific subpopulations to target during

the implementation phase, or help determine future trends and needs of the

populations.

Local governments usually include demographic information on their

communities through the planning or economic departments. KThe

primary database for demographic, social, and economic data is the U.S.

Census Bureau (www.census.gov). Within the database you can search

county population estimates.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-26 Draft

Population Statistics

Population can provide insight into the distribution of pollutant sources in a

watershed and into future growth patterns. In developing areas, it’s important to

consider future growth when evaluating sources of impairment and identifying

potential management options. GIS data for mapping human population are provided

by the U.S. Census Bureau through the TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic

Encoding and Referencing) program. KGo to www.esri.com/data/download/

census2000_tigerline/index.html. TIGER data consist of man-made features (such as

roads and railroads) and political boundaries. Population data from the 2000 census

can be linked to the TIGER data to map population numbers and density for small

areas (census blocks) and large areas like counties and states. Information from the

1990 Census includes data on household wastewater disposal methods (e.g., sewer,

septic systems, other), but similar information was not collected as part of the 2000

Census. Cultural data are also available through many of the states’ GIS Web sites.

Land Ownership

Many watersheds contain land owned by a variety of parties, including private

citizens and federal, state, and county government agencies. Although information on

land ownership in a watershed might not help to characterize the physical nature of

the area, it can provide insight into sources of information for characterizing the

watershed or identifying pollutant sources. It can also be very useful in identifying

implementation opportunities. For example, federal parks can cover large expanses of

land, comprising large portions of the watershed, and the managing agency (e.g.,

National Park Service, USDA Forest Service) can be a valuable source of

information on watershed and waterbody characteristics and potential sources (e.g.,

wildlife populations). State and federal agencies owning and managing land in the

watershed should also be contacted to identify any previous studies conducted in the

watershed that might support watershed or instream characterization. Keep in mind

that local county or city agencies often maintain parcel maps as GIS coverages.

GIS coverages of managed lands in the country are available through EPA’s BASINS

modeling system. KTo download data for your cataloging unit, go to

www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm. Many states and counties also

have coverages of land ownership by parcel or census block.

5.6 Waterbody and Watershed Conditions

Several sources can provide helpful information on the current condition of the

waterbodies in your watershed, including whether they meet water quality standards

and support designated uses. This section discusses where to find water quality

standards for your waterbody, how to identify impaired waters and use support in

your watershed, and how to find any TMDLs that have already been completed in
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-27

In November 2001 EPA released guidance recommending that

states develop an Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and

Assessment Report to satisfy requirements for both the 305(b)

report and the 303(d) list. The Integrated Report includes the

following:

• Delineation of water quality assessment units (AUs) based on

the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

• Status of and progress toward achieving comprehensive

assessments of all waters; water quality standard attainment

status for every AU

• Basis for the water quality standard attainment determinations

for every AU

• Additional monitoring that may be needed to determine water

quality standard attainment status and, if necessary, to

support development of TMDLs for each pollutant/AU

combination

• Schedules for additional monitoring planned for AUs

• Pollutant/AU combinations still requiring TMDLs

• TMDL development schedules reflecting the priority ranking of

each pollutant/AU combination

EPA recommended that states use the Integrated Report for the

2002 303(d) lists and 305(b) reports and subsequent listing

cycles. Most, if not all, states should now be using the Integrated

Report format rather than individual 303(d) lists and 305(b)

reports. However, the reports are discussed individually in this

handbook to provide background on their content and purpose.

KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2002wqma.html to learn more

about the Integrated Report. (EPA is currently developing a new

version of the Integrated Report guidance. For more information

go to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/index.html.

your watershed. This information provides general information on the health of the

waterbodies in your watershed and what uses should be supported.

5.6.1 Water Quality Standards

You’ll need to obtain the current water quality standards for the waterbodies in your

watershed to understand for what uses they should be protected and to compare

instream monitoring data with standards to evaluate impairment. You should also

document the designated uses for the waterbodies and any relevant criteria for

evaluating waterbody conditions. KThis information can be obtained from EPA’s

Web site at www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase. KTribal water quality standards can be

found at http://epa.gov/waterscience/tribes.

5.6.2 Water Quality Reports

State water quality reports produced to meet federal

requirements provide data on the status of

waterbodies, designated uses, known impairments,

and potential sources of the stressors. Local

municipalities or counties may also produce

individual reports on the status of water quality in

their jurisdictions.

Biannual 305(b) State Water Quality Report 

Under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, states

are required to prepare a report describing the status

of their water quality every 2 years. EPA compiles

the data from the state reports, summarizes them, and

transmits the summaries to Congress along with an

analysis of the nationwide status of water quality.

The 305(b) reports evaluate whether U.S. waters

meet water quality standards, what progress has been

made in maintaining and restoring water quality, and

the extent of remaining problems. Check your state’s

report to see if your watershed has been monitored or

assessed. If so, you should find information like the

following:

• Status of use support with descriptions of

significant water quality impairments

• Identification of problem parameters for

impaired waters, along with potential sources of

the stressors

• Priority for TMDL development
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-28 Draft

KGo to www.epa.gov/OWOW/305b for information on your state’s 305(b) report.

303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized

tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are those

which do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have

installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law

requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and

develop TMDLs for these waters.

Reviewing your state’s 303(d) lists will help you identify any impaired waterbodies

in your watershed. If there are impairments that have not been addressed through

TMDLs, you might want to consider coordinating with your state’s TMDL program

to develop TMDLs concurrently with your watershed plan. The 303(d) list may

identify the schedule for TMDL development, highlighting TMDLs already done,

currently under way, or scheduled for coming years. The list may identify potential

sources of the impairment and include notes on why the waterbody was

listed—information that can guide your source assessment and search for

information.

KTo review your state’s most recent 303(d) list, go to www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.

5.6.3 Watershed-Related Reports

In addition to state or local water quality reports, there might be existing watershedrelated studies produced for all or a portion of your watershed under various state,

local, or federal programs. These studies might have a narrower focus than your

watershed plan (e.g., source water, specific pollutant) or be out-of-date, but they can

provide information on available data, potential pollutant sources, and historical

water quality and watershed conditions. This section provides a few examples of

current or recent programs that might provide relevant watershed information. This is

not a comprehensive list of the programs or reports that could be available for a

watershed, but it does highlight commonly used plans that can provide information

relevant to watershed planning. 

Existing TMDL Reports

If a TMDL has been developed for all or part of your watershed, the supporting

documents can often provide much of the information needed to support watershed

plan development, such as

• Descriptions of the stressors causing water quality impairment

• The extent (length of stream, area of watershed) and magnitude of the

impairment
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-29

Do not limit your watershed planning effort strictly to

the information provided in the TMDL. You’ll need to

review the TMDL and determine the following:

Pollutants and Sources. TMDLs are developed

specifically to address the pollutants included on the

state’s 303(d) list. The watershed planning effort

should consider all pollutants causing problems in the

watershed. 

Availability of Information. Since the TMDL was

completed, has more information that would change

or refine the source assessment become available?

Scale/Resolution. What was the scale of the TMDL

source assessment? Does it fit the needs of the

watershed plan? Generally, the resolution of your

watershed plan will need to provide more detail for

developing and implementing specific control

strategies.

Resources Available. Was the TMDL completed with

limited resources? Are there sufficient resources to

refine the original source assessment? 

• Sources of impairment and relative contributions for

parameters causing impairment

• Loading targets for watershed and water quality protection

• Overall load allocations for point and nonpoint sources 

KTo find a link to your state’s TMDL program Web site, go to

www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/links.html.

In addition, the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS)

houses the 303(d) lists and tracks TMDL approvals. The NTTS

stores information necessary to track the performance of state

and regional TMDL programs and to ensure that TMDLs are

being calculated at an adequate pace for waters currently listed

as impaired. The database includes numerous Web-based

reports. The NTTS is mapped to the NHD through the EPA

WATERS (Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental

Result) system. KData files and GIS shapefiles with

information on segments listed for one or more pollutants and

listed waters for which TMDL loading reduction targets have

been established are available for download at

www.epa.gov/waters/data/prog.html.

Source Water Assessments

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996

require states to develop and implement Source Water Assessment Programs

(SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public

drinking water throughout the state. Every state is moving forward to implement

assessments of its public water systems through the SWAPs. Assessments were

required to be completed by 2003 for every public water system—from major

metropolitan areas to the smallest towns, including schools, restaurants, and other

public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies. (Assessments are not

conducted for drinking water systems that have fewer than 15 service connections or

that regularly serve fewer than 25 people because these are not considered public

water systems.)

The SWAPs created by states differ because they are tailored to each state’s water

resources and drinking water priorities. However, each assessment must include four

major elements:

• Delineating (or mapping) the source water assessment area

• Conducting an inventory of potential sources of contamination in the delineated

area

• Determining the susceptibility of the water supply to those contamination sources

• Releasing the results of the determinations to the public 
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-30 Draft

The assessments are available through the local utility in its annual consumer

confidence reports. Many local water utilities provide this information online, and it

can be found by searching the Internet. KGo to EPA’s Local Drinking Water

Information Web page (www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/index.html) to find links to

many online water quality reports and specific information about local drinking water

supplies, including information about the state’s drinking water program and source

water protection program. KGo to www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html to

find links to regional and state contacts for source water protection. KAdditional

information about SWAPs is available at www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/swap.html.

Watershed Restoration Action Strategies

In 1998 EPA and USDA released the Clean Water Action Plan (USEPA and USDA

1998) as a means toward fulfilling the original goal of the Clean Water Act—fishable

and swimmable waters for all Americans. A key component of the plan was the

development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) to

comprehensively address watershed restoration, including a balance between

discharge control for specific chemicals and prevention of broader, water-related

problems such as wetland loss and habitat degradation. The plan proposed that states

and tribes develop a WRAS for those watersheds identified as having the greatest

need for restoration. 

The development and implementation of WRASs were a focus of EPA guidelines for

awarding section 319 funds in Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001. Because of this,

many states developed WRASs for priority watersheds, and some might continue to

do so. If a WRAS has been completed for your watershed, it can be an important

source of information about water quality conditions, available data, land uses and

activities, threats to water quality, restoration priorities, key stakeholders, and sources

of funding. KBrowse your state environmental agency’s Web site to see if a WRAS

is available for your watershed.

5.7 Pollutant Sources

Pollutants can be delivered to waterbodies from various point and nonpoint sources.

The identification and characterization of sources are critical to the successful

development and implementation of a watershed plan and the control of pollutant

loading to a stream. Characterizing and quantifying watershed pollutant sources can

provide information on the relative magnitude and influence of each source and its

impact on instream water quality conditions. Watershed-specific sources will

typically be identified and characterized through a combination of generation,

collection, and evaluation of GIS data, instream data, and local information.

However, some common types of pollutant sources might be contributing to

watershed problems, and this section discusses information available to characterize

them.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-31

KTo find out more about NPDES and what

discharges are subject to NPDES permitting

requirements, go to EPA’s NPDES Web page

at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm.

5.7.1 Point Sources

Pollutant sources permitted to discharge at specific locations from

pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels are point sources, and they

are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits. Check with state agencies for the most

recent and accurate point source discharge information. Be sure to

verify actual monitored discharges and future discharge projections

or capacity because often not all of the water quality parameters that

you might be interested in are monitored.

Permits

Existing dischargers that discharge into waterbodies from specific point sources

should be identified. These include wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities,

and concentrated animal feeding operations. All point sources that discharge

pollutants into waterbodies are required to have a permit under the NPDES program.

Information on major facilities is stored in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS).

PCS is an online database of information regarding permitted point sources

throughout the United States (Kwww.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html). Data

from major NPDES permits must be included in PCS; PCS also includes information

from certain minor NPDES permits as well. Included in the database is information

about facility location, type of facility, receiving stream, design flow, and effluent

pollutant limits. PCS also contains Discharge Monitoring Report data on effluent

monitoring and recorded violations. Data are continuously added to the database so

that the most recent point sources can be tracked. Geographic information is included

with each point source so that data can be plotted and analyzed in a GIS.

Wastewater Permits

Many communities have a wastewater treatment plant that uses a series of processes

to remove pollutants from water that has been used in homes, small businesses,

industries, and other facilities before discharging it to a receiving waterbody. All

facilities that discharge wastewater into waterbodies are required to have a permit

under the NPDES program. KInformation about wastewater treatment facilities is

available in EPA’s “Envirofacts” data system for water

(http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water). Search for facilities in your area by

entering your ZIP Code, city, or county. Envirofacts will then display a list of

permitted facilities in your area, including the facility name, permit number, location,

and discharge information.

Stormwater Permits

Federal regulations require certain municipalities, generally those in urban areas, to

obtain municipal stormwater permits. These permits require each municipality to
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-32 Draft

Livestock information is summarized by county. Make

sure to check how your watershed overlaps

county/municipal boundaries. This will be important if

you need to estimate how many livestock are located

within your watershed.

develop a stormwater management plan that describes how the municipality will

prevent stormwater pollution. Copies of the permits are available from your state

environmental agency or EPA regional office. The stormwater management plans

written to comply with the requirements in the permit typically include activities to

educate the public about stormwater impacts, control stormwater runoff from new

developments and construction sites, identify and eliminate illicit discharges, and

control stormwater runoff from municipal operations. Contact your local

municipality’s environmental agency or public works department to find out whether

it addresses stormwater runoff. You should also be able to obtain a copy of the

municipality’s current stormwater management plan to see what activities are

planned. KAdditional information can be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater.

5.7.2 Nonpoint Sources

Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from industrial facilities and treatment

plants, typically comes from many diffuse sources, not specific pipes or conveyances.

Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and

through the ground, carrying natural and man-made pollutants and finally depositing

them into surface waters. Surface water runoff represents a major nonpoint source in

both urban and rural areas. Runoff from urban watersheds can deliver a variety of

pollutants from roadways and grassed areas, and rural stormwater runoff can

transport significant pollutant loads from cropland, pastures, and livestock

operations. Natural background sources such as wildlife or geology (e.g., soils high

in iron) can also contribute loadings and might be particularly important in forested

or less-developed areas of the watershed. Additional nonpoint sources include on-site

wastewater systems (septic tanks, cesspools) that are poorly installed, faulty,

improperly located, or in close proximity to a stream and illicit discharges of

residential and industrial wastes. This section discusses some common nonpoint

sources characterized in watershed plans.

Livestock Sources

In watersheds with extensive agricultural operations, livestock

can be a significant source of nutrients and bacteria and can

increase erosion. If available, site-specific information on

livestock population, distribution, and management should be

used to characterize the potential effects from livestock

activities. Local USDA officials are typically the best source

of livestock information. If local information is not available,

you can use the Census of Agriculture to find information

about the number and type of animal units per county. The

census is conducted every 5 years; the most recent census was conducted in 2002.

Data from the census are available online at K www.nass.usda.gov/census, and data

can be analyzed at the county level in a GIS. You should consult local USDA
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-33

Extension offices are a valuable source of information

on local agricultural practices and can provide

information on types and distribution of livestock, crops,

and management practices. The national Cooperative

Extension System works in six major areas: 

• 4-H youth development 

• Agriculture

• Leadership development

• Natural resources

• Family and consumer sciences

• Community and economic development

Although the number of local extension offices has

declined over the years and some county offices have

consolidated into regional extension centers,

approximately 2,900 extension offices remain

nationwide. 

KTo find your local extension office, go to

www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html

officials to determine whether conditions in the watershed are

accurately reflected in the census. You should also obtain

local information on additional agricultural sources, such as

land application of manure.

Cropland Sources

Depending on crop type and management, croplands are a

potentially significant source of nutrients, sediment, and

pesticides to watershed streams. Cropland can experience

increased erosion, delivering sediment loads and attached

pollutants to receiving waterbodies. Fertilizer and pesticide

application to crops increases the availability of these

pollutants to be delivered to waterbodies through surface

runoff, erosion (attached to sediment), and ground water. If

cropland is an important source of pollutants in your

watershed, it’s useful to determine the distribution of

cropland as well as the types of crops grown. Land use

coverages for your watershed can identify the areas of

cropland in your watershed. For more information on the

types of crops and their management, contact local extension

offices or conservation districts. The USDA Census of

Agriculture can also provide information on crop types and

fertilizer and chemical applications. However, census data are

presented at the county level and might not reflect cropland characteristics in your

watershed. The USDA’s Spatial Analysis Research Section has developed a coverage

of the distribution of crop types (e.g., soybeans, corn, potatoes, cotton) called the

Cropland Data Layer (www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm).

Currently, the Cropland Data Layer is available for Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Mississippi, Missouri Boot Heel, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Some

states have data available annually since 1997, and some have only recent (i.e.,

2003–2004) data available. In addition, NRCS offices in agricultural regions often

take annual aerial photos to track crop usage. 

Literature values for pollutant generation by crop type are often used in modeling and

other loading analyses to estimate loads from cropland sources. NRI data also

provide information on cropland characteristics by county and cataloging unit.

Urban Sources

Impervious coverage information is typically used to characterize the density of and

potential loading from urban areas. Impervious coverages are developed from direct

photointerpretation and delineation or estimated by relating imperviousness to land

use and land cover. Because urban or developed areas have higher percentages of

impervious area, they typically experience greater magnitudes of stormwater runoff
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-34 Draft

Having a local understanding of your watershed and

the activities that take place is critical to accurately

identifying and characterizing sources. If you need

help identifying sources, the information in this

section should guide you in the right direction, but

it’s also very important to involve local “experts” that

can help you through the process. Without input

from local agencies (e.g., conservation districts),

you might miss important sources that are unique to

your area. 

than do more rural areas. Runoff from developed areas can wash off and transport

pollutants, and urban pollutant loads can be a significant source when the watershed

is predominantly developed, with little or no agricultural area. In addition to the

larger areas of impervious surfaces, urban areas typically have pollutant sources

unique to the urban and residential environment (e.g., pet wastes, lawn fertilizers,

pollutants from car maintenance) that are often difficult to identify. These sources are

usually collectively represented by stormwater runoff. Literature values of urban

accumulation or stormwater loading rates can be used to characterize the urban land

uses in source analyses and model applications.

On-site Wastewater Disposal

Septic systems can contribute significant nutrient and bacteria loads to receiving

waterbodies because of system failure and surface or subsurface malfunctions. Local

agencies can provide estimates of the total number of septic systems in a specific area

or county. For example, the Panhandle Health District in Idaho has an online

searchable database of septic system permits, geographically identified by Census

block. Also, county-level population, demographic, and housing information,

including septic tank use, can be retrieved from the KU.S. Census Bureau

(http://quickfacts.census.gov). To evaluate septic systems as a source of pollutants,

however, you’ll want to know the distribution of malfunctioning or failing systems.

In some cases, local health departments can provide information on failing septic

systems (e.g., location, frequency, failure rates), but in many watersheds the specific

incidence and locations of malfunctioning systems are unknown. Literature values

and local or county statistical information can be used to estimate the number of

failing septic systems in a watershed. KFor example, the National Small Flows

Clearinghouse (NSFC) surveyed approximately 3,500 local and state public health

agencies about the status of on-site systems across the country (NSFC 1993) and

provides the number of reported failing septic systems in the United States by county.

(Go to Kwww.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_index.htm.) Using the county-specific

estimates from NSFC (1993), the number of failing septic systems in a county can be

extrapolated to the watershed level based on county and watershed land use

distribution. The number of failing systems can also be estimated

by applying some appropriate failure rate, from literature or from

local sanitation personnel, to the total number of septic systems

in a watershed.

Silviculture Sources

Silviculture can be a significant source of sediment and other

pollutants to a waterbody. The primary silviculture activities that

cause increased pollutant loads are road construction and use,

timber harvesting, site preparation, prescribed burning, and

chemical applications. Without adequate controls, forestry

operations can cause instream sediment concentrations and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-35

accumulation to increase because of accelerated erosion. Silviculture activities can

also cause elevated nutrient concentrations as the result of prescribed burns and an

increase in organic matter on the ground or in the water. Organic and inorganic

chemical concentrations can increase because of harvesting and fertilizer and

pesticide applications. Harvesting can also lead to instream accumulation of organic

debris, which can lead to dissolved oxygen depletion. Other waterbody impacts

include increased temperature from the removal of riparian vegetation and increased

streamflow due to increased overland flow, reduced evapotranspiration, and runoff

channeling.

The BLM administers millions of acres of commercial forests and woodlands in the

western United States. KFor a list of BLM state offices, visit

www.blm.gov/nhp/directory/index.htm. Local BLM personnel can help you identify

areas of silvicultural activity in your watershed.

Wildlife Sources

Although wildlife inputs typically represent natural background sources of pollutants,

they can be an important source of bacteria or nutrients in forested or less-developed

areas of a watershed. In addition, animals that inhabit area waters (e.g., waterfowl)

represent a direct source to receiving waters. Although wildlife sources are often

uncontrollable, it’s important to consider their potential impact on water quality and

their importance relative to other pollutant sources when characterizing your

watershed. State or local wildlife agencies (e.g., Department of Fish and Game) or

relevant federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service) can be contacted for estimates of

wildlife populations in your area. KGo to http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html for

links to state and territorial fish and wildlife offices.

5.8 Waterbody Monitoring Data

A number of federal, state, local, and private entities monitor waterbodies across the

nation. These data might represent specialized data collected to answer a specific

question about waterbody conditions, or the data might be collected regularly as part

of a fixed network of long-term monitoring to assess trends in water quality.

Monitoring data, including chemical, physical, and biological data, are critical to

characterizing your watershed. Without such data, it is difficult to evaluate the

condition of the waterbodies in your watershed. Waterbody data that will be gathered

and evaluated for the watershed characterization typically include flow, water quality

(e.g., chemical concentrations), and biological data. Other specialized datasets might

also be available for your waterbodies, such as physical stream assessments or

ground water studies, but this section discusses the most common sources of

waterbody data available to the public.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-36 Draft

Much of the nation’s hydrology, water quality, and

biological data resides in national datasets accessible

on the Internet. Many of the databases include several

datasets and analysis tools. The following sections

describe the major databases that contain waterbody

monitoring data.

5.8.1 Water Quality and Flow Data

This section discusses a variety national databases

containing water quality and flow monitoring data.

STORET

STORET is EPA’s database for the storage and

retrieval of ground water and surface water quality

data. In addition to holding chemical and physical

data, STORET supports a variety of types of

biomonitoring data on fish, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and habitats. Currently, there are

two versions of the STORET database. Legacy

STORET contains historical data from the early 1900s

through 1998, and new data are no longer input to the

Legacy STORET database. Modernized STORET has

data from 1999 to the present. New data are input into

the Modernized STORET database as they become

available. KSTORET data can be downloaded online

from www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.

STORET includes data for the following topics:

• Station descriptions

• Non-biological physical and chemical results

(“regular results”)

• Biological results

• Habitat results

Data can be queried through several search options, including by geographic

location, organization, and station ID. You can also browse STORET data using

mapping tools available through STORET’s main page.

Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a

watershed characterization is only as good as the data it is

based on. It’s important to understand the quality and quantity

of your instream monitoring data when using the data for

watershed planning and associated decisions. Common factors

that can affect the usefulness of data include the following: 

• Data quality: Data quality represents a variety of aspects of

the data, including accuracy, precision, and

representativeness. For more information on data quality, go

to section 6.2.2. 

• Spatial coverage: The number of locations with relevant

data can determine the detail of your watershed analysis.

Without instream data collected throughout the watershed,

you can’t evaluate the spatial differences in water quality

conditions or identify areas of greater impairment. 

• Temporal coverage: Without watershed data covering a

long period of time or a variety of environmental conditions,

it’s difficult to understand the typical instream conditions of

your waterbody. Because most instream data consist of

occasional (e.g., monthly) grab samples, monitoring data

often represent only a snapshot of the waterbody—a picture

of the waterbody at the moment of sampling.

Often, data are limited and you don’t have the luxury of daily

samples collected over a 10-year period. If the amount of data

is too insufficient to continue with watershed plan development,

it might be necessary to initiate additional monitoring (Ksee

chapter 6). Otherwise, having limited data should not stop the

watershed planning process; it needs to continue with an

understanding that the data might not fully represent or

characterize waterbody conditions and that future monitoring

should be used to update the plan as necessary.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-37

National Listing of Fish Advisories

The NLFA database includes information describing state-, tribe-, and federallyissued fish consumption advisories in the United States for the 50 states, the District

of Columbia, and four U.S. territories. The information is provided to EPA by the

states, tribes, and territories. The advisories recommend limiting or avoiding

consumption of specific fish species or limiting or avoiding consumption of fish from

specific waterbodies. The NLFA Web site lists 3,089 advisories in 48 states through

the end of 2003. The Web site can generate national, regional, and state maps that

summarize advisory information. Also included on the Web site are the name of each

state contact, a phone number, a fax number, and an email address.

Kwww.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories.

NWISWeb

The National Water Information System Web site (NWISWeb) is the USGS’s online

database for surface water and ground water flow and water quality data. The

NWISWeb database provides access to water resources data collected by USGS at

approximately 1.5 million sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico. Data are available for and organized by several categories such as surface

water, ground water, real time, and flow. Data can be queried using information such

as station name, location (latitude and longitude), or 8-digit HUC. KData can be

downloaded online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.

Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication, and Health

Program Data

The BEACH Program appropriates funds to states for the development of monitoring

and notification programs that will provide a more uniform system for protecting the

users of marine waters. The BEACH Program can provide information on issues and

concerns related to bacteria contamination at recreational beaches, provide

monitoring data, and assist with educating the public regarding the risk of illness

associated with increased levels of bacteria in recreational waters. If your watershed

borders the coast or the Great Lakes, Kgo to www.epa.gov/beaches for additional

information.

Volunteer Monitoring Program Data

State, tribal, and local volunteer monitoring programs might also be good sources of

water quality data. Many volunteer groups upload their data to STORET. KGo to

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer for more information.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-38 Draft

WATERS

The WATERS information system uses EPA’s standard mapping application to

display water quality information about local waters. WATERS combines

information about water quality goals from EPA’s Water Quality Standards Database

with information about impaired waters from EPA’s TMDL database. KGo to

www.epa.gov/waters.

National Sediment Inventory

EPA completed the National Sediment Inventory (NSI) in response to the Water

Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA), which directed EPA, in consultation

with NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct a comprehensive

program to assess the quality of aquatic sediments in the United States. EPA also

submits to Congress a report on the findings of that program. The report identifies

areas in the United States where the sediment might be contaminated at potentially

harmful levels. The report also assesses changes in sediment contamination over time

for areas in the United States with sufficient data. The first National Sediment

Quality Survey report was released in 1997, and it was updated in 2004. Before

releasing the update, EPA released the National Sediment Quality Survey Database,

which compiles information from 1980 to 1999 from more than 4.6 million analytical

observations and 50,000 stations throughout the United States. The database contains

information on 

• Sediment chemistry, a measure of the chemical concentration of sedimentassociated contaminants

• Tissue residue, a measure of chemical contaminants in the tissue of organisms 

• Toxicity, a measure of the lethal and sublethal effects of contaminants in

environmental media on various test organisms 

KGo to www.epa.gov/ost/cs/report/2004/index.htm for more information on the NSI

report. KGo to www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/nsidbase.html to download the

associated sediment quality data.

5.8.2 Biological Data 

Aquatic life (e.g., fish, insects, plants) are affected by all the environmental factors to

which they are exposed over time and integrate the cumulative effects of pollution.

Therefore, biological data provide information on disturbances and impacts that

water chemistry measurements or toxicity tests might miss. This makes these data

essential for determining not only the biological health but also the overall health of a

waterbody.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-39

Although there is no single source of biological data, many of the datasets already

mentioned under the instream monitoring section include biological datasets. To

learn more about the specific biological assessment programs of states and regions,

visit KEPA’s Biological Indicators of Watershed Health Web site at

www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/stateprgs.html. This site provides links to state

program Web sites, contacts, and relevant documents.

Biological community samples (fish, invertebrates, algae) are collected in the

nation’s streams and rivers as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment

(NAWQA) Program’s ecological studies (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). Data for

thousands of fish and invertebrate samples are available for retrieval online, and algal

community and instream habitat data will be released in summer 2005. KGo to

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/doc/nawqa_www/bio/bio_communitysamples.htm. 

5.8.3 Geomorphological Data

Rivers and streams change in direct response to climate and human activities in the

watershed. Increasing impervious surfaces like pavement, clearing forests and other

vegetation, compacting soils with heavy equipment, and removing bank vegetation

typically result in an adjustment in the pattern, profile, or dimensions of a river or

stream. Assessments of river and stream geomorphology can help determine (1) the

prior or “undisturbed” morphology of the channel; (2) current channel conditions;

and (3) how the stream is evolving to accommodate changes in flow

volumes/timing/duration, channel alteration, and so forth. This information is also

helpful in analyzing the movement of sediment downstream from upland sources and

channel banks.

Geomorphological studies focus on characterizing the drainage area, stream patterns

(single/multiple channels, sinuosity, meander width), the longitudinal profile

(gradient), channel dimensions (e.g., width/depth ratio relative to bankfull stage cross

section, entrenchment), bank and channel material, riparian vegetation, channel

evolution trends, and other features. Because of the fairly recent development and

application of analytical tools to assess and classify rivers and streams and explore

the relationships among variables affecting their physical conditions,

geomorphological data are not available for many river systems. Guidance on

conducting geomorphological assessments is available from the Federal Interagency

Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group

(www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration), Wildland Hydrology

(www.wildlandhydrology.com), and some state water resource and fish/wildlife

agencies. 
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-40 Draft

This section provides several examples of GIS data

sources, primarily national, but additional state, local, or

regional sources might exist and should be investigated.

Several states maintain online databases of GIS data for

the state; for example, California Spatial Information

Library (http://gis.ca.gov), West Virginia Department of

Environmental Protection Internet Mapping

(http://gis.wvdep.org). KSee table 5-2 for more

information on locating state and local GIS data.

5.9 Selected Tools Used to Gather, Organize, and View

Assessment Information

Although you can use various tools to help visually organize data, two of the most

popular tools are GIS and remote sensing techniques, which help to collect and

display land use data.

5.9.1 Geographic Information Systems

A GIS is a tool used to support data analysis by creating watershed maps and

displaying a variety of spatial information that is helpful for characterizing a

watershed; gaining insight into the local environmental, cultural, and political

settings; and identifying potential pollutant sources. For example, application of

fertilizer on cropland might be a source of nutrients to watershed streams, and GIS

data can help in identifying the locations of cropland throughout the watershed and

the proximity of cropland to affected streams. Using water quality data analysis in

conjunction with GIS evaluations can provide a basis for evaluating water quality

trends throughout the watershed. GIS provides the flexibility of evaluating data in

different ways and combinations. Users can display only the

data useful to their needs and can easily display a

combination of spatial coverages. In addition, users can

easily create their own watershed coverages to display

specific information (e.g., average pollutant concentrations at

different waterbody sites).

GIS also allows users to combine and display spatial data

from a variety of sources. A wide range of sources for

accessing and obtaining GIS data are available. The Internet

provides a convenient source for much of the GIS data

available from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as

GIS organizations and companies. Browsing the Web sites of

state and local environmental agencies or contacting the agencies directly can often

lead to GIS sites and databases. Table 5-2 provides a selected list of several online

GIS data sources.

A GIS is very useful and allows for easy display and evaluation of a variety of

watershed characteristics (e.g., soils, land use, streams). However, several aspects of

GIS and related data can “trip up” GIS novices. This section discusses several topics

that you should keep in mind when using GIS and gathering and evaluating GIS data.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-41

Table 5-2. Sources of GIS Data Available on the Internet

GIS Distribution Source Description and Web Site

Federal Agencies and Consortiums

National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Sponsored by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), the Clearinghouse

offers a collection of more than 250 spatial data servers that can be searched through a single interface based on their

descriptions or “metadata.” www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse/clearinghouse.html

EPA’s BASINS. BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system that integrates a GIS, national watershed data, and

environmental assessment and modeling tools. The BASINS GIS data include more than 35 standard coverages, including

physical data (e.g., waterbodies, elevation, land use, soils), administrative and political data (e.g., jurisdictional boundaries),

landmarks and features (e.g., roads, dams, cities), and other monitoring or environmental information (e.g., gauge sites,

monitoring sites, point source facility locations, mine locations, Superfund sites). www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS/b3webdwn.htm

USGS’s Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center. EROS Data Center is a data management, systems

development, and research field center for the USGS National Mapping Division. The EROS Web site contains aerial,

topographic, elevation, satellite, and land cover data and information. http://edc.usgs.gov

U.S. Census Bureau Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) System. The Census

Bureau developed the TIGER system and digital database to support its mapping needs for the Decennial Census and other

Bureau programs. www.esri.com/data/download/census2000_tigerline/index.html or www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger

Bureau of Land Management Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. BLM established the GeoSpatial Data Clearinghouse as part

of the FGDC Geospatial Data Clearinghouse Network. BLM data can be searched through the FGDC clearinghouse Web site or

the BLM clearinghouse Web site. The BLM Geospatial Data Clearinghouse contains only geospatial data held by the BLM, and it

can be searched by state or by keyword (e.g., geology, minerals, vegetation, fire.)

www.blm.gov/nhp/what/geospatial/clearinghouse.htm or www.or.blm.gov/metaweb

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Atlas of the United States, Map Layers Warehouse. The Atlas is a largely digital

update of a large bound collection of paper maps that was published in 1970. It provides high-quality, small-scale maps, as well

as authoritative national geospatial and geostatistical datasets. Examples of digital geospatial data are soils, county boundaries,

volcanoes, and watersheds; examples of geostatistical data are crime patterns, population distribution, and incidence of disease.

http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html

Watershed Characterization System. WCS is an ArcView-based program that uses spatial and tabular data collected by EPA,

USGS, USDA-NRCS, the Census Bureau, and NOAA. The tool can quickly characterize land use, soils, and climate for

watersheds in the EPA Region 4 states. www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/wcs.html

EnviroMapper for Water. EnviroMapper for Water provides a Web-based mapping connection to a wealth of water data. It can

be used to view and map data such as the designated uses assigned to local waters by state agencies, waters that are impaired

and do not support their assigned uses, beach closures, and location of dischargers. Water quality data include STORET data,

National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas, and locations of nonpoint source projects. www.epa.gov/waters/enviromapper

State Sources

State GIS Clearinghouse Directory. Provides list of state GIS agencies, groups, or clearinghouses.

www.gisuser.com/content/view/2379

GIS Organizations or Companies

ESRI. ESRI is a software, research and development, and consulting company dedicated to GIS. Its software includes ArcInfo,

ArcGIS, and ArcView. www.esri.com/data/download/index.html

Geography Network. This global network of GIS users and providers supports the sharing of geographic information among

data providers, service providers, and users around the world. www.geographynetwork.com, provided through www.esri.com

GIS Data Depot. GIS Data Depot is an online resource for GIS and geospatial data from The GeoCommunity, a GIS online

portal and daily publication for GIS, CAD, mapping, and location-based industry professionals, enthusiasts, and students.

http://data.geocomm.com

University of Arkansas Libraries and the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST). Starting the Hunt: Guide to

Mostly On-Line and Mostly Free U.S. Geospatial and Attribute Data, written by Stephan Pollard and sponsored by University of

Arkansas Libraries and CAST, provides a compilation of links to online GIS data, categorized into two broad

classifications—State and Local Aggregations and National Aggregations. www.cast.uark.edu or

http://libinfo.uark.edu/GIS/us.asp (direct link to data lists)
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-42 Draft

Although the advent of GIS has made many aspects of watershed planning much easier, using GIS effectively requires a

certain level of knowledge and practical experience. Sometimes it’s not feasible for watershed planners to use GIS

extensively, perhaps because they don’t have the expertise or the required software. If this is the case, a variety of online

mapping applications can be used to gain an understanding of the watershed and its characteristics and pollutant sources

without doing the GIS work yourself. Many state, local, and university GIS programs or offices have online interactive mapping

applications to display or query their GIS data. For example, the California Digital Conservation Atlas (http://gis.ca.gov/ims.epl)

is an interactive map with coverages for a wide variety of natural resources-related information, including waterbodies,

watershed boundaries, environmental hazards, available plans, and land use and cover. Another example is the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection’s eMapPA (www.dep.state.pa.us/external_gis/gis_home.htm), which is a mapping

application that displays state permit information along with various statewide data layers. The mapping application displays

information on general watershed features (e.g., streams, floodplains, roads) and a variety of permitted facilities (e.g.,

WWTPs, landfills, mines). Although you won’t be able to customize the GIS data or add your own coverages (e.g., average

nitrate concentrations at monitoring stations), these types of interactive maps allow you to view and evaluate general

watershed GIS data without having to gather, store, and manipulate them.

Lambert Conformal Conic

Albers Equal-Area

Equidistant Conic

Figure 5-3. Example map projections.

Projections

The spatial representation of data in a GIS is tied to a mapping plane, and all data

have an associated projection. Map projections are the means of representing a

spherical Earth on a flat mapping plane, and the process of data projection transforms

three-dimensional space into a two-dimensional map. Different map projections

retain or distort shape, area, distance, and direction.

It is not possible for any one projection to retain more than one of these features over

a large area of the earth. Because different projections result in different

representations of the shape, area, distance, and

direction of mapped objects, GIS data for the

same watershed in different projections will not

overlap correctly. For example, figure 5-3

presents a map of Massachusetts in three

different projections. Although centered around

the same latitude and longitude, these

representations obviously do not spatially

represent the state in the same way.

Much of the GIS data available through the

Internet is provided in decimal degrees— unprojected latitude and longitude. However, GIS

data can be projected, and different sources of

GIS data use different projections. For example,

EPA’s BASINS and U.S. Census Bureau

TIGER data are provided in decimal degrees,

but many state GIS Web sites provide their GIS
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-43

When gathering GIS data, it’s very important to obtain

and review the associated metadata. Metadata are

"data about data" and include the information needed

to use the data properly. Metadata represent a set of

characteristics about the data that are normally not

contained within the data itself, such as

• Description of the data (e.g., creator, contact,

distribution information, citation information)

• Information on how and when the data were created

• Spatial reference information (data projection)

• Definitions of the names and data items 

Understanding the content and structure of the data is

especially important when compiling and comparing

data from various sources or agencies. 

Streams, 1:500,000

Roads, 1:500,000

Streams, 1:24,000

Roads, 1:24,000

Figure 5-4. Example of GIS datasets at different scales.

data in projections specific to the state (e.g., state plane) or its

location in the country (e.g., Universal Transverse Mercator

[UTM] zones). When gathering GIS data from a variety of

sources, it’s important to gather information on the different

projections as well so that data can be “re-projected” into a

common projection. Projection information is included in the

GIS data’s metadata (under “Spatial Reference Information”).

Scale

The map scale of GIS data specifies the amount of reduction

between the real world and its graphic representation, usually

expressed as a ratio of the unit of measure on the map to the

same units on the ground (e.g., 1:20,000). Map scale

determines how much area is included on paper maps;

however, because the capabilities of GIS allow you to “zoom

in” and “zoom out” to customize your map display, map scale

does not determine the extent of the mapped information in a

GIS. Scale, however, does affect what is included in the GIS data. The smaller a

map’s scale (the more ground area it covers on a paper map), the more generalized

the map features. A road or stream that is sinuous on the ground might be represented

by a fairly straight line in data with a small scale, and some features might not even

be included in small-scale data. The scale of your GIS data is an important aspect to

keep in mind when combining datasets for evaluating your watershed. The scale of

your information influences the spatial detail of your analysis. For example, if you

want to evaluate road crossings for streams in your watershed and you use data at a

small scale, the data will likely not include many of the smaller roads and streams.

Figure 5-4 presents maps of streams and

roads obtained from datasets of different

scales. Obviously, the smaller-scale dataset

(1:500,000) has much coarser detail, while

the larger-scale dataset provides a higher

level of detail.

Time Frame

It’s very important to consider the date of the

GIS data you are evaluating, especially when

combining datasets. Because of the time and

effort it takes to create GIS data, often there

are not many versions (dates) of the same

coverage available and you are limited to

what is available. Sometimes, however, there

are different sources of the same kinds of

data from different time periods. For
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-44 Draft

There are several nuances associated with

displaying, manipulating, and controlling GIS data. It

is recommended that you have some training prior to

undertaking significant GIS evaluations. 

The type and availability of GIS training are highly

specific to your location and needs. KTo find out

more information on GIS training and educational

resources, visit www.gis.com/education/index.html or

conduct an Internet search to research training

opportunities in your area. 

example, USGS has a variety of land use datasets based on satellite images taken

during different time frames. The LULC data are based on images taken during the

1970s and 1980s, while the NLCD data are based on images from the early 1990s

and 2000. It is important to obtain the data that are most representative of the time

period you want to evaluate. If you want to compare land use and water quality data,

try to obtain land use data from the time your monitoring was conducted. For

example, compare historical data collected in the 1970s with the LULC data and

compare more recent monitoring data with the NLCD data from the 1990s.

If GIS data are significantly out-of-date, it might be necessary to ground-truth them

to avoid undermining your analysis. For example, if the land use data represent

watershed land uses 20 years ago, you might under- or overestimate certain types of

sources when evaluating current loading conditions. If you have a small watershed

and land ownership has not changed significantly (parcels are still comparable to

historical land use divisions or aerial photos), you might be able to drive through

your watershed and note any major land use changes.

Another factor to keep in mind is the date of creation versus the date of the original

data on which the GIS coverage is based. For example, the NLCD 2001 data are still

being developed; therefore, many datasets will be dated 2005 even though they are

based on satellite images from 2001. Be sure to review the metadata to determine the

dates of all of your GIS coverages.

Organization, Storage, and Manipulation of Files

GIS data can come in a variety of formats and typically have

several associated files necessary for viewing and

understanding their content. For example, a standard shapefile

includes the files (the main file [*.shp] and the index file

[*.shx]) that control the display of the shapes and the file

(dBASE file [*.dbf]) that contains feature attributes (e.g., area,

name) for each shape in the file. Grid data require even more

files to display. When dealing with data in different projects, it

is necessary to “re-project” data into a common projection,

creating even more data files. In addition, GIS data that cover

large areas or include highly detailed information (e.g., parcelbased land use) can have very large files. Because of the

number and size of files, the organization of GIS files can

become cumbersome and require considerable disk space on your computer. It is

often helpful to organize data according to watershed topics (e.g., hydrology, land

use, soils, stations) or by the source of the data (e.g., TIGER, EPA BASINS).

In addition, GIS data can be manipulated very easily to evaluate certain areas or

certain data types, but doing so can lead to a number of extraneous files and also

unintended changes to your original data files. You can delete or add records to GIS
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-45

The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Alaska, created

a complete land cover classification to provide the

foundation for mapping inland areas according to their

common surface hydrologic and gross pollutant

generation potential. The “Storm Water Runoff” grid

was derived in summer 2000 through analysis of

IKONOS satellite imagery and other geographic

datasets (especially land use, streets, drainage,

coastland, and wetlands data). The GIS-based dataset

was built to provide information for stormwater

management applications. 

The land cover data include five major classes:

Impervious, Barren Pervious, Vegetated Pervious,

Snow and Ice, and Water. These classes are further

subdivided to reflect changes in perviousness due to

different land development applications. For example,

impervious surfaces are classified as street surface,

directly connected impervious, and indirectly connected

impervious, and vegetation classes are classified as

landscaped or forested. Values for hydraulic

connectedness (direct or indirect connection) are

attributed to each mapped land parcel independently of

the assessment of the pervious quality. 

MOA uses the GIS coverage to support development

and application of the Stormwater Management Model

(SWMM) for stormwater management within the

municipality. The SWMM model based on MOA’s land

use coverage also was modified and applied in the

Chester Creek watershed to develop draft TMDLs for

bacteria in the creek and two watershed lakes. 

data files, but it’s important to remember that when you do this, you are changing the

original data files. If you want to isolate areas (e.g., subwatersheds) or records (e.g.,

certain monitoring stations), it is necessary to “clip” existing coverages to create new

coverages.

Several other issues related to organizing, storing, and using GIS files that can

aggravate the new user; therefore, it’s useful to rely on members of your watershed

group who have experience in using GIS or contacts that can provide guidance to

beginners.

5.9.2 Remote Sensing Techniques to Collect Land Use/Land Cover

Information

Remote sensing refers to the collection of data and information

about the physical world by detecting and measuring radiation,

particles, and fields associated with objects located beyond the

immediate vicinity of the sensor device(s). For example,

photographs collected by an aircraft flying over an area of

interest (e.g., aerial photography) represent a common form of

remote sensing information. Likewise, satellites that orbit the

earth are often used to collect similar images over larger areas,

and these images are another example of remote sensing

information. Remote sensing information is collected,

transmitted, and processed as digital data that require

sophisticated software and analysis tools. KAn excellent and

wide-ranging review of remote sensing can be found at

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Homepage/Homepage.html. 

Remote sensing data products, especially land cover and

elevation, provide fundamental geospatial data for watershed

characterization. Remote sensing is a powerful tool for

watershed characterization because the data are digital and

therefore you can use the information analytically, especially

in a GIS system. You can integrate remote sensing data with

other types of data, such as digital elevation data, the stream

network (e.g., NHD), and so forth. You can then use GIS to

classify landscape and ecological attributes at detailed levels

within a watershed. An example is identifying steeply forested

lands and riparian buffers.

This section includes remote sensing principles and highlights

some of the most readily available and useful datasets. The

highlighted datasets have undergone extensive quality control,

are either low-cost or free, and can be used in a basic GIS

platform, especially ArcView. Their use in ArcView includes
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-46 Draft

being able to perform basic analytical functions, such as calculating land cover

distribution statistics in watersheds as well as integration with other data such as

Census data.

Types of Remote Sensing 

Remotely sensed data can be broadly placed into two basic categories: (1) aerial

imagery, which includes images and data collected from an aircraft and involves the

placement of a sensor or camera on a fixed wing or rotary aircraft, and (2) spacebased imagery, which includes images and data collected from space-borne satellites

that orbit the earth continuously. Although air-based and space-based remote sensing

involve the same general principles, there are important technical differences in the

acquisition and application of imagery from these sources. 

Aerial Imagery

Aerial images are collected using sensors placed onboard the aircraft. For example, a

photographic sensor can be placed on the underside of an aircraft and used to collect

color photos over an area of interest. In contrast, a much more sophisticated sensor,

such as AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer), can be placed

onboard an aircraft to collect hyperspectral data and thereby acquire much more than

simple color photographic images. A simple photographic sensor collects standard

color imagery that is composed of the red, blue, and green spectral regions of the

visible light spectrum (e.g., what the human eye can detect). In contrast, AVIRIS

collects 224 contiguous spectral channels (bands) with wavelengths from 400 to 2500

nanometers, spanning both the visible and non-visible regions of the light spectra.

KGo to http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov for more information about AVIRIS.

Most sensors used in remote sensing measure the radiance from the sun that is

reflected by the earth’s surface. Various land surface features absorb and reflect this

radiance to varying degrees, which is what enables the recognition of various features

on the ground. However, some sensors used in remote sensing emit a source of energy

that is reflected from the surface of the earth or from the object toward which the

energy is directed. Such sensors can be laser-based or radar-based (e.g. SAR, which is

Synthetic Aperture Radar, detailed here: Kwww.sandia.gov/RADAR/sar.html).

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) uses the same principle as radar—using

electromagnetic waves in the visible or near-visible spectrum to remotely investigate

properties of a medium—and is used in topographic mapping. LIDAR technology is

not dependent on atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover, so it has several

advantages over traditional photogrammetry for topographic mapping. LIDAR

technology offers the opportunity to collect terrain data of steep slopes and shadowed

areas (such as the Grand Canyon), and inaccessible areas (such as large mud flats and

ocean jetties). These LIDAR applications are well suited for making digital elevation

models (DEMs), creating topographic maps, and extracting automatic features.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-47

Spectral sensors record data related to sunlight in the

visible, near infrared, and shortwave infrared regions

that strikes surfaces on the earth and is reflected back

to the sensor. Multispectral sensors capture a few

relatively broad spectral bands, whereas hyperspectral

sensors capture hundreds of narrow spectral bands.

Multispectral sensors are used on satellite systems like

LANDSAT, and these systems provide the remote

sensing information used to build the National Land

Cover Data (NLCD). 

Hyperspectral sensors are still at an experimental

stage for use in orbiting satellites, so that virtually all

the available hyperspectral data come from airborne

sensors. Hyperspectral imagery provides data for a

broad range of electromagnetic wavelengths with finer

spectral resolutions than conventional multispectral

systems. Substantial costs are associated with

hyperspectral systems for collecting the raw imagery,

processing large amounts of data, and ground-truthing

the remote sensing information with conventional water

quality or land cover data. After specific kinds of

hyperspectral information have been regionalized to

particular watershed areas, the costs can be

substantially reduced. Hyperspectral data can be

applied to develop enhanced gridded datasets for land

covers. With suitable regional calibration, both

hyperspectral and multispectral information can help to

provide numeric estimates for such water quality

parameters as chlorophyll-a (or other measures of

algal standing crop), turbidity, and nutrient levels for

phosphorus or nitrogen. 

Applications are being established for forestry assessment of

canopy attributes, and research continues for evaluation of

crown diameter, canopy closure, and forest biometrics. KGo

to www.etl.noaa.gov/et2 for more information. 

Satellite Imagery

Like aircraft-based sensors, satellite sensors have unique

operational limitations and characteristics that must be

considered before using them as a remote sensing tool. These

factors include the incidence of cloud cover, the frequency at

which the satellite passes over a given spot, the ground

resolution desired, and the amount of post-acquisition data

processing required. There are several kinds of imagery and

data collected from satellites. For example, commercial

satellites like QuickBird, IKONOS, and SPOT typically

acquire high-resolution imagery useful for basic mapping of

land surfaces. In contrast, satellites like LANDSAT-5,

LANDSAT-7 (currently off-line due to an irreparable

malfunction), TERRA, AQUA, and Earth Observing-1 (EO-1)

contain an array of on-board sensors that collect far more than

simple photographic imagery. These spacecraft are designed

to collect data for a broad scientific audience interested in a

variety of disciplines—climatology, oceanography,

geography, and forestry to name a few. Thus, the project

objectives must be clearly defined before the acquisition of

satellite-based data to ensure that the proper remote sensing

data product is chosen. Satellite imagery is available from

several different land-mapping satellites, including

LANDSAT, IKONOS, and SPOT. However, acquiring new

aerial photography and satellite imagery requires extensive

knowledge of image processing, and the data can be

expensive or cost-prohibitive for many projects.

Remote Sensing Datasets

The raw data from the satellite sensors are voluminous, and specialized knowledge

and software are needed to process the data into meaningful information. The digital

signals from the multiple sensors need to be combined and processed, for instance, to

be converted into meaningful land cover classifications. Furthermore, the digital

images need to be registered and projected into a coordinate system, such as a

Lambert projection. This makes the use of the raw data expensive and timeconsuming. Fortunately, you can access preprocessed “derived” products, such as

land cover datasets, that are available for free or at low cost. KThe USGS maintains

a Web site for “seamless” data products at http://seamless.usgs.gov. You can also
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-48 Draft

purchase data for less than $100 per item from USGS’s Earth Resources Observation

and Science (EROS) data center (http://edc.usgs.gov). In addition to the land use

datasets mentioned in section 5.7.1, several other datasets might be useful as part of

the watershed characterization process:

• Landsat data

• Elevation

• Greenness

• “Nighttime Lights”

• Coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines

Landsat Data

The Landsat Orthorectified data collection consists of a global set of high-quality,

relatively cloud-free orthorectified TM and ETM+ imagery from Landsats 4-5 and 7.

This dataset was selected and generated through NASA’s Commercial Remote

Sensing Program as part of a cooperative effort between NASA and the commercial

remote sensing community to provide users with access to quality-screened, highresolution satellite images with global coverage over the Earth’s land masses. The data

collection was compiled through a NASA contract with Earth Satellite Corporation

(Rockville, Maryland) in association with NASA's Scientific Data Purchase program.

The Landsat Orthorectified data collection consists of approximately 7,461 TM

(Landsat 4-5) images and approximately 8,500 ETM+ (Landsat 7) images, which

were selected to provide two full sets of global coverage over an approximate 10-year

interval (circa 1990 and circa 2000). All selected images were cloud-free or

contained minimal cloud cover. In addition, only images with a high-quality ranking

with respect to the possible presence of errors such as missing scans or saturated

bands were selected.

In addition to the NLCD datasets, the basic Landsat data can be obtained from the

USGS EROS Data Center. Unlike the NLCD, the Landsat spectral data need to be

processed before they can produce meaningful information such as land cover

characteristics. Advantages of using the Landsat data include a wider temporal range,

covering the 1990s to essentially current conditions. In addition, trained users can

produce customized classification schemes that might be more meaningful at the

local scale. For instance, BMP analyses might require cropping types to be broken

down into finer classes than the standard NLCD classes. Landsat data combined with

local ground-truthing can produce such custom land cover breakouts. The Landsat

Orthorectified datasets have been preprocessed so that the images are cloud-free,

joined images that are georeferenced.

Extra steps are required for using the Landsat data, including special software and

training in interpreting the multispectral images. KA good place for users to start is

the Purdue Multispec system, which is available for free at
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-49

http://dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu/~biehl/MultiSpec. This site also contains links to

several training and user guides.

Elevation

The USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), Khttp://ned.usgs.gov, has been

developed by merging the highest-resolution, best-quality elevation data available

across the United States into a seamless raster format. The NED provides a tool for

the precise delineation of small watershed units, which can then be overlain with

other vector or gridded GIS data. For instance, custom watershed polygons can be

delineated using vector data from the NHD.

In addition to the NED, the Elevation Derivatives for National Applications (EDNA)

datasets can be used for watershed analyses. EDNA is a multilayered database that

has been derived from a version of the National Elevation Dataset (NED) and

hydrologically conditioned for improved hydrologic flow representation.

The seamless EDNA database provides 30-meters-resolution raster and vector data

layers, including

• Aspect 

• Contours 

• Filled DEM 

• Flow Accumulation 

• Flow Direction 

• Reach Catchment Seedpoints 

• Reach Catchments 

• Shaded Relief 

• Sinks 

• Slope 

• Synthetic Streamlines 

KEDNA data are available at http://edna.usgs.gov.

Greenness Maps

Greenness maps show the health and vigor of the vegetation. Generally, healthy

vegetation is considered an indicator of favorable climatic and environmental

conditions, whereas vegetation in poor condition is indicative of droughts and

diminished productivity. You can use USGS greenness maps to evaluate the

vegetation condition of a region. The availability of current and past greenness data

can be quite useful in, for instance, correlating the health of vegetation in a watershed

with ambient monitoring data.

The greenness maps are representations of the Normalized Difference Vegetation

Index (NDVI). NDVI is computed daily from two spectral channels. The two
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-50 Draft

channels are reflected sunlight in the red (RED) and near-infrared (NIR) regions of

the electromagnetic spectrum. NDVI, which is the difference between near-infrared

and red reflectance divided by the sum of near-infrared and red reflectance, is

computed for each image pixel as follows:

NDVI = (NIR - RED) / (NIR + RED)

KGreenness maps reflecting current conditions can be obtained for free from the

USGS “seamless data” Web site (http://seamless.usgs.gov). In addition, historical

greenness data can be purchased from the EROS data center for $55 per scene. KGo

to http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/greenness. A scene is quite large, covering about half

the country.

“Nightime Lights”

One problem with the NLCD is difficulties in distinguishing vegetated areas such as

suburbs from, for instance, woodlands. The Nighttime Lights of North America map

layer is an image showing lights from cities, towns, industrial sites, gas flares, and

temporary events, such as fires. Most of the detected features are lights from cities

and towns. This image can be quite effective in delineating urban-rural boundaries.

KThe data can be accessed at http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/nitelti.html.

Remote Sensing Data for Coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines 

Coastal area elevation data can be especially challenging because of the low relief.

Fortunately, the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) provides additional remote

sensing products for coastal and Great Lakes shoreline areas. These data include

more detailed elevation data using LIDAR plus specialized hyperspectral-derived

imaging datasets. KThe CSC LIDAR and other datasets can be accessed at

www.csc.noaa.gov/crs.

Table 5-3 provides a summary of sample costs for purchasing remote sensing

products.

Table 5-3. Sample Costs for Purchasing Remote Sensing Products

Remote Sensing Product Resolution Cost

NLCD 30 m Free

NED 30 m Free

Greenness 1 km Free; $55/scene for historical data

“Nighttime Lights” Free

EDNA 30 m Free

LIDAR Varies Free for selected coastal and Great Lakes Shorelines

Landsat 14.25 m to 28.5 m $30/scene to $60/scene

SPOT Varies; maximum resolution is 2.5 m $1,000 +

IKONOS Varies; maximum resolution is 1 m Varies
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-51

• Type of data (e.g., monitored, geographic)

• Source of data (agency)

• Quality of data (QA/QC documentation, QAPP)

• Representativeness of data (number of samples)

• Spatial coverage (location of data collection)

• Temporal coverage (period of record)

• Data gaps

5.10 Create a Data Inventory

Once you’ve gathered current datasets and existing studies,

you should document the available relevant data in a data

inventory. A comprehensive data inventory provides an

ongoing list of available monitoring and watershed data. The

data inventory should be updated during the course of the

watershed planning effort so that a complete summary is

available to stakeholders.

It is often useful to organize the data inventory by data type,

allowing you to document the different types with information

that might not be relevant to all types. The most likely types of

data to be gathered are tabular data (e.g., monitoring data),

reports and anecdotal information, and GIS data. For each of

the datasets, you should document the important

characteristics to identify and summarize the data. It is often useful to create the lists

in a spreadsheet, such as Microsoft Excel, or a database, such as Microsoft Access.

Spreadsheets are easy to use, but you can’t search or query the data as you can in a

database. Creating the data inventory in a spreadsheet, or even in a word processing

program (e.g., Microsoft Word), is adequate. However, if you have a large amount of

data and would like to be able to query the data, for example, by keyword or content

type, you should use a database program for the inventory. The following paragraphs

identify the types of information that should be used to document and organize the

gathered data. These lists provide guidelines to help you create your data inventory,

but you can also tailor your data inventory according to your needs and the types of

data and information you gather. You should also document data not used in the

analysis and justify their exclusion.

For all the tabular datasets, you should create a list documenting the following

information:

• Type (e.g., water quality, flow)

• Source/agency

• Number of stations

• Start date

• End date

• Number of samples/observations

• Parameters

• Frequency

• Known quality assurance issues related to the data

• Special comments (e.g., part of special study, ground water vs. surface water)

Once you begin to analyze your monitoring/tabular data (chapter 7), you’ll identify

more details about each dataset, including the type and amount of data at each
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-52 Draft

station. For the data inventory, it’s appropriate to document the general type and

coverage of the datasets to provide an evolving list of the monitoring datasets

available, where they came from, and what they include. 

For all the reports and anecdotal information gathered for the watershed, you should

include the following information in the data inventory:

• Document title

• Date

• Source/Author

• Description

• Web site (if available)

For the GIS data gathered, you should document the following information:

• Type (e.g., land use, soils, station locations)

• Source/agency

• Date (date or original data on which the coverage is based)

• Scale (e.g., 1:24,000)

• Projection (e.g., UTM, state plane)

• Description

Figure 5-5 provides an example of the fields in a data inventory.

For all the data types, it’s also useful to document the physical location of the files.

For example, if the dataset is electronic, provide the name of the file and the file path

or location on your computer or network. Another option is to provide a numbering

system for the filing cabinets or location of the hard copy reports you gather. 

The data inventory will also be used to help identify any relevant gaps, especially

those that could hinder data analysis. The data inventory can be used to identify

obvious, broad gaps, such as a lack of water quality or flow data for the watershed.

The identification of data gaps is an iterative process, however,

and more specific data needs will be identified during the next

phase of the characterization process (chapter 6). For

example, a long period of record of water quality

monitoring data would typically

indicate sufficient water quality

data for analysis of the

waterbody. When you begin data

analysis, however, it might become

apparent that the data are not

adequate for evaluation of seasonal

trends or other relationships and

patterns.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Draft 5-53

Figure 5-5. Example fields in a data inventory.

The characterization process involves many steps. Once you’ve created the data

inventory, you’ll move on to the next phase in characterization: identify gaps and

collect new data. As you review the data, however, you might realize that you need to

gather additional existing information. You’ll have to go back, add additional

information to your data inventory, and then proceed forward.
Chapter 5

Gather Existing Data and

Create an Inventory

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

5-54 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-1

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Conducting a data review

< Identifying data gaps

< Determining acceptability of data

< Designing a sampling plan

< Collecting new data

6. Identify Data Gaps

and Collect Additional

Data if Needed

Read this chapter if...

• You want to determine if you have enough data to start your analysis

• You’re looking to review your data

• You want to determine if you need to collect new data

• You want to design a sampling plan for collecting additional data

• You need to collect new data
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-2 Draft

6.1 How Do I Know if I Have Enough Data to Start My Analysis?

One of the most difficult challenges in watershed planning is knowing when you

have enough data to identify relationships between impairments and their sources and

causes. There will always be more data to collect, but you need to keep the process

moving forward and determine whether you can reasonably characterize watershed

conditions with the data you have. Once you’ve gathered all the necessary data

related to the watershed goals identified by the stakeholders, you must examine the

data to determine whether you can link the impairments seen in the watershed to

the causes and sources of pollutants. Although you will develop a monitoring

component as part of your watershed implementation plan (chapter 12), it’s often

necessary to collect additional data during the planning phase to complete the

characterization step. The additional data will help you to develop management

measures linked to the sources and causes of pollutants.

6.2 Conduct a Data Review

The first step is to review the data you’ve gathered and ask the following questions:

1. Do I have the right types of data to identify causes and sources?

2. What is the quality of the data?

The answers to these questions will tell you whether you need to collect additional

data before proceeding with data analysis. For example, you might have gathered

existing monitoring information that indicates the recreational uses of a lake are

impaired due to excessive growth of lake weeds caused by high phosphorus levels.

The permit monitoring data might show that wastewater treatment plants are in

compliance with their permit limits, leading to speculation that nonpoint source

controls are needed. This kind of information, although adequate to define the broad

parameters of a watershed plan, will probably not be sufficient to guide the selection

and design of management measures (USEPA 1997a, 1997d) to be implemented to

control the as-yet-unidentified nonpoint sources. Therefore, further refinements in

problem definition, including more specific identification and characterization of

causes and sources, will be needed and can be obtained only by collecting new data. 

You’ll review the data to identify any major gaps and then determine the quality of

the data. 7Be careful to first determine whether the data are essential to the

understanding of the problem. For example, although it might become obvious

during the inventory process that chemical data are lacking, this lack should be

considered a gap only if chemical data are essential to identifying the possible

sources of the impacts and impairments of concern. If the necessary datasets are

available, you should then compare the quality of the information with the data

quality indicators and performance characteristics. If the data quality is unknown or

unacceptable (that is, it doesn't meet the needs of the stakeholders for watershed
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-3

assessment), you should not use the existing dataset. Using data of unknown quality

will degrade the defensibility of management decisions for the watershed and could,

in the long run, increase costs because of the increased likelihood of making incorrect

decisions.

Remember that the collection of existing and new data, identification of data gaps,

and analysis of data is an iterative process. Although obvious data gaps can be

identified during the data inventory process, more specific data needs are often

discovered only during data analysis and subsequent activities, such as source

assessment or modeling.

6.2.1 Identify Data Gaps

Several different types of data gaps might require that you collect additional

information. What constitutes a gap is often determined by the information needed to

adequately identify and characterize causes and sources of pollutants in the

watershed. There are three major types of data gaps—informational, temporal, and

spatial.

Informational Data Gaps

First, you need to determine whether your data include the types of information

needed. For example, if one of the goals stakeholders identified was to restore the

aquatic resources of a waterbody and you have only flow and water quality data, you

should conduct biological assessments to get baseline information on the biology of

the waterbody. Information gaps can also result if there are no data addressing the

indicators identified by stakeholders to assess current watershed conditions. For

example, stakeholders might want to use the amount of trash observed in a stream as

an indicator of stream health. If you don’t have any baseline data on trash, you

should collect data to assess the amount of trash currently in the stream (e.g., volume

of trash per mile). Without baseline data, you’ll have little against which to measure

progress. A common data gap is lack of flow data specifically corresponding to the

times and locations of water quality monitoring.

Temporal Data Gaps

Temporal data gaps occur when there are existing data for your area(s) of interest but

the data were not collected within, or specific to, the time frame required for your

analysis. Available data might have been collected long ago, when watershed

conditions were very different, reducing the data’s relevance to your current

situation. The data might not have been collected in the season or hydrologic

conditions of interest, such as during spring snowmelt or immediately after crop

harvest. In addition, there might be only a few data points available, and they might

not be indicative of stream conditions.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-4 Draft

Accuracy: The measure of how close a result is to

the true value

Precision: The level of agreement among multiple

measurements of the same characteristic

Representativeness: The degree to which the data

collected accurately represent the population of

interest.

Bias: The difference between an observed value and

the "true" value (or known concentration) of the

parameter being measured

Comparability: The similarity of data from different

sources included within individual or multiple

datasets; the similarity of analytical methods and

data from related projects across areas of concern.

Detection Limit: The lowest concentration of an

analyte that an analytical procedure can reliably

detect.

Spatial Data Gaps

Spatial data gaps occur when the existing data were collected within the time frames

of interest but not at the location or spatial distribution required to conduct your

analyses. These types of data gaps can occur at various geographic scales. At the

individual stream level, spatial data gaps can affect many types of analyses. Samples

collected where a tributary joins the main stem of a river might point to that tributary

subwatershed as a source of a pollutant load, but not

specifically enough to establish a source. Measuring the

effectiveness of restoration efforts can be difficult if data are not

available from locations that enable upstream and downstream

comparisons of the restoration activities.

Data collected at the watershed scale are often used to describe

interactions among landscape characteristics, stream physical

conditions (e.g., habitat quality, water chemistry), and

biological assemblages. The reliability of these analyses can be

affected by several types of spatial data gaps. Poor spatial

coverage across a study region can hinder descriptions of

simple relationships between environmental variables, and it

can eliminate the potential for describing multivariate

relationships among abiotic and biotic parameters. In addition,

underrepresentation of specific areas within a study region can

affect the reliability and robustness of analyses. For instance, in

a landscape that is composed of a wide range of land uses and

has large variations in topography, preferential sampling in

easily accessible areas can bias the dataset and subsequent

analyses.

6.2.2 Determine Acceptability of Data

In many cases, the existing data were collected to address

questions other than those being asked in the watershed

assessment. Also, sufficient data are rarely available from a single source,

particularly if the watershed is large. As a result, you might have to rely on data from

different sources, collected for different purposes, and collected using a variety of

sample collection and analysis procedures. Therefore, it’s critical that you review

existing data to determine their acceptability before you use them in your analyses.

Data acceptability is determined by comparing the type and quality of data with the

minimum criteria necessary to address the monitoring questions of interest. For each

data source, focus on two areas: data quality and measurement quality. Data quality

pertains to the purpose of the monitoring activity, the types of data collected, and the

methods and conditions under which the data were collected. These characteristics
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-5

determine the applicability of the data to your planning effort and the decisions that

can be made on the basis of the data. The main questions to ask are the following:

• What were the goals of the monitoring activity? Consider whether the goals of

the monitoring activity are consistent with and supportive of your goals. Daily

fecal coliform data collected at a swimming beach document compliance with

recreational water quality standards but might not help in linking violations of

those standards to sources in the watershed. Monthly phosphorus concentration

data collected to evaluate long-term trends might or might not help you to relate

phosphorus loads from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to storm

events in your watershed.

• What types of data were collected? Determine whether the types of data

collected are relevant to your needs. Data on stream macroinvertebrate

communities might be useful only if physical habitat data were also collected.

Water quality data without associated land use and management data might not

be useful in linking impairments to source areas.

• How were the data collected? Data collected at random sites to broadly

characterize water quality in the watershed might present a very different picture

from data deliberately collected from known hot spots or pristine reference sites.

Data from a routine, time-based sampling program typically underestimate

pollutant loads compared to data collected under a flow-proportional sampling

regime (collecting more samples at high flows, fewer at base flow).

Measurement quality describes data characteristics like accuracy, precision,

sensitivity, and detection limit. These are critical issues for any monitoring activity,

and you’ll consider them in detail when you design your own data collection program

(section 6.4). For pollutants like metals, toxic substances, or pesticides that are of

concern at very low concentrations, the detection, or reporting, limit of the analytical

method is one of the most readily distinguished measurement quality parameters in

all monitoring programs. Existing data will be of little value in evaluating

compliance with water quality standards if the method detection limits used were

higher than the standard.

There are several levels of measurement quality, and these should be determined for

any data source before interpreting the data or making decisions based on the data.

State and federal laboratories are generally tested and certified, meet EPA or other

applicable performance standards, employ documented analytical methods, and have

quality assurance data available to be examined. Analytical results reported from

consultants and private laboratories might or might not meet similar standards, so

documentation needs to be obtained. Data from citizens groups, lay monitoring

programs, school classes, and the like might not meet acceptable measurement

quality criteria; in most cases, they should be considered qualitatively if proper

documentation can’t be obtained.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-6 Draft

Ideally, information on the methods used to collect and analyze the samples, as well

as the associated measurement quality attributes, should be associated with the data

in a database so you can easily determine whether those data are acceptable for your

purposes. The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) associated with a data

collection effort is an excellent source of information if available (section 6.4.4). In

some cases, sufficient information might be readily available, but you’ll have to dig

deeply to obtain the best information. For example, even though most published

analytical methods have performance characteristics associated with them, the

organization conducting the analyses and reporting the data might not have met those

performance characteristics. Some laboratories, however, report performance

characteristics as part of the method, making it easier for data users to identify the

potential quality of data collected using those methods.KAn example illustrating the

use of a performance-based approach for bioassessment methods is presented in

chapter 4 of EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable

Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish

(www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/monitoring/rbp/ch04main.html).

For some types of parameters, method performance information might be limited,

particularly if the data obtained are dependent on the method used. For example,

parameters like chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil and grease, and toxicity are

defined by the method used. In such cases, you might need to rely on a particular

method rather than performance characteristics per se. (KSee Methods & Data

Comparability Board COD Pilot at

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/about/publications/cod_pilot_v.4.4.3.htm or the

National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) at www.nemi.gov).

Other critical aspects of existing data quality are the age of the data and the format of

the database. Old data might be highly valuable in understanding the evolution of

water quality problems in your watershed and are likely to be impossible to recreate

or re-measure today. However, old data might have been generated by laboratory

methods different from those in use today and therefore might not be entirely

comparable to current data. Detection limits for organics, metals, and pesticides, for

example, are lower today than they were even a decade ago. It might be difficult to

adequately document measurement quality in old datasets. In addition, older data

might not be in an easily accessible electronic form. If the quality of such data is

known, documented, and acceptable, and the data are useful for your purpose, you’ll

need to consider the effort and expense necessary to convert them into an electronic

form.

6.3 Determine Whether New Data Collection Is Essential

At this point, you’ve collected existing data for your watershed, assessed its quality

and relevance, and identified gaps. Compare your available resources against your

tasks:
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-7

• Can we identify and quantify the water quality problems in the watershed?

• Can we quantify pollutant loads?

• Can we link the water quality impairments to specific sources and source areas in

the watershed?

• Do we know enough to select and target management measures to reduce

pollutant loads and address water quality impairments?

If you were able to answer “yes” to each of these questions, congratulations: You’re

ready to move on to the next phase and begin to analyze the data. If you answered

“no,” the next step is to come up with a plan to fill the gaps. Although this might

seem like a short-term task, it is critical to consider data collection requirements in

the context of your overall watershed plan. The kind of sampling plan you initiate

now could well become the foundation of the later effort to monitor the effectiveness

of your implementation program, and therefore it should be designed with care.

6.4 Design a Sampling Plan for Collecting New Data

If you’ve determined that additional data must be collected to complete your

watershed characterization, you should develop a sampling plan. The sampling plan

will focus on immediate data collection needs to help you finish the watershed

characterization. It’s very important to consider long-term monitoring needs in this

effort. Once data collection and analysis is complete and management strategies have

been identified, your implementation efforts should include a monitoring component

designed to track progress in meeting your water quality and other goals (chapter 12).

Many of the elements developed as part of this sampling plan, including data quality

objectives (DQOs), measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and a QAPP, can be

modified or expanded on for the monitoring component of the implementation plan.

KFor more information on designing a sampling plan, visit www.epa.gov/quality/

qs-docs/g5s-final.pdf.

Before collecting any environmental data, you should determine the type, quantity,

and quality of data needed to meet the project goals and objectives (e.g., specific

parameters to be measured) and to support a decision based on the results of data

collection and observation. Failure to do so risks expending too much effort on data

collection (more data collected than necessary), not expending enough effort on data

collection (not enough data collected), or expending the wrong effort (wrong data

collected). In addition, you should also consider your available resources. Water

quality monitoring and laboratory testing can be very expensive, so you need to

determine how best to allocate your resources.

A well-designed sampling plan will clearly follow the key steps in the monitoring

process, including study design, field sampling, laboratory analysis, and data

management. Sampling plans should be carefully designed so that the data produced

can be analyzed, interpreted, and ultimately used to meet all project goals. Designing
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-8 Draft

a sampling plan involves developing DQOs and MQOs, a study design, and a QAPP,

which includes logistical and training considerations, detailed specifications for

standard operating procedures (SOPs), and a data management plan. Because a

variety of references on designing and implementing water quality monitoring

programs are available, this section provides only a general overview and resources

available for further information. KFor more information visit EPA’s Quality

Management Tools Web site at www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html.

6.4.1 Select a Monitoring Design

The specific monitoring design you use depends on the kind of information you need.

Water quality sampling can serve many purposes:

• Defining water quality problems

• Defining critical areas

• Assessing compliance with standards or permits

• Determining fate and transport of pollutants

• Analyzing trends

• Measuring effectiveness of management practices

• Evaluating program effectiveness

• Making wasteload allocations

• Calibrating or validating models

• Conducting research

Depending on the gaps and needs you’ve identified, monitoring to define water

quality problems, assess compliance with standards, and define critical areas might

be most appropriate for your watershed. For example, synoptic or reconnaissance

surveys are intensive sampling efforts designed to create a general view of water

quality in the study area. A well-designed synoptic survey can yield data that help to

define and locate the most severe water quality problems in the watershed, and

possibly to support identification of specific major causes and sources of the water

quality problem. Data collected in synoptic surveys can also be used to help calibrate

and verify models that might be applied to the watershed (USEPA 1986).

There are a variety of approaches to conducting synoptic surveys. Less-expensive

grab sampling approaches are the norm for chemical studies. Rapid Bioassessment

Protocols and other biological assessment techniques can be used to detect and assess

the severity of impairments to aquatic life, but they typically do not provide

information about the causes or sources of impairment (USEPA 1997a, 1997d).

Walking or canoeing the course of tributaries can also yield valuable, sometimes

surprising, information regarding causes and sources. It’s important to recognize that

synoptic surveys are short in duration, they can yield results that are inaccurate

because of such factors as unusual weather conditions, intermittent discharges that

are missed, or temporal degradation of physical or biological features of the

waterbody. Follow-up studies, including fate and transport studies, land use and land
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-9

Sampling network design refers to the array, or

network, of sampling sites selected for a monitoring

program and usually takes one of two forms:

• Probabilistic Design: Network that includes

sampling sites selected randomly to provide an

unbiased assessment of the condition of the

waterbody at a scale above the individual site or

stream; can address questions at multiple scales.

• Targeted Design: Network that includes sampling

sites selected on the basis of known existing

problems; knowledge of coming events in the

watershed or a surrounding area that will adversely

affect the waterbody such as development or

deforestation; or installation of management

measures or habitat restoration intended to improve

waterbody quality. The network provides for

assessments of individual sites or reaches.

treatment assessments, and targeted monitoring of specific sources, might be needed

to improve the assessment of causes and sources derived from synoptic surveys.

Compliance monitoring might focus on regular sampling at specific locations,

depending on the source, constituent, and relevant standard. Although typically

associated with point source discharges, compliance monitoring can be used

effectively to characterize and isolate pollutant loads from relatively defined sources

such as stormwater outfalls or concentrated runoff from a CAFO. Monitoring to

define critical areas can also be focused on specific locations, chosen on the basis of

land use patterns or in response to known or suspected problem areas.

Fate and transport monitoring is designed to help define the

relationships between the identified water quality problems and

the sources and causes of those problems. This type of

monitoring typically involves intensive sampling over a

relatively short period, with frequent sampling of all possible

pollutant pathways within a fairly small geographic area. The

limited geographic scope of fate and transport monitoring,

coupled with the required sampling intensity, makes it an

expensive venture if applied broadly within a watershed.

Because of its cost and relatively demanding protocols, fate

and transport monitoring is best used in a targeted manner to

address the highest-priority concerns in a watershed. For

example, the preferential pathways of dissolved pollutants

(e.g., nitrate nitrogen) that can be transported via surface or

subsurface flow to a receiving waterbody might need to be

determined and quantified to help identify the critical area,

design effective management measures, and estimate potential

pollutant load reductions.

Because nonpoint source contributions are often seasonal and dependent on weather

conditions, it’s important that all sampling efforts be of sufficient duration to

encompass a reasonably broad range of conditions. Highly site-specific

monitoring should be done on reasonably representative areas or activities in

the watershed so that results can be extrapolated across the entire area.

Station location, selection, and sampling methods will necessarily follow from

the study design. Ultimately, the sampling plan should control extraneous

sources of variability or error to the extent possible so that data are

appropriately representative and fulfill the study objectives.

In the study design phase, it’s important to determine how many sites are

necessary to meet your objectives. If existing data are available, statistical

analysis should be conducted to determine how many samples are required to

meet the DQOs, such as a 95 percent confidence level in estimated load or
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-10 Draft

Local watershed groups in Baltimore, Maryland have

long been troubled by the aging, leaky sewage pipes

that run through the beds of city streams. They were

interested in tracking the raw sewage entering the

stream system, especially after storm events, but

didn't have the resources for the required equipment.

The city's Department of Public Works was also

interested in the problem but had the time and

resources for only weekly screenings. They decided to

partner: the City agreed to provide the groups with

ammonia test kits (high levels of ammonia can

indicate the presence of sewage) in return for

screening of additional stations and a greater

sampling frequency. Now both parties have the data

they need to better understand the problem.

ability to detect a 30 percent change. If there are no applicable data for your

watershed, it might be possible to use data from an adjacent watershed or from within

the same ecoregion to characterize the spatial and temporal variability of water

quality. KFor more on statistical analyses, see EPA’s “Statistical Primer” on power

analysis at www.epa.gov/bioindicators/primer/power.html.

In addition to sampling size, you should also determine the type of sampling network

you’ll implement and the location of stations. The type of sampling network design

you choose depends on the types of questions you want to answer. Generally,

sampling designs fall into two major categories: (1) random or probabilistic and

(2) targeted. In a probabilistic design, sites are randomly chosen to represent a larger

sampling population for the purpose of trying to answer broad-scale (e.g., watershedwide) questions. This type of network is appropriate for synoptic surveys to

characterize water quality in a watershed. In a targeted design, sites are allocated to

specific locations of concern (e.g., below discharges, in areas of particular land use,

at stream junctions to isolate subwatersheds) with the purpose of trying to answer

site-specific questions. A stratified random design is a hybrid sampling approach that

deliberately chooses parts of the watershed (e.g., based on land use or geology) to be

sampled and then selects specific sampling points within those zones at random.

KFor more information on sampling designs, see EPA’s Guidance on Choosing a

Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection at

www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5s-final.pdf.

Your monitoring plan should focus not only on water quality but also on the land use

activities that contribute to nonpoint source loads. You might need to update the

general land use/land cover data for your watershed or gather information on specific

activities (e.g., agricultural nutrient management practices or

the use of erosion and sediment control plans in construction

projects). Monitor not just where implementation might occur

but in all areas in the watershed that might contribute to

nonpoint source loads. Part of this effort should focus on

collecting data on current source activities to link pollutant

loads to their sources. A second purpose is to generate baseline

data on existing land use and management activities. The result

of a good land use/land treatment monitoring program is a

database that will help you explain the current situation, as

well as potential changes in water quality down the road. The

ability to attribute water quality changes to your

implementation program or to other factors will be critical as

you evaluate the effectiveness of your plan.

Another important consideration during study design is how

other groups and partners can be enlisted to support your

monitoring effort. Think back to the issues of concern
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-11

Step 1. State the problem. Review existing information

to concisely describe the problem to be studied.

Step 2. Identify the decision. Determine what

questions the study will try to resolve and what actions

might result.

Step 3. Identify inputs to the decision. Identify

information and measures needed to resolve the

decision statement.

Step 4. Define the study boundaries. Specify temporal

and spatial parameters for data collection.

Step 5. Develop a decision rule. Define statistical

parameters, action levels, and logical basis for choosing

alternatives.

Step 6. Specify tolerable limits on decision errors.

Define limits based on the consequences of an incorrect

decision.

Step 7. Optimize the design. Generate alternative data

collection designs and choose the most

resource-effective design that meets all DQOs.

Example DQO: Determine, to a 95%

degree of statistical certainty, whether

there is a significant (50%) change in

average nitrate concentration over time at

given sampling locations.

expressed by the different groups and the potential partnerships you can build among

local governments, agencies, private organizations, and citizen groups. Collaborative

monitoring strategies can effectively address multiple data needs and resource

shortfalls.

Finally, it’s also important to consider how this initial monitoring might be used to

support a long-term monitoring program that addresses evaluation of watershed

condition and restoration. The sampling and analysis done during this phase can be

used to provide an evaluation of baseline or existing conditions. As long as it’s done

consistently, continued monitoring during implementation can be used to track

trends, evaluate the benefits of specific management measures, or assess compliance

with water quality standards (chapter 12).

6.4.2 Develop Data Quality Objectives

DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that clarify

the purpose of the monitoring study, define the most

appropriate type of data to collect, and determine the most

appropriate methods and conditions under which to collect

them. The DQO process, developed by EPA (GLNPO 1994,

USEPA 2000a), is a flexible planning framework that

articulates project goals and objectives, determines

appropriate types of data, and establishes tolerable levels of

uncertainty. The purpose of this process is to improve the

effectiveness, efficiency, and defensibility of decisions

made, based on the data collected. You’ll use the

information compiled in the DQO process to develop a

project-specific QAPP, which should be used to plan the

majority of water quality monitoring or assessment studies. 

The DQO process addresses the uses of the data (most

important, the decisions to be made) and other factors that

will influence the types and amount of data to be collected

(e.g., the problem being addressed, existing information,

information needed before a decision can be made, and

available resources). The products of the DQO process are

criteria for data quality, measurement quality objectives, and

a data collection design that ensures that data will meet the criteria. KFor more

information on DQOs, see EPA’s Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process

at www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.

The purpose of the study, or the question that needs to be answered,

drives the input for all steps in the DQO process. Thus, sampling

design, how samples are collected and manipulated, and the types of

analyses chosen should all stem from the overall purpose of the study.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-12 Draft

6.4.3 Develop Measurement Quality Objectives and Performance

Characteristics 

A key aspect of your sampling plan design is specifying MQOs—qualitative or

quantitative statements that describe the amount, type, and quality of data needed to

address the overall project objectives. These statements explicitly define the

acceptable precision, bias, and sensitivity required of all analyses in the study, and

therefore they should be consistent with the expected performance of a given analysis

or test method (ITFM 1995). You’ll use this information to help derive meaningful

threshold or decision rules, and the tolerable errors associated with those rules.

MQOs are used as an indicator of potential method problems. Data are not always

discarded simply because MQOs are not met. Instead, failure to met MQOs is a

signal to further investigate and to correct problems. Once the problem(s) are

rectified, the data can often still be used.

MQOs should be realistic and attainable. For example, establishing an MQO of less

than 10 percent relative percent difference (RPD) for biological data would most

likely result in failure simply because of the data’s natural variability. Often, the best

way to establish MQOs is to look at reliable existing data and choose MQOs that can

be met by existing data. They can be adjusted (made more or less stringent) if

protocol and program capabilities are improved.

Every sampling program should find a balance between obtaining information to

satisfy the stated DQOs or study goals in a cost-effective manner and having enough

confidence in the data to make appropriate decisions. Understanding the performance

characteristics of methods is critical to the process of developing attainable data

quality goals, improving data collection and processing, interpreting results, and

developing feasible management strategies. By calculating the performance

characteristics of a given method, it is possible to evaluate the robustness of the

method for reliably determining the condition of the aquatic ecosystem. A method

that is very labor-intensive and requires a great deal of specialized expertise and, in

turn, provides a substantial amount of information is not necessarily the most

appropriate method if it lacks precision and repeatability. A less-rigorous method

might be less sensitive in detecting perturbation or have more uncertainty in its

assessment. All of these attributes are especially important to minimizing error in

assessments. The number of samples collected and analyzed will reflect a

compromise between the desire of obtaining high-quality data that fully address the

overall project objectives (the MQOs) and the constraints imposed by analytical

costs, sampling effort, and study logistics. The ultimate question resides in a firm

balance between cost and resolution, i.e., Which is better—more information at a

higher cost or a limited amount of the right information at less cost?

Remember that you still may need to identify funding sources for the new sampling

effort. When determining the number of samples and constituents to be analyzed,

consider the resources available, cost and time constraints, and quality assurance and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-13

Quality control (QC) is a system of technical activities

that measure the attributes and performance of a

process, product, or service against defined standards

to verify that they meet the stated requirements.

Quality assurance (QA) is an integrated system of

management activities involving planning, quality

control, quality assessment, reporting, and quality

improvement to ensure that a product or service meets

defined standards of quality with a stated level of

confidence.

• The sampling (data collection) design 

• The methods to be used to obtain the samples

• How the samples will be handled and tracked

• What control limits or other materials will be used to

check performance of the analyses (quality control

requirements)

• How instruments or other equipment used will be

calibrated

• How all data generated during the monitoring

program will be managed and how errors in data

entry and data reduction will be controlled (Keith

1991).

quality control requirements to ensure that sampling errors are sufficiently controlled

to reduce uncertainty and meet the tolerable decision error rates.

KFor a list of links to DQO-related items, go to http://dqo.pnl.gov/links.htm.

6.4.4 Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan

A QAPP is a project-specific document that specifies the data

quality and quantity requirements of the study, as well as all

procedures that will be used to collect, analyze, and report

those data. EPA-funded data collection programs must have

an EPA-approved QAPP before sample collection begins.

However, even programs that do not receive EPA funding

should consider developing a QAPP, especially if data might

be used by state, federal, or local resource managers. A QAPP

helps monitoring staff to follow correct and repeatable

procedures and helps data users to ensure that the collected

data meet their needs and that the necessary quality assurance

(QA) and quality control (QC) steps are built into the project

from the beginning.

A QAPP is normally prepared before sampling begins, and it usually contains the

sampling plan, data collection and management procedures, training and logistical

considerations, and their QA/QC components. The intent of the QAPP is to help

guide operation of the program. It specifies the roles and responsibilities of each

member of the monitoring program team from the project manager and QA/QC

officer to the staff responsible for field sampling and measurement. Project

management responsibilities include overall project

implementation, sample collection, data management, and

budget tracking. Quality management responsibilities might

include conducting checks of sample collection or data entry,

data validation, and system audits. The QAPP also describes

the tasks to be accomplished, how they will be carried out, the

DQOs for all kinds of data to be collected, any special training

or certification needed by participants in the monitoring

program, and the kinds of documents and records to be

prepared and how they will be maintained.

A key element of a QAPP is the SOPs. SOPs help to maintain

data comparability by providing a step-by-step description of

technical activities to ensure that project personnel

consistently perform sampling, analysis, and data handling

activities. The use of standard methods of analysis for water

quality parameters also permits comparability of data from

different monitoring programs.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-14 Draft

The QAPP also contains the types of assessments to be conducted to review

progress and performance (e.g., technical reviews, audits), as well as how

nonconformance detected during the monitoring program will be addressed.

Finally, procedures are described for reviewing and validating the data

generated, dealing with errors and uncertainties identified in the data, and

determining whether the type, quantity, and quality of the data will meet the

needs of the decisionmakers. QAPPs should be continually refined to make

them consistent with changes in field and laboratory procedures. Each

refinement should be documented and dated to trace modifications to the

original plan.

KFor assistance in developing an effective QAPP, visit EPA’s Web site to read

Quality Management Tools—QA Project Plans at www.epa.gov/quality/qapps.html,

The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans at

www.epa.gov/volunteer/qapp/vol_qapp.pdf, or Guidance for Quality Assurance

Project Plans for Modeling at www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5m-final.pdf.

An excerpt from the sampling plan for Spa Creek, Maryland, is provided as figure

6-1.

6.4.5 Develop a Plan for Data Management

Any monitoring program should include a plan for data management. You should

determine how data will be stored, checked, and prepared for analysis. Often, these

issues are addressed in the QAPP. This type of plan usually dictates that data be

entered into databases that can help keep track of information collected at each site

and can be used to readily implement analyses.

There are many types of platforms to house databases. The simplest databases are

spreadsheets, which might be adequate for smaller projects. For more complex

watershed measurements involving many sites or variables, a relational database is

usually preferable. The biological/habitat database EDAS (Ecological Data

Application System; Tetra Tech 2000) runs on a Microsoft Access platform. Very

large databases often use ORACLE as a platform or a similar type of relational

database that is more readily Web-accessible. In a relational database, data, metadata,

and other ancillary information reside in a series of relational tables including station

information, sample information, analyses, methods used, and QC information. In

this type of database, data can be organized in many different ways depending on

how the data are to be used (i.e., the types of analyses to be performed). It is useful to

consider any requirements or options for uploading your data to other databases such

as EPA’s STORET or a state agency database as part of your overall data

management process.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-15

Located in Annapolis, Maryland, Spa Creek begins with at a large stormwater pipe and includes a few major tributaries

before it opens into the Chesapeake Bay. Spa Creek provides recreational opportunities for boating, fishing, and hiking; it

also provides habitat for Chesapeake Bay wildlife. The watershed has been developed with urban land uses, including

residential, commercial, open space, and institutional uses (e.g., schools). Impairments associated with bacteria, pH, and

dissolved oxygen exist in Spa Creek. A field observation revealed little evidence of a healthy aquatic life community and

stream site habitat. However, there are insufficient data to understand the magnitude of the impairments and the sources

and causes of impairment. As a result, a preliminary sampling plan was developed to better understand the quality of Spa

Creek, its tributaries, and stormwater from a few targeted developed areas. The proposed monitoring will help stakeholders

to develop a watershed management plan with specific water quality goals and actions.

The preliminary sampling plan recommends a minimum of two dry weather sampling events and two wet weather sampling

events. Dry weather samples help to understand the instream water quality under minimal dilution conditions (when estuarine

impacts are expected to be dominant), while wet weather samples help to understand the quality of stormwater from the

surrounding watershed and its impact on Spa Creek. To understand the spatial distribution of impairment and to isolate hot

spots, five instream locations and seven storm drain outlets were identified for sampling. Proposed locations and sampling

frequency were recommended in the interest of developing a watershed plan with specific actions and restoration.

Parameters proposed for monitoring include flow, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, fecal coliform

bacteria, total suspended solids, carbonaceous oxygen demand, total organic carbon, ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, total

Kjeldahl nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, copper, zinc, lead, hardness, and oil and grease. Ecological monitoring

was proposed in the sampling plan to assess the ecological condition of Spa Creek. As part of the assessment, biological,

physical habitat, and chemistry samples would be collected from three to five streams sites in the watershed. For example,

benthic invertebrates and fish would be collected, and in situ toxicity testing would be performed using a caged oyster study.

The proposed plan emphasizes the importance of continuing to monitor Spa Creek to understand long-term water quality

trends and to measure progress once the plan is implemented. Potential options to consider for long-term monitoring (every

3 years) include flow, metals, benthics/fish, dissolved oxygen, oyster baskets, and E. coli. Anticipated costs for monitoring

are included in the table below.

Alternative Monitoring

Description

Basic

Chemistry

and Biology

Benthic/Fish

and Oyster

Basket (3–5

locations)

Priority

Pollutant

Scan 

(4 locations)

Sampling in

Tidal Area

(4 locations)

Total

Estimated

Cost

Phase I (5 instream dry, 5

instream wet, and 3 outlet

wet)

$20,000 $15,000 $14,500 $6,000

(1 dry, 1 wet)

$55,500

Complete screening level (2

dry and 2 wet at all locations)

$52,000 $15,000 $14,500 $11,000 $92,500

Only model parameter data

collection (2 dry and 2 wet at

8 locations)

$33,000 $15,000 $48,000

Long-term trend monitoring,

every 3 years (1 dry and 1

wet at 3–5 locations)

$12,000 $15,000 $27,000

Figure 6-1. Excerpt from Spa Creek Proposed Sampling Plan.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-16 Draft

Streambank erosion in remote areas

Straight pipes with visible discharges

Livestock (near or with access to streams)

Wildlife (e.g., waterfowl populations on lakes

and open streams)

Small-scale land-disturbing activities

(e.g., construction, tree-cutting)

As mentioned earlier with respect to existing data, documentation of metadata

(information about the data) is critical to ensure the proper understanding and use of

the data now and in the future. Many organizations have recognized that adequately

characterized data have more value to the program that collected the data, as well as

to other organizations and programs, than inadequately characterized data. The

Methods and Data Comparability Board and the National Water Quality Monitoring

Council have developed a list of metadata categories that should be included in

database design and should be reflected in all field sampling forms and other field

and laboratory documentation generated as part of the monitoring (NWQMC 2005).

These elements address the who, what, when, where, why, and how of collecting

data.

KFor more information on metadata and data elements, see

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods or www.epa.gov/edr.

6.5 Collect New Data

Sampling plans often include a mixture of different types of data, including

biological (e.g., benthic, fish, algae), physical (e.g., visual habitat assessment,

geomorphic assessment), chemical (e.g., conductivity, nitrate, dissolved oxygen), and

hydrologic measurements. Numerous methods are available for collecting these data,

but the achieved data quantity and quality differ. Therefore, data collection

techniques should be carefully selected to ensure that the data produced can be used

to meet project goals completely.

6.5.1 Watershed Overview/Visual Assessment

A watershed survey, or “visual assessment,” is one of the most

rewarding and least costly assessment methods. By walking, driving,

or boating the watershed, you can observe water and land conditions,

uses, and changes over time that might otherwise be unidentifiable.

These surveys help you identify and verify pollutants, sources, and

causes, such as streambank erosion delivering sediments into the

stream and illegal straight pipes discharging various pollutants.

(Note, however, that additional monitoring of chemical, physical,

and biological conditions is required to determine whether the

stressors observed are actually affecting the water quality.)

Watershed surveys can provide a very accurate picture of what is

occurring in the watershed and also can be used to familiarize local

stakeholders, decisionmakers, citizens, and agency personnel with

activities occurring in their watershed. KFor general information, read section 3.2,

The Visual Assessment, in EPA’s Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual

(EPA 841-B-97-003), www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms32.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-17

Included is a Watershed Survey Visual Assessment form,

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/ds3.pdf.

Several agencies and organizations have developed visual assessment protocols that

you can adapt to your own situation. For example, the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed a Visual Stream Assessment Protocol

(VSAP), which is an easy-to-use assessment tool that evaluates the condition of

stream ecosystems. It was designed as an introductory, screening-level assessment

method for people unfamiliar with stream assessments. The VSAP measures a

maximum of 15 elements and is based on visual inspection of the physical and

biological characteristics of instream and riparian environments. KGo to

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf to download a copy of the

tool.

Some watershed survey tools are designed to examine specific issues in the

watershed. For example, the Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT),

developed for Montgomery County, Maryland, is a simple, rapid,

reconnaissance-level assessment of stream quality and potential pollutant sources. In

this technique, visual evaluations are conducted in various categories, including

channel stability, physical in-stream habitat, riparian habitat conditions, and

biological indicators, to gauge stream conditions. KAdditional information about

RSAT is available at

www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/rsat/smrc%20rsat.pdf.

Watershed planners often incorporate photographs into their surveys.

Photographic technology is available to anyone, does not require intensive

training, and is relatively inexpensive considering its benefits. Photos serve

as a visual reference for the site and provide a good “before” image to

compare with photos taken after restoration, remediation, or other

improvements or changes. In addition to illustrating problems that need to

be corrected, photos provide a watershed portrait for those who might not

have the opportunity to visit monitoring sites. They help generate interest in

the watershed, and they can be used in reports, presentations, grant

proposals, and on Web sites and uploaded to GIS programs. In addition to

taking your own photographs, you can also obtain aerial photographs from

USGS (Earth Science Information Center), USDA (Consolidated Farm

Service Agencies, Aerial Photography Field Office), and other agencies.

KCalifornia's State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water Team

produced Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and

Assessment, which contains a section on SOPs for stream and shoreline

photo documentation: www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/cwtguidance.html#42.

More detailed visual assessment tools to determine aquatic habitat conditions or

stream stability are provided below.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-18 Draft

6.5.2 Physical Characterization

The physical conditions of a site can provide critical information about factors

affecting overall stream integrity, such as agricultural activities and urban

development. For example, runoff from cropland, pastures, and feedlots can carry

large amounts of sediment into streams, clogging existing habitat and changing

geomorphological characteristics. An understanding of stream physical conditions

can facilitate stressor identification and allow for the design and implementation of

more effective restoration and protection strategies. Physical characterization should

extend beyond the streambanks or shore and include a look at conditions in riparian

areas.

6.5.3 Geomorphic Assessment

Geomorphic assessments range from cursory evaluations that provide general

descriptions of channel shape and pattern to rigorous assessments designed to

describe the geomorphic features in detail and assess stream channel alterations over

time. They can help you answer various questions about the streams and rivers in

your watershed, such as these used by the Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation:

• What are the physical processes and features that characterize a stream and its

watershed? 

• How have human activities affected these processes and features over time? 

• Which of these physical processes and features are more sensitive to change, and

how are they likely to change in the future? 

• Which of these processes and features are important for creating and sustaining

quality habitat for fish and other aquatic biota? 

• Which of these processes and features present high erosion and flood hazard

risks?

Geomorphology protocols commonly describe such stream and river characteristics

as channel dimensions, reach slope, channel enlargement and stability, and bank-full

and related measurements. These measures will help you understand current stream

conditions and can be evaluated over time to describe stream degradation or

improvements. These measures can also be used to predict future stream conditions,

which can help you choose appropriate restoration or protection strategies.

KFor examples of standard geomorphic protocols, see EPA’s Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), www.epa.gov/emap, or Vermont’s

Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols,

www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htm.

The Rosgen geomorphic assessment approach (Rosgen 1996) groups streams into

different geomorphic classes on the basis of a set of criteria. The criteria include
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-19

entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel slope, and channel

materials. This method is commonly used throughout the country. The Rosgen stream

types can be useful for identifying streams at different levels of impairment,

determining the types of hydrologic and physical factors affecting stream

morphologic conditions, and choosing the best management measures to implement

if necessary. KFor a summary of the Rosgen Stream Classification System, go to

www.epa.gov/watertrain/stream_class/index.htm.

One of the common goals of a Rosgen assessment and other types of geomorphic

assessments is to compare site-specific data from a given stream reach to data from

other reaches of similar character to help classify a stream reach and determine its

level of stability. A good way to do this is to use a reference channel reach near the

watershed or stream reach being evaluated. When looking for a representative reach

in your watershed, it is possible that one has already been surveyed, but it is often

unlikely that you will be able to find the data. Therefore, it might be necessary to

survey a local reference reach by determining its longitudinal profile, representative

cross sections, bed materials, and meander pattern. It might be difficult to find a

quality channel that exists locally. However, local data from a similar watershed is

valuable to use for comparison purposes. KFor more information on stream channel

reference sites, go to www.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/PDFs/RM245E.PDF.

Another common geomorphic assessment method is the Modified Wolman Pebble

Count, which characterizes the texture (particle size) in the stream or riverbeds of

flowing surface waters. It can be used in conjunction with Rosgen-type physical

assessments or as a stand-alone method. The composition of the streambed can tell

you a lot about the characteristics of the stream, including the effects of flooding,

sedimentation, and other physical impacts on a stream. KFor detailed descriptions of

the Modified Wolman Pebble Count, see Harrelson et al. (1994) and Rosgen (1996)

or check out the Virginia Save Our Streams pebble count factsheet and worksheets at

www.sosva.com/pebblecountandworksheets.PDF or the Sampling Surface and

Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in Wadable Gravel- and Cobble-Bed Streams

for Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics, and Streambed Monitoring

document located on the USDA Forest Service’s Stream Team Web site at

www.stream.fs.fed.us/index.html.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio State University developed a

suite of spreadsheet tools (the STREAM Modules) that is commonly used across the

country for stream assessments, including the Rosgen classification described earlier

in this section. This ongoing project currently provides the following modules:

(1) Reference Reach Spreadsheet for reducing channel survey data and calculating

basic bankfull hydraulic characteristics; (2) Regime Equations for determining the

dimensions of typical channel form; (3) Meander Pattern, which dimensions a simple

arc and line best fit of the sine-generated curve; (4) Cross-section and Profile, which

can be used to illustrate the difference between existing and proposed channel form;

(5) Sediment Equations, which includes expanded and condensed forms of critical
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-20 Draft

dimensionless shear, boundary roughness and common bed load equations (can be

used with the Wolman Pebble Counts); and (6) Contrasting Channels, which

computes hydraulic and bed load characteristics in a side-by-side comparison of two

channels of different user-defined forms. The spreadsheet is available at

www.ohiodnr.com/soilandwater/streammorphology.htm.

6.5.4 Hydrological Assessments

Nonpoint source pollution is driven by climate and watershed hydrology. Hydrologic

assessments deal specifically with measuring stream flow, which can provide

important information about streams, lakes, and even watersheds. Stream flow data

are essential to estimate nonpoint source loads. Good hydrologic data are also useful

in assessing relationships between precipitation and stream flow, potentially an

important indicator of watershed development. Some management measures in both

agricultural and urban settings directly affect the stream flow regime, so hydrologic

data from before and after implementation of BMPs can be an important element of

plan evaluation.

Weather data are relatively easy to obtain from existing National Weather Service

stations, or the cooperative network. KFor information on weather data available for

your watershed, see the National Climatic Data Center Web site at

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html or the National Water and Climate Center at

www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Streamflow data are more difficult to obtain. USGS conducts most of the routine

streamflow monitoring in the United States, usually in cooperation with state

agencies. KFor information on available USGS streamflow data for your region, see

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis, which contains current-condition, real-time data

transmitted from selected surface water, ground water, and water quality monitoring

sites. You can also visit http://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nffpubs.html to find

information on regional regression equations that were developed for states and

regions and can be used to predict peak flows. If you’re lucky enough to have a

USGS stream gauging station in your watershed, both current and historical data will

be available to help estimate pollutant loads. Otherwise, you might need to look for

USGS stations in adjacent, similar watersheds (similar in terms of size, topography,

stream type, and so forth) to provide estimates of hydrologic behavior. For example,

you might need to apply long-term average annual runoff estimates to your situation.

If you need detailed streamflow monitoring, it is possible (but expensive) to install a

new gauging station. If you go this route, consider installing a full-flow monitoring

station at your watershed outlet and supplementing it with periodic manual

measurements at the upstream locations to derive a relationship between the outlet

and upstream locations. Such a relationship could be useful in estimating flow at

ungauged sites.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-21

KWashington State’s Department of Ecology put together A Citizen's Guide to

Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams, which has an entire chapter

devoted to hydrology. KGo to

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/chapter5.html.

6.5.5 Water Quality Assessment

Water quality can be assessed using a variety of different methods for a multitude of

analytes. The types of analytes measured should reflect the DQOs specified, as well

as previously collected data for the watershed if available. For water quality

assessments in support of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), the specific

pollutants identified in the TMDLs will be analyzed. For nonpoint source

assessments, a variety of parameters might be analyzed, depending on the specific

questions being asked and the land uses in the watershed. It is often appropriate to

analyze pesticides, nutrients, and biochemical oxygen demand in agricultural areas,

for example, whereas oil and grease, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

metals, and dissolved solids are more useful in urban areas. The form of the analyte

being measured might need to be carefully considered; for example, if dissolved

metals concentrations are needed, filtering the sample before preservation is required.

For many types of pollutants, you’ll want to analyze some specific parameters

simultaneously to better interpret the potential effects of those pollutants (Table 6-1).

For example, the bioavailability and toxicity of many metals are regulated by the

suspended solids, alkalinity, hardness, pH, or dissolved organic carbon present in the

water. If metals are of concern, it is recommended that many of these other analytes

be measured as well. Similarly, if ammonia is a concern, simultaneous pH and

temperature measurements are needed to help interpret its potential effects.

Table 6-1. Sources and Associated Pollutants

Source Common Associated Chemical Pollutants

Cropland Turbidity, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature, total suspended solids

Forestry harvest Turbidity, temperature, total suspended solids

Grazing land Fecal bacteria, turbidity, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature

Industrial discharge Temperature, conductivity, total solids, toxic substances, pH

Mining pH, alkalinity, total dissolved solids, metals

Septic systems Fecal bacteria (i.e., Escherichia coli, enterococci), nitrates, phosphorus, dissolved

oxygen/biochemical oxygen demand, conductivity, temperature

Sewage treatment

plants

Dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, conductivity,

phosphorus, nitrates, fecal bacteria, temperature, total solids, pH

Construction Turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand, total

suspended solids, and toxic substances

Urban runoff Turbidity, total suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrates, temperature, conductivity,

dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand

Source: USEPA 1997a, 1997d.
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-22 Draft

Mississippi DEQ developed a visually based approach

(MDEQ 2001) that is similar to the EPA RBPs but is

more regimented with respect to habitat quality

categories; that is, the criteria used for defining optimal,

suboptimal, fair, and poor habitat are divided in more

detail. This strategy was intended make the protocol

more objective and less reliant on field training. 

Maryland Biological Stream Survey methods for

assessing habitat quality are also based on the RBPs,

but the parameters are slightly different and are rated on

various scales depending on the parameter. The

individual habitat parameters in this protocol are

assembled into a final physical habitat index that assigns

different weights to the various parameters. KFor a

complete description of these methods, go to

www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/2001mbss_man.pdf.

K Additional descriptions of state protocols for assessing

habitat quality can be found in EPA’s Summary of

Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for

States, Tribes, Territories, Interstate Commissions:

Streams and Wadeable Rivers at

www.epa.gov/bioindicators. 

The Stream Mitigation Compendium can be used to help

select, adapt, or devise stream assessment methods

appropriate for impact assessment and mitigation of

fluvial resources in the CWA section 404 Program:

www.mitigationactionplan.gov/Physical%20Stream%20A

ssessment%20Sept%2004%20Final.pdf.

In most nonpoint source-dominated watersheds, the concentration of a constituent in

the stream is positively related to flow; most nonpoint source activity occurs at high

flows. Therefore, an appropriate sampling schedule should be followed to avoid bias

in measuring concentrations of pollutants. Data from time-based sampling (e.g.,

weekly, monthly by the calendar) are nearly always biased to low-flow conditions

because high-flow events occur relatively infrequently. Flow-proportional sampling

produces less biased information on true concentration and load.

Sampling methods can range from intensive efforts that require analytical laboratory

analyses to in situ (field) measurements using a multiparameter monitoring and

data-logging system. KFor more information and detailed descriptions of water

quality sampling methods, see the USGS’s National Field Manual for the Collection

of Water-Quality Data at

http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual.

Consider specialized monitoring requirements for your

watershed. For example, if sediment pollutants are being

analyzed, methods for sediment sampling and processing

might be critical (KRefer to EPA’s sediment manual at

www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collection.html, USGS

sediment sampling techniques at

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/sediment.html, and the

section on sediment monitoring in Edward’s and Glysson’s

field manual at

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/Edwards-TWRI.pdf

for good reviews on techniques). Some sediment quality

parameters such as pH; percent moisture; total organic

carbon; and, in the case of metals, simultaneously extracted

metals (SEM) and acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) should be

analyzed to help interpret pollutant data.

6.5.6 Assessment of Habitat Quality

When conducting biological assessments, you should assess

physical habitat quality to supplement the biological data.

Habitat quality characteristics such as stream substrate and

canopy cover influence the biotic communities that can

inhabit the site, regardless of water quality conditions.

Alterations in stream and watershed hydrology can

potentially lead to accelerated stream channel erosion,

which, in turn, leads to habitat degradation and reduces the

capacity of the stream to support a “healthy” biota. Though

it does not directly identify specific cause-effect

relationships, combining the results of biological and

physical habitat assessments can provide insight into the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Draft 6-23

Biological data can be used to track water quality

trends, list and delist waters under section 303(d) of

the Clean Water Act, and assess the effectiveness

of TMDLs.

Biological organisms provide a measure of the

combined impact of stressors because they’re

exposed to the effects of almost all the different

stressors in a waterbody.

Biological organisms integrate stress over time and

are thus good measures of fluctuating conditions.

Routine bioassessments can be relatively

inexpensive, especially compared to the cost of

monitoring individual toxic pollutants.

The public views the status of aquatic life as a

measure of a pollution-free environment.

types of stressors and stressor sources affecting watersheds of interest, allowing for

more detailed, diagnostic investigations based on the severity of observed biological

responses. 

As a necessary component of its Rapid Bioassessment Protocols, EPA developed a

very useful and simple method for conducting visual assessments of physical habitat.

In this method, 10 parameters describing physical habitat, stream morphology,

riparian zones, and streambanks are visually assessed and ranked as optimal,

suboptimal, marginal, or poor. Each parameter is scored on a 20-point scale (20 =

optimal; 0 = poor), and then the scores are summed for a total habitat score.

Many states have developed visual habitat assessments that are based on EPA’s RBPs

but are designed to account for regional stream habitat characteristics. Check with

your state Department of Natural Resources or a similar state agency to determine

whether it has its own visually based habitat assessment approaches. For example,

Ohio EPA developed a visual habitat assessment approach, the Qualitative Habitat

Evaluation Index, or QHEI (Ohio EPA 1989). The QHEI considers the ability of

various habitat characteristics to support viable, diverse aquatic faunas. It assesses the

type and quality of substrate, amount of instream cover, channel morphology, extent

of riparian canopy, pool and riffle development and quality, and stream gradient. The

individual habitat metric scores are then combined into an aggregate habitat score. It

should be noted, however, that the QHEI was specifically designed to meet warmwater habitat requirements for aquatic organisms in Ohio and might not be suitable

for all stream types or all ecoregions. KFor more information visit

www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.html.

Many of these habitat assessment protocols contain components

that qualitatively measure particular stream characteristics and

provide useful descriptions of overall site conditions. These

physical characteristics can also be documented during a

watershed survey, as discussed in section 6.5.1. Such parameters

include water and sediment odors, water color and clarity,

presence of trash or algae, aesthetic quality of the site,

conditions of riparian areas, adjacent land use activities, and

other on-site observations that could indicate stream

degradation.

6.5.7 Biological Assessment

Biological assessments, or bioassessments, are highly effective

for understanding overall water quality and watershed health.

They consist of surveys and other direct measurements of

aquatic life, including macroinvertebrates, fish, and aquatic

vegetation. Changes in the resident biota are ultimately caused

by changes in their surrounding environment. Therefore, by
Chapter 6

Identify Data Gaps and Collect

Additional Data if Needed

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

6-24 Draft

determining how well a waterbody supports aquatic life, bioassessments directly

assess the condition of ecosystem health; that is, when a waterbody’s biology is

healthy, the chemical and physical components are also typically in good condition.

To determine impairment in a waterbody of concern, the structure and function of the

biological assemblages are compared with those from a known reference condition

that approximates the undisturbed or natural condition. The greater the difference

between conditions measured, the greater the extent of impairment.

In addition to benefits (see box), biological assessments have some shortcomings.

Natural variability in biological communities is often extremely high, making it

difficult to detect small or gradual changes in response to changes in pollutant loads.

Conclusions drawn from a biological assessment might be somewhat ambiguous: Is a

site poor in macroinvertebrate fauna because of a large sedimentation event, a

transient toxic release, or continuously low dissolved oxygen? Finally, biomonitoring

typically requires a significant investment in time and specialized skills. It is fairly

easy to collect a water sample, submit it to lab, and wait for the results; collecting,

identifying, and counting benthic invertebrates is a more demanding task.

Numerous protocols are available for conducting biological assessments. One of the

most accepted and commonly used methods nationwide is EPA’s Rapid

Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour

et al. 1999). This guidance document outlines the methods and steps required for

conducting rapid bioassessments of three different assemblages—periphyton, benthic

macroinvertebrates, and fish. It also contains useful information on conducting

physical habitat assessments, performing data analysis, and integrating data and

reporting. KGo to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/download.html to download

a copy of the document. The Issak Walton League also has materials available to help

with bioassessment, including a bug card, video, and score sheet for rapid

determination of relative water quality. It also conducts training workshops. KGo to

www.iwla.org/sos/workshops.html for more information. 

Some states, such as Connecticut, have developed and tested streamlined

bioassessment protocols for volunteer monitors. KGo to

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/volunmon/volopp.htm for more information.

Once you’ve collected the additional data needed to adequately characterize your

watershed, you’ll add the results to your data inventory. You can now move on to the

next step. In chapter 7, you’ll analyze the data to determine sources and causes of

water quality impairments.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-1

7. Analyze Data to

Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant

Sources

Read this chapter if...

• You want to satisfy element a of the section 319 guidelines—identification of

causes and sources that need to be controlled

• You want to characterize the general environmental conditions in your watershed

• You’re not sure what types of data analyses you should use

• You want to conduct a visual assessment as part of your data analysis

• You want to link your analysis results with the causes and sources of pollutants

in the watershed

• If you want to identify critical areas in the watershed that will need management

measures to achieve watershed goals

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sourcess

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Identifying locations of impairments

and problems

< Determining timing of impairments

and problems

< Identifying potential sources

< Determining areas for quantifying

source loads
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-2 Draft

7.1 Analyze Data to Identify Pollutant Sources

Chapter 5 discussed the first step of the watershed characterization

process—identifying and gathering available data and information to assess the

watershed and create a data inventory. Chapter 6 discussed the next step—conducting

a preliminary data review, identifying any data gaps, and then collecting additional

data if needed. All of this information will now be used in the next step—data

analysis to characterize the watershed. This analysis supports the identification of

watershed pollutant sources and causes of impairment, which is essential to defining

watershed management needs. This chapter highlights the types of data analyses

commonly used to characterize water quality and waterbody conditions and to

identify watershed sources contributing to impairments and problems.

 This phase of the watershed planning process should result in the first of the nine

elements that EPA requires in a section 319-funded watershed plan. Element a is

“Identification of causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be

controlled to achieve load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed

plan.”

Remember that data gathering and analysis is an ongoing, iterative process. Data

examined in this phase will continue to be used in subsequent activities such as

identifying and evaluating management measures and tracking implementation

efforts.

7.1.1 Focus Your Analysis Efforts

7 Although many techniques are described in this chapter, you will likely choose

only a selected combination of the techniques in your watershed. The process of

conducting data analyses to characterize your watershed and its pollutant sources

begins with broad assessments such as evaluating the averages, minimums, and

maximums of measured parameters at all watershed stations. The analyses are then

systematically narrowed, with each step building on the results of the previous

analysis. Through careful analysis you’ll obtain a better understanding of the major

pollutant sources, the behavior of the sources, and their impacts on the waterbodies.

An understanding of the watershed conditions and sources is also the basis for

determining the appropriate method for quantifying the pollutant loads.

In addition, the kinds of data analyses you perform will be determined by the amount

of available data. For example, if you have data for several stations in a watershed,

you’ll be able to evaluate geographic variations in water quality throughout the

watershed—an analysis you could not do with data for only one station.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-3

Table 7-1 provides examples of data analysis activities and the tools used in various

steps of the watershed planning process. It gives you an idea of how the parameter or

analytical techniques might vary depending on where you are in the process and your

reasons for analysis.

Table 7-1. Examples of the Types of Data-related Activities Conducted Throughout the Watershed Planning

Process

Watershed

Planning Step Type of Data Goal of Data Analysis Example Activity

Characterize

Watershed 

• Previously conducted

studies (e.g., TMDLs, 305(b)

report, USGS water quality

reports, university studies)

Generally characterize the

watershed and identify the most

important problems for further

analysis.

• Review available reports and

assessments.

• Watershed data (e.g., land

use, soils)

• Chemical instream data

• Biological instream data

• Physical data

Perform targeted analysis of

available data to characterize the

waterbody and watershed. 

Examples:

• Identify sources

• Characterize the impairment

• Evaluate spatial trends

• Evaluate temporal trends

• Identify data gaps

• Compare data to water quality

standards to identify timing

and magnitude of impairment.

• Review monthly statistics to

identify seasonal variations.

• Use GIS at watershed stations

to identify spatial variations in

water quality and potential

sources of pollutants.

Set Goals and

Identify Solutions

Watershed data (e.g., land use,

soils, population)

• Chemical instream data

• Biological instream data

• Physical data

• Meteorological data

Appropriately represent watershed

and waterbody in the model for

the most accurate simulation of

watershed loads.

• Use data to establish a nonmodeling analysis (e.g., use

observed data to establish a

spreadsheet mass balance

calculation).

• Use data for model setup

(e.g., identify appropriate

model parameter values,

establish watershed

characteristics such as land

use and soils).

• Compare observed data to

model output for calibration

and validation.

Implement and

Evaluate

Instream monitoring data for

the parameters of concern

(e.g., nutrients)

Evaluate the effectiveness of

management measures and track

the progress of water quality

improvement.

• Compare data collected

upstream and downstream of

management practices.

• Compare data collected before

and after implementation of

management practices to track

water quality improvement.

Note: TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; GIS = geographic information system.

7.1.2 Use a Combination of Analysis Types

Because data analysis techniques are used to support a variety of goals and involve

multiple types of data, a combination of techniques is usually used. Less-detailed

analyses, such as evaluating summary statistics, might be conducted for certain

pollutants, whereas more detailed analyses might be conducted for others, depending
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-4 Draft

on the goals of the plan and the pollutants of

concern. Data analysis is typically an iterative

process that is adapted as results are interpreted and

additional information is gathered.

7.1.3 Consider Geographic Variations

The kinds of analyses and the level of detail used in

your data analysis will vary within the watershed

depending on the pollutants of concern. For

example, if bacteria loading from livestock

operations is a primary concern in the watershed,

detailed land use analysis might be necessary to

identify pasturelands and evaluate proximity to

streams and water access for livestock, as well as to

identify and characterize areas of cropland that receive manure applications. In

addition, detailed water quality analyses might be needed for the areas that contain

livestock to evaluate the timing and magnitude of impacts as related to livestock

grazing schedules and access to waterbodies. For other areas of the watershed,

general water quality characterization will be sufficient, and low-level evaluations of

stream characteristics, watershed soils, and other types of data will be acceptable

given the focus of the data analysis.

7.1.4 Incorporate Stakeholders’ Concerns and Observations

Stakeholder concerns and goals will also help to determine what kinds of analyses are

needed. If the stakeholders and the earlier characterization identified bacteria- and

metals-associated impacts from developed areas as a primary concern, the data

analysis will focus on characterizing those parameters and the locations, types, or

timing of pollutant loading from urban and residential sources in the watershed. If a

specific source is expected to be contributing to water quality problems, more

detailed analyses might be conducted on data collected upstream and downstream of

that source, or smaller time scales (e.g., daily concentrations) might be evaluated.

Data analysis in the remainder of the watershed would be more coarse, identifying

simple summary statistics (e.g., monthly minimum, maximum, average) sufficient for

general characterization of identified subwatersheds. Table 7-2 illustrates this

concept with examples of different levels of effort for the various types of data used

in watershed characterization. Other factors to consider regarding level of detail,

include: relative costs of remediation, risks to human health and aquatic life, and

level of disagreement among stakeholders–all of which would likely increase the

level of detail needed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-5

Table 7-2. Examples of the Level of Detail and Effort for Typical Types of Data

Type of

Data

" Increasing level of complexity "

Low Moderate High

Instream

(e.g., water

quality, flow)

Summary statistics (e.g.,

minimum, average,

maximum) for watershed

stations

Spatial analysis of water quality

using instream water quality data

and GIS coverages

Spatial, temporal analysis of multiple instream

parameters and GIS data (often combined with

modeling and supplemental monitoring) 

Land use General distribution of land

use types throughout the

watershed, using broad

categories (e.g., agriculture,

urban)

Specific identification of land use

areas by subwatershed, including

more detailed categories (e.g.,

cropland, pasture, residential,

commercial)

Statistical analysis of land use areas in relation

to water quality conditions (e.g., regression

analysis between amount of impervious area

and average flow or water quality

concentration)

Soils General distribution of soil

types based on available

information

GIS analysis of the locations and

types of soil series

Detailed analysis of soil distribution, including

identification of proximity to streams, erosion

potential, and other soil characteristics

affecting soil erosion and transport

Once the focus of the data analysis has been identified, the relevant data are compiled

and analyses are conducted. The following sections discuss the typical types of data

analyses used to support watershed characterization and the primary data analysis

techniques available to evaluate the watershed and identify causes and sources.

7.2 Analyze Instream and Watershed Data

Data analysis helps to evaluate spatial, temporal, and other identifiable trends and

relationships in water quality. Analysis of instream data is needed to identify the

location, timing, or behavior of potential watershed sources and their effect on

watershed functions such as hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitat. You

developed a preliminary assessment of the watershed during the first and second

phases of watershed characterization. Now, with a more comprehensive dataset, you

can perform a more detailed and definitive analysis. One way to organize and focus

the data analysis is to consider the specific watershed characteristics and the

questions that need to be answered before an appropriate management strategy can be

developed. OUse worksheet 7-1 to help determine the types of analyses you might

need to conduct. KA blank copy is provided in appendix B.

Typical analyses used to address these questions include statistical analysis, spatial

analysis, temporal analysis, trends and relationships, and flow and load duration

curves. It’s important to note that most of the analyses discussed in this section focus

on water quality monitoring data because many watershed goals can be directly or

indirectly linked to instream water quality conditions. In addition, water quality is an

indicator of the general watershed conditions and pollutant source types, locations,

and behavior. However, you should also broaden the evaluation of watershed

conditions by incorporating additional data types (e.g., land use, weather, and stream 
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-6 Draft

O

Questions to Help Determine What Kinds of Data Analyses Are Needed

Question Section to refer to for assistance

1. Are water quality standards being met? If so, are they maintaining existing levels? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments)

7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)

2. Is water quality threatened? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments) 

7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)

3. Is water quality impaired? 7.2.1 (Confirm Impairments) 

7.2.2 (Summary Statistics)

4. Are there known or expected sources causing impairment? 7.2.7 (Visual Assessment)

5. Where do impairments occur? 7.2.3 (Spatial Analysis)

6. When do the impairments occur? Are they affected by seasonal variations? 7.2.4 (Temporal Analysis)

7. Under what conditions (e.g., flow, weather) are the impairments observed? 7.2.4 (Temporal Analysis) and 

7.2.5 (Other Trends and Patterns)

8. Do multiple impairments (e.g., nutrients and bacteria) coexist? 7.2.5 (Other Trends and Patterns)

9. Are there other impairments that are not measured by water quality standards? 7.2.6 (Stressor Identification)

Questions to answer based on results of the data analysis:

1. What beneficial uses for the waterbodies are being impaired? What pollutants are impairing them?

2. What are the potential sources, nonpoint and point, that contribute to the impairment? 

3. When do sources contribute pollutant loads? 

4. How do pollutants enter the waterbody (e.g., runoff, point sources, contaminated ground water, land uses, ineffective

point source treatment, pipe failures)?

5. What characteristics of the waterbody, the watershed, or both could be affecting the impairment (e.g., current or future

growth, increased industrial areas, future NPDES permits, seasonal use of septic systems)?

6. Revisit the conceptual model showing the watershed processes and sources, and revise it if necessary.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-7

EPA’s new Assessment Database (ADB) application

provides a framework for managing water quality

assessment data. The ADB is designed to serve the needs

of states, tribes, and other water quality reporting agencies

for a range of water quality programs (e.g., CWA sections

305(b), 303(d), and 314). The ADB stores assessment

results related to water quality standards designated use

attainment, the pollution associated with use impairments,

and documentation of probable pollution sources. The

ADB can be used to generate several pre-formatted

reports, as well as conventional data tables and lists.

KFor more information on using the ADB, go to

www.epa.gov/waters/adb. The most recent EPA Integrated

Report guidance includes an increased emphasis on using

the ADB to meet reporting requirements. 

morphology) discussed in chapter 5, as necessary or appropriate for your watershed.

A summary of the various types of analyses used in a watershed characterization is

provided below.

7.2.1 Confirm Impairments and Identify Problems

The first step in characterizing a watershed involves

understanding the water quality impairments and

designated use impacts occurring in your watershed. The

following reports and databases are available to support

this activity:

• 305(b) report (as part of the Integrated

Report)—summarizes designated use support status

for waters in the state

• 303(d) lists (as part of the Integrated

Report)—identify waters not meeting water quality

standards

• EPA’s Assessment Database (ADB)—includes data

used in 305(b) and 303(d) assessments

• TMDL Tracking System (stand-alone or through

WATERS)—includes locations of 303(d)-listed

waterbodies and provides downloadable geographic

information system (GIS) coverages

Although these references provide the necessary information to identify the types of

water quality problems occurring in your watershed, it’s likely that you’ll have to

analyze the available monitoring data yourself to fully characterize and understand

the problems. This analysis typically involves comparing available monitoring data

to water quality standards, but in a way that goes beyond the assessment already

completed by the state for section 303(d) and 305(b) assessments. When identifying

“impaired” waterbodies for the 303(d) list, states usually compare available

monitoring data to applicable water quality criteria and, based on their listing

guidelines and criteria (e.g., percent of samples above the criteria), determine which

waters don’t meet the criteria. In evaluating impairments in your watershed, you

don’t want to simply duplicate the state’s efforts. Instead, use the 305(b) and 303(d)

information to target your analyses—to identify which waterbodies are impaired or

threatened—and begin your analysis there. (You should also include in your analysis

those waterbodies identified by stakeholders as degraded but not included in the state

assessments.)

It’s a good idea to do a general analysis (e.g., summary statistics) of all the

waterbodies and associated data in your watershed, but you can focus the more indepth evaluation of impairment on those waterbodies known to have problems. To

better understand the watershed impairments, you can analyze the water quality and
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-8 Draft

Observed Aluminum Vs. Water Quality Standards

1

10

100

1000

10000

Oct-98Apr-99

Oct-99Apr-00Oct-00Apr-01Oct-01Apr-02Oct-02

Apr-03Oct-03

Apr-04

Aluminum (ug/L

Aluminum Chronic Criterion Acute Criterion

Figure 7-1. Example graph of observed aluminum

concentrations compared to water quality criteria.

This section discusses the typical types of data analyses to

support watershed characterization and identification of

pollutant sources. Each analysis can be conducted with

varying degrees of detail and complexity. In addition, it

might be useful to perform more detailed statistical tests.

For example, a Mann-Kendall test can be applied to longterm datasets to indicate whether there is a statistically

significant increasing or decreasing trend in the water

quality data. Available references with information on

statistical analysis of environmental data include

Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in

Water Resources. Chapter A3 in Book 4, Hydrologic

Analysis and Interpretation, of Techniques of

Water-Resources Investigations of the United States

Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997.

National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring. 450-viNHWQM. National Water and Climate Center, Portland,

Oregon. 

instream data in a variety of ways. The first

likely analysis is simply the magnitude of the

impairment—how bad is the problem?

Identifying the percentage of samples that

violate standards provides insight into the level

of impairment in the watershed, or at a

particular location. Using a graphical display of

water quality data compared to applicable

criteria is also an easy way to generally

illustrate the frequency and magnitude of

standards violations, as shown in figure 7-1. A

temporal analysis of water quality versus

standards can be used to identify the times of

year, season, month, and even day when the

impairment is occurring or is the worst.

Temporal and other analyses are discussed

further in this section. These analyses are used

to understand the general watershed conditions and to support identification of

pollutant sources, but also provide information specific to the distribution, timing and

magnitude of water quality impairment.

7.2.2 Summary Statistics

Statistical analyses are essential tools for describing

environmental data and evaluating relationships among

different types of data. You might not need to conduct indepth statistical testing to characterize your watershed,

but it’s often useful to develop summary statistics to

summarize your available datasets, to help in preliminary

analysis, and to communicate your results to stakeholders

and the public. Summary statistics include such

characteristics as range (e.g., minimum, maximum),

central tendency (e.g., mean, median), and variability

(standard deviation, coefficient of variation). Figure 7-2

defines many of the commonly used statistical terms.

Summary statistics should be computed for all stations

and relevant data (e.g., pollutants of concern) as one of

the first steps in your data analysis. Microsoft Excel and

other spreadsheet programs make developing summary

statistics simple. The program can automatically calculate

any of the statistical functions based on the dataset. In

addition, you can create Pivot tables in Excel that

calculate several statistical functions for any combination

of the data at once (e.g., by pollutant by station). It is

useful to also calculate the number or percentage of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-9

Measures of Range: Identify the span of the data from low to high.

Minimum: The lowest data value recorded during the period of record.

Maximum: The highest data value recorded during the period of record.

Measures of Central Tendency: Identify the general center of a dataset. 

Mean: The sum of all data values divided by the sample size (number of samples). Strongly influenced by outlier

samples (i.e., samples of extreme highs or lows); one outlier sample can shift the mean significantly higher or

lower. 

Median (P0.50): The 50th percentile data point; the central value of the dataset when ranked in order of magnitude.

The median is more resistant to outliers than the mean and is only minimally affected by individual observations. 

Measures of Spread: Measure the variability of the dataset. 

Sample variance (s2

) and its square root standard deviation (s): The most common measures of the spread

(dispersion) of a set of data. These statistics are computed using the squares of the difference between each data

value and the mean, and therefore outliers influence their magnitudes dramatically. In datasets with major outliers,

the variance and standard deviation might suggest much greater spread than exists for most of the data.

Interquartile range (IQR): The difference between the 25th and 75th percentile of the data. Because the IQR

measures the range of the central 50 percent of the data and is not influenced by the 25 percent on either end, it is

less sensitive to extremes or outliers than the sample variance and standard deviation. 

Measures of Skewness: Measures whether a dataset is asymmetric around the mean or median and suggests how far

the distribution of the data differs from a normal distribution.

Coefficient of skewness (g): Most commonly used measure of skewness. Influenced by the presence of outliers

because it is calculated using the mean and standard deviation. 

Quartile skew coefficient (qs): Measures the difference in distances of the upper and lower quartiles (upper and

lower 25 percent of data) from the median. More resistant to outliers because, like the IQR, uses the central 50

percent of the data. 

Figure 7-2. Commonly used summary statistics.

samples violating water quality criteria to include in your summary statistics for each

station.

7.2.3 Spatial Analysis

If evaluation of the summary statistics for the water quality stations in your

watershed indicates noticeable differences in water quality throughout the watershed,

you should do a more focused analysis of spatial variation in water quality and other

waterbody monitoring data. Spatial analysis of available waterbody data can be

useful to

• Determine the general distribution of water quality or habitat conditions

• Identify the locations of areas of concern or potential major sources

• Determine the impact of a specific source

• Identify the effect of a management practice or control effort
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-10 Draft

Figure 7-3. Example map of average total dissolved solids

concentration throughout a watershed.

The spatial distribution of water quality conditions in the watershed might indicate

the location of “hot spots” and sources potentially affecting impairment. Spatial

analysis of data is also useful in evaluating the potential impacts of specific sources,

when sufficient data are available. Evaluating the difference in paired observations

from stations upstream and downstream of a potential source can indicate the impact

of the source on instream conditions. Similar data analysis can be conducted on data

available upstream and downstream of a management practice to evaluate the

effectiveness of the management practice in reducing pollutant loads to the

waterbody.

Simply reviewing a table of summary statistics for each

station in the watershed can identify areas of varying water

quality. When dealing with a large watershed with multiple

stations, however, a GIS can be used to effectively

present and evaluate spatial variations in water

quality conditions, as shown in the example

map in figure 7-3. Presenting water quality

summaries by station throughout a watershed

in GIS also allows for identification of

corresponding watershed conditions or sources

that might be causing the spatial variations,

such as land use distribution and location of

point sources. This information is important for

identifying the potential sources that might be

causing the watershed problems and impairments. 

Even if sufficient monitoring data are not

available to adequately evaluate spatial

variation in water quality, you should still

evaluate other available watershed data to understand the spatial distribution of

characteristics that are likely influencing waterbody conditions, such as land use,

soils, and location of permitted sources. GIS is a very useful tool for displaying and

evaluating these kinds of data. 

7.2.4 Temporal Analysis

Another important analysis is the evaluation of temporal trends in water quality

conditions. Evaluation of temporal patterns can assist in identifying potential sources

in the watershed, seasonal variations, and declining or improving water quality

trends. Temporal analyses can include long-term trend analysis to identify generally

increasing or decreasing trends in data and more focused analysis of monthly,

seasonal, and even daily and hourly variations.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-11

Figure 7-4. Example graph of monthly statistics for fecal

coliform bacteria.

America’s Clean Water Foundation published an article

discussing duration curves and their use in developing

TMDLs (Cleland 2002). The duration curves act as an

indicator of relevant watershed processes affecting

impairment, important contributing areas, and key

delivery mechanisms. KTo read the full article and get

more information on the use of duration curves to

diagnose seasonal impacts and potential sources, go

to www.tmdls.net/tipstools/docs/BottomUp.pdf.

Degraded water quality during certain

months or seasons can indicate the

occurrence of a source that is active only

during those times. For example, elevated

concentrations of nutrients or bacteria

during the summer months (figure 7-4)

might indicate increased source activity,

such as livestock grazing, during those

months. It might also indicate a need for

further analysis of other watershed

conditions (e.g., weather, flow) that can

exacerbate the impairment during the

summer months. For example, warmer

temperatures during the summer might

increase the productivity of algae, leading

to greater decreases in dissolved oxygen.

7.2.5 Other Trends or Patterns

It is often beneficial to evaluate relationships and trends in the available data other

than spatial and temporal trends. Important examples include

• Evaluating the relationship between flow and instream water quality (Ksee

chapter 5 for data sources)

• Documenting the relationship between related pollutants

• Evaluating the relationship of instream conditions to other watershed factors

(e.g., land use, source activity)

Flow Versus Water Quality

An identifiable relationship between flow and instream water quality concentrations

can indicate what types of pollutant sources dominate the instream impairment and

can help to identify critical conditions surrounding the impairment. For example,

runoff-driven nonpoint sources typically dominate instream

water quality conditions during periods of high flow resulting

from rainfall/runoff events, whereas point sources that provide

relatively constant discharges to receiving waters usually

dominate water quality during low flow, when there is less

water to dilute effluent inputs.

There are several options for evaluating the relationship

between flow and a water quality parameter, including

visually evaluating time series data, developing a regression

plot, evaluating monthly averages, and developing a flow

duration curve.
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-12 Draft

Figure 7-5. Example load duration curve.

A flow duration curve can be a useful diagnostic tool for evaluating critical

conditions for watershed problems and the types of sources that could be influencing

waterbody conditions. Flow duration curves graph flows based on their occurrence

over the period of record. Flows are ordered according to magnitude, and then a

percent frequency is assigned to each, representing the percentage of flows that are

less than that flow. For example, a flow percentile of zero corresponds to the lowest

flow, which exceeds none of the flows in that record. The percentage of 100

corresponds to the highest flow, which exceeds all the flows in that record. The flow

duration is often plotted with corresponding pollutant concentrations to evaluate the

relationship between water quality and flow. To do this, you should isolate matching

flow and water quality and plot the flow and concentration data as a function of flow

percentile.

A variation of the flow duration curve is the load duration curve, which plots

observed pollutant loads as a function of flow percentile. Matching water quality and

flow (measured on the same day) are used to calculate observed loads, by multiplying

flow by pollutant concentration and an appropriate conversion factor. The loads are

then plotted along with the flow in order of flow percentile. The load duration curve

provides information on when loading occurs.

As shown in the example load duration

curve (figure 7-5), the total dissolved solids

(TDS) concentrations tend to follow a

pattern similar to the flow, with lower

concentrations occurring during lower flows

and elevated concentrations during higher

flows. This indicates that surface runoff

(nonpoint sources or stormwater discharges)

is likely the source of elevated total

dissolved solids rather than point source

discharges. The flow duration method does

not allow you to identify specific sources

(e.g., residential versus agricultural), but it

provides useful information on the

conditions under which problems occur and

the general types of sources affecting the

waterbody.

Relationships Between Pollutants

It’s also important to evaluate the correlation of instream concentrations (and

loading) of pollutants of concern to other parameters that represent the same

impairment or are likely being contributed by similar sources or acting as a source of

the pollutant of concern. For example, metals often attach to sediments, resulting in

increased metals loading during times of high sediment erosion and runoff.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-13

The Vandalia Lake, Illinois, TMDL establishes load reduction

goals for total phosphorus to address impairments from both

phosphorus and pH. Fluctuations in pH can be correlated to

photosynthesis from algae. Chlorophyll a indicates the

presence of excessive algal or aquatic plant growth, which is

a typical response to excess phosphorus loading. Reducing

total phosphorus is expected to reduce algal growth, thus

resulting in attainment of the pH standard. Available

monitoring data for the lake were used to evaluate the

relationship between pH, chlorophyll a, and total phosphorus.

The general relationships suggested that controlling total

phosphorus will decrease chlorophyll a concentrations, which

will in turn reduce pH into the range required for compliance

with water quality standards. 

Kwww.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/report/vandalia/vandalia.pdf

Figure 7-6. Stressor identification process.

Establishing a correlation between instream sediment

and metal concentrations can indicate that metals

loading in the watershed is sediment-related.

Understanding these relationships will be important

when establishing load reductions and selecting

appropriate management activities.

Waterbody Conditions Versus Watershed

Characteristics

Evaluating relationships between instream conditions

and watershed features or conditions will also facilitate

the identification of sources and the establishment of

successful management goals and focused

implementation efforts. For example, performing

statistical analyses on instream data and watershed

features, such as weather patterns, land use (e.g., percent

impervious, area of urban), or soils (e.g., erodibility),

can establish a quantitative link between watershed

conditions and the resulting instream conditions. It

might also be appropriate to divide data into separate datasets

representing certain time periods or conditions for evaluation

(e.g., storm event vs. base flow, irrigation season, grazing

season).

7.2.6 Stressor Identification

When waterbodies experience biological impairment due to

unknown causes, stressor identification is used to identify the

most likely causes of biological impairment (figure 7-6). This

formal method of causal evaluation can be used in a number of

ways:

• To increase confidence that costly remedial or restoration

efforts are targeted at factors that can truly improve

biological condition

• To identify causal relationships that are otherwise not

immediately apparent

• To prevent biases or lapses of logic that might not be

apparent until a formal method is applied

KFor a detailed description of the stressor identification process, see EPA’s

Stressor Identification Guidance Document (USEPA 2000b;

www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html). In addition, two

stressor identification modules originally developed as part of EPA’s 2003 National
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-14 Draft

Biocriteria Workshop are available online. KThe SI 101 course contains several

presentations on the principles of the stressor identification process:

www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/modules/#si101.

EPA recently released the Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System

(CADDIS) to support determination of causes of biological impairment. CADDIS is

an online tool that helps investigators in the regions, states, and tribes to find, access,

organize, use, and share information to produce causal evaluations of aquatic

systems. It is based on the EPA’s stressor identification process. Current features of

CADDIS include

• Step-by-step guide to conducting a causal analysis

• Downloadable worksheets and examples

• Library of conceptual models

• Links to helpful information

KGo to the CADDIS Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis/home.cfm to access

CADDIS and obtain more information.

7.2.7 Visual Assessments and Local Knowledge

It’s important to remember that monitoring and GIS data can provide only a

representation of your watershed. Depending on the frequency of monitoring, the

data might not reflect chronic conditions but rather provide a snapshot of conditions

unique to the time of sampling, especially when dealing with parameters that are

highly variable and sensitive to localized impacts (e.g., bacteria counts). To make the

most of your data analysis, it is important to analyze the data with an understanding

of the “real world.” Use the data analysis to support what you already know about the

watershed from the people that live and work there. KAs discussed in sections 4.3.2

and 6.5.1, visual assessments (e.g., streamwalks, windshield surveys) are useful for

identifying and connecting potential sources of impairment and watershed conditions

and should be used to guide and support data analysis for identifying watershed

sources. In watersheds with limited monitoring data, visual assessments are

especially important, providing the basis for source identification.

Not only are visual assessments useful for identifying potential

pollutant sources and areas to focus your data analysis, but they can

also answer questions raised by your data analysis. For example, if

your data analysis shows a dramatic decrease in water quality in a

portion of your watershed, but the land use and other watershed

coverages don’t indicate any major sources in that area, it’s a good

idea to walk the stream or drive through the area to identify any

possible reasons for the change. For example, your data might indicate

sharp increases in sediment measures (e.g., turbidity, total suspended

solids) between two monitoring stations. Reviewing the land use maps

• Streambank erosion

• Straight pipes

• Livestock (near or with access to streams)

• Wildlife (e.g., waterfowl populations on

lakes and open streams)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-15

1

10

100

1000

10000

Jan-96

Jul-96

Jan-97

Jul-97

Jan-98

Jul-98

Jan-99

Jul-99

Jan-00

Jul-00

Jan-01

Jul-01

Jan-02

Turbidity (NTU

Upstream Downstream

Introduction of new 

sediment source?

Figure 7-7. Long-term turbidity levels at two stations in

Lake Creek, Idaho.

do not suggest any activities that would account for such a dramatic increase. When

you drive through the watershed, you might find a source that you would never know

about without surveying the area, such as a severely eroding streambank or livestock

or wildlife watering in the stream and causing resuspension of streambed sediments. 

In addition to visual inspection of the watershed, local knowledge and anecdotal

information from stakeholders are often very important to successfully analyzing and

interpreting your watershed data. They, too, can provide useful insight to support or

guide data analysis, especially if it is historical information that would not be

identified through a present-day visual

assessment. A data analysis conducted for Lake

Creek, Idaho, provides an example of

stakeholder anecdotal information’s being

crucial to identifying a watershed source. The

data analysis indicated an unexplained increase

in turbidity and sediment between two stations

in the stream (figure 7-7). Discussing the data

analyses with stakeholders allowed TMDL

developers to understand that the increase was

the result of localized logging that had occurred

near the stream several years earlier. Knowing

that the logging had occurred explained why the

turbidity levels had dramatically and quickly

increased at the downstream station and were

now still recovering. Without this knowledge,

the TMDL might have inappropriately targeted

areas that were not affecting the stream.

7.3 Evaluate Data Analysis Results to Identify Causes and

Sources

Together with the input from stakeholders and your local knowledge of the

watershed, analyzing your data should lead you to an understanding of where and

when problems occur in your watershed and what could be causing the problems.

Ideally the data analysis phase will progress in such a manner that each analysis leads

to a greater understanding of the problems, causes, and sources—each analysis

identifies another piece of the puzzle. Suppose, for example, that you started your

analysis with a calculation of summary statistics for bacteria at all the stations in your

watershed. In doing so, you noticed that stations in the upstream portion of the

watershed had higher averages, maximums, and minimums than the rest of the

watershed. Focusing on those stations, you began to evaluate temporal variations,

noting that bacteria levels were consistently higher during the spring and summer.

From there you began to look at other factors that might change seasonally, including

weather, flow, and surrounding land activities. You discovered that although rainfall
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-16 Draft

and flow are higher during the spring, possibly delivering higher bacteria loads, they

are lower during the summer. Also, rainfall and flow are higher throughout the

watershed, not in only this “problem area.” So, what else might be causing the higher

levels during those two seasons? By evaluating land use data for the surrounding

area, you realize there are some concentrated pockets of agricultural land in the area.

After talking to stakeholders and driving the watershed, you identify several acres of

pastureland used for horse and cattle grazing during the spring and summer. Much of

the pastureland is in close proximity to the streams with elevated observed bacteria,

and some of the pastures even have direct access to the streams. Such a combination

of focused data analyses, visual assessments, and local knowledge is critical to

identifying and understanding watershed sources.

In addition, the data analysis will identify on which sources you’ll need to focus

during the loading analysis discussed in chapter 8. Some sources will be expected to

have a greater impact on watershed problems than others and might require more

detailed analysis. For example, if runoff from developed areas is expected to be the

primary cause of elevated metals in watershed streams, it might not be necessary to

evaluate subcategories of agricultural or other undeveloped lands in the loading

analysis. You can likely group those land uses or sources together and focus on the

developed areas, possibly even breaking them into more detailed categories

(e.g., suburban, commercial).

7.3.1 Grouping Sources for Further Assessment

Once you understand the potential causes and sources of the watershed

problems, you should decide at what level you want to characterize

those sources. The next step of the process is to quantify the watershed

sources—to estimate the pollutant loads contributed by the sources

(chapter 8). Therefore, you should identify the sources you want to

quantify. The level of detail in estimating the source loads can vary

widely and will depend largely on the results of your data analysis.

The analysis should give you an understanding of the sources that are

affecting watershed and waterbody conditions, providing a guide for

which sources need to be controlled. Therefore, it’s important to

identify sources at a level that will result in effective control and

improvement. For example, if you have identified specific pastures in one portion of

the watershed as dominating the bacteria levels in your watershed during the summer,

it would not be appropriate to quantify agricultural or even pastureland sources as an

annual gross load for the entire watershed.

To facilitate estimation of source loads, and later source control, sources should be

grouped into logical categories that help to prioritize and address certain pollutants,

sources, or locations for more efficient and effective management. Consider the

following factors and methods when grouping sources for assessment. You can

• Source type (e.g., nonpoint, point)

• Location (e.g., subwatershed)

• Land use type

• Source behavior (e.g., direct discharge,

runoff, seasonal activities)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-17

combine many of the methods to create various groupings and layers of sources,

relevant to the needs and priorities of the watershed-based plan.

Nonpoint Source Versus Point Source

Although watershed plans typically focus on nonpoint sources, they should consider

and integrate point sources for effective watershed protection. You should separate

nonpoint sources from point sources for assessment for both technical and

programmatic reasons. Nonpoint and point sources typically behave differently and

affect the receiving waters under different conditions. For example, nonpoint sources

usually contribute pollutant loads that are washed off and transported during

precipitation events, affecting waterbody conditions during times of higher surface

runoff and, therefore, higher flow. Point sources usually discharge constant loads to

receiving waters, affecting waterbody conditions during times of low flow when

there is less water to dilute incoming effluents. Not only do point and nonpoint

sources behave and affect waterbodies differently, but their management and control

mechanisms are also different. Grouping them separately when considering future

implementation of control measures is logical.

Spatial Distribution and Location

Grouping sources by location facilitates their assessment by dividing the area of

concern into smaller, more focused areas, and it often supports future

implementation. Spatially grouping sources helps to identify priority regions or

locations that should be targeted for control. The method of grouping sources

typically involves creating subwatersheds within the larger watershed of

concern and also prioritizing sources within the subwatershed by some other

methodology (e.g., proximity to a stream, land use).

Land Use Distribution

Sources are often specific to certain land uses, making it logical to group them by

land use. For example, sources of nutrients such as livestock grazing and fertilizer

application, which occur in conjunction with agricultural land use, would not likely

contribute loads to other land uses such as urban or forest uses. Likewise, urban land

uses typically have a set of pollutants of concern (e.g., metals, oil, sediment) different

from those of rural land uses based on the active sources. Although it is difficult to

isolate inputs from individual sources within a land use, assessing them as land use

inputs can still support evaluation of loading and identification of future controls.

Sources can be grouped and characterized by land use at a large scale, such as all

agricultural lands, or at a very detailed level, such as specific crop type. In some

cases, subcategories of nonpoint sources should be used to estimate the source

contribution. For example, a land use like agriculture would often be further broken

down into grazing or cropland, allowing a more accurate estimate of the sources
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-18 Draft

coming from each subcategory and the ability to choose the most effective

management practices for each subcategory.

Grouping sources according to their land use also facilitates identification of future

implementation efforts because certain management practices are most effective

when applied to a certain land use.

Delivery Pathway and Behavior

Depending on their behavior, nonpoint sources can contribute pollutants to receiving

waters through different delivery pathways. The nature of the delivery might support

separate assessment of the source. For example, grazing cattle might be treated as a

separate source depending on the activity or location of the cattle. Livestock on

rangeland can contribute pollutants to the land that are picked up in runoff, whereas

livestock in streams deposit nutrient and bacteria loads directly to the streams.

Different methods might be required to evaluate the effect of each group on

waterbody conditions. Another example is failing septic systems that might be

contributing pollutant loads to waterbodies. Because loads from the septic systems

can be delivered through groundwater and also through surface breakouts, you might

conduct separate analyses to estimate their loads.

Other Factors

Additional factors that can influence the grouping of sources include the following:

• Social and economic factors. Certain sources and their impact might be of

higher priority to the affected public because they are more visible than other

sources or because they could have negative impacts on the local economy.

Public buy-in and priorities can influence the evaluation and grouping of sources,

as well as subsequent source control.

• Political jurisdictions. Because source control can ultimately fall to different

jurisdictions (e.g., counties), it might be necessary to evaluate sources based in

part on jurisdictional boundaries. In some cases, the sources might even be

subject to different laws and control options depending on where they’re located.

7.3.2 Time Frame for Source Assessment

Another important consideration when deciding how to quantify your sources is the

time frame you want to capture. Your data analysis should provide insight into the

timing of watershed problems and, therefore, into the temporal scale you need to

evaluate sources. For example, instream dissolved oxygen might decrease only

during summer months because of increased nutrient loading, higher temperatures,

and lower flows. Therefore, it will be important to characterize and quantify sources

on a time scale that allows for evaluation during the summer months. It would not be
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Draft 7-19

appropriate to evaluate annual loading for a problem that occurs only during the

summer.

7.4 Summarize Causes and Sources

 On the basis of your data analysis, you should now be able to identify the key

sources you will quantify in the next step of the watershed planning process. You

should identify the source type, locations, and timing for load estimation (chapter 8).

It might be helpful to identify the areas for evaluation on a watershed map to

determine the key locations for conducting the loading analysis and which sources

will be included in the analysis. You should also develop a brief report summarizing

your data analyses and their results and describing the watershed sources, including

their location, associated pollutants, timing, and impact on the waterbody.

 In identifying your sources and grouping them for load estimation, you’ll also

begin to identify the critical areas needed for implementing management measures, as

required as element c of the nine minimum elements. Element c is “A description of

the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to

achieve load reductions and a description of the critical areas in which those

measures will be needed to implement this plan.” At this step, you have identified the

recommended source groupings and priorities and you’ll continue to refine the

groupings as you conduct your loading analysis (chapter 8) and target your

management measures (chapters 10 and 11). You’ll identify the final critical areas

when you select the management strategies for implementing your plan (chapter 11),

but the sources and associated groupings and characteristics you have identified at

this stage will provide the basis and groundwork for identifying those critical areas. 
Chapter 7

Analyze Data to Characterize the

Watershed and Pollutant Sources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

7-20 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-1

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Load estimation techniques

< Using models to estimate loads

< Available models

< Model selection

< Model application techniques

< Presenting pollutant loads

8. Estimate Pollutant

Loads

Read this chapter if...

• You’re not sure how to estimate pollutant loads from your watershed sources

• You want information on simple or more detailed approaches for estimating

loads

• You don’t know how to select a watershed model that’s right for your watershed

and needs

• You want information on the various watershed models available and their

capabilities

• You want to review the typical steps used in applying watershed models to

estimate pollutant loads and evaluate source contributions

• You want some ideas on how to organize the results of your load estimation

analysis and present pollutant loads
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-2 Draft

As part of developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),

loading estimates are typically developed for point and

nonpoint sources for the pollutants of concern. Remember

that TMDLs are developed for specific pollutants, so they

might not include all the pollutants that the watershed plan

considers. TMDL documents, including the report,

supporting modeling studies, and model input files, are

typically available from the state or EPA. In these materials

are estimates of existing loads, allowable loads (that meet

water quality standards), and the load estimates for point

sources (wasteload allocations) and nonpoint sources (load

allocations). The load estimates are specified by categories

of sources, such as generalized land use types

(e.g., pasture). A TMDL can be an excellent source of

loading estimates that is well documented and available. If

you’re using a TMDL, consider the age of the application

and recognize that some changes might have occurred

since the original analyses. Some areas might have new

management activities that have reduced or changed

loading. Other areas might have significant land use

changes or development that could change estimates. In

addition, TMDL analyses do not require implementation

plans, so specific estimates of management techniques and

their effectiveness are not necessarily included. Some

additional or supplemental analysis is likely to be needed to

estimate how the potential load reductions will be achieved.

8.1 How Do I Estimate Pollutant Loads?

Early in the watershed characterization process, you identified and gathered available

data and information to assess the watershed and created a data inventory. Then you

conducted a preliminary data review, identified gaps, and collected additional data if

needed. Finally, you analyzed the data to characterize the waterbody conditions and

identify causes and sources, using the techniques discussed in chapter 7. Your next

step is to estimate pollutant loads from watershed sources to target future

management efforts. This step is essential to eventually satisfy element b

(i.e., necessary load reductions) of the nine minimum elements. (KIdentifying load

reductions is discussed in chapter 9.) This element is the component most often

missing from current and past watershed plans, although it is one of the most

important. Without knowing where the pollutants are coming from, you can’t

effectively control them and restore and protect your watershed. The loading analysis

provides a more specific numeric estimate of loads from the various sources in the

watershed. By estimating source loads, you can evaluate the relative magnitude of

sources, the location of sources, and the timing of source loading. The loading

analysis can help you plan restoration strategies, target

load reduction efforts, and project future loads under new

conditions. This chapter discusses the analysis and

modeling techniques commonly used to estimate or to

quantify pollutant loads. 

An understanding of the watershed, built throughout the

watershed planning process, is used as the basis for

determining the appropriate method for quantifying the

pollutant loads. You can use various approaches to do the

loading analysis, and which one is right for you depends

on several factors, including water quality parameters,

time scale, source types, data needs, and user experience.

Some loading analyses are focused on determining “how

much” load is acceptable, whereas others focus on “source

loads” that attribute loading to each category of sources in

the watershed. For watershed planning purposes, source

load estimates are desirable because the information can

be used to support management planning and targeting of

restoration resources. In general, the approach you choose

should be the simplest approach that meets your needs.

Sometimes loading estimates have already been

developed for watersheds. Check whether a previous

study is available—a Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL), Clean Lakes study, or other watershed-based

program that might have required development of loading
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-3

estimates. Such studies can often be used to provide loading estimates appropriate for

developing the watershed plan. 

Stakeholders have an interest in the analysis and modeling techniques used to support

decisionmaking. Engaging stakeholders in the evaluation and selection of analysis

techniques can support more informed decisionmaking and buy-in for the approaches

selected. However, the more complex techniques and modeling tools can be more

difficult to describe, review, and interpret. One consideration in selecting models is

the transparency of results to the affected community. Even the most complex models

can be effectively described and provided for review through public meetings,

workshops, and technical transfer opportunities. Simplified approaches, when

sufficient for addressing the watershed concerns, can be more easily interpreted and

adopted by the community.

Although approaches have different features, their application is typically best suited

to many generalized watershed studies. Some of the more typical model selections

are shown in table 8-1, although you should recognize that site-specific conditions

might vary significantly. In each example the models are listed in order of

complexity, simplest first. All of these approaches are discussed in this chapter. 

Table 8-1. Example Approaches Used for Estimating Watershed Loads

Land Use Sources/Concerns Pollutants Models

Agricultural Grazing Nutrients and

sediment

GWLF

AGNPS

SWAT

Agricultural Livestock and wildlife sources Nutrients Spreadsheet estimation

STEPL

SWAT

HSPF

Agricultural Cropland management, conservation tillage Nutrients and pathogens AGNPS

SWAT

Mixed Use Stormwater management

Agriculture

Residential

Sediment and nutrients P8-UCM

SWMM 

HSPF

Mixed Use Stormwater management

Agricultural

Pathogens Spreadsheet estimation

HSPF

Urban Stormwater management

Land use conversion, redevelopment

Sediment, nutrients, and

metals

P8-UCM

SWMM

HSPF

Two general types of techniques for estimating pollutant loads are described in the

following sections. First, techniques that directly estimate loads from monitoring data

or literature values are discussed. These techniques are best suited to conditions

where fairly detailed monitoring and flow gauging are available and the major

interest is in total loads from a watershed. Second, watershed modeling techniques

are described, including considerations in selecting models, available models, and the

steps involved in applications. A wide range of models that can provide loads by
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-4 Draft

sources, help predict future conditions, and evaluate multiple management practices

are discussed.

8.2 Using Monitoring Data or Literature Values to Estimate

Pollutant Loads

Commonly used approaches for estimating pollutant loads in watersheds involve

using instream monitoring data or literature values (e.g., land use loading rates).

These simple approaches can vary in detail or scope depending on the needs of the

analysis and the available data. In most cases, they provide a coarse estimate of the

pollutant loads entering a waterbody, without great detail on the contributing source

or areas of concern. This section provides some examples of simple load estimation

methods using available monitoring data and literature values. 

8.2.1 Using Monitoring Data to Estimate Loads

Monitoring data can be used to directly estimate the pollutant loading entering a

waterbody. Because the monitoring data represent instream conditions, the resulting

estimate represents the total loading from a watershed upstream of the monitoring

point. This type of estimate does not attribute loads to particular sources or areas.

This generalized loading can help to evaluate downstream impacts, can be used to

calculate a per acre loading, and can be used for comparison of local loadings with

those of other areas. This loading estimate is also based on historical conditions

because it is directly estimated from monitoring data. It cannot be used to directly

predict how loadings might change in the future. 

Monitoring data typically include periodic samples of water quality concentrations of

pollutants and flow gauging. Flow multiplied by concentration can be used to

calculate the load for a specific period. However, water quality sampling is not

continuous; it is normally done periodically (e.g., weekly, monthly). Load duration

curves are a common approach to using sporadic flow and water quality data to

estimate the average total loading at watershed monitoring stations (Ksee section

7.2.5). In addition, various statistical techniques have been developed to estimate

loading from periodic sampling and flow gauging data. These techniques build

relationships between flow and concentration to help predict or estimate loading

during time periods when there is no sampling. Flow gauging information is more

likely to be available on a daily basis than the more expensive water quality sampling

and laboratory analysis.

The major limitation of these approaches is the aggregate nature of the loading

estimate. You can use statistical load estimation techniques to directly estimate

loadings from a drainage area or watershed for which monitoring data are available,

but this method is not applicable for estimating individual source loading or

predicting future changes in loading. If you have a robust dataset throughout the

watershed and can apply the load estimation at key areas (e.g., upstream and
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-5

downstream of suspected sources), you can potentially evaluate the relative

magnitude and impact of different sources. Often, however, data are not available for

a full range of flow conditions at more than a couple locations in a watershed. If this

type of methodology is used in developing your watershed plan, be sure to include

future source characterization or monitoring as part of the implementation plan to

further refine source loads and target control efforts. 

These techniques are also completely reliant on a long period of record of monitoring

information to develop the loading estimates. Uncertainty can be calculated from the

statistical process, providing the advantage of a system for measuring accuracy.

However, continuous flow gauging is available only in limited locations, and

typically for large watersheds. You should carefully check the availability and

relevance of the data when considering using direct calculations of load. Make sure

to check that flow and water quality sampling were conducted at the same time.

Ideally, a continuous flow gauging record is available so you can evaluate the

changes in flow and seasonal patterns. 

The following methods for directly calculating watershed loads are discussed in the

sections below:

• FLUX

• Regression of pollutant load and flow using Minimum Variance Unbiased

Estimator (MVUE)

FLUX

FLUX, developed by Walker (1996) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is an

interactive computer program used to estimate the loads of nutrients or other waterquality constituents such as suspended sediment. This technique was developed as a

companion to the Bathtub model, a commonly used lake modeling technique (Walker

1985, 1986, 1990). The following six estimation algorithms are available in FLUX:

(1) direct-mean loading, (2) flow-weighted concentrations (ratio estimate),

(3) modified ratio estimate, (4) first-order regression, (5) second-order regression,

and (6) regression applied to individual daily streamflow. FLUX maps the flow

versus concentration relationship developed from the sample record onto the entire

flow record to calculate total mass, streamflow, and associated error statistics. FLUX

also provides an option to stratify the data into groups on the basis of flow to improve

the fit of the individual models. 

Data requirements for FLUX include

• Constituent concentrations, collected on a weekly to monthly frequency for at

least a year

• Date collected
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-6 Draft

• Corresponding flow measurements (instantaneous or daily mean values)

• Complete flow record (daily mean streamflow) for the period of interest.

Regression of Pollutant Load and Flow

A very simple approach to estimating pollutant logs is to use available water quality

and flow data to develop a regression equation representing the relationship between

the pollutant load and flow magnitude. That equation is then used to estimate

pollutant loads on days when flow is available but water quality data are not. For

example, the approach can be applied to a flow gauging station that has sporadic

water quality data but continuous flow data to estimate water quality and, therefore,

pollutant loading on unmonitored days. 

However, many pollutant loads, such as sediment, are storm-driven and observed

values often span several orders of magnitude. For this reason, the instream sediment

load versus flow relationship tends to be linear when examined on a logarithmic

scale. This can introduce a large amount of error when using a regression approach to

estimate pollutant loads. To reduce this error and remove the bias from the regression

analysis, a log transform regression approach can be used. The U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) recommends Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator or MVUE

(Cohn and Gilroy 1991) as one of the methods for bias correction. The objective of

this method is to yield an unbiased estimate with the smallest possible variance. KGo

to http://co.water.usgs.gov/sediment/bias.frame.html for more information on

MVUE.

8.2.2 Using Literature Values to Estimate Loads

One of the simplest techniques for estimating pollutant loads involves calculating

loads on the basis of land use areas and representative loading rates (i.e., load per

area of land). An example of this approach is shown in figure 8-1. In this case the

load is a function of a single factor, “land use area,” based on a predefined loading

rate. This simple presentation has the benefit of being very easy to apply and explain,

but simplicity also results in several limitations. The loading rate is a static value and

does not account for temporal or spatial variations in environmental conditions such

as precipitation and soils. 

Because the loading estimate is dependent on the loading rate used in the calculation,

it’s important to identify values that are realistic for your watershed. Loading rates

for land uses can vary widely throughout the nation depending on precipitation,

source activity, and soils, and in some areas estimates are not available. Regional

loading rates might be available from scientific literature or watershed studies

conducted in nearby watersheds. Otherwise, use national estimates with caution,

recognizing that the values might not be representative of your watershed. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-7

The export coefficient model is the simplest type of pollutant runoff model because all factors that effect pollutant movement are

combined into one term—the export coefficient. For example, the total pollutant load (in kilograms per year) is calculated by

multiplying the land use areas (in hectares) by the export coefficients (in kilograms per hectare per year) for various activities,

such as corn, pasture, and residential use and summing the products. Export coefficients for the various land uses can be

obtained from literature searches. The table below presents an example of an export coefficient spreadsheet used to obtain a

rough estimate of the effects of various land use activities on watershed nutrient loading.

Example of Pollutant Budget Estimation Using Export Coefficient Model

Land Use

Area

(ha)

Nitrogen

Export

Coefficient

(kg/ha/yr)

Total

Nitrogen

Load (kg/yr)

Percent of

Nitrogen

Load

Phosphorous

Export

Coefficient

(kg/ha/yr)

Total

Phosphorous

Load (kg/yr)

Percent of

Phosphorous

Load

Forest 100 1.8 180 0.91 0.11 11 0.52

Corn 200 11.1 2220 11.24 2 400 18.95

Cotton 100 10 1000 5.6 4.3 430 20.37

Soybeans 20 12.5 250 1.27 4.6 92 4.36

Small Grain 50 5.3 265 1.34 1.5 75 3.55

Pasture 300 3.1 930 4.71 0.1 30 1.42

Feedlot or

Dairy

5 2,900 14,500 73.39 220 1,100 52.11

Idle 30 3.4 102 0.52 0.1 3 0.14

Residential 20 7.5 150 0.76 1.2 24 1.14

Business 10 13.8 138 0.7 3 30 1.42

Industrial 5 4.4 22 0.11 3.8 19 0.9

Total 840 - 19,757 1 - 2,111 100

Note: Agricultural coefficients are from Reckhow et al. (1980), and urban coefficients are from Athayde et al. (1983). 

Figure 8-1. Example of an application of export coefficients to calculate pollutant loads.

North Carolina State University’s WATER, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision

Support System (WATERSHEDSS) provides a tool for land managers to evaluate

pollutant budgets and agriculture management practices. KTo download the tool for

calculating loads using export coefficients go to www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss.

The system also includes a database of agricultural management practices, references

on nonpoint source pollutants and sources, and an annotated bibliography of

nonpoint source literature.

Empirical relationships documented in scientific literature are another option for

estimating pollutant loads. Empirical relationships are those based on observed data

and are represented by an empirical equation. An example of an empirical

relationship relating watershed characteristics to pollutant loading is the Simple

Method (Schueler 1987). The Simple Method is a lumped-parameter empirical model

used to estimate stormwater pollutant loadings under conditions of limited data

availability. Because this is a lumped approach, it assumes the physical
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-8 Draft

Lin (2004) summarizes and reviews published export coefficient

and event mean concentration (EMC) data for use in estimating

pollutant loading into watersheds. Some references included in

that review and commonly used for export coefficients include

Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of

land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources Bulletin

18(6): 1013-1024.

Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac., and J.T. Simpson. 1980.

Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under

uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients.

EPA-440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water Regulations, Criteria and Standards Division,

Washington, DC.

Model: A representation of an environmental system through

the use of mathematical equations or relationships.

Modeling system: A computer program or software package

that incorporates a model and input and output systems to

facilitate application.

Model application: The use of a model or models to address

defined questions at a specific location.

characteristics for land units within a subwatershed

are homogeneous, thereby simplifying the physical

representation of the subwatershed. The approach

calculates pollutant loading using drainage area,

pollutant concentrations, a runoff coefficient, and

precipitation data. In the Simple Method, the amount

of rainfall runoff is assumed to be a function of the

imperviousness of the contributing drainage area.

More densely developed areas have more impervious

surfaces, such as rooftops and pavement, causing

more stormwater to run off rather than being absorbed

into the soil. The Simple Method includes default and

suggested values for the equation parameters, or

values can be watershed-specific based on monitoring

data or local information. 

8.3 Watershed Modeling

Models provide another approach for estimating loads, providing source load

estimates, and evaluating various management alternatives. A model is a set of

equations that can be used to describe the natural or man-made processes in a

watershed system, such as runoff or stream transport. By building these cause-andeffect relationships, models can be used to forecast or estimate future conditions that

might occur under various conditions. Models can be highly sophisticated, including

many specific processes such as detailed descriptions of infiltration and

evapotranspiration. Models can also be very generalized, such as a simple empirical

relationship that estimates the amount of runoff based on precipitation. Some models

are available as software packages, whereas simple models or equations can be

applied with a calculator or spreadsheet. Compared to the simple approaches

discussed in section 8.2, models add more detailed procedures that represent the

separate processes of rainfall, erosion, loading,

transport, and management practices. By separately

addressing each process, models can be adapted to

local conditions, and the simulation can be made more

sensitive to land use activities and management

changes.

This section discusses the role of modeling in

watershed planning, the types of models available,

how to select appropriate models for your watershed

study, and setting up and applying models for a

watershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-9

One way to represent the watershed is by following the flow of water from land areas to streams and rivers, through lakes, to

estuaries, and ultimately to the ocean. When we evaluate water quality standards, the focus is typically on the waterbody of

concern. For total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) the dominant use of models is to evaluate the relationship between human

actions (e.g., land use management or wastewater treatment) and the impaired downstream waterbody (e.g., river, lake, or

estuary). Human actions, such as management practices, land use activities, direct withdrawals of drinking or cooling water,

and discharges of wastewater, can all be considered factors that affect watersheds at the land, river, lake, or estuary level.

For TMDLs, modeling typically focuses on describing the linkage between human activities and impaired waters. This “linkage

analysis” is necessary to demonstrate that the plan will achieve water quality standards (USEPA 1999a, 1999b, 2001a). For

watershed management plans, analysis should focus in more detail on the management actions and land-based activities that

will be used to meet water quality goals. In this case the analysis is focused on determining how best to address the

management needs. Although modeling for watershed management planning is similar, the focus on management typically will

result in more detailed, localized modeling. This localized modeling and evaluation can be performed separately or in tandem

with TMDL or other modeling efforts. The models described in this chapter will emphasize the management and localized

evaluations typically employed in watershed planning and provide references and links for other types of supporting models.

8.3.1 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Model

Before selecting the most appropriate model, you should define the approach for the

specific study. An approach may include one or more models, multiple analysis

procedures, and a variety of input data to address the project needs. Selecting the

appropriate model application or approach requires an understanding of the range of

complexity of the analytic techniques and a clear understanding of the questions to be

answered by the analysis. Note that the model application might include the

following:

• Various levels of detail for each component

• More than one model to address different waterbodies, pollutants, or stressors

• An available modeling system; a modification of an existing model; or a local,

custom model

• A model documentation plan

Determining the model application also means defining the data needs and the

accuracy of the modeling results. To select a model and associated application needs,

first examine the questions that need to be answered. The following are questions that

models are typically used to answer:

• Will the management actions result in meeting water quality standards?

• Which sources are the main contributors to the pollutant load targeted for

reduction?

• What are the loads associated with the individual sources?

• Which combination of management actions will most effectively meet the

identified loading targets?

• When does the impairment occur?
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-10 Draft

Field scale. Some applications are focused on small areas at

the subbasin or smaller level. Field-scale modeling usually

refers to geographic areas composed of one land use (e.g., a

cornfield).

Physically based models. A physically based model includes

a more detailed representation of fundamental processes such

as infiltration. Applying physically based models requires

extensive data and experience to set up and test the model.

HSPF and SWAT both include physically based processes,

although many simplifications are still used.

Lumped model. A model in which the physical characteristics

for land units within a subwatershed unit are assumed to be

homogeneous is referred to as a “lumped” model. Discrete

land use areas within a subwatershed area are lumped into

one group.

Mechanistic model. A mechanistic model attempts to

quantitatively describe a phenomenon by its underlying casual

mechanisms.

Numerical model. A numerical model approximates a solution

of governing partial differential equations that describe a

natural process. The approximation uses a numerical

discretization of the space and time components of the system

or process.

Steady state model. A steady state model is a mathematical

model of fate and transport that uses constant values of input

variables to predict constant values of receiving water quality

concentrations. Steady state models are typically used to

evaluate low-flow conditions.

Dynamic model. A dynamic model is a mathematical

formulation describing the physical behavior of a system or a

process and its temporal variability.

• Will the loading or impairment get worse under

future land use conditions?

• How can future growth be managed to minimize

adverse impacts?

Evaluating questions by using models requires looking

at and comparing results in terms of load,

concentration, flow, or another measurement. This

comparison should consider the indicators identified to

evaluate the watershed concerns (Ksection 4.6). For

example,

• A lake eutrophication problem might focus on

predicting the total nitrogen and phosphorus load.

• A river with an attached algae problem might need

models that can predict concentrations of dissolved

nitrogen and phosphorus during low-flow

conditions.

• An area with beach closures due to pathogens

might focus on predicting pathogen counts and the

frequency of water quality standards violations.

• A concern over sediment in streams might focus on

changes in hydrology, stream morphology, or

sediment loading from erosion-prone areas. 

In each case the predictions of the model should be

evaluated on the basis of the indicators identified for

meeting and tracking the goals of the watershed

management plan. The indicators used will often dictate

the level of detail of the study. Predicting short-term

concentrations, such as a concentration of aluminum,

may require more detailed analysis of flow and pollutant transport. The model should

support the development of source loads and estimates of their magnitude, and it

should support the development of the appropriate pollutant load reduction estimates.

In defining a model application for your watershed, keep in mind four general

considerations: 

1. Is the approach appropriate to your specific situation, answering the questions

needed to develop a watershed plan (relevance)?

2. Has the modeling system been shown to give valid results (credibility)?

3. Is the model easy enough to learn and use that you are likely to succeed at

obtaining useful results (usability)? Are data available to support the model

(usability)? 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-11

; The model can represent the land uses and

processes that are most important in your

watershed

; The model predicts the pollutants you’re

concerned about

; Model validations have been published in a

peer-reviewed journal

; The model is in the public domain, and the source

code is available on request

4. Is the model able to predict water quality changes based on the changes planned

for your watershed management plan (utility)?

Each of these considerations is discussed below.

Relevance

Even if the model has been reviewed in the literature and has

been applied in other watersheds, you need to make sure that

it’s relevant to the needs of your watershed. For example, a

model developed and tested only in urban areas, or even in

rural areas that are mostly forested, is not a good choice for a

watershed that consists almost entirely of agricultural row

crops or mixed uses. If flow-through tile drains are one of the

main pathways through which water reaches the stream in your watershed, a model

that does not include artificial drainage is probably not a good choice. For specialized

cases, such as tile drainage, a custom modeling application might be needed. Many

models have been developed for specific pollutants. Some specialize in sediment

only because reducing erosion was historically the mission of modeling conducted by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Many models give results for sediment,

nutrients, and perhaps pesticides, but not for microbial contaminants.

Credibility

Because it’s not possible to know in advance how accurate the

results of a specific model will be, you need to rely on what

others have found. Scientists rely on peer review of journal

articles written about the use of a model. A quick rule of

thumb is to use only models whose validation has appeared in

respected peer-reviewed journals. That way you benefit from

the time other modelers and scientists have spent reviewing the model. All the

models reviewed in this handbook have been validated, at least to some extent.

Most models distributed in the public domain have been developed by government

agencies (e.g., EPA or USDA) or universities and are freely available. However,

some consultants use proprietary models, which are privately owned software. Such

models cannot be checked because the code is not available to others. It is generally a

good idea to use nonproprietary models if possible. Proprietary models normally

require a purchase fee and have limited distribution rights. Limiting distribution and

review might affect acceptance by the stakeholders.

Usability

Accuracy of prediction is important, but if the model will not answer the questions

you need to develop your watershed plan, it will not be useful.
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-12 Draft

; Documentation, training, and support are available

; The model can be run with data that are generally

available or data that can be obtained with

reasonable effort

; The model and user interface are reliable and

thoroughly tested 

; The model or supplemental tools are able to

predict the likely water quality impacts of the land

use or management changes you are considering

in your watershed plan

Documentation that explains the parameters, how to get them,

and reasonable values is essential to ensure that the model is

usable. New users might need some sort of training to learn

how to use the model. Finally, model users sometimes run

into questions that are not addressed in the documentation. A

model that will be widely used needs to have user support

available. The support can be in the form of a person who

provides technical assistance or a list server where other users

can answer questions. 

Obtaining input data is often the most time-consuming and

difficult part of running a model. This often comes as a surprise to those who have

not used models. Models generally require data on land cover, land management

(such as agricultural practices), factors that affect the rate at which water can flow

into the soil and recharge ground water (usually geology or soil type), and other

information about the land in the watershed. In addition, daily or even hourly weather

data, including precipitation and temperature, are usually required. Other weather

data that are more difficult to obtain, such as relative humidity and wind speed, might

be required. For models to be calibrated, accurate input data are needed. Modeling

systems, such as EPA BASINS, have compiled much of the basic data needed to run

the model; however, this coarse, national-scale data will not always be accurate

enough to give useful results, particularly in small watersheds. Other national,

publicly available databases are available from USGS and other sources.

Nevertheless, parameters like soil nutrient concentrations or fertilizer applications,

particularly those associated with agricultural production and other management

activities, are not available nationally and must be obtained locally.

Utility for Watershed Planning 

Using a model to predict the impact of changes in a

watershed requires that the model be able to represent those

changes. Models represent changes in watershed management

in very different ways. You’ll need to consider what

management practices are likely to be applied in your

watershed and whether the model can be used to evaluate

their benefits. In many cases other analyses are used to

supplement a model; sometimes additional spreadsheet

calculations can be used to check on the potential load reductions from various

methods. In addition, you might want to consider how the model will be used in the

future. Will it be used to check future changes in management or as a tool to track

progress? If the model will be used as an ongoing planning tool, remember to

consider the complexity of the model and the availability of trained staff to apply the

model. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-13

8.3.2 Using Watershed Modeling Tools to Evaluate Loads

Watershed models use a set of equations or techniques to analyze the following key

components of the watershed system. 

• Rainfall/runoff: The description of precipitation, infiltration, evaporation, and

runoff. This portion of a model is used to calculate the amount and timing of

runoff from a land area. Runoff is also related to erosion and to sediment and

pollutant transport. In cold-climate watersheds, it might be important to use a

model that can represent snowmelt/runoff conditions.

• Erosion and sediment transport: The description of soil detachment, erosion,

and sediment movement from a land area. In more detailed approaches this is

linked to the runoff calculation and might include sediment deposition.

• Pollutant loading: The wash-off of pollutants from a land area. In generalized

approaches this is a loading factor. More detailed techniques link pollutant washoff to hydrology and sediment movement.

• Stream transport: The stream portion of watershed models, which is needed, at

a minimum, to collect the runoff/sediment/pollutants from the various land areas.

More detailed models include evaluation of instream behavior of sediment and

pollutants. Processes may include deposition, resuspension, decay, and

transformation.

• Management practices: A management practice can be land-based (e.g., tillage

or fertilizer application), constructed (e.g., stormwater ponds), or input/output to a

stream (e.g., wastewater treatment). Land-based management can be generalized

(e.g., number of acres treated) or specific (e.g., field-specific practices). Some

models include more detailed simulation techniques. For example, a pond analysis

might include sediment settling and first-order decay of pollutants.

First, the land areas are described, typically in terms of land use, soils, and slope,

which are the key features that affect runoff, erosion, and pollutant loadings. Second,

the management practices present in the watershed are considered. Third, the stream

and river transport is considered. Each component of this analysis can be considered

at various levels of detail. For example, in describing runoff there are several distinct

levels of analytical detail (table 8-2). Each level considers more specific factors and

processes. The more detailed the equations used to build the modeling system, the

more parameters need to be estimated and the more detailed the evaluation of the

model performance needs to be. For each situation the analyst will need to select the

type of model, along with the associated level of detail, that is consistent with the

objectives of the analysis.
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-14 Draft

Table 8-2. Various Levels of Detail for Simulating Runoff

Level of Detail Equation Assumptions

Generalized Percentage of rainfall that runs off

the land into the water (rational

method/regression of rainfall and

runoff observations)

Simple relationship between rainfall and runoff. One factor represents

the loss associated with evaporation and plant uptake. No special

consideration of slope or soil characteristics. No consideration of soil

moisture.

Mid-level CN Simple relationship based on studies across the country. Varies

depending on soil type, vegetation, and slope. Considers soil moisture

(antecedent moisture condition). Does not consider variations in storm

intensity; uses daily rainfall.

Detailed Infiltration equation Describes infiltration of water and evapotranspiration. Considers soil

moisture and soil type, vegetation, and slope. Considers variations in

storm intensity. Time step is typically hourly rainfall or less. 

Note: CN = curve number.

Model applications to specific watersheds often include a mixture of levels of detail

depending on the problems being considered. For example, a modeling analysis

supporting an agricultural nutrient management initiative might include very detailed

descriptions of land behavior, such as nitrogen use by plants, and a very simplified

analysis of stream transport. A study considering the upgrade of a wastewater

treatment plant would include a detailed examination of the stream conditions in

summer and a very simplified representation of land use activities. Table 8-3

describes some of the variations in the level of detail that might be considered in a

watershed planning project.

Table 8-3. Levels of Detail in Watershed Models

Element Generalized Mid-level Detailed

Land 

Land use Category (Agriculture) Subcategory (Cropland) Specific (Corn, ridge-tilled)

Slope N/A Average for area Average for specific location

Soil moisture N/A Antecedent moisture condition

(3 levels)

Calculated

Hydrology Percent runoff CN Infiltration equations

Pollutants Single Multiple Chemical and biological interactions between

pollutants

Load lb/ac/year lb/day; daily average concentration lb/hr; hourly average concentration

Management Practices

Management

Practices

Percent removal Percent removal and estimated

volume captured

Hydrology

Deposition/settling

First order decay and transformation

Streams/Rivers

Hydrology Single flow, steady state Single flow, steady state Continuous or variable flow

Water quality Regression, simple

relationships

Eutrophication cycle Eutrophication cycle, carbon/nutrient/BOD

processes

Toxic

substances

Regression, simple

relationships

Settling, 1st order decay Transformation, biodegradation, other

processes

Note: CN = curve number; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-15

8.3.3 Model Selection and Application Process 

With so many models available, how do you know which one to choose? The

development of a modeling analysis involves more than selecting a modeling tool.

The application of a model for decisionmaking also involves designing and

implementing an analysis that addresses the management questions. Typically this

involves a combination of data analysis techniques, as described in chapter 7, and

compilation and organization of disparate data sources.

Described below are the key steps for

selecting and designing a modeling application for

watershed planning purposes. Throughout the

watershed process you’ve built an

understanding of the watershed—through

scoping, stakeholder input, and data

collection and analysis. The design of

the modeling approach should build on

this understanding and help you to better

understand the watershed.

1. Consider the objectives of the

analysis. During the scoping process the

key objectives of the study are identified, as

well as the general modeling needs and

watershed characteristics. The specific

objectives and associated indicators will

help to define the pollutants that the

model might need to consider.

2. Define the specific questions that the

modeling will be used to answer. As discussed earlier in the chapter, before

selecting a model, the analyst should first carefully define the questions that the

model will be used to answer. The questions should directly relate to the overarching

objectives of the study. The following are examples of modeling questions:

• What are the sources of the pollutant load?

• Where can management practices be targeted to best meet load reduction

requirements?

• What combination of management practices will result in reducing the load to the

desired level and meeting water quality goals?

3. Select the modeling approach that will address the questions. The modeling

approach includes the model(s) to be used, the input data processing requirements

and data sources, the model testing locations and data sources, and the output

analysis. The modeling approach defines how the model will be applied, not just
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-16 Draft

Calibration and validation are two separate procedures in

model development and testing. Available monitoring data

are separated into two separate time periods for testing.

Using one dataset, calibration parameters are adjusted,

within reasonable ranges, until a best fit to observed data is

generated. Using the second dataset, validation is performed

by keeping the parameter set constant and testing the

performance of the model. Time periods for calibration and

validation are carefully selected to include a range of

hydrologic conditions.

what the model is. The approach provides the entire plan or road map for analysis

and is broader than the selection of a model.

4. Set up the model. As required by the modeling approach identified above, the

input data are collected and processed for the model (or models). Typical data inputs

include the following:

• Land use

• Soils

• Slope

• Activities, management locations, and types

• Monitoring data—flow and water quality

• Meteorologic data—precipitation and temperature

Each dataset might require some preprocessing before

input. For example, land use information might be

selectively updated where new development has occurred.

Sometimes multiple land use datasets are combined. For

example, one data source might provide a more detailed

breakdown of forest types and could be used to add detail to a broader land use

coverage. Some models require developing categories of land use, soil, and slope

characteristics. Resulting units could include corn fields with B soils (a hydrologic

soil group defined by the USDA) and moderate slopes, pasture with C soils and steep

slopes, and so on. User’s guides and the selected modeling references provide some

additional guidance on data preprocessing needs for individual models. Much of the

data required for watershed models is discussed in chapter 5.

5. Test the model’s performance. Regardless of the

complexity or detail of the modeling approach,

appropriate testing (calibration and validation) of model

accuracy should be performed. Remember that modeling

results need a reality check before they are used to

support a loading analysis or evaluation of management

scenarios. If data are available, the model should be

calibrated and validated to ensure accurate

representation of the watershed processes. When data

are limited, you should also compare model results to

literature values and data from surrounding watersheds

to review the integrity of the results. Do the loads seem

realistic given observed concentrations and flows or

documented loads in nearby watersheds? Do the simulation results make sense given

the watershed processes? For example, if a watershed model produces monthly loads,

do the higher loads occur during the times of higher observed flows and

concentrations? Or, if a model provides output from both ground water and surface

water, do the relative contributions make sense given the topography and geology of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-17

the area? Watershed models are meant to represent the processes affecting runoff and

pollutant transport and loading. Use your knowledge of the area to reality-check the

model representations and output. KMore information on model calibration and

validation is provided in section 8.4.5.

6. Apply the model and interpret the results. The model is applied to evaluate the

range of conditions required for addressing the modeling questions. For example, a

model might be used to evaluate the nutrient loading over a 10-year period. Output

postprocessing might include developing annual and monthly loading summaries by

source category and evaluating of seasonal and annual variation. Multiple model

applications might be used to consider changes in land use, installation of

management practices, and alterations in cultivation techniques. Output can be

processed to support development of essential elements of the watershed plan (source

controls, magnitude of sources, and pollutant load reduction estimates).

7. Update the model to include new information or refine assumptions. Often

after the initial management planning study is complete, additional data are collected

or new information is discovered. The model can be updated periodically to further

refine and test performance and update management recommendations, if

appropriate.

Selection and execution of an appropriate modeling approach can support the

development of a watershed management plan. Use caution in selecting an approach

consistent with the available data, the specific questions to be addressed, and the type

of management. Data analysis is an ongoing process in which modeling is only one

potential tool. In many cases, simplifed techniques or statistical analysis is adequate

to evaluate watershed conditions and no formal modeling is required. Throughout the

process, focus on using the most simple methods appropriate to answering the

questions at hand.

8.3.4 What Models Are Available?

Various modeling systems have been developed and used to answer a wide range of

environmental questions. This handbook focuses on selected models that are publicly

available and have a track record of application and use. The models are commonly

used in TMDLs and other watershed studies. They represent a range of complexity

and are applicable to a variety of pollutants and pollutant sources.

Although these models are supported by EPA and included in this handbook, other

similar watershed models might be appropriate for use in developing your watershed

plan. An inventory of available models that evaluates the models across a set of key

charactistics is provided in table 8-4. These characteristics were selected to help

differentiate among available tools and to describe areas of emphasis, complexity, 
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-18 Draft

Table 8-4. Overview of Several Available Watershed Models

Model

Acronym Source

Type

Level of

Complexity Timestep

Hydrology Water Quality Types of BMPs

Grid-basedStream routing includedExport coefficientsLoading functionsPhysically basedSub-dailyDailyMonthlyAnnualSurfaceSurface and groundwaterUser-definedSedimentNutrientsToxics/pesticidesMetalsBODBacteriaDetention basinInfiltration practicesVegetative practicesWetlandsOther structures

AGNPS 

(event based)

USDA-ARS ! ! – – ! ! ––– ! – – !!! ––– ! – ! – –

AnnAGNPS USDA-ARS – ! – – ! – ! – – ! – – !!! ––– ! – ! – –

BASINS EPA – !! ! ! !! – – ! ! !!!!!!!! – ! – !

DIAS/

IDLMAS

Argonne National

Laboratory

–– – – – – –– ! ––– ! –––––– – – – –

DRAINMOD North Carolina State

University

–– – – ! ! –––– ! – – ! ––––– – – ! –

DWSM 

(event based)

Illinois State Water

Survey

– ! – – ! ! ––– ! – – !!! ––– ! ! –––

EPIC Texas A&M

University–Texas

Agricultural

Experiment Station

–– – – – – ! – – ! – – !!! ––– ! ! – ! –

GISPLM College of

Charleston, Stone

Environmental, and

Dr. William Walker

– ! – ! – – ! – – ! – –– ! ––––– – – – –

GLEAMS USDA-ARS – – – – – – ! – – ! – – !!! –––– – – – –

GSSHA USACE ! ! – – ! ! –––– ! – ! ––––– !! !!

GWLF Cornell University – ! – ! – –– ! – – ! – ! ! ––––– – ! – –

HEC-HMS USACE – ! – – ! ! ––– ! – –––––––– – – – –

HSPF EPA – ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!! –––––

KINEROS2

(event based)

USDA-ARS – ! – – ! ! ––– ! – – ! ––––– ! – ! – !

LSPC EPA and Tetra

Tech, Inc.

– ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!!! – ! – !

Mercury

Loading

Model 

EPA – – – – ! ––– ! ! – –––– ! ––– – – – –

MIKE SHE Danish Hydraulic

Institute 

– ! – – ! ! –––– ! –––––––– – – – –

MINTEQA2 EPA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ! ––– – – – –

MUSIC Monash University,

Cooperative

Research Center for

Catchment

Hydrology 

–– – – ! ! ––– ! – ! –––––– !!!!!
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-19

Table 8-4. (continued) 

Type

Level of

Complexity Timestep

Hydrology Water Quality Types of BMPs

Model

Acronym Source

Grid-basedStream routing includedExport coefficientsLoading functionsPhysically basedSub-dailyDailyMonthlyAnnualSurfaceSurface and groundwaterUser-definedSedimentNutrientsToxics/pesticidesMetalsBODBacteriaDetention basinInfiltration practicesVegetative practicesWetlands

Other Structures

P8-UCM Dr. William Walker – – ! ! – ! ––– ! – !!! – ! – – !!! – !

PCSWMM Computational

Hydraulics Int. 

– ! – !!! –––– ! !!!!! – !! ! – – !

PGC – BMP Prince George's

County, MD

–– – ! – ! –––––– ! ! – ! – – !!!!!

REMM USDA-ARS – – – – – – – – – – – – !!!! ––– – ! – –

SHETRAN University of

Newcastle (UK)

– ! – – ! !! ––– ! – ! –––––– – – – –

SLAMM University of

Alabama

–– – – – ! ––– ! – – ! ! – ! – – !!!!!

SPARROW USGS – ! – – – ––– ! ! – – !!! –––– – – – –

STORM USACE (Mainframe

version), Dodson &

Associates, Inc. (PC

version)

– – ! – ! ! ––– ! – – ! ! ––– ! –––– !

SWAT USDA-ARS – ! – – ! – ! ––– ! – !!!! – – !!! – !

SWMM EPA – ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!!! ! –––

Toolbox EPA – ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!!! – ! – !

TOPMODEL Lancaster University

(UK), Institute of

Environmental and

Natural Sciences

–– – – ! !! ––– ! –––––––– – – – –

WAMView Soil and Water

Engineering

Technology, Inc.

(SWET) and EPA

! ! – – ! ! –––– ! – !!!! – !! ! ! ! !

WARMF Systech

Engineering, Inc.

– ! – – ! – ! ––– ! – !!!!!! ––– ! !

WEPP USDA-ARS – – – – ! – !!! – ! – ! –––––– ! –––

WinHSPF EPA – ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!! –––––

WMS Environmental

Modeling Systems,

Inc.

– ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!!! ! – ! !

XP-SWMM XP Software, Inc. – ! – – ! ! –––– ! !!!!!!!! ! – – !

– Not supported

! Supported
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-20 Draft

and types of pollutants considered. Key characterization factors include the

following:

• Type. “Landscape only” indicates that the model simulates only land-based

processes; “comprehensive” models include land and stream and conveyance

routing.

• Level of complexity. Complexity in watershed models is classified as three

levels. Export functions are simplified rates that estimate loading based on a very

limited set of factors (e.g., land use). Loading functions are empirically based

estimates of load based on generalized meteorologic factors (e.g., precipitation,

temperature). Physcially based models include physically based representations

of runoff, pollutant accumulation and wash-off, and sediment detachment and

transport. Most detailed models use a mixture of empirical and physically based

algorithms.

• Time step. Time step is the unit of time (e.g., hourly, monthly) for which a

model simulates processes and provides results. The table identifies the smallest

timestep supported by a model. If larger output timesteps are needed, model

output can be summarized from smaller timesteps.

• Hydrology. This criterion identies whether a model includes surface runoff only

or surface and ground water inputs are considered.

• Water quality. Water quality capabilities are evaluated based on the pollutants

or parameters simulated by the model.

• Types of management practices. The types of management practices simulated

by the models are indicated in the table.

Even if you’re not planning to run the model yourself, it’s helpful to know the

capabilities and requirements of the major types of watershed models so you can

“talk the talk” and make informed decisions about how to proceed with your data

analysis. Remember that typically it is not the model itself that causes problems but

the matching of the model to local conditions, key assumptions, and interpretation of

model outputs. 

KAdditional detailed information on available models is provided in EPA’s

Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development (USEPA

1997c). Although updated versions of some models have been released since the

compendium was published, it provides a good starting point for researching

available models and understanding their capabilities. KA more recent online

database, provided by EPA’s Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling,

provides links to model reviews and resources (http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-21

AGNPS

www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199

STEPL

Temporary URL http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/stepl

GWLF

The original version of the model has been used for 15 years

and can be obtained from Dr. Douglas Haith at Cornell

University. A Windows interface (Dai et al. 2000) is available

at www.vims.edu/bio/vimsida/basinsim.html. Penn State

University developed an ArcView interface for GWLF

(www.avgwlf.psu.edu) and compiled data for the entire state of

Pennsylvania (Evans et al. 2002).

HSPF

HSPF is available through EPA's Center for Exposure

Assessment Modeling (www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/hspf)

and also as part of EPA's BASINS system

(www.epa.gov/ost/basins/). Another formulation of HSPF is

EPA’s Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC), which can

be downloaded at www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/lspc.html. 

P8-UCM

www.wwwalker.net/p8/p8v24.zip

SWAT

www.brc.tamus.edu/swat

SWAT is also included in EPA’s BASINS system

(www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm).

SWMM

www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/models/swmm/index.htm

Seven watershed models are presented here for more

detailed discussion: AGNPS, STEPL, GWLF, HSPF,

SWMM, P8-UCM, and SWAT. The models represent

a cross section of simple to more detailed approaches,

provide simulation of rural and more urbanized areas,

and include a diversity of approaches. These models

are used to describe key differentiators and

considerations in selecting and applying models.

Other models that have specialized capabilities to

support watershed management planning or TMDL

development are available. The additional models

include 

• WAMVIEW for areas where there are high water

tables that affect infiltration and runoff

• Models that specialize in detailed sediment

detachment and wash-off, such as KINEROS and

the Sediment Tool (TMDL Toolbox)

• Specialty models for simulating mercury, such as

the TMDL Toolbox Mercury Tool, which

provides watershed-scale assessment of mercury

loading

The key features of the selected models are presented

below. KIn section 8.4 the model application process

for the selected models is described. KAppendix A

provides resources for more detailed discussion on

available models and their applications.

AGNPS

The Agricultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS) model

was developed by USDA’s Agricultural Research

Service for use in evaluating the effect of management decisions on a watershed

system. The term “AGNPS” now refers to the system of modeling components,

including Annualized AGNPS, rather than the single-event AGNPS, which was

discontinued in the mid-1990s. AGNPS has the advantage of providing spatially

explicit modeling results, which is not true of most of the other models described

here. However, the annualized version has not yet had extensive validation, and the

user base is not yet broad. One training opportunity per year is typically offered.

KThe model, documentation, and information about training are available at

www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199.
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-22 Draft

A physically based model includes a more detailed

representation of processes based on physical

features. Applying physically based models

requires extensive data to set up and test the model

and substantial modeling experience. HSPF and

SWAT both include physically based processes,

although many simplifications are used.

AnnAGNPS is a continuous-simulation, watershed-scale program

developed based on the single-event model AGNPS. AnnAGNPS

simulates quantities of surface water, sediment, nutrients, and

pesticides leaving the land areas and their subsequent travel

through the watershed. Runoff quantities are based on a runoff

curve number (CN), while sediment is determined using the

Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE; USDA 1996).

Special components are included to handle concentrated sources

of nutrients (feedlots and point sources), concentrated sediment

sources (gullies), and added water (irrigation). Output is

expressed on an event basis for selected stream reaches and as source accounting

(contribution to outlet) from land or reach components over the simulation period.

The model can be used to evaluate the effect of management practices such as

agricultural practices, ponds, grassed waterways, irrigation, tile drainage, vegetative

filter strips, and riparian buffers. All runoff and associated sediment, nutrient, and

pesticide loads for a single day are routed to the watershed outlet before the next

day’s simulation. There is no tracking of nutrients and pesticides attached to sediment

deposited in stream reaches from one day to the next. Point sources are limited to

constant loading rates (water and nutrients) for the entire simulation period, and

spatially variable rainfall is not allowed. KThe model is available at

www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5199.

AGNPS was developed for agricultural or mixed-land-use watersheds. It predicts

nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon. It is appropriate for use on watersheds of

up to 500 square kilometers. It provides information on the impact on various

locations in the watershed, rather than simply various land uses. 

STEPL

STEPL is a simplified spreadsheet tool for estimating load reductions that result from

implementing management practices. It is designed as a customized Excel

spreadsheet model that is easy to use. Users can modify the formulas and default

parameter values without any specialized programming skills. STEPL includes a

management practice calculator that computes the combined effectiveness of multiple

management practices implemented in serial or parallel configurations (or both) in a

watershed. Management measures that affect hydrology or sediment can be estimated

with empirical factors, such as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now the Natural

Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) CN for estimating runoff and USLE C and

P factors representing vegetative cover and conservation practices, respectively.

(KMore detail on selecting CNs and USLE parameters is included in section 8.4.3.)

Pollutant load reductions attributable to the management practices are estimated with

reduction factors (or management practice effectiveness) applied to the premanagement practice loads from the various land uses. KThe user’s guide, model,

default database, and other supporting information are available on the STEPL Web

site (temporary URL http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/stepl). Application of the STEPL tool
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-23

requires users to have a basic knowledge of hydrology, erosion, and pollutant loading

processes. Familiarity with the use and limitations of environmental data is also

helpful. Computer skills in Microsoft Excel and the use of Excel formulas are

needed.

GWLF

The Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model simulates runoff and

sediment delivery using the SCS curve number equation (CNE) and the USLE,

combined with average nutrient concentration based on land use. GWLF is a good

choice for watershed planning where nutrients and sediment are primary concerns.

Because of the lack of detail in predictions and stream routing (transport of flow and

loads through the stream system), the outputs are given only monthly, although they

are calculated daily. 

The model is simple enough that most people should be able to learn it without

attending training sessions. The original version of the model has been used for 15

years. Data requirements are low: information on land use, land cover, soil, and the

parameters that govern runoff, erosion, and nutrient load generation is all that is

required. KPennsylvania State University developed an ArcView interface for

GWLF (www.avgwlf.psu.edu) and compiled data for the entire state of Pennsylvania

(Evans et al. 2002). A Windows interface (Dai et al. 2000) is also available at

www.vims.edu/bio/vimsida/basinsim.html. Calibration requirements for GWLF are

very low. GWLF is a good choice for watershed planning in many situations. The

interfaces and documentation are excellent, and the model is quite easy to use. The

management practice tool (PRedICT) is a good, simple way to estimate the impact of

management practices. However, GWLF is limited to nutrient and sediment load

prediction and it does not include instream processes such as flow and transport of

loads.

HSPF 

The Hydrologic Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) is a comprehensive package for

simulating watershed hydrology and water quality for a wide range of conventional

and toxic organic pollutants. HSPF simulates watershed hydrology, land and soil

contaminant runoff, and sediment-chemical interactions. The model can generate

time series results of any of the simulated processes. Overland sediment can be

divided into three types of sediment (sand, silt, and clay) for instream fate and

transport. Pollutants interact with suspended and bed sediment through soil-water

partitioning. HSPF is one the few watershed models capable of simulating land

processes and receiving water processes simultaneously. It is also capable of

simulating both peak flow and low flows and simulates at a variety of timesteps, from

subhourly to one minute, hourly, or daily. The model can be set up as simple or

complex, depending on application, requirements, and data availability. For land

simulation, processes are lumped for each land use type at the subwatershed level;
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-24 Draft

therefore, the model does not consider the spatial location of one land parcel relative

to another in the watershed. For instream simulation, the model is limited to

well-mixed rivers and reservoirs and one-directional flow. HSPF requires extensive

calibration and generally requires a high level of expertise for application.

The most recent release is HSPF Version 12, which is distributed as part of the EPA

BASINS system. Another formulation of HSPF is EPA’s Loading Simulation

Program in C++ (LSPC), a watershed modeling system that includes algorithms for

simulating hydrology, sediment, and general water quality on land, as well as a

simplified stream transport model (www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/lspc.html). A

key advantage of LSPC is that it has no inherent limitations in terms of modeling size

or model operations and has been applied to large, complex watersheds. In addition,

the Microsoft Visual C++ programming architecture allows for seamless integration

with modern-day, widely available software such as Microsoft Access and Excel.

Data management tools support the evaluation of loading and management within

multiple watersheds simultaneously. 

P8-UCM

The P8-UCM program predicts the generation and transport of stormwater runoff

pollutants in small urban catchments. It consists mainly of methods derived from

other tested urban runoff models (SWMM, HSPF, D3RM, TR-20). Model

components include stormwater runoff assessment, surface water quality analysis,

and routing through structural controls. The model applications include development

and comparison of stormwater management plans, watershed-scale land use planning,

site planning and evaluation for compliance, effectiveness of sedimentation ponds

and constructed wetlands, and selection and sizing of management practices. 

Simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall and daily air temperature time

series data. The model simulates pollutant transport and removal in a variety of urban

stormwater management practices, including swales, buffer strips, detention ponds

(dry, wet, and extended), flow splitters, and infiltration basins (offline and online);

pipes; and aquifers. The model assumes that a watershed is divided into a lumped

pervious area and a lumped impervious area and does not evaluate the spatial

distribution of pervious and impervious land uses. The model also assumes that

pollutants entering the waterbodies are sediment-adsorbed. P8-UCM is a simple

model that requires moderate effort to set up, calibrate, and validate. Limitations of

the model include limited capability in flow and pollutant routing and limited

capability in ground water processes and ground water and surface water interaction.

SWAT

The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was developed by the USDA’s

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and is one of the models in the EPA BASINS

modeling system. SWAT is included in EPA’s BASINS v3.1—
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-25

www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm. SWAT is strongest in agricultural

areas; the urban component was added more recently. Pollutants modeled are

pesticides, nutrients, sediment based on agricultural inputs, and management

practices. The bacteria component has been developed but is still being tested.

SWAT has been validated in many watersheds. It is more comprehensive than GWLF

and can better estimate the water quality impacts of some management changes;

however, the added accuracy gained by running SWAT will be worth the extra effort

only in watersheds where high-resolution agricultural management analyses are

warranted and where information on agricultural land use practices can be obtained. 

SWMM

SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model developed by EPA. It is

applied primarily to urban areas and for single-event or long-term (continuous)

simulation using various timesteps (Huber and Dickinson 1988). It was developed for

the analysis of surface runoff and flow routing through complex urban sewer

systems. SWMM was first developed in 1971 and has undergone several major

upgrades. The current edition, Version 5, is a complete rewrite of the previous release

and was produced by EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory. KFor

more information on SWMM and to download the current version, go to

www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/models/swmm/index.htm.

The model performs best in urbanized areas with impervious drainage, although it

has been widely used elsewhere. SWMM has been applied to urban hydrologic

quantity and quality problems in a number of U.S. cities, as well as extensively in

Canada, Europe, and Australia (Donigian and Huber 1991; Huber 1992). In addition

to its use in developing comprehensive watershed-scale planning, typical uses of

SWMM include predicting CSOs, assessing the effectiveness of management

practices, providing input to short-time-increment dynamic receiving water quality

models, and interpreting receiving water quality monitoring data (Donigian and

Huber 1991).

In SWMM, flow routing is performed for surface and sub-surface conveyance and

ground water systems, including the options of non-linear reservoir channel routing

and fully dynamic hydraulic flow routing. In the fully dynamic hydraulic flow

routing option, SWMM simulates backwater, surcharging, pressure flow, and looped

connections. SWMM has a variety of options for water quality simulation, including

traditional buildup and wash-off formulation as well as rating curves and regression

techniques. USLE is included to simulate soil erosion. SWMM incorporates firstorder decay and particle settling mechanisms in pollutant transport simulations and

includes an option of simple scour-deposition routine. The latest version of SWMM

simulates overland flow routing between pervious and impervious areas within a

subcatchment. Storage, treatment, and other management practices can also be

simulated. The model typically requires calibration of its parameters for water
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-26 Draft

quantity and quality simulations. The model also assumes all pollutants entering the

waterbodies are sediment adsorbed. 

8.3.5 Capabilities of the Selected Models

Major factors in selecting a watershed model include

• Water quality indicators simulated

• Simulation of land and water features (e.g., land use and waterbody types)

• Application considerations (e.g., training required)

The following sections discuss the capabilities and characteristics of the selected

models for each of these considerations. 

Water Quality Targets or Endpoints for the Selected Models

The selection of the appropriate model for your watershed and your goals depends on

the types of processes you need to simulate. The initial criteria for determining which

model is right for your watershed analysis include the water quality targets or goals.

Water quality targets are based on specific parameters (e.g., phosphorus, sediment)

and typically have an associated magnitude, duration, and frequency. For example, a

target might be established for a monthly sediment load of 20 tons, or bacteria targets

might be set as a daily maximum of 400 counts/100 mL. To better summarize the

selected watershed models’ applicability to typical water quality targets and to aid in

identifying appropriate models for your watershed, table 8-5 summarizes the models’

ability to simulate typical target pollutants and expressions (e.g., load vs.

concentration). The table scores the models depending on the timestep of the

simulation for the target—annual, daily, or hourly. 

Simulation of Land and Water Features

After you’ve initially identified models based on the necessary parameters, it’s

important to identify the major land and water features or processes that you want to

simulate. For example, what types of land uses are in your watershed? Is ground

water an important influence on instream water quality? Are there certain types of

management measures you want to evaluate in your watershed? The available models

simulate different land and water features, and they do so at different levels of detail.

Table 8-6 provides a summary of the selected key models’ capabilities for simulating

a variety of land and water features. The table identifies the following categories:

• General Land and Water Features Supported: Rates models according to

their ability to simulate general land uses and waterbody types.

• Special Land Features Supported: Rates models on the basis of their ability to

simulate special land processes such as wetlands, hydrologic modification, urban

management practices, and rural management practices.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-27

Table 8-5. Water Quality Endpoints Supported by the Selected Watershed Models 

Parameter/Endpoint AGNPS STEPL GWLFa HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM

Total phosphorus (TP) load TM TM  TM 

TP concentration TM – TM  TM 

Total nitrogen (TN) load TM TM  TM 

TN concentration TM – TM  TM 

Nitrate concentration – – –  – TM 

Ammonia concentration – – –  – TM 

TN:TP mass ratio – – TM  – TM 

Dissolved oxygen TM – –  – TM 

Chlorophyll a – – –  – TM –

Algal density (mg/m2

) –––––––

Net total suspended solids load –  –   – 

Total suspended solids

concentration

TM – –  TM 

Sediment concentration TM – TM  – 

Sediment load TMTM – TM 

Metals concentrations – – –  – TM 

Pesticide concentrations TM – –  – TM –

Herbicide concentrations TM – –  – TM –

Toxic substances concentrations – – –  –––

Pathogen count (E. coli, fecal

coliform)

–––  – TM 

Temperature – – –  – TM –

Key: 

– Not supported 

 Annual 

TM Daily 

 Hourly a

GWLF calculations are performed on a daily basis, but the results are presented on a monthly basis.

• Special Water Features Supported: Rates models on the basis of their ability to

simulate special processes occurring in receiving waterbodies such as air

deposition, streambank erosion, algae, and fish. Because the selected models are

primarily watershed models, many of the detailed water features are not

supported. If these processes are important in your watershed, it might be

necessary to investigate receiving water models or other outside analyses to use

in combination with your watershed model.

Application Considerations

Another issue to consider when selecting your model is what it takes to apply the

model—considerations such as how long it will take to setup and apply the model,

how much training you’ll need, and how much the model will cost. Table 8-7 rates

the selected models based on the practical considerations affecting their application.

Models with filled circles are generally easier to use and require less data and time

for application.
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-28 Draft

Table 8-6. Land and Water Features Supported by the Selected Watershed Models

Land and Water Feature AGNPS STEPL GWLF HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM

General Land and Water Features

Urban – TM TM TM TM

Rural  TM  TM

Agriculture  TM 

Forest –  TM 

River – – 

Lake – – – TM –  

Reservoir/impoundment – – – TM TMTM

Estuary (tidal) – – – – – – –

Coastal (tidal/shoreline) – – – – – – –

Detailed Land Features

Air deposition – – –  –––

Wetland – – – TM 

Land-to-land simulation  – –  –––

Hydrologic modification – – – TM – – TM

Management practice siting/placement and

optimization

 – –  TM – TM

Urban Land Management

Street sweeping – –  – TMTM

Nutrient control practices (fertilizer, pet waste

management)

TM – – 

Stormwater structures (manhole, splitter) ––––  – TM

Detention/retention ponds TM – – TMTM

Constructed wetland processes –––– 

Vegetative practices TM – 

Infiltration practices – – –   – –

Rural Land Management

Nutrient control practices (fertilizer, manure

management)

 –  

Agricultural conservation practices (contouring,

terracing, row cropping)

 –  

Irrigation practices/tile drains – – – – –  –

Ponds TM – – TMTMTMTM

Vegetative practices TM  – TM –

Key:

– Not supported

 Low: Simplified representation of features, significant limitations

TM Medium: Moderate level of analysis, some limitations 

 High: Detailed simulation of processes associated with land or water feature
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-29

Table 8-7. Application Considerations of the Selected Watershed Models

Application Considerations AGNPS STEPL GWLF HSPF P8-UCM SWAT SWMM

Experience required TM  –   –

Time needed for application TM  – TM

Data needs TM  TM 

Support available TM  TM TM

Software tools TM 

Cost to purchase 

Key:

Experience: Time Needed for Application: Data Needs:

– Substantial training or modeling expertise required (generally

requires professional experience with advanced watershed

and/or hydrodynamic and water quality models)

 Moderate training required (assuming some experience with

basic watershed and/or water quality models)

TM Limited training required (assuming some familiarity with

basic environmental models)

 Little or no training required

– > 6 months

 > 3 months

TM > 1 month

 < 1 month

 High

TM Medium

 Low

Support Available: Software Tools: Cost to Purchase:

– None

 Low

TM Medium

 High

– None

 Low

TM Medium

 High

– Significant cost (> $500)

 Nominal cost (< $500)

TM Limited distribution

 Public domain

8.4 Model Application Process for the Selected Models

Previous sections discussed the basic features of models, how to select appropriate

models for your project, and general steps in applying models. This section discusses

the decisions made during model application. Although the models have different

features and capabilities, some basic decisions regarding data and data processing are

required for every model application. The major data needs for the selected models

reviewed here are summarized in table 8-8. These are the decisions that result in

tailoring the model to your specific site. Each major decision point is discussed,

along with some suggestions for how to decide the appropriate level of detail.

For loading analysis you need to think carefully about the area being modeled. A

watershed is usually composed of areas with diverse land uses and activities. Some

watersheds have regional differences, such as a densely populatd areas surrounded by

countryside. When applying a model to a watershed, the diversity within the

watershed is simplified into major categories so that the loads can be estimated. If the

analysis is too detailed, the modeling becomes very difficult to apply and test. If the

analysis is too simplified, some important information might be lost. Modeling

should build on the detailed understanding of the watershed developed during

planning and data analysis. 
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-30 Draft

Table 8-8. Typical Data Needs for Example Models

Model

Number of

Watersheds

Land Use and Soil

Parameters

Stream Channel

Characteristics

Nutrient

Applications Management Practices

AGNPS > 1 CN/USLE N/A Application rate Location and type

associated with land use

STEPL 1 CN/USLE N/A N/A General type

GWLF 1 CN/USLE N/A Manure/nutrient

applications, date

General/agricultural

HSPF > 1 HSPF-specific Flow/discharge relationships,

length

Application rate Location and type

P8-UCM 1 CN/USLE N/A N/A General type

SWAT > 1 CN/USLE Dimensions of stream

channel

Application rate Location and type

associated with land use

SWMM > 1 Green-Ampt/USLE Dimensions of stream

channel, conduits, and pipes

Buildup and washoff ratesLocation and type

associated with land use

Note: CN = curve number; USLE = Universal Soil Loss Equation.

8.4.1 Watershed Delineation

Although you’ve already delineated your watershed (section 5.4.1), you’ll likely

further divide the watershed into small subwatersheds for modeling and evaluation.

Dividing the watershed into subwatersheds is usually the very first step in watershed

modeling. A watershed of 10 square miles might be subdivided into 20

subwatersheds about 0.5 square mile each. How do you decide how small to go? That

will depend on the watershed characterisitics, the type of model you’re using, and the

management actions that might be considered. Some watershed characteristics to

consider when subdividing the watershed include

• Land use distribution and diversity

• Location of critical areas

• Stream gauging stations and water quality monitoring locations (subwatersheds

should match key monitoring locations for testing)

• Location of physical features such as lakes, dams, and point sources discharges

• Changes in topography

• Soil distribution

• Areas where management might change

Table 8-9 provides examples of the number of subwatersheds and average size of

subwatersheds for some very large watershed modeling applications using HSPF or

LSPC. Why do they vary significantly? The watershed with the most uniform land

uses and a large area was evaluated using large subwatersheds (e.g., Tongue River

watershed in Montana). The watershed with the smallest subwatersheds is in an area

that ranges from highly urbanized to rural and has a dense network of monitoring

data available for testing. In this application the local conditions are represented by

using smaller watersheds. Each application is unique, and watersheds are defined

accordingly.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-31

Table 8-9. Examples of Number and Size of Subwatersheds in Modeling Applications

Watershed Location

Watershed Size

(mi2)

Number of

Subwatersheds

Average

Subwatershed

Size (mi2

)

Mobile River Basin AL/GA/MS/TN 43,605 152 286.88

French Gulch Creek AZ 16 26 0.62

Boulder Creek AZ 138 9 15.33

Clear Lake Watershed CA 441 49 9.00

San Gabriel River CA 689 139 4.96

San Jacinto River CA 770 32 24.06

Los Angeles River CA 834 35 23.83

Sacramento River CA 9,147 249 36.73

Lake Tahoe Watershed CA/NV 314 184 1.71

Christina River DE/MD/PA 564 70 8.06

Tug Fork River KY/VA/WV 1,500 455 3.30

Upper Patuxent River MD 130 50 2.60

Lower Tongue River MT 3,609 30 120.30

Lake Helena Watershed MT 616 49 12.57

Wissahickon Creek PA 64 5 12.80

Tyger River SC 750 75 10.00

Salt River USVI 5 13 0.38

Tygart Valley River WV 1,362 1,007 1.35

West Fork River WV 880 645 1.36

The number and size of subwatersheds can affect the model selection process. Some

watershed models have limitations on the number of subwatersheds or the size of the

area the model can simulate. HSPF, SWMM, and SWAT are typically used for

multiple subwatersheds, allowing for the evaluation of geographic distributions of

loads. Models such as GWLF and STEPL do not inherently handle multiple

watersheds and therefore are applied to one watershed at a time.

How are subwatersheds delineated? Most applications today use a geographic

information system (GIS) to delineate watersheds based on Digital Elevation Models

(DEMs) and topographic maps. Some software packages provide autodelineation

tools or other aids to help define hydrologic boundaries. Predefined watershed

boundaries such as 14-digit hydrologic units can be used. KSee section 5.4.1 for

more details on delineating watersheds. 

8.4.2 Land Use Assignment

Land use information is typically provided as a GIS coverage or map with many

individual codes that describe detailed land use types. For modeling purposes, these

individual codes should be grouped into a more managable set of dominant land use
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-32 Draft

TIP: The decisions made regarding data processing

for model input are part of the assumptions and

potential limitations of the modeling approach.

During the application, keep a log of all dataprocessing steps for later use in documenting and

identifying assumptions and limitations.

types. How much combining is done depends on the watershed characteristics.

Factors to consider in deciding on land use grouping include the following:

• Dominant land use types

• Land uses subject to change or conversion

• Land use types where management changes are expected

• Spatial diversity within the watershed

• Availability of information on individual land use types

When grouping land uses, recognize that the summary of pollutant loading will be

presented by land use category. Too many categories of land uses can be difficult to

model, test, and report. Too few categories can result in oversimplication and

generalization of the watershed conditions. Like so many aspects of watershed

analysis, this decision depends on the local conditions and the management concerns

being evaluated. When selecting your land use grouping, think about the dominant

features of your watershed and how they might change in the future (table 8-10). For

example, in a watershed that is dominantly forested, the key land use categories

might include various ages of trees (newly established, mature), logging roads, and

small residential areas. Changes under consideration might be forest

practices/harvesting techniques, road removal, and road management. For this

watershed most of the detailed land use categories would relate to forest type and

practice. In an urban watershed, forest might be grouped into a single category while

numerous densities of urban land uses (e.g., commercial, industrial, high-density

urban) are represented in more detail.

Table 8-10. Example Land Use Categories for Watershed Models

Forested Watershed Urban Watershed

• Mature forest

• Scrub/brush

• Newly established forest (1–5 years)

• Harvested areas (0–1 years)

• Dirt roads

• Camp areas

• Residential

• Low-density residential

• Medium-density residential

• High-density residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Open space

8.4.3 Parameter Selection

Once subwatersheds and land uses are defined, the next

decisions involve summarizing other spatial information within

each subwatershed. For most models, this involves combining

information on soils, topography, and land use. For example,

models that use the CNE (STEPL, GWLF, SWAT, AGNPS, and

P8-UCM) have look-up tables that relate soil, crop type, and

management to a CN factor (USDA-NRCS 1986). The CN is used in the model to

calculate runoff based on rainfall for specific land areas. For HSPF, an infiltration

factor that relates to the soil type associated with each land use is selected.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-33

For example, CN options for cornfields (row crops without conservation treatment)

include the following (USDA-NRCS 1986):

Corn A soil Good Condition 67

Corn B soil Fair Condition 79.5 (Average of the CNs for poor and good

conditions)

Corn B soil Good Condition 78

Corn C soil Poor Condition 88

“Condition” applies to the soil conditions for the area. An area with good-condition

soils will likely have a better soil structure, resulting in good infiltration and less

runoff. Poor-condition soils are typically more compacted, resulting in less

infiltration and more runoff. When setting up the model, you would select the

appropriate CN that represents a subwatershed/land use unit. 

Similarly, key parameters for sediment predictions in STEPL, GWLF, SWAT,

AGNPS, and P8-UCM are based on the USLE and are selected for each

subwatershed/land use unit. The USLE includes parameters that relate to slope,

length, erosion potential, and cropping practice.

USLE can be written as follows (Wischmeier and Smith 1965, 1978):

A = R × K × LS × C × P

Where, A represents the potential long-term average annual soil loss in tons per acre

per year, R is the rainfall and runoff factor by geographic location, K is the soil

erodibility factor, LS is the slope length-gradient factor, C is the crop/vegetation and

management factor, and P is the support practice factor. For example, USLE

parameters for a cornfield with 2 percent slope, erodible soils, and convential tillage

could be selected as follows:

R = 275 (Clarke County, Georgia)

K = 0.3 (soil textural class = loam)

LS = 0.2008 (2 percent slope and 100 feet of slope length)

C = 0.54 (residue removed, conventional tillage, fall plow)

P = 1 (no supporting practice)

Therefore, average annual soil loss is calculated as

A = 275 × 0.3 × 0.2008 × 0.54 × 1 = 8.9 ton/acre/year

If no-till is practiced and the soil surface is covered with residues, the C factor is 0.11

and the average annual soil loss will be

A = 275 × 0.3 × 0.2008 × 0.11 × 1 = 1.8 ton/acre/year
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-34 Draft

The selected models reviewed here have various capabilities

for the representation of management practices, and they tend

to specialize in agricultural and urban practices as listed below:

• Agricultural practices—SWAT, AGNPS, GWLF, STEPL

• Urban practices—P8-UCM, STEPL, SWMM

• Mixed land use—STEPL, HSPF

KMore information on how the selected models simulate

management practices and how they can support selection of

management strategies is included in section 11.3. 

TIP: Use common sense in testing modeling

results. Ask a few key questions: Do the

results appear consistent with other studies

or literature values? Is the water balance

correct? Are the predictions consistent with

the types of sources or land uses in the

watershed? Are there any missing sources?

The convenience and consistency of the CNE and

USLE approaches are one of the reasons that the use of

models based on them is prevalent. In many areas the

CNE, as applied in the NRCS runoff model TR-20, is

also used for predicting flow when designing

stormwater ponds and road culverts. Engineers and

analysts throughout the country are familiar with these

fundamental equations.

There are, however, some limitations that you should

consider when applying models based on these

equations. Like any analytical tool, they are

generalizations of natural physical processes of runoff

and erosion. The CNE is based on a standard storm and

uses daily rainfall. That means a very intense storm in which the rainfall falls very

quickly is treated in the same way as a slow rainfall that continues throughout the

day. This can result in some overpredication or underpredictions of rainfall on a

specific day. Similarly, the USLE simplifies the erosion processes of detachment

(loosening of surface soils due to rainfall) and wash-off. These processes are also

very sensitive to rainfall intensity and localized conditions. HSPF and SWMM are

more sensitive to rainfall intensity because they use an hourly or shorter rainfall

record. However, this additional detail requires more information and model testing

to verify model performance.

8.4.4 Model Testing

How do you know if the model is working appropriately? What kinds of tests can be

performed to prove that the model is working? Before embarking on detailed

evaluation and statistical testing of a model, you must first check the fundamental

performance of the model. Check whether the model is working, evaluate the basic

performance, and adjust or verify inputs if necessary. Then test for accuracy. In the

early testing process, most modelers look at graphs of observed and simulated data

and generalized summaries of flow and loading prediction. Initially, you’re looking

for ways to improve the model and identify features that might have been missed

during setup. In the later part of model testing, you’re looking for proof that the

model is working well and providing reasonable results.

Testing involves comparing modeling results with observed data. It

should focus on the questions the model is designed to answer. If a

model is designed to evaluate annual nutrient loads, for example,

comparisons are made with flow and nutrient monitoring information.

Sometimes, when data are highly limited, model testing is based

primarily on comparison with literature values, similar studies in

nearby regions, and evaluation using alternative calculation techniques.

Figure 8-2 shows idealized model testing points: an upstream small
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-35

Figure 8-2. Typical model evaluation points.

Regression: Model output is plotted against observed data

and a regression equation can identify the relationship

between modeled and observed values and the goodness

of fit. (See figures 8-3 and 8-4 for examples.)

Relative error: Modeled errors are measured by comparing

simulated flow values with observed flow values for various

time periods (e.g., for the summer) using the following

equation: 

(Simulated Value ! Observed Value)/Observed Value

A small relative error indicates a better goodness of fit for

calibration.

Model coefficient of efficiency: This value measures the

ratio of the mean square error in model predictions to the

variance in the observed data. Values range from minus

infinity to 1.0; higher values indicate better agreement.

Student’s t-test: This test measures the equality of

average modeled concentrations compared to average

observed concentrations over various time periods

(e.g., the entire calibration period).

watershed (1), a small watershed dominated by a

single land use (2), and a downstream point at a USGS

flow gauging station (3). In cases where additional

data gathering is not possible and historical records

are limited, testing might be based on a single

downstream location. Testing is best performed at

locations where flow gauging and water quality

sampling are available, typically at USGS gauging

stations. Selection of the subwatershed delineation in

the initial model setup should consider the locations of

available monitoring and testing points. Then the

model output can be compared at the locations where

flow and water quality measurements are available.

Some modeling studies require the adjustment or

estimation of parameters through a calibration process.

For this process the monitoring data are split into two

independent periods—calibration and validation.

Ideally, these periods are two typical time periods (not

extreme conditions) with a range of flow conditions.

During the calibration period key parameters are adjusted

within reasonable ranges until the best fit with the

observed data is determined. The performance of the

“calibrated” model is then tested for a separate validation

period. 

The various model adjustment capabilities for the selected

models depend on the techniques used for simulating

runoff and pollutant transport (table 8-11). All models that

are based on the CNE have limited ability for calibration

of flow. Because the CN is selected based on defined

look-up tables, only some slight adjustment of a CN for

local conditions can be justified. GWLF and SWAT

provide for ground water discharges to stream systems,

providing an opportunity for calibrating instream flow

volume. In this group of models, HSPF provides the most

flexibility for adjusting parameters to match local

conditons. HPSF includes calibration variables for

infiltration, upper and lower zones of soil storage, ground

water inputs to streams, and pollutant buildup and washoff. Although this flexiblity can help tailor the model to

local conditions, the number of parameters involved can

introduce errors and bias to the analysis as well.

Adjustment of parameters must carefully consider the

physical processes being represented and the reasonable
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-36 Draft

Table 8-11. Typical Calibration Options for Selected Example Models

Flow Calibration Pollutant Calibration

AGNPS Limited CN Nutrient concentrations in water and sediment

STEPL Limited/CN only Loading rate

GWLF Ground water recession Nutrient concentrations in water (runoff, ground water) and

sediment

HSPF Multiple, infiltration, soil storage, ground water Pollutant buildup and wash-off, instream transport/decay

P8-UCM Limited/CN only Loading rate or more detailed buildup and wash-off of dust and

pollutants

SWAT Ground water Nutrient concentrations in water and sediment

SWMM Multiple, infiltration, soil storage, ground water Pollutant buildup and wash-off, instream transport/decay

y = 0.9935x - 0.395

R2

 = 0.8761

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Average Modeled Flow (cfs)

Average Observed Flow (cfs)

Avg Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998)

Line of Equal Value

Best-Fit Line

J FMAMJ J ASOND

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Flow (cfs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Monthly Rainfall (in)

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in)

Avg Observed Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998)

Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

J FMAMJ J ASOND

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Flow (cfs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Monthly Rainfall (in)

Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Observed (25th, 75th)

Median Observed Flow (1/1/1995 to 12/31/1998) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th)

Figure 8-3. Sample calibration tests for hydrologic simulation.

ranges for the parameters. SWMM has many of the same infiltration and pollutant

wash-off features as HSPF. SWMM has a more simplified approach for erosion

simulation using the USLE, and it does not have the ability to simulate detailed land

management activies (e.g., manure applications, tillage practices). However, SWMM

does include techniques for evaluating structural management practices and pipes

typical of urban areas.

There are two major sequences or hierarchies of testing—parameters and time scales.

Of all the parameters predicted by the model, flow is always checked first, followed

by sediment, and then the various

pollutants being simulated (e.g., nutrients,

metals). Multiple time scales are also

evaluated, including annual, monthly, and

daily summaries (figure 8-3). Time

periods can also be grouped by seasons to

evaluate performance that relates to wet

and dry periods reflective of local

weather patterns. In addition, for models

sensitive to rainfall intensity, such as

HSPF, predictions can be evaluated on

the basis of storm size. For example, how

well does the model predict the smallest

25 percent of all storms?

The typical factors used in evaluating

model performance include the

following:

• Water balance (general assessment of

precipitation, evaporation,

infiltration, and runoff)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-37

Figure 8-4. Sample model testing graphics.

• Observed vs. measured flow (daily average,

monthly, annual, and flow duration curves)

(figure 8-3)

• Observed vs. measured load (annual loads,

seasonal variation, source loads)

• Graphs comparing observed vs. modeled flow,

load and flow, or frequency plots (figure 8-4)

These factors can all be “tested” through graphical

evaluation or by applying statisticsl tests to observed

data and modeled output (see sibebar for examples).

Each test can examine different aspects of

performance consistent with the type of model

selected and the questions being evaluated. Testing is

a process that can be used to diagnose problems with

the model setup, improve model simulation, and

ultimately confirm that the model is working

correctly. You should not rely too heavily on a single

test, but use a combination of approaches to get a

multifaceted evaluation of model performance. When

you start testing the model, watch out for indications

that something has been missed during model setup.

Sometimes models appear not to work because a

source is missing or was incorrectly entered into the

model. For example, the model might appear to

underpredict flow during low-flow periods. This

could be an indication that a point source discharge is

missing or that ground water recharge into the stream

system is too low. Looking carefully at this low-flow

period, when point sources and ground water are the

dominant sources, and reviewing local records can

help you to diagnose this problem. Always check

carefully for missing information before you adjust

model parameters to compensate for something you

observe. Be careful to keep track of changes and

modeling versions so that updates are consistently

incorporated into subsequent analyses.

Sometimes local anomolies in geology and

hydromodification can significantly affect flow and

loading predictions. These local conditions should be considered during the model

selection process. Setup and application of models need to specifically account for

local geology and hydrologic conditions. Some examples of specialized conditions

follow:
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-38 Draft

When using a model as part of a watershed management effort, it's

important to document the modeling process. The purpose of

documentation is to provide a firm understanding of what the

modeling effort represents to the public and planning committee. At a

minimum, the model documentation should include the following:

• Model name and version

• Source of model

• Purpose of model application

• Model assumptions (list or summarize); any of the assumptions

could limit the usability of the results of the application, and that

must be explained

• Data requirements and source of datasets

TIP: Keep a log of all scenarios considered

and the input assumptions used for each.

• Unusual hydrology due to local geologic

conditions (e.g., karst features). Some areas

have unusual conditions. Streams might

disappear or have unusual flow patterns. If

these conditions are not well understood or

monitored, modeling will be difficult.

• High water table. If the water table is very

high, rainfall might not infiltrate, or there

might be interactions between surface water

and ground water.

• Undiagnosed or undiscovered sources. If a

source is unknown, it won’t be in the model.

When testing models, you might realize that a

source is missing. Additional field

reconnaissance or monitoring might be

needed to check.

8.4.5 Estimation of Exising Conditions and Baseline Scenarios 

The modeling approaches developed are ultimately designed to support

decisionmaking. Essential to decisionmaking is the application of the model to

various alternatives. How you use the model to support decisionmaking is as

important as the various steps that go into building and testing the model. Typically,

models are applied to an existing condition to set a baseline for comparison. Existing

conditions can be compared with management alternatives and future conditions.

Remember that “existing” is really a reflection of the data used to build the model. If

the land use data you’re using are 10 years old and were not updated for the study,

“existing” will really represent 10 years ago. If residential development

includes management practices and you have not included

management practices in the model, “existing” conditions might

overestimate loads.

To estimate existing conditions, you apply the calibrated model to some typical time

period and then calculate your loads based on model results. To help understand the

watershed loads and their sensitivity to different watershed conditions, it’s useful to

apply the model to various scenarios that represent some variation of the baseline.

Some of the model applications you might want to consider are

• Future land use under various growth or land use conversion scenarios

• Management practice or point source implementation alternatives

• Historical or predevelopment conditions 

Ultimately, in designing and selecting management alternatives (discussed in

chapters 10 and 11), you can use the model to support selection of the preferred

alternative, and estimate the benefits of management implementation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-39

Figure 8-5. Presentation of annual sediment loads (lb/ac) by

subwatershed, San Jacinto, California.

8.5 Presenting Pollutant Loads

You’ll use the information gained from your loading analysis to quantify your

watershed pollutant loads. Your loading analysis essentially quantified your loads,

but now you have to decide how to present them for use in your watershed plan. Two

factors will affect this decision—space and time. You need to decide the spatial

resolution for your loads, as well as the time scale for their calculation. You initally

made these decisions when you identified your sources (chapter 7), but now you’ll

refine the spatial and time scales for evaluating and calculating source loads based on

your loading analysis.

Table 8-12 summarizes typical scales for calculating and presenting loading results

from watershed models. Presentations can use a combination of tables and graphical

displays. (Storing information in spreadsheets or databases can facilate comparisons

and preparation of graphics.) Developing maps, graphs, bar charts, and piecharts can

help to summarize information and facilitate interpretation of results.

Table 8-12. Typical Loading Presentation Categories and Types

Spatial Scale Land Use Time Scale

• Watershed

• Tributary (multiplesubwatershed)

• Region (political or other

boundaries)

• Subwatershed

• Critical areas

• Watershed general land

use category (agriculture,

urban)

• Land use subcategory 

(cropland, pasture, 

residential)

• Average annual

• Annual

• Seasonal

• Monthly

• Storm

• Design storm

8.5.1 Consider Spatial Scales

There are various options for assigning the spatial extent for

your load calculations. You can quantify a gross load for the

overall watershed or for each land use or even for each

land use in each subwatershed. The detail to which you

calculate the loads in the watershed will depend

primarily on the types and locations of the

watershed sources identified during the data

analysis. If a spatial analysis of water quality data

identified critical areas in the watershed—areas

experiencing the most or worst problems and

impairments—these areas should be isolated and

loadings presented separately. If the watershed is

large and has a variety of pollutant sources, it is

recommended that you present the loadings by

subwatersheds or groupings of subwatersheds,

such as larger tributaries (figure 8-5). It is also
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-40 Draft

Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform bacteria loads.

% of Total Sediment Load

Roads

14%

Pasture/Hay

4%

Cropland

41%

Evergreen 

Forest

18%

Landfill

1%

Residential

1%

Groundwater

21%

Figure 8-7. Total sediment load and

percentages associated with each source.

useful to calculate loads by land use because many

pollutants are associated more with some land uses and less

with others. For example, cropland runoff is often a source

of nutrients, whereas forested areas are typically less

significant sources of nutrients.

8.5.2 Consider Time Scales

The other issue affecting how you present your watershed

loads in your watershed plan is the associated time scale.

Loads can be calculated for a number of time

scales—daily, monthly, seasonal, annual. Like the spatial

resolution, the appropriate time scale will depend on the

sources and problems in your watershed. The results of the

data analyses provide a guide for selecting the appropriate

time scale for the loading analysis and ultimate

presentation of the loads. For example, analysis of monthly

or seasonal water quality conditions identifies the critical

times of year in the watershed. If there is considerable

variation in water quality throughout the year, given source

loading characteristics and weather patterns, it might be

necessary to calculate seasonal loads (figure 8-6). 

The impairment characteristics and water quality or watershed targets can also affect

the loading time scale. Some pollutants, such as bacteria, have more immediate

impacts, and associated targets are often based on daily maximums or a geometric

mean of instantaneous concentrations. For bacteria, it might be appropriate to use an

approach that is capable of calculating daily loads for comparison to water quality

targets. Sediment loading, on the other hand, is a chronic problem

that has long-term impacts. Occasional high sediment

concentrations might not cause problems, but high sediment

loading could result in long-term impacts on aquatic habitat.

Therefore, it is usually appropriate to evaluate sediment loading on

a monthly or annual basis (figure 8-7). 

Keep in mind that how you establish your pollutant loads will

affect your ability to evaluate management options. When

quantifying the pollutant loads, you’re essentially establishing the

baseline load that will be reduced to meet your watershed goals. If

you establish an overall load for the entire watershed, it will be

difficult to assess changes in loads and improvements throughout

the watershed. Alternatively, when you establish loads at critical

areas (e.g., downstream of a major source, for specific land uses),

you can more readily evaluate the direct impact of the surrounding

sources and also future management efforts targeted at those sources. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Draft 8-41

8.5.3 Next Steps in the Development of the Watershed Plan

Now that you’ve calculated source loads for your watershed, you can move on to the

next step of the watershed plan development process—identifying watershed targets

and necessary load reductions. The loads you’ve calculated will provide the basis for

identifying the necessary load reductions to meet watershed goals and eventually the

implementation of management practices.
Chapter 8

Estimate Pollutant Loads

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

8-42 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-1

Read this chapter if...

• You want to select indicators to measure attainment of your watershed goals

• You want to use your watershed goals to identify numeric water quality targets 

• You need an approach to determine how much of a load reduction you need to

meet your watershed goals

• You want information on how to appropriately focus load reductions

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Setting goals

< Identifying management objectives

< Selecting indicators

< Developing targets

< Determining load reductions needed

< Focusing load reductions
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-2 Draft

Targets

Objectives

Indicators Indicators

Goals Goals

ID causes 

and sources

Set targets

ID load 

reductions

Objectives

Indicators

Goals

Figure 9-1. Process for identifying final watershed goals and targets.

9.1 How Do I Link the Watershed Analysis to Management

Solutions?

Once you have analyzed the data, identified the problem(s) in the watershed, and

identified and quantified the sources that need to be managed, you’ll develop

management goals and associated targets. During the scoping phase of planning

(chapter 4), you established broad watershed goals (e.g., meet water quality

standards, restore degraded wetlands) as a preliminary guide. Now that you have

characterized and quantified the problems in the watershed (chapters 7 and 8), you’re

ready to refine the goals and establish more detailed objectives and targets that will

guide developing and implementing a management strategy.

The process of developing specific objectives and targets is an evolution of the

watershed goals you identified with your stakeholders. As you proceed through the

watershed plan development, you’ll gain more information on the watershed

problems, waterbody conditions, causes of impairment, and pollutant sources. With

each step of the process, you can focus and better define your watershed goals, until

eventually you have specific objectives with measurable targets. Figure 9-1 illustrates

this evolution. The first step is identifying the broad watershed goals with your

stakeholders, answering “What do I want to happen as a result of my watershed

plan?” As you do this, you’ll also

identify environmental indicators

that can be used to measure progress

toward meeting those goals. Once

you have identified the sources

contributing to watershed problems,

you can refine your watershed goals

and develop management objectives

targeted at specific pollutants or

sources. The management objectives

identify how you will achieve your

goals. It’s important to have indicators that can be measured (e.g., load or

concentration) to track progress toward meeting those objectives. You should link

some of these indicators to pollutant sources based on their cause-and-effect

relationship to then identify the load reductions needed to meet the target. For

example, instream levels of dissolved oxygen can be linked to nutrient loads, and you

can use various methods to determine what reductions in nutrients will result in the

dissolved oxygen target. 

Once you have identified your indicators, numeric targets, and associated load

reductions, they can be incorporated into the management objectives for the final

goals for your watershed plan—goals that can be tracked and will result in attaining

the overall watershed goals. These goals will guide the identification and selection of

management practices to meet the numeric targets and, therefore, the overall

watershed goals, as discussed in Kchapters 10 and 11.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-3

9.2 Translate Watershed Goals into Management Objectives

You’ve probably already identified preliminary goals and associated environmental

indicators with your stakeholders, as outlined in chapter 4, but now you will refine

those goals based on your data analysis. The data analysis identified the likely causes

and sources affecting specific indicators (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, pebble

counts). Therefore, you have an idea of what sources need to be controlled to meet

your overall watershed goals and can use this information to translate your watershed

goals into management objectives. Management objectives incorporate the watershed

goals but focus on specific processes that can be managed, such as pollutant loading

and riparian conditions. 

For example, perhaps during the scoping phase you knew that there was a problem

with aquatic habitat so you established the preliminary goal “restore aquatic habitat.”

Now, after the data analysis, you can refine the goal to include a specific

management objective, such as “restore aquatic habitat in the upper main stem of

White Oak Creek by controlling agricultural sources of sediment.” Table 9-1

provides some examples of translating watershed goals into management objectives. 

Table 9-1. Sample Goals Linked to the Sources and Impacts to Define Management Objectives

Preliminary Goal Indicators Cause or Source of Impact Management Objective

Support designated uses for

aquatic life; reduce fish kills

Dissolved oxygen

Phosphorus

Temperature

Elevated phosphorus causing

increased algal growth and

decreased dissolved oxygen

Cropland runoff

Reduce phosphorus loads from

cropland runoff and fertilizer

application

Reduce flood levels Peak flow volume

and velocity

Inadequate stormwater controls,

inadequate road culverts

Minimize flooding impacts by

improving peak and volume controls

on urban sources and retrofitting

inadequate road culverts

Restore aquatic habitat Riffle-to-pool ratio,

percent fine

sediment

Upland sediment erosion and

delivery, streambank erosion,

near-stream land disturbance

(e.g., livestock, construction)

Reduce sediment loads from upland

sources; improve riparian vegetation

and limit livestock access to stabilize

streambanks

Meet water quality standards

for bacteria to reduce beach

closures

Fecal coliform Runoff from livestock operations,

waterfowl

Reduce bacteria loads from livestock

operations

Improve aesthetics of lake to

restore recreational use

Algal growth,

chlorophyll a

Elevated nitrogen causing

increased algal growth

Reduce nitrogen loads to limit algal

growth

Meet water quality standards

for metals

Zinc, copper Urban runoff, industrial

discharges

Improve stormwater controls to

reduce metal loads from runoff
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-4 Draft

9.3 Select Environmental Indicators and Targets to Evaluate

Management Objectives

Once you have established specific management objectives, you’ll develop

environmental indicators and numeric targets to quantitatively evaluate whether you

are meeting your objectives. You identified indicators with your stakeholders when

you developed your conceptual model (chapter 4), and the indicators should be

refined in this step. The indicators are measurable parameters that will be used to link

pollutant sources to environmental conditions. The specific indicators will vary

depending on the designated use of the waterbody (e.g., warm-water fishery, coldwater fishery, recreation) and the water quality impairment or problem of concern.

For example, multiple factors might cause degradation of a warm-water fishery.

Some potential causes include changes in hydrology, elevated nutrient

concentrations, elevated sediment, and higher summer temperatures. Each of these

stressors can be measured using indicators such as peak flow, flow volume, nutrient

concentration or load, sediment concentration or load, and temperature. 

A specific value can be set as a target for each indicator to represent the

desired conditions that will meet the watershed goals and management

objectives. Targets can be based on water quality criteria or, where

numeric water quality criteria do not exist, on data analysis, reference

conditions, literature values, or expert examination of water quality

conditions to identify values representative of conditions that support

designated uses. If a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) already exists

for pollutants of concern in your watershed, you should review the TMDL

to identify appropriate numeric targets. TMDLs are developed to meet

water quality standards, and when numeric criteria are not available,

narrative criteria (e.g., prohibiting excess nutrients) must be used to

develop numeric targets. 

It might be necessary to identify several related indicators and target

values to facilitate evaluation of pollutant loads and measure progress. For

example, dissolved oxygen is an indicator of the suitability of a waterbody

to support fisheries. However, dissolved oxygen is not a specific pollutant

and is not typically estimated as a load. Because dissolved oxygen is a waterbody

measure that is affected by several parameters, including nutrients, it’s appropriate to

select other indicators that can be linked to dissolved oxygen and quantified as loads

(e.g., phosphorus loading).

Table 9-2 provides some examples of indicators and target values associated with

management objectives. 

KChapters 4 and 12 discuss the

development of a variety of indicators to

measure progress in implementing your

watershed plan and meeting your goals.

Indicators can be environmental, social,

or programmatic. This chapter discusses

only environmental indicators and how

they are used to represent watershed

goals and evaluate pollutant load

reductions. Social and programmatic

indicators are identified as part of the

implementation program, discussed in

chapter 12.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-5

It will be difficult to develop quantifiable indicators for

all watershed issues of concern. For example, some

goals and associated indicators (e.g., make the lake

more appealing for swimming, or reduce the

prevalence of exotic species) are indirectly related to

other indicators that are more easily linked to source

loads (e.g., dissolved oxygen, nutrient loads), and

trying to link them to one or even a few specific

pollutants and source loads is often too difficult or

inappropriate. Therefore, these indicators are

expected to improve based on identified load

reductions for other indicators. They will be directly

measured to track overall watershed goals, but they

will not have an associated load reduction target. 

Table 9-2. Examples of Indicators and Targets to Meet Management Objectives

Management Objective Indicator and Target Value

Reduce phosphorus loads from cropland runoff and

fertilizer application

Dissolved oxygen: Daily average of 7 mg/L (from water quality standards)

Phosphorus: Daily average of 25 μg/L (based on literature values)

Minimize flooding impacts by improving peak and

volume controls on urban sources and retrofitting

inadequate road culverts

Peak flow volume and velocity: Peak velocity for 1-yr, 24-hr storm of

400 cfs

Reduce sediment loads from upland sources;

improve riparian vegetation and limit livestock

access to stabilize streambanks

Riffle-to-pool ratio: 1:1 ratio (based on literature values)

Percent fine sediment: <10 percent of particles <4 mm (based on

reference conditions)

Reduce bacteria loads from livestock operations Fecal coliform: Geometric mean of 200 cfu/100 mL (based on water

quality standards)

Reduce nitrogen loads to limit algal growth Algal growth: <10 percent coverage of algal growth (based on reference

conditions)

Chlorophyll a: <1 μg/L (based on literature values)

Improve stormwater controls to reduce metal loads

from runoff

Zinc: Maximum of 120 μg/L (based on water quality standards)

Copper: Maximum of 13 μg/L (based on water quality standards)

9.4 Determine Load Reductions to Meet Environmental Targets

At this point in the watershed planning process, you have

already quantified the pollutant loads from sources in your

watershed (chapter 8) and identified appropriate

environmental indicators and associated targets to meet your

watershed goals. The next step is to determine the load

reductions needed to meet your targets—how to control

watershed sources to meet your goals. 

 This phase of the watershed planning process should

result in element b of the nine elements for awarding section

319 grants. Element b is “An estimate of the load reductions

expected from management measures.” 

To estimate the load reductions expected from the

management measures, you need to understand the cause-andeffect relationship between pollutant loads and the waterbody

response. Establishing this “link” allows you to evaluate how

much of a load reduction from watershed sources is needed to

meet waterbody targets. There are several options for establishing such links, ranging

from more qualitative evaluations to detailed receiving water computer modeling. As

with your approach for quantifying pollutant loads, selecting the appropriate

approach will depend on several factors, including data availability, pollutants,

waterbody type, source types, time frame, and spatial scale. Most important, the
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-6 Draft

approach must be compatible with the method used to quantify loads and must be

able to predict the necessary load reductions to meet targets. 

A number of techniques—some more rigorous and detailed than others—can be

used. Sometimes models or analytic techniques that allow for careful calculation

of appropriate loading are used, but at other times you might have only limited

data to estimate loadings. Included in this section are a range of approaches you

can use to identify the load reductions needed to meet targets. Remember that the

load estimates can be updated over time as more information and data are

collected. The options discussed in this section include

• Qualitative linkages

• Mass balance approach

• Empirical relationships

• Statistical or mathematical relationships

• Reference watershed approach

• Receiving water models

Table 9-3 presents some example approaches for the linkage analysis for typical

waterbody-pollutant combinations. Many of these approaches are discussed in the

following sections. 

Table 9-3. Example Approaches for Linking Indicators and Sources

Waterbody–Pollutant

Combination Example Linkage Approach

River–Pathogens Instream response using HSPF (data collection consideration)

Lake–Nutrients Lake response using BATHTUB

More detailed option using CEQUAL-W2 or EFDC

River–Nutrients Stream response using mass balance, QUAL2E low-flow model, or WASP

River–Pesticides/Urban Allowable loading determination based on calculation from identified target at

design flow or a range of flows

River/Estuary–Toxic

Substances

Allowable loading determination based on calculation from identified target at

design flow or a range of flows

River–Sediment Load target determined from comparison with desired reference watershed

Geomorphic/habitat targets derived from literature

River–Temperature SSTEMP or SNTEMP stream flow and temperature analysis

QUAL2E stream flow and temperature analysis

River–Biological Impairment Comparison of estimated watershed/source loads with loads in reference

watershed

Estuary–Nutrients Estuary response using Tidal Prism, WASP, EFDC, or similar model

Coastal Pathogen Response using WASP, EFDC, or similar model 

Alternatively determine correlation of coastal impairment with tributary loading
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-7

An existing study (e.g., TMDL) might already have

identified the allowable loading for one or more

pollutants in your watershed. You might be able to use

these studies for your targets or at least incorporate

them into your analysis. 

Keep the following in mind when incorporating TMDL

results:

• Pollutants: What pollutants were considered? How

do they relate to your goals?

• Time frame: Have conditions changed from the time

of TMDL development?

• Data availability: Are more data available now to

update the analysis?

• Management efforts: Have any management

activities been implemented since the TMDL that

should be taken into account?

• Source level: At what level did the TMDL assign

load allocations and reductions? Do you want more

detailed or more gross distributions?

The Pend Oreille Lake TMDL uses a mass balance

approach for identifying existing loading and allowable

loading for nutrients in the nearshore area of the lake.

The nearshore area was identified as impaired on the

basis of stakeholder concerns over algae and “slimy

rocks” in the area. A mass balance approach was used

to identify current watershed phosphorus loading based

on observed lake concentrations and allowable loading

based on an in-lake phosphorus target concentration.

Several of the mass balance factors were based on sitespecific data (e.g., lake “cell” volume calculated using

Secchi depths) and literature values (e.g., settling

velocity of phosphorus, first-order loss coefficients).

KFor more details on how this TMDL used mass

balance, go to www.tristatecouncil.org/pages/lpo.html.

9.4.1 Qualitative Linkages Based on Local

Knowledge or Historical Conditions

If you have only limited data for your watershed and the

sources and causes are not well documented or characterized,

it might be appropriate to use a theoretical linkage to explain

the cause-effect relationship between sources and waterbody

conditions. You might have to rely on expert or local

knowledge of the area and sources to identify coarse load

reduction targets. If you do this, remember to incorporate a

schedule for updating your watershed plan and load

reductions as more information and data are collected.

An example of a qualitative linkage is an assumed linkage

between instream sediment deposition and watershed

sediment loading. The expected problem is fine sediment

filling in pools used by fish and cementing the streambed,

prohibiting the fish from laying eggs. Although it is known

that sediment loading increases the deposition of fine

sediment, you have no documented or quantified link

between the two. You can estimate a conservative load

reduction, accompanied by plans for additional monitoring to

evaluate instream conditions.

Another example of a qualitative linkage is the assumption

that loading is directly proportional to the instream response.

That is, a percent increase in loading will result in an equal

percent increase in instream concentrations. Assuming this,

you can use observed data to calculate the needed reduction

in waterbody concentration to meet your target and assume

that it is equal to the necessary percent reduction in loading.

Although a 1-to-1 relationship between loading and

concentration likely does not exist, you might not have the

data needed to support identification of a more accurate

linkage.

9.4.2 Mass Balance Approach

A mass balance analysis represents an aquatic system through

an accounting of mass entering and exiting the system. This

analysis simplifies the representation of the waterbody and

does not estimate or simulate detailed biological, chemical, or

physical processes. It can, however, be a useful and simple

way to estimate the allowable loading for a waterbody to

meet water quality standards or other targets. The approach
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-8 Draft

Check the assumptions used in developing empirical

equations. They usually predict an “average” condition

or are based on conditions specific to certain regions.

Is your waterbody unusual (e.g., narrow and deep)?

Sometimes the unique features of your waterbody or

watershed make a difference and require more

sensitive analyses or models. 

includes tallying all inputs and outputs of a waterbody to evaluate the resulting

conditions. To successfully apply a mass balance, it is important to understand the

major instream processes affecting water quality, such as decay, background

concentrations, settling, and resuspension. Many of these factors can be estimated

based on literature values if site-specific information is not available. 

The mass balance approach is versatile in its application, allowing for varying levels

of detail. In addition, it requires loading inputs but does not require that the loads be

calculated by particular methods. Because of this, you can use a mass balance in

conjunction with a variety of approaches for calculating watershed loads. You can

use loads calculated from a watershed model, as well as those from a simple analysis

using loading rates and land use distribution. You can apply mass balance equations

at various places in the watershed, depending on the resolution of your loading

analysis.

9.4.3 Empirical Relationships

In some cases, depending on the indicators and pollutants of concern, you can use

documented empirical relationships to evaluate allowable loading and load reductions

to meet watershed targets. Empirical relationships are relationships based on

observed data, and an empirical equation is a mathematical expression of one or more

empirical relationships.

One example of an empirical relationship that can be used in evaluating allowable

loading is the Vollenweider empirical relationship between phosphorus loading and

trophic status. The Vollenweider relationship predicts the degree of a lake’s trophic

status as a function of the areal phosphorus loading and is based on the lake’s mean

depth and hydraulic residence time. The Lake Linganore, Maryland, TMDL for

nutrients used the Vollenweider relationship to identify the allowable loading and

necessary loading reductions to return the lake to mesotrophic

conditions, represented by Carlson’s Trophic Status Index (TSI

of 53 and chlorophyll a of 10 ug/L). The existing nutrient

loading to the lake was calculated using land use areas and

phosphorus loading rates obtained from the Chesapeake Bay

Program. The Vollenweider relationship was then used to

identify the allowable annual phosphorus loading rate to meet

the trophic status targets. The existing loading and allowable

loading were compared to identify the necessary load

reductions.

Another example of an empirical relationship is the Simple Method (Schueler 1987),

as discussed in section 8.2.2. The Simple Method calculates pollutant loading using

drainage area, pollutant concentrations, a runoff coefficient, and precipitation data. If

your watershed target is a pollutant concentration, you can apply the Simple Method

using your concentration target to estimate the allowable loading to meet that target.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-9

Use care when applying empirical relationships because although they are based on

observed data, they might not be representative of your watershed or be applicable to

your purposes. When using empirical relationships, it’s important to review the

documentation and literature to understand on what data the relationship is based and

any related assumptions or caveats for applying the relationship or equation. 

9.4.4 Statistical or Mathematical Relationships

You can use statistical or mathematical analyses to estimate allowable loadings and

subsequent load reductions based on available data for your watershed. This

approach assumes some relationship between key factors in the watershed (e.g.,

loading, percent land use) and instream conditions (e.g., concentration) based on

observed data. A load duration curve, Kdiscussed in detail in section 7.2.4, is one of

the most common of these types of linkages. This approach can be applied to

diagnose and evaluate waters (e.g., dominant types of sources, critical conditions)

and can help to determine specific load reductions. A limitation of this approach is

that it does not explicitly describe where the loads are coming from or how they are

delivered. The technique is well suited to areas where robust monitoring records are

available but data are too limited to use more detailed watershed loading models. The

analysis does not identify load reductions by source type, but it can be applied at any

location in the watershed with sufficient data. 

9.4.5 Reference Watershed Approach

If you don’t have an appropriate water quality or loading target, another technique for

linking your indicators to source loads is to compare your watershed with another

one that is considered “healthy.” The reference watershed approach is based on using

an unimpaired watershed that shares similar ecoregion and geomorphological

characteristics with the impaired watershed to identify loading rate targets. Stream

conditions in the reference watershed are assumed to be representative of the

conditions needed for the impaired stream to support its designated uses and meet the

watershed goals.

You should select a reference watershed on

the basis of conditions that are comparable

with the watershed requiring management.

The reference watershed should be similar to

your watershed in size, land use distribution,

soils, topography, and geology. To set the

loading rate target, predict the loading for

each watershed through modeling or another

method and then determine the allowable

loading rate based on the reference watershed

loads and areas. The loading rate from the

reference watershed can be calculated at a
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-10 Draft

level comparable to the sources you identified in your watershed. For example, you

can model specific land uses or crop types in the reference watershed to identify

loading rates or identify a gross rate based on the loading from the entire watershed.

The reference loading rates are then multiplied by the appropriate areas of the

watershed to identify allowable loads for the impaired watershed. The load reduction

requirement is the difference between this allowable loading and the existing load

(estimated in chapter 8). 

This approach is best suited to waters not meeting biological or narrative criteria

(e.g., criteria for nutrients and sediment), where instream targets are difficult to

identify. Selecting a reference watershed can be extremely difficult, and not all areas

have appropriate watershed data or sufficient monitoring data to support selection. 

9.4.6 Receiving Water Models

Sometimes it will be appropriate or even necessary to use detailed receiving water

modeling to relate watershed source loads to your watershed indicators. The

following are typical situations in which you should use a model instead of a simpler

approach:

• Locally significant features or conditions (e.g., groundwater interaction) affect

the waterbody’s response.

• Chemical and biological features are complicated and affect the waterbody’s

response to pollutant loads (e.g., nutrient loads affecting algal growth and

subsequent dissolved oxygen).

• Unique physical characteristics of the waterbody must be considered (e.g., long

and narrow lake). 

• Localized impairments and impacts due to location of sources (e.g., discharge

from a feedlot affecting a small segment of stream).

• Cumulative impacts occur from pollutants (e.g., metals) that can accumulate in

sediment and organisms.

Table 9-4 provides a summary of many of the receiving water models available to

support linkage of sources and indicators for watershed planning. KFor more details

on the models, go to EPA’s Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling

(CREM) Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-11

Table 9-4. Overview of Various Receiving Water Models

Type

Level of

Complexity Water QualityModel

Model Source

Steady-stateQuasi-dynamicDynamic1-dimensional2-dimensional3-dimensionalUser-definedSediment

Nutrients

Toxic substancesMetalsBODDissolved oxygenBacteria

AQUATOX USEPA – – ! ! ––– !!! – ! ! –

BASINS USEPA – !!! – – !!!!!!!!

CAEDYM University of Western Australia – – !! ! !!!! – !!!!

CCHE1D University of Mississippi – – ! ! – – ! ––––––

CE-QUAL-ICM/TOXI USACE – – !!!!! – ! – !!! –

CE-QUAL-R1 USACE – – ! ! ––– ! ! – !!!!

CE-QUAL-RIV1 USACE – – ! ! – ––– ! – !!!!

CE-QUAL-W2 USACE – – ! – ! ––– ! – – !!!

CH3D-IMS University of Florida, Dept. of Civil

and Coastal Engineering

– – !!!! – ! ! – – ! ! –

CH3D-SED USACE – – !!!! – ! ––––––

DELFT3D WL | Delft Hydraulics – – !! ! !!!!!!!!!

DWSM Illinois State Water Survey – – ! ! ––– !!! ––––

ECOMSED HydroQual, Inc. – – !!!! – ! ––––––

EFDC USEPA & Tetra Tech, Inc. – – !! ! !!!!!!!!!

GISPLM College of Charleston, Stone

Environmental, & Dr. William

Walker

–––– – ––– ! –––––

GLLVHT J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. – – ! – – ! – ! ! – – ! – !

GSSHA USACE – – ! – ! – ! ––––––

HEC-6 USACE – – ! ! ––– ! ––––––

HEC-6T USACE – – ! ! ––– ! ––––––

HEC-RAS USACE – – ! ! – –––––––––

HSCTM-2D USEPA – – ! – ! – – ! ––––––

HSPF USEPA – – ! ! – – !!!!!!!!

LSPC USEPA & Tetra Tech, Inc. – – ! ! – – !!!!! – – !

MIKE 11 Danish Hydraulic Institute ! – ! – ! –––––––––

MIKE 21 Danish Hydraulic Institute – – ! – ! – – !!!!!!!

MINTEQA2 USEPA ! ––– – ––––– ! –––
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-12 Draft

Table 9-4. (continued)

Type

Level of

Complexity Water Quality

Model Source

Steady-stateQuasi-dynamicDynamic1-dimensional2-dimensional3-dimensionalUser-definedSediment

Nutrients

Toxic substancesMetalsBODDissolved oxygenBacteria

PCSWMM Computational Hydraulics

International

– – ! ! – – !!!!! – – !

QUAL2E USEPA – ! – ! – – ! – ! – – !!!

QUAL2K Dr. Steven Chapra, USEPA TMDL

Toolbox

– ! – ! – – ! – ! – – !!!

RMA-11 Resource Modelling Associates – – !! ! !!!! – – ! ! –

SED2D USACE – – ! – ! – – ! ––––––

SED3D USEPA – – !!!! – ! ––––––

SHETRAN University of Newcastle (UK) – – ! ! ––– ! ––––––

SWAT USDA-ARS – ! ! ––– !!!!!! –

SWMM USEPA – – ! ! – – !!!!! – – !

Toolbox USEPA – !!! ! !!!!!!!!!

WAMView Soil and Water Engineering

Technology, Inc. (SWET) &

USEPA

– – ! ! ––– ! ! – – !!!

WARMF Systech Engineering, Inc. – – !!! – – !!!!!!!

WASP USEPA – – !! ! !!!!!!!! –

WinHSPF USEPA – – ! ! – – !!!!!!!!

WMS Environmental Modeling Systems,

Inc.

– – !!! – !!!!!!!!

XP-SWMM XP Software, Inc. – – ! ! – – !!!!! – – !

Note: BOD = biochemical oxygen demand

– Not supported

! Supported

9.5 Focus the Load Reductions

Regardless of what approach you use to estimate your allowable loadings or

necessary reductions, it’s likely that several scenarios or combinations of source

reductions will meet your targets. Depending on the magnitude of your load

reductions, you might be able to distribute them among your sources or you might

have to focus on one dominant source to meet your targets. Table 9-5 illustrates how

different target reductions can meet the same overall goal. In addition, the location of
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Draft 9-13

the proposed reductions can affect the distribution and magnitude of load reductions.

If you calculate the load reduction only at the mouth of the watershed, a large number

of scenarios will meet the load reduction target—at least on paper. Sometimes

impacts from load reductions are not adequate to meet targets at downstream

locations. Although the upstream reductions will no doubt improve downstream

conditions, they might be such a small portion of the overall load that they won’t

have a measurable effect on the overall watershed loading. In addition, the load

reductions calculated at the bottom of the watershed might not capture the more

significant reductions needed in smaller upstream subwatersheds. Be sure to estimate

your load reductions at a few key locations in the watershed to capture the major

problem areas and sources and to support efficient and targeted management.

Table 9-5. Examples of Different Scenarios to Meet the Same Load Target

Source

Existing

Phosphorus

Loading (kg/y)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

% Load

Reduction

Allowable Load

(kg/y)

% Load

Reduction

Allowable Load

(kg/y)

Roads 78 26 58 20 62

Pasture/Hay 21 26 16 10 19

Cropland 218 26 162 55 98

Forest 97 26 72 0 97

Landfill 7 26 5 0 7

Residential 6 26 5 0 6

Groundwater 111 26 83 0 111

Total 539 26 400 26 400

Note: Scenario 1 represents an equitable distribution of load reduction among sources. Reductions are

applied so that the resulting loads are the same percentage of the total as under existing conditions. Scenario

2 represents a more feasible scenario, in which controllable sources (e.g., roads, cropland, pasture) are

targeted to meet the load reduction target. 

If you used a receiving model to evaluate your load reductions, you should use a

“top-down” approach to evaluating necessary load reductions. Begin by identifying

necessary load reductions to meet waterbody targets in upstream portions of the

watershed. The model then allows you to then evaluate the effect of the upstream

load reductions on downstream conditions. Starting at the top of the watershed and

moving down, you can evaluate the cumulative effects from upstream controls. In

many cases, the upstream reductions will significantly decrease or even eliminate the

necessary reductions for the lower watershed.

By this point, you should have identified the overall load reductions needed to meet

your targets and determined generally how you want to focus reductions among

sources. KThe activities discussed in chapters 10 and 11 will help you to more

specifically identify and select the reductions for each source.
Chapter 9

Set Goals and Identify

Load Reductions

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to

Restore and Protect Our Waters

9-14 Draft

9.6 Summarize Watershed Targets and Necessary Load

Reductions

 Now that you have identified necessary pollutant load reductions to meet your

watershed goals, you should have the information needed to satisfy element b of the

nine minimum elements. At this point you should prepare a summary to be included

in your watershed plan documenting the source loads, numeric targets to meet the

watershed goals and management objectives, and load reductions needed to meet the

targets. The reductions should be calculated and presented at the same time and

spatial scale as the source load estimations (discussed in chapter 8). As with the

source loads, there are a variety of ways you can present the load reduction

requirements, including bar graphs and watershed maps.

You should also include in the summary other watershed targets—the indicators and

numeric targets that could not be linked to specific pollutant loads (e.g., cobble

embeddedness, percent fine sediment). Even though the response of these targets

could not be predicted and linked to source loads, they’re important for measuring

the success of your watershed plan and the attainment of your watershed goals. These

targets will be integrated into the implementation and monitoring plan (discussed in

chapter 12). 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-1

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Overview of management techniques

and measures

< Reviewing existing management

efforts to determine gaps

< Identifying management opportunities

and constraints

< Screening management options to

determine the most promising types

10. Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Read this chapter if...

• You want to learn about common types of management measures

• You need information on how to focus management efforts in your watershed

• You want help identify possible management practices for your watershed

• You want to identify criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of management

practices
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-2 Draft

Figure 10-1. Process to identify candidate management practices.

10.1 How Do I Link My Management Strategies to My Goals?

Once you have analyzed the watershed conditions, quantified the pollutant loads, and

determined the loading targets needed to meet your goals and objectives, you’ll be

ready to identify potential management measures and management practices to

achieve your goals. You can then screen potential practices to narrow the options

down to those which are the most promising and acceptable (figure 10-1).

Key questions to address in your evaluation of candidate management measures and

practices are

1. Are the site features suitable for incorporating the practice (i.e., is the practice

feasible)?

2. How effective is the practice at achieving management goals and loading targets?

3. How much does it cost (and how do the costs compare between alternatives)?

3. Is it acceptable to stakeholders?

This chapter addresses the first step, identifying potential management measures and

practices that might be feasible for addressing the particular problems in your

watershed. Using screening criteria, you’ll evaluate potential management strategies

(a single management practice or multiple practices used in combination). These

screening criteria are based on factors such as pollutant reduction efficiencies, legal

requirements, and physical constraints. Once you have identified and screened

various management options, chapter 11 will show you how to calculate the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-3

effectiveness of the management practices, compare the costs and benefits, and select

the final management strategies that will be the most effective in achieving the load

reductions needed to meet the goals for your watershed.

 The information presented in chapters 10 and 11 should result in element c of the

nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element c is “A description of the

nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve

load reductions, and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will

be needed to implement this plan.”

10.2 Overview of Types of Management

You can use various approaches to manage your watershed. Management measures

are usually groups of cost-effective management practices (i.e., economically

achievable actions for controlling nonpoint source pollution that are taken to achieve

or aid in the achievement of a management measure) that are implemented to achieve

more comprehensive goals, such as reducing the loads of sediment from a field to

receiving waters. Individual management practices are the building blocks for

management practice systems and management measures. A more familiar term is

best management practice (BMP), but the word “best” can be subjective and highly

site-specific and might lead to the inappropriate use of a practice in some situations.

The “best” practice in one area or situation might be entirely inappropriate in another

area or situation. Therefore, watershed planners might consider using the term

management practice in lieu of BMP.

Management measures can be implemented for various purposes, such as protecting

water resources, aquatic wildlife habitat, and downstream areas from increased

pollution and flood risks. Management measures can also help control the pollutant

loads to receiving water resources by

• Reducing the availability of pollutants (such as reducing fertilizer, manure, and

pesticide applications)

• Reducing the pollutants generated (source reduction such as erosion control)

• Slowing transport or delivery of pollutants by reducing the amount of water

transported or by causing the pollutant to be deposited near the point of origin

• Deposition of the pollutant off-site before it reaches the waterbody

• Remediating or intercepting the pollutant before or after it is delivered to the

water resource through chemical or biological transformation
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-4 Draft

EPA has published guidance documents for the

following categories:

• Acid mine drainage

• Agriculture

• Forestry

• Hydromodification/habitat alteration

• Marinas/boating

• Roads, highways, and bridges

• Urban areas

• Wetland/riparian management 

Management measures can also be used to guide the implementation of your

watershed management program. They establish performance expectations, and in

many cases they specify actions that can be taken to prevent or minimize nonpoint

source pollution or other negative impacts associated with uncontrolled and untreated

runoff. The NRCS National Handbook of Conservation

Practices (www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/nhcp.html)

provides a list of practices applicable to rural and farming areas.

KRefer to EPA’s National Management Measures Guidance

Documents for information about controlling nonpoint source

pollution (www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html). 

There are many types of individual management practices, from

agricultural stream buffer setbacks to urban runoff control

practice retrofits in developed areas to homeowner education

programs for on-site septic system maintenance. Management

practices can be categorized several different ways, such as

source controls vs. treatment controls, structural controls vs.

nonstructural controls, or point source controls vs. nonpoint

source controls. For the purposes of this handbook, management

practices are grouped into structural controls and nonstructural

controls. Structural controls are defined as built facilities that

typically capture runoff; treat it through chemical, physical, or

biological means; and discharge the treated effluent to receiving waters, ground

water, or conveyance systems. Nonstructural practices usually involve changes in

activities or behavior and focus on controlling pollutants at their source. Examples

include developing and implementing erosion and sediment control plans, organizing

public education campaigns, and practicing good housekeeping at commercial and

industrial businesses. Regulatory mechanisms such as ordinances and permits are

discussed separately from structural and nonstructural controls.

10.2.1 Nonpoint Source Management Practices

Structural Practices

Structural practices, such as stormwater basins, streambank fences, and grade and

stabilization structures, may involve construction, installation, and maintenance.

Structural practices can be vegetative, such as soil bioengineering techniques, or

nonvegetative, such as riprap or gabions. Note that practices like streambank

stabilization and riparian habitat restoration involve ecological restoration and an

understanding of biological communities, individual species, natural history, and

species’ ability to repopulate a site. Such practices involve more than simply

installing a structural control. Examples of structural practices for rural and urban

scenarios are listed in table 10-1.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-5

Table 10-1. Examples of Structural and Nonstructural Management Practices a

Structural Practices Nonstructural Practices

Agriculture • Contour buffer strips

• Grassed waterway

• Herbaceous wind barriers

• Mulching

• Live fascines

• Live staking

• Livestock exclusion fence (prevents livestock from

wading into streams)

• Revetments

• Riprap

• Sediment basins

• Terraces

• Waste treatment lagoons

• Brush management

• Conservation coverage

• Conservation tillage

• Educational materials

• Erosion and sediment control plan

• Nutrient management plan

• Pesticide management

• Prescribed grazing

• Residue management

• Requirement for minimum riparian buffer

• Rotational grazing

• Workshops/training for developing nutrient

management plans

Forestry • Broad-based dips

• Culverts

• Establishment of riparian buffer

• Mulch

• Revegetation of firelines with adapted herbaceous

species

• Temporary cover crops

• Windrows

• Education campaign on forestry-related nonpoint

source controls

• Erosion and sediment control plans

• Forest chemical management

• Fire management

• Operation of planting machines along the contour to

avoid ditch formation

• Planning and proper road layout and design

• Preharvest planning

• Training loggers and landowners about forest

management practices, forest ecology, and silviculture

Urban • Bioretention cells

• Breakwaters

• Brush layering

• Infiltration basins

• Green roofs

• Live fascines

• Marsh creation/restoration

• Establishment of riparian buffers

• Riprap

• Stormwater ponds

• Sand filters

• Sediment basins

• Tree revetments

• Vegetated gabions

• Water quality swales

• Planning for disconnection of impervious surfaces

(e.g., eliminating or reducing curb and gutter) 

• Educational materials

• Erosion and sediment control plan

• Fertilizer management

• Ordinances

• Pet waste programs

• Pollution prevention plans

• No-wake zones

• Setbacks

• Workshops on proper installation of structural practices

• Zoning overlay districts

a

 Note that practices listed under one land use category can be applied in other land use settings as well. 

You can choose to use structural practices that are vegetative, nonvegetative, or a

combination, depending on which practice is best suited for the particular site and

objective. For example, if a site is unable to support plant growth (e.g., there are

areas with climate or soils that are not conducive to plant growth, or areas of high

water velocity or significant wave action), a nonvegetative practice can be used to

dampen wave or stream flow energy to protect the vegetative practice.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-6 Draft

Nonstructural Practices

Nonstructural practices prevent or reduce runoff problems in receiving waters by

reducing the generation of pollutants and managing runoff at the source. These

practices can be included in a regulation (e.g., an open space or riparian stream buffer

requirement), or they can involve voluntary pollution prevention practices. They can

also include public education campaigns and outreach activities. Examples of

nonstructural practices are listed in table 10-1. Nonstructural controls can be further

subdivided into land use practices and source control practices. Land use practices

are aimed at reducing impacts on receiving waters that result from runoff from

development by controlling or preventing land use in sensitive areas of the

watershed. Source control practices are aimed at preventing or reducing potential

pollutants at their source before they come into contact with runoff or ground water.

Some source controls are associated with new development, whereas others are

implemented after development occurs. Source controls include pollution prevention

activities that attempt to modify aspects of human behavior, such as educating

citizens about the proper disposal of used motor oil and application of lawn fertilizers

and pesticides only when needed.

10.2.2 Regulatory Approaches to Manage Pollutant Sources

The management practices you select can be implemented on a voluntary basis or

required under a regulatory program. Point sources are most often controlled using

regulatory approaches. It’s important to consider that regulatory approaches work

well only when adequate mechanisms are in place to provide oversight and

enforcement.

Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Sources

• Local stormwater ordinances and permits. Local stormwater ordinances

require development applicants to control stormwater peak flows, total runoff

volume, or pollutant loading. Stormwater ordinances that apply these

requirements to redevelopment projects (not just new development areas) can

help mitigate current impacts from existing development. Developers could be

required to implement stormwater practices such as bioretention cells,

stormwater ponds, or constructed wetlands to meet performance standards for the

development set forth in the ordinance.

• Local development ordinances and permits. Local development and

subdivision ordinances require development applicants to meet certain land use

(e.g., commercial vs. residential), development intensity, and site design

requirements (e.g., impervious surface limits or open space, riparian buffer, or

setback requirements). Again, ordinances that apply these requirements to

redevelopment projects (not just new development areas) can help mitigate

current impacts from existing development. Although it might be difficult to add
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-7

open space to the redevelopment plan of an already-developed area, equivalent

off-site mitigation or payment in lieu might be required. Similarly, a riparian area

might be revegetated and enhanced.

• Federal or state forestland management plans. Corporate, federal, and state

owners of forestlands are often required to develop and implement forest

management plans. These plans usually include management practices for

logging, road construction, replanting, and other activities. A number of states

also have forestry practice regulations that cover logging practices by individuals

or private landowners. Such regulations may have requirements such as

notification of intent to log, development of and compliance with a management

plan that includes the use of management practices, and notification of

termination of activities. Watershed planners can review recent or existing forest

management plans in the watershed, discuss with managers which plans and

practices are working well, and identify areas that could be strengthened.

• Federal or state grazing permits. Federal or state lands that are leased to

individuals often require permits that specify conditions and management

practices that must be adhered to for the term of the permit. These practices and

conditions might include limiting the number of livestock allowed to graze,

establishing off-stream watering or fencing in sensitive watershed areas, and

other water quality protection measures. Again, watershed planners can review

existing permits in the watershed, discuss with managers which practices are

working well, and identify areas that could be improved.

• State Regulatory Authority. Some states, such as California, have the authority

to regulate nonpoint sources. California is beginning to issue “waivers” for

traditional nonpoint sources, such as irrigated agriculture in the Central Valley.

The waivers may require growers to implement management practices and

develop farm plans, notice of which is submitted to the state’s water board

through a Notice of Intent (NOI). Irrigated agriculture facilities may be required

to submit an NOI indicating that management practices have been implemented

before irrigation return flows may be discharged to receiving waters.

Regulatory Approaches for Point Sources

Point sources are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit program. Authorized by section 402 of Clean Water Act,

the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that

discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program covers

discharges from industrial facilities, municipal stormwater conveyances, concentrated

animal feeding operations (CAFOs), construction sites, publicly owned treatment

works (POTWs), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and sanitary sewer overflows

(SSOs). These categories are briefly described below.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-8 Draft

• Wastewater discharges from industrial sources. Wastewater discharges from

industrial facilities might contain pollutants at levels that could affect the quality

of receiving waters. The NPDES permit program establishes specific

requirements for discharges from industrial sources. Depending on the type of

industrial or commercial facility, more than one NPDES program might apply.

For example, runoff from an industrial facility or construction site might require

an NPDES permit under the stormwater program. An industrial facility might

also discharge wastewater to a municipal sewer system and be covered under the

NPDES pretreatment program. If the industrial facility discharges wastewater

directly to a surface water, it will require an individual or general NPDES permit.

Finally, many industrial facilities, whether they discharge directly to a surface

water or to a municipal sewer system, are covered by effluent limitation

guidelines and standards.

• Stormwater discharges. Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from

land and impervious areas like paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops

during rainfall and snow events. Such runoff often contains pollutants in

quantities large enough to adversely affect water quality. Most stormwater

discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) require

authorization to discharge under an NPDES permit as part of the Phase I or Phase

II (depending on the size of the population served) NPDES Stormwater Program.

Operators of MS4s must obtain coverage under an NPDES stormwater permit

and must implement stormwater pollution prevention plans or stormwater

management programs, both of which specify how management practices will be

used to control pollutants in runoff and prevent their discharge to receiving

waters. For example, regulated small MS4s (in general, cities and towns with

populations between 10,000 and 100,000) must include the

following six minimum control measures in their management

programs:

– Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts

– Public involvement/participation

– Illicit discharge detection and elimination

– Construction site runoff control

– Post-construction stormwater management in new development

and redevelopment

– Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal

operations

The NPDES stormwater program also requires operators of construction

sites 1 acre or larger (including smaller sites that are part of a larger

common plan of development) to obtain authorization to discharge

stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-9

Management practices appropriate for controlling stormwater discharges from MS4s,

construction sites, and other areas are discussed in more detail under Nonpoint

Source Management Practices.

• Combined sewer overflows. Combined sewer systems are designed to collect

runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe system. In

1994 EPA issued its Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy

(Kwww.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0111.pdf), which is a national framework for

controlling CSOs through the NPDES permitting program. The first milestone

under the CSO Policy was the January 1, 1997, deadline for implementing

minimum technology-based controls, commonly referred to as the “nine

minimum controls.” These controls are measures that can reduce the frequency of

CSOs and minimize their impacts when they do occur. The controls are not

expected to require significant engineering studies or major construction.

Communities with combined sewer systems are also expected to develop

long-term CSO control plans that will ultimately provide for full compliance with

the Clean Water Act, including attainment of water quality standards.

• Sanitary sewer overflows. Properly designed, operated, and maintained sanitary

sewer systems are meant to collect and transport all sewage inputs to a POTW.

However, occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal

sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These types of discharges are

called sanitary sewer overflows, or SSOs. A few SSOs, such as those occurring

from unpreventable vandalism, some types of blockages, extreme rainstorms, and

acts of nature like earthquakes or floods, might be unavoidable. However, many

SSOs, such as those caused by inadequate or negligent operation or maintenance,

inadequate system capacity, and improper system design and construction, are

avoidable. Examples of management practices that can reduce or eliminate SSOs

include

– Conducting sewer system cleaning and maintenance 

– Reducing infiltration and inflow by rehabilitating systems and repairing

broken or leaking service lines

– Enlarging or upgrading sewer, pump station, or sewage treatment plant

capacity and reliability

– Constructing storage and treatment facilities to treat excess wet weather

flows 

Communities should also address SSOs during sewer system master planning and

facilities planning or when extending the sewer system into unsewered areas.

• Concentrated animal feeding operations. AFOs are agricultural operations in

which animals are kept and raised in a confined setting. Certain AFOs that meet a

minimum threshold for number of animals are defined as concentrated AFOs

(CAFOs). CAFOs require NPDES permits. The permits set waste discharge
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-10 Draft

1. Inventory existing management efforts in the

watershed

2. Quantify the effectiveness of current management

measures

3. Identify new management opportunities

4. Identify critical areas in the watershed where

additional management efforts are needed

5. Identify possible management practices

6. Identify relative pollutant reduction efficiencies

7. Develop screening criteria to identify opportunities

and constraints

8. Rank alternatives and develop candidate

management opportunities

requirements that need to be met by implementing animal waste management

practices such as reducing nutrients in feed; improving storage, handling, and

treatment of waste; and implementing feedlot runoff controls.

• Industrial stormwater permits. The NPDES program has also developed

industrial stormwater general permits that provide facility-specific requirements

for many types of industrial facilities in a single permit. The permits outline steps

that facility operators must take before they can be eligible for permit coverage.

The steps include developing and implementing a stormwater pollution

prevention plan with management practices to control runoff pollution from

outdoor storage areas, spills, and other potentially polluting activities.

Most of the management practices listed in the following section could be required

through regulations or encouraged through training and education programs. Your

watershed management plan may include both regulatory and nonregulatory methods

to get landowners, citizens, and businesses to adopt the practices needed.

10.3 Steps to Select Management Practices

This section describes a process for selecting management

practices that might be feasible to implement in the critical

areas identified in your watershed. The first step in the process

is to inventory what has been or is being accomplished in the

watershed. Future projects and management practices should

augment efforts already under way. This analysis will allow

you to determine where modifications are needed to existing

programs, practices, or ordinances and where new practices

are needed.

The next step involves quantifying the effectiveness of

existing management efforts. This step will allow you to

establish a baseline level of pollutant load reductions that are

already occurring and will help guide the selection of

additional management practices to meet target load

reductions.

The third step entails identifying new opportunities for implementing management

measures. Based on the identification of pollutant sources from chapter 7, you can

locate critical areas where management measures will likely achieve the greatest

pollutant load reductions.

Once opportunities for pollutant load reductions are identified, you can match them

with candidate management practices, alone or in combination, that could effectively

reduce pollutant loads. This step will involve research into management practice
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-11

Remember to incorporate the existing management

efforts into your implementation plan in addition to any

new management measures you identify. Existing

management have often already incorporated complex

site-specific social and economic factors, as well as,

considerable local knowledge of regional environmental

constraints. Understanding why existing management

measures were selected and choosing options for new

ones is important business. This points to the need to

be sure that those entities that will be asked to

implement practices are part of the team developing

your plan.

specifications to help you determine which practices will be most feasible

(considering site constraints), which practices are most acceptable to landowners, and

which have the greatest pollutant removal effectiveness under similar conditions.

After researching candidate management measures and practices, you should have

enough information to analyze each management opportunity using screening criteria

that you develop. The screening criteria are based on various factors, such as your

critical areas, site conditions, and constraints. The criteria will help you sort through

the different attributes of each practice so you can select the practices worthy of more

detailed analysis. Then you can quantify their effectiveness and conduct the

associated cost versus benefit analysis. KYou’ll conduct these more detailed

analyses in chapter 11.

10.3.1 Identify Existing Management Efforts in the Watershed

Before you identify the additional management measures needed to achieve

management objectives, you should identify the programs, management strategies,

and ordinances already being implemented in the watershed. In some cases, the

existing management practices themselves might be adequate

to meet water quality goals, but they might not be maintained

correctly or there might not be enough of them in place.

Perhaps, for example, Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) conservation practices on farmland are

effective for the farms using them, but not enough farmers

have adopted the practices to meet the goals in the watershed.

In other cases, you might want to modify an existing practice,

for example, by increasing stream setback requirements from

25 feet to 100 feet. When identifying the existing programs

and management efforts, be sure to record the responsible

party, such as an agency or landowner, and the pollutants the

efforts address.

Communities in the Mill Creek watershed in Michigan first evaluated existing local

regulations and programs to help identify ways to strengthen local policies to help

meet multiple watershed objectives. These programs and policies are described in

table 10-2. Appendix A includes references of example watershed plans.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-12 Draft

Table 10-2. Existing Programs and Policies Identified in the Mill Creek Subwatershed Communities

Stakeholder Existing Program or Policy Pollutant

Addressed

USDA, Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service

Wetland restoration (Wetlands Reserve Program) Hydrologic flow

Controlling erosion/soil information Sediment

Streambank stabilization expertise Sediment

Riparian revegetation (Conservation Reserve Program)

Forested revegetation/filter strips

Agricultural waste management (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) Nutrients

Soil testing

Cross wind strips Wind erosion

Washtenaw

County Road

Commission

Leave buffers when grading gravel roads Sediment

Assess and manage erosion at stream crossings

Follow soil erosion and sediment control practices

Village of Chelsea Soil erosion and sediment controls and stormwater retention requirements on new

developments

Sediment

Stormwater calculations must account for roads in new development in addition to the

other development

Hydrologic flow

Large detention on wastewater treatment plant site

Stormwater collectors, proprietary treatment devices

Oil and grease separators installed; add outlet devices to existing development Sediment, oil and

grease

Daimler Chrysler

Chelsea Proving

Grounds

Leave buffers (of minimal width) along creek Nutrients

Switching products to no- or low-phosphorus alternatives

Ongoing monitoring of phosphorus levels in Letts Creek for NPDES permit

Pursuing alternative treatment chemical to reduce phosphorus

Soil erosion and sediment control permits and practices Sediment

Oil-grease separators installed Oil and grease

Devices in manholes checked monthly

Washtenaw

County Drain

Commissioner’s

Office

Planning incentives or requirements for infiltration Hydrologic flow

Require first flush and wet ponds

Implementation of Phase II NPDES stormwater permits All

Work to balance drain maintenance and channel protection

Drains are being entered into a GIS for enhanced use

Community Partners for Clean Streams program encourages business and community

partners to improve operations to protect streams

Stormwater BMP Demonstration Park nearly complete

Scio Township Adopted Drain Office standards Hydrologic flow

Follows county Soil Erosion and Sediment Control rules Sediment

Sylvan Township Part of regional plan to limit sprawl All

Lake communities connecting to sanitary sewer Nutrients
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-13

O

Wastewater Discharges

• Where are the wastewater discharges located in the

watershed? If possible, map the locations.

• What volume of wastewater is being discharged?

• What are the parameters of concern in the effluent?

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

• Where are concentrations of on-site systems located? If

possible, map the locations.

• Are there known concentrations of failing on-site systems? If

so, where?

Urban Stormwater Runoff

• Are cities and counties in the watershed covered by an

NPDES stormwater permit? If so, what are the conditions of

the permit?

• Do local governments in the watershed have stormwater

ordinances? If so, what are the requirements?

Agricultural and Forestry Practices

• Are there areas with active farming or logging in the

watershed? If so, map them if possible.

• Are management plans in place where these activities are

occurring?

• What percentage of the area uses management practices for

controlling sediment and other pollutants? Are these

practices effective? If not, why? Are monitoring data

available?

Wetlands and Critical Habitat Protection

• Have wetlands been identified and evaluated for the habitat

value, water quality benefits, and flood control contributions?

• To what extent do natural buffers and floodplains remain in

the watershed?

Worksheet 10-1 below is an excerpt of a Oworksheet

that can be used to begin identifying and evaluating

existing efforts. KA blank worksheet 10-1 is provided

in appendix B.

10.3.2 Quantify Effectiveness of Current

Management Measures

After you’ve identified existing management efforts in

the watershed, you’ll determine the effectiveness of the

measures in terms of achieving desired load reductions

or meeting other management goals and objectives. The

difference between the levels of pollutant load

reductions achieved by existing practices and the

targeted reductions you identified in chapter 9 will help

determine the additional practices needed.

Quantifying the effectiveness of existing programs and

measures can be a challenging task. First, take a look at

whether the source quantification analyses performed

earlier (chapter 8) reflect existing programs adequately

so that you can determine the gap. For example, if you

don’t expect the programs to achieve more than what

was represented in earlier modeling analyses and a gap

exists between the current level of loading and the

target, additional measures will need to be added to fill

that gap. In addition, if the existing management

measures are not aimed at controlling the stressors of

greatest concern, a gap is clearly evident and new

management measures are needed. On the other hand,

if the existing programs are evolving and greater

participation or improved performance is expected with

respect to the parameters of concern, you can estimate

how much that gap will be further reduced by programs

already in place. Additional measures would be needed

only to the extent that a gap is expected to remain.

If the modeling tools previously applied to conduct the loading analysis can’t be used

to predict the future performance of existing management programs, you can

approximate the additional reductions expected based on best professional judgment

or you can develop additional modeling tools to estimate effectiveness. KChapter 11

discusses methods for evaluating the effectiveness of new management measures,

from the relatively simple to the complex; some of the methods could be used to

evaluate existing measures as well.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-14 Draft

NRCS published National Catalog of Erosion and

Sediment Control and Storm Water Management

Guidelines for Community Assistance (K

www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/Natl-Catalog-Erosionand-Sed-Guidelines.pdf. This document contains a

comprehensive list of urban and development

management practices from every state, as well as

representative standards and specifications for each

type of management practice.

10.3.3 Identify New Management Opportunities

Now that you’ve identified the existing management efforts in the watershed and

their relative effectiveness in reducing pollutant loads, you can begin to identify

potential new management measures that could be used to achieve the additional load

reductions required. At this stage you’ll conduct a preliminary screening of these

management measures to determine their potential usefulness. KOnce this screening

is complete, you’ll conduct more rigorous evaluations in chapter 11.

This section provides a process for screening management

opportunities and identifying good candidate options, which

will be subjected to a more detailed evaluation. The process

includes

• Identifying critical areas where additional management is

needed

• Identifying candidate management practices

• Identifying relative pollutant loading reductions

• Identifying opportunities and constraints for each

management measure

• Documenting good candidate opportunities

10.3.4 Identify Critical Areas in the Watershed Where Additional

Management Efforts Are Needed

In general, management practices are implemented immediately adjacent to the

waterbody or upland to address the sources of pollutant loads. Streamside practices

include streambank protection and riparian habitat enhancement to address the

channel, floodplain, and riparian corridor of the waterbody. Upland management

practices are typically divided into practices for agricultural lands, forestry, and urban

developed lands.

As part of your screening process you’ll want to identify which management

practices can be implemented in the critical areas that you have identified. Using the

location of the pollutant sources you identified in chapter 7, you’ll start to identify

possible opportunities for installing additional management practices.

You can use a geographic information system (GIS) or hand-drafted maps to conduct

an analysis of management opportunities. A simple mapping analysis for a rural

residential and farming area that has nutrient problems might include the following

geographic information: location of section 303(d)-listed waterbodies, existing

agricultural areas (using a GIS coverage of existing land use or land cover data that

indicates grazing vs. cropland if possible), areas where existing management

practices are being employed (if any), and the degree of riparian buffer disturbance.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-15

Figure 10-2. Percentage of buffer area disturbed and impaired waters in the

Troublesome Creek watersheds.

Most often, these maps can be generated using the land use/land cover databases and

watershed tools from the scoping and watershed analysis.

Figure 10-2 shows a map that was generated to help identify the critical areas where

management practices were needed in the rural Troublesome Creek watershed. The

map shows the impaired waters, along with the percentage of buffer area disturbed in

the Troublesome Creek

subwatersheds. The

subwatersheds that have

buffers more than 15 percent

disturbed indicate the

potential for riparian area

restoration efforts to limit

sediment loading. Maps for

an urban or suburban area

might include waters on the

section 303(d) list with an

overlay of subwatersheds that

have impervious area greater

than 10 percent and greater

than 25 percent, indicating

the medium and high

potential for stream

degradation, degree of

riparian buffer disturbance,

and industrial sites.

10.3.5 Identify Possible Management Practices

Dozens of resources are available to help provide a sound basis for your research and

preliminary screening of management practices. 7The resources you select should

depend on the pollutant sources and causes in your watershed and the land use

characteristics (chapter 7). For example, some resources focus on practices to control

urban stormwater runoff, some focus on agricultural practices to manage farm runoff,

and some concentrate on forestry practices to control impacts from logging. These

resources provide information on the practice, such as description, cost, and planning

considerations. Although data on management practice effectiveness and programrelated load reductions can be very limited, the resources provide insight on relative

performance. For example, NRCS’s (2005) National Conservation Practice

Standards allows you to identify the level of technical expertise necessary to

successfully design, install, and maintain specific activities: passive management,

active management, mild engineering, moderate engineering, and intensive

engineering. KAppendix A provides several resources that can be used to begin

identifying possible management practices.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-16 Draft

O

Sources:

(e.g., streambanks, urban stormwater, failing septic

systems, livestock in stream)

Causes:

(e.g., eroding streambanks, unlimited access of livestock,

undersized culverts)

Name of management measure or program 

(NRCS code if applicable)

Data source (i.e., where you obtained your information on

the management measure)

Description (what it is and what it does)

Approximate unit cost (including installation and operation

and maintenance costs; may be expressed as a range)

Approximate or relative load reduction for each parameter

of concern (could be high, moderate, low, or unit

reduction per acre per year)

Planning considerations (e.g., project factors such as site

size and contributing watershed area; physical factors

such as slope, depth of water table, and soil type

limitations or considerations; operation and maintenance

requirements)

Skill needed to implement the management measures

(e.g., engineering, landscape design, construction)

Permitting considerations

Other (e.g., stakeholders’ willingness to use the measure)

As you conduct your research, it’s helpful to develop a

1- or 2-page summary of each promising management

option. (These can be included in an appendix to your

management plan.) Each summary should eventually

include, at minimum, the information listed in

worksheet 10-2. As you move through the screening

process you’ll add information to the Oworksheet, such

as the pollutant reduction effectiveness, planning

considerations, legal requirements, and opportunities

and constraints. KFull-size, blank worksheets are

provided in appendix B.

The National Conservation Practice Standards provides

a 1-page summary for each of 50 management practices.

Drawing from this manual, table 10-3 lists some

commonly used practices for reducing sediment, total

dissolved solids (TDS), and salinity, along with the

pollution sources they address and the expected level of

load reduction. The load reduction potential

qualitatively describes the potential reduction of loading

achieved by implementing the practice. The actual load

reduction depends on the extent of the practice, existing

loading levels, and local features like soils and

hydrology.

This handbook and others like it can provide a good

basis for screening, with some adaptation to local

circumstances. For example, because National

Conservation Practice Standards was developed in the

West, if you’re developing a plan for an eastern

watershed, you might need to consult your local NRCS office or local engineering

department staff regarding the potential load reductions and cost of selected practices

in your area. 

Although dozens of management practices can be implemented, you should identify

those practices that will have the greatest likelihood of achieving your watershed

goals. You should relate the management practices back to the sources of pollutants

in the watershed, the types of impairments found, and the amount of load reduction

needed. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-17

Table 10-3. Commonly Used Management Practices for Salinity, Sediment, and Total

Dissolved Solids

Pollution Sources (T = Management practice applies)

Management Practice 

Load

Reduction

(H, M, or L) AFO AgPractices

Industry

Runoff

Urban

Runoff

Disturbed

Areas

Stream

Erosion

T T Construction site mgt L

T TT Grazing mgt M

T T Nutrient mgt M

T T Cover crop H

TT T T Fencing H

TT T T Filter strip H

T T Mulching L

T TT T T Riparian buffer M

T TT Seeding M

T T Tree planting L

T Brush layer H

TT T Brush trench H

TT T T Erosion control fabric H

TT T T Silt fence M

T T Straw bale barrier M

T T Watering facility M

TT TT T Constructed wetland M

TT T T Detention basin M

TT T Road stabilization L–M

TT TT Grade stabilization H

T Willow fascines H

T TT Water quality pond M

T TT Rock riprap H

T TT Stream channel

stabilization

H

T T Brush mattress M

T TT Pole/post plantings M

T T Residue mgt M

T T Rock vane H

T T Rock weir H

T TT T Sloped drain M

TT T T Terrace H

T Pest mgt H
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-18 Draft

There are several sources of management practice

information. Select appropriate sources on the basis of the

pollutant type and land use characteristics. The following are

examples:

Urban Sources

International Stormwater Best Management Practice Database

at www.bmpdatabase.org provides access to performance data

for more than 200 management practice studies. 

Agricultural Sources

NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/Standards/nhcp.html

All Sources

EPA has developed several guidance documents broken out

by type of management measure. Draft and final manuals are

available for agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and

recreational boating, hydromodification, and wetlands. These

manuals can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owow/nps. 

Note: In addition to the resources mentioned above, many

states have published BMP handbooks or guidance documents

for in-state use. For example, the California Stormwater Quality

Task Force published the California Stormwater Best

Management Practice Handbooks to provide information on

current practices, standards, and knowledge gained about the

effectiveness of management practices. These documents can

be downloaded from www.cabmphandbooks.com.

The management practices selected should be targeted to the sources of a particular

stressor. For example, full-scale channel restoration can be pursued along reaches

where channel incision and streambank failure result from historical channelization,

whereas exclusion fencing of cattle might be more appropriate when the sediment

source is streambank trampling along cobble bed reaches. In cases where instream

habitat is degraded, the components of the habitat that are most impacted can be used

to guide management actions. Slightly degraded habitat due to limited microhabitat

(e.g., leaf packs, sticks, undercut banks), poor cover

(e.g., logs and overhanging vegetation), and a thin

canopy could be improved through revegetation of the

riparian area; habitat degraded by poorly defined and

embedded riffles, pools filled with sediment, and

unstable streambanks might better be addressed

through natural channel design. In the case of

excessive nutrients from upland areas, passive actions

such as designating conservation easements and

limiting development might be the most prudent

action.

It’s important to look at how the management practice

being considered addresses the stressor of concern

because that factor can considerably affect

performance. Thus, in cases where sediment is

identified as a stressor, stabilizing streambanks and

limiting incision will be of little value if poor erosion

and sediment control practices in a developing

watershed are the overwhelming source of sediment

contributed to the reach.

When you’re screening management practices, it will

usually be more effective to select two or more

practices than to choose a single practice to achieve

the needed load reductions. When you combine

multiple practices, they’re called management

practice systems or treatment trains. Multiple

practices are usually more effective in controlling a

pollutant because they can be used at two or more

points in the pollutant delivery process. For example,

the objective of many agricultural nonpoint source pollution projects is to reduce the

delivery of soil from cropland to waterbodies. A system of multiple practices can be

designed to reduce soil detachment (e.g., soil additives to make soils less erodible),

erosion potential (e.g., turf reinforcement mats), and off-site transport of eroded soil

(e.g., vegetated buffer strips).
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-19

When reviewing multiple practices, consider spatial and temporal factors. For

example, if you’re trying to reduce impacts from an agricultural area, you should

review management practices that might address upland agricultural activities as well

as management practices that might address stream erosion (if both impacts exist).

Complementary practices also have a time dimension. For example, streambank

erosion is often caused by a reduction of woody vegetation along the stream due to

intensive cattle grazing. Before the streambank can be successfully revegetated, the

grazing issue should be addressed through fencing or other controls that protect the

riparian zone from grazing and trampling. You should also screen for management

practices that do not conflict with each other or with other management objectives in

the watershed.

10.3.6 Identify Relative Pollutant Reduction Efficiencies

Once you’ve selected potential management practices based on the pollutant type

addressed, you should identify the relative effectiveness of each practice in reducing

pollutant loading. At the screening stage, this means using or developing simple

scales indicating high, medium, or low reduction potential (see table 10-3). KThe

actual load reduction will depend on the extent of the practice and the existing

loading levels, which will be addressed in more detail in chapter 11.

Many of the references mentioned previously also identify the relative load reduction

potential of various practices. For example, KThe BMP Implementation Appendix

includes information on more than 85 practices. It includes a description of the

practice, purpose, pollutant sources treated, pollutants addressed, load reduction

potential, and estimated time for load reduction.

Keep in mind that in addition to reducing pollutant loads, you might also want to

evaluate management practices to reduce hydrologic impacts like high peak flows

and volume through infiltration or interception. The ability of management practices

to address these hydrologic impacts should be documented using a scale of high,

medium, or low potential for peak flow or volume reduction.

Table 10-4 shows how a community can screen management practices for their

relative performance in addressing pollutant loading and hydrologic issues. The table

also shows the multiple and complementary benefits of the management practices.
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-20 Draft

Table 10-4. Example Management Practice Screening Matrix

Structural Management Practice

Hydrologic Factor Pollutant Factor

InterceptionInfiltrationEvaporationReduced PeakFlowTotal SuspendedSolidsNutrientsFecal ColiformBacteriaMetalsTemperature

Bioretention  TM TM TM 

Conventional dry detention  TM   TM TM

Extended dry detention  TM  TM TM  TM 

Grass swale TM TM   TM  TM

Green roof  TM 

Infiltration trench  TM  

Parking lot underground storage TM TM   TM 

Permeable pavement TM TM TM TM TMTMTM

Sand filter    TM 

Stormwater wetland  TM   TM

Vegetated filter strip with level

spreader TM TM TM TMTM TM

Water quality swale TM TM TM TM 

Wet pond   

 Poor, Low, or No Influence

TM Moderate

 Good, High

10.3.7 Develop Screening Criteria to Identify Opportunities and

Constraints

Once you’ve identified general areas in the watershed that might benefit from

management practices that will address the sources of pollutants, you can apply

additional screening to further hone in on feasible sites, for which you will conduct

your more detailed evaluation and final selection (chapter 11).

Which screening criteria you select will depend on where the practice is to be

implemented and the nature of the practice. At this stage you can use the following

screening criteria to help identify candidate management measures:

• Location of management practice within the critical area. Check to see if the

candidate management practice will help achieve the load reductions that were

identified in one of the critical areas of the watershed.

• Estimated load reductions. Using the information you collected in section

10.3.5, record whether the anticipated load reduction is low, medium, or high.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-21

• Legal and regulatory requirements. Identify legal or regulatory requirements

for projects, and determine whether any pose significant constraints. For

example, if the restoration project involves working in the stream channel, a

section 404 dredge and fill permit might be required. You should also check for

the presence of wetlands because disturbance of wetland resources might be

prohibited. Also, if the project is adjacent to a stream, make sure local stream

buffer ordinances do not prohibit disturbance of the buffer for restoration

purposes. Are there other resource conservation constraints (e.g., endangered

species)? Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain

regulations also might affect the project. If the project is adjacent to a stream,

make sure local stream buffer ordinances allow management practices within the

buffer. 

• Property ownership. Determine the number of property owners that need to

agree to the restoration project. It’s often easier to obtain easements on lands in

public ownership.

• Site access. Consider whether you will be able to physically access the site, and

identify a contact to obtain permission if private property must be traversed to

access the site. Consider whether maintenance equipment (e.g., front-end loaders,

vacuum trucks) will be able to reach the site safely. Design and costs might be

affected if a structural control requires hand-cleaning because of maintenance

access constraints. 

• Added benefits. In addition to management practices fulfilling their intended

purpose, they can provide secondary benefits by controlling other pollutants,

depending on how the pollutants are generated or transported. For example,

practices that reduce erosion and sediment delivery often reduce phosphorus

losses because phosphorus is strongly adsorbed to silt and clay particles.

Therefore, a practice like conservation tillage not only reduces erosion but also

reduces transport of particulate phosphorus. In some cases, a management

practice might provide environmental benefits beyond those linked to water

quality. For example, riparian buffers, which reduce phosphorus and sediment

delivery to waterbodies, also serve as habitat for many species of birds and

plants.

• Unintended impacts. In some cases management practices used to control one

pollutant might inadvertently increase the generation, transport, or delivery of

another pollutant. Conservation tillage, because it creates increased soil porosity

(large pore spaces), can increase nitrate leaching through the soil, particularly

when the amount and timing of nitrogen application are not part of the

management plan.

• Physical factors. Many physical factors will determine whether you’ll be able to

install management practices. Look for constraints like steep slopes, wetlands,
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-22 Draft

A list of currently available cost references is given below. Most of

these references are available for free download, but some might

be available only at a university library or by purchase. You should

look for local costs before using these references because

construction costs and designs vary between states. KA more

detailed list of resources on costing information is included in

appendix A. 

EPA Management Practice Fact Sheets

This comprehensive list of BMP fact sheets contains information

on construction and maintenance costs, as well as other monetary

considerations. Information is provided on both structural and nonstructural management practices.KGo to

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm.

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source

Pollution from Agriculture

This EPA document provides cost information on a number of

management options for agricultural land. KGo to

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Some state NRCS offices publish cost information on agricultural

practices. Some cost data are published to support the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). For an

example of this cost information, Kgo to the “cost lists” section of

the following Web site:

www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/2005Signup.html.

Center for Watershed Protection

The Center for Watershed Protection has published numerous

support documents for watershed and management practice

planning. The Web site has documents available for free download

and purchase. KGo to www.cwp.org.

high water tables, and poorly drained areas.

Also look for opportunities such as open space,

existing management practices that can be

upgraded, outfalls where management practices

could be added, and well-drained areas. For

example, a site proposed for a stormwater

wetland that has steeply sloping topography

might not be feasible for a wetland.

• Infrastructure. Look for sites that don’t have

utilities, road crossings, buried cables,

pipelines, parking areas, or other significant

physical constraints that could preclude

installation or cause safety hazards. 

• Costs. The appropriateness of a management

practice for a particular site can be affected by

economic feasibility considerations, which

encompass short- and long-term costs. Shortterm costs include installation costs, while

long-term costs include the cost of continued

operation and maintenance. Most of the

guidance manuals referenced earlier in the

chapter also provide cost information for each

of the management practices discussed. KIn

section 11.5 you’ll consider more detailed cost

elements associated with the management

practices, such as construction, design and

engineering, and operation and maintenance

costs, as well as adjustment for inflation.

• Social acceptance. Consider how nearby

landowners will perceive the management

practice. Will it cause nuisances such as

localized ponding of water, unsightly weed growth, or vector control problems?

Can these issues be addressed in the siting and design of the practice? How can

you involve nearby residents in selecting and designing the practice to address

their concerns?

The optimal method for evaluating site feasibility for riparian and upland

management practices is a site visit, preferably with staff from permitting or

extension agencies. Actual constraints and opportunities can be identified, and input

from the agencies can be incorporated to expedite the permitting process. When a site

visit is not practical, however, many physical constraints can be evaluated remotely

using a GIS. When the GIS approach is used, it’s important to recognize that the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Draft 10-23

input data might not be entirely accurate (e.g., land cover data from 1999 might have

changed by now).

10.3.8 Rank Alternatives and Develop Candidate Management

Opportunities

Now that you’ve identified various management practices that you could install in the

watershed to achieve your goals and objectives, you should screen them to document

the candidate management opportunities. 7At this stage, you’re working with the

stakeholders to identify which management options should go through a more

rigorous evaluation to determine the actual pollutant reduction that can be achieved

through combined management measures, as well as the costs and feasibility of the

measures.

Using the worksheets from your research, develop a summary chart and map, along

with a ranking of alternatives, to present and discuss with the stakeholders.

Summarize and weigh such factors as

• Relative load reduction expected

• Added benefits

• Costs

• Public acceptance

• Ease of construction and maintenance 

When developing your summary worksheets, it's helpful to group similar types of

practices. Once you have collected all of the information on the various practices,

you can rate practices according to the screening criteria you’ve selected (table 10-5).

You can create a basic rating system from 1 to 4, with 1 the lowest rating and 4 the

highest. For example, pollutant removal effectiveness values may receive higher

rating for higher removal of pollutants. Cost values receive higher values for lower

costs. Maintenance values receive higher ratings for lower required maintenance.

Public acceptance values receive higher ratings for practices the public is more likely

to approve. Practices with added benefits receive higher ratings, and so forth. 

Table 10-5. Example Ranking Table to Identify Candidate Management Practices

Management

Practice

Pollutant

Reduction

Effectiveness

Cost Added

Benefits

Public

Acceptance Maintenance Total

Gradient

terraces

2 3 1 2 4 2.4

Grassed swales 3 4 3 4 4 3.2

Wet extended

detention ponds

2 3 2 3 3 2.6

Model

ordinances

4 3 2 4 4 3.4
Chapter 10

Identify Possible

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

10-24 Draft

Before you rate each practice, you might want to develop some assumptions like the

following:

• The management practices will be installed and maintained properly.

• Although public involvement activities will not directly reduce pollutant loads,

they will contribute to an increase in awareness that might lead to people’s

adopting pollutant-reducing behaviors.

• The management practice is rated for reducing a specific pollutant of concern,

not a suite of pollutants.

When you have rated all the practices, average the values in each row to get the total

score. The total score will give you a general idea of which management practices

might be good candidates for implementation. Next, present the summaries to your

stakeholders and ask them to review the information and agree or disagree. If they

disagree with the ratings, review the criteria used, provide them with more

information, or change the rating based on their input. Once you’ve narrowed down

the candidate practices, you’re ready to move on to chapter 11 and conduct more

detailed analyses.

When developing good candidate options for watersheds with multiple sources, make

sure you’ve identified management options for each source and that the options are

complementary. Finally, map out upstream-to-downstream management options,

making sure that you begin work on the upstream projects first. KChapter 11

provides more detail on evaluating multiple projects within a watershed or

subwatershed.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-1

11. Evaluate Options and

Select Final Management

Strategies

Read this chapter if...

• You want to evaluate your potential management strategies to select the final

strategy for your watershed plan

• You want to learn about approaches to quantify the effectiveness of management

practices

• You want to understand the capabilities of available models for evaluating

management practices

• You need examples of applications for quantifying the effectiveness of

management practices

• You need to identify criteria for ranking and selecting your final management

strategy

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Approaches used to evaluate

performance of management

practices

< Estimating management

performance and comparing to

objectives

< Cost considerations

< Evaluating options

< Selecting final strategies
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-2 Draft

Figure 11-1. Evaluate candidate management practices to select 

final strategies.

11.1 How Do I Select the Final Management Strategy?

In chapter 10 you conducted an initial screening to determine the feasibility of using

various management practices in your implementation program. The screening was

based on factors like the critical areas in the watershed, estimated pollutant removal

efficiencies, costs, and physical constraints. In this chapter you’ll take those

candidate options and refine the screening process to quantitatively evaluate their

ability to meet your management objectives in terms of pollutant removal, costs, and

public acceptance (figure 11-1). 

You’ll work with your stakeholders to consider various strategies that use a

combination of management practices, to rank and evaluate the strategies, and finally

to select the preferred strategies to be included in your watershed plan.

This chapter presents various techniques to help you to quantify the potential of the

management actions to meet the watershed objectives, thereby providing the

information you’ll need to make final selections. There are five major steps to

selecting your final management strategies:

1. Identify factors that will influence selection of the preferred management

strategies

2. Select the suitable approach to evaluate the ability of the management techniques

to meet the watershed objectives

3. Quantify the expected load reductions from existing conditions resulting from the

management strategies

4. Identify capital and O&M costs and compare initial and long term benefits

5. Select the final preferred strategies

Before you can conduct detailed analyses

on the management strategies, you should

first identify the factors that will influence

which approach you’ll use and then select

the actual approach or method you’ll use to

evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed

management practices in meeting your

objectives. The factors that will influence

the selection of your approach are

discussed below, followed by a discussion

of various approaches.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-3

While you’re setting up your evaluation of management

practices, you might find it helpful to develop metrics or

measures that can be combined readily with your cost

evaluation to facilitate the cost-effectiveness analysis

(discussed further in section 11.5). For instance,

pounds per acre per year of pollutant removal can be

combined easily with dollars per acre of cost to

produce dollars per pound removed.

11.2 Factors that Influence the Selection of Approaches Used to

Quantify Effectiveness

You should consider several factors before you select an

approach to evaluate your candidate management strategies.

These include identifying the general and specific types and

locations of management practices that will be used, what

indicators you’ll use to evaluate their performance, and the

appropriate scale and detail of the analysis to assess the

cumulative benefit of multiple practices.

11.2.1 General Types of Management Practices

Which approaches you choose to evaluate the performance of the management

practices depends in part on the location of the sources being managed and the types

of management practices used. A source in an upland area (e.g., cropland erosion) is

different from a source in a stream (e.g., streambank erosion). To evaluate upland

loading management, you could use a tool that estimates sediment loading (on an

area basis) from land uses in your watershed and could calculate a load reduction

from changes in land use management practices. For streambank erosion, you might

need to evaluate the effectiveness of stream restoration measures in terms of

reduction in tons of sediment per linear foot of stream.

When selecting the approaches used to assess

management, consider the general

characteristics of the management practices.

One way to group the various practices is to

consider how they are applied. Are the practices

applied across a land area, along a stream

corridor, or at a specific location? Some types of

management practices, such as tillage and

fertilizer management techniques, are applied

over large land areas. These land area-based

practices are measured by the area affected and

often include large regions of the watershed.

Practices applied along a stream corridor are

linear practices that stretch across long areas,

such as riparian or stream buffer zones. By

instituting a stream buffer zone, some water

from uphill areas can be filtered; the vegetation

might also provide additional shade and

improved habitat. Practices installed at a point

or specific location provide treatment for runoff

from a specific drainage area. Point practices

include detention ponds, bioretention areas, and
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-4 Draft

many other practices that collect and treat runoff through settling or infiltration of

water and pollutants. These types of practices require slightly different assessment

techniques and have different data collection needs for evaluating their pollutant

removal benefits.

11.2.2 Identify the Types of Indicators You’re Using to Measure

Performance

In chapter 9 you developed indicators to help measure progress toward meeting your

watershed goals and management objectives. Your indicators and associated targets

might be based on pollutant loads, hydrologic factors, concentration values, or habitat

measures. The type and expression of your indicators will affect the types of analyses

you can use to assess your management practices and strategies.

If your indicator is a pollutant load, performance measures for practices are easy to

find. For concentration- or value-based indicators, you should take greater care to

ensure that the information you find is applicable to your situation. Assume, for

example, that your watershed has been listed as impaired because of frequent

exceedances of fecal coliform counts during storm events. When locating data about

management practice performance, you should make sure that the information you

find applies to storm event performance, not to base flow performance.

If you have more than one indicator to address, note how each management practice

performs for all of your indicators. Practices that benefit multiple indicators might

have greater overall benefit as part of a watershed-wide management strategy. 

11.2.3 Consider the Scale of Your Watershed

Understanding how to develop your management strategy will depend in large part

on how big and complicated the watershed is and how expensive the management

will be. When looking at how to evaluate a management plan, scale is a major

concern. A management strategy for a small urban watershed (e.g., approximately

1,000 acres) might include hundreds or even thousands of individual actions such as

changes in fertilizer applications, increased street sweeping, retrofit of existing

detention ponds, or restoration of shoreline areas. In large watersheds, both urban and

rural, the effect of multiple actions is often generalized to get an estimate of the

overall impact. For a smaller-scale watershed, you might conduct a more detailed

analysis of the benefit of specific management practices or restoration activities.

These studies might include examining what will happen if practices are installed or

adopted in defined locations within the watershed. Practices can also be evaluated at

the smallest scale, such as an individual development or lot. At that level, however,

analyses typically focus on meeting regulatory requirements or design requirements

of a funding program. Individual practices provide a cumulative benefit when

considered as part of a larger program of implementation, but their individual benefit

might be more difficult to discern. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-5

How to bridge the various scales is an ongoing issue in watershed planning. Tools are

needed to evaluate the cumulative benefit of management strategies to select the best

alternatives, evaluate the most cost-effective solutions, and ultimately be assured that

restoration will be successful. But it’s not always appropriate or necessary to use

models or perform detailed analyses of each management practice. In subsequent

sections the capabilities of available models to assess the benefits of management

practice installation are discussed. In applying models to management analysis, keep

in mind that sometimes simplifying or generalizing the impacts of management

practices is appropriate. Sometimes very detailed simulation or testing of land use

practices and small-scale practices can be performed and the results extrapolated to a

larger scale. Such studies can be described as “nested” modeling studies. For

example, a detailed evaluation of fertilizer and tillage practices can be performed at

the field scale using modeling or monitoring. The results from the study can be used

to evaluate the implications of using similar practices on similar fields in the region.

Similar approaches can be used to examine the implications of urban development

and redevelopment practices.

In larger watersheds there are also additional considerations in aggregating results to

the entire watershed and accounting for physical and chemical processes that occur

on a large scale (e.g., instream nutrient uptake, the timing and duration of storm event

peak flow at the mouth of the watershed). If the upstream conditions of your

watershed significantly influence the downstream portions, it might be necessary to

use models to evaluate the link between upstream and downstream indicators. 

11.2.4 Consider the Synergistic Effects of Multiple Practices

The combined effects of all management practices implemented in a watershed

should be considered to determine whether water quality goals will be achieved. In

watersheds with easily characterized problems (e.g., where bacterial contamination is

due to a few obviously polluting animal operations in a watershed that has no other

identifiable sources of pathogens), it might be very easy to project that water quality

benefits will be achieved by implementing, for example, management practices for

nutrient management, erosion and sediment control, and facility wastewater and

runoff. However, in a watershed with multiple land uses where agriculture is

considered to contribute only a portion of the pollutants, it is more difficult to

estimate the combined impacts of various management practices on a fairly large

number of diverse farming operations. Further complicating the assessment is the

possibility that historical loading of pollutants has caused the water quality

impairment and several years might be required for the water resource to fully

recover.

If you need to evaluate the interaction of multiple management practices

simultaneously, you’ll want to evaluate the degree to which they complement or

conflict with one another. Their combined effect could be different from their

individual influence. The cumulative effect of management practices spread
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-6 Draft

throughout a large watershed might need to be assessed with complex tools.

Sometimes multiple management activities at the site scale are evaluated

simultaneously within a single watershed. Most commonly, individual sites are

evaluated in a watershed framework to investigate the downstream effects. An

example of a downstream effect is the magnitude of peak flows at the junction of the

main stem and the tributary on which the management practice is located. Though

unlikely, it is possible that the reduced peak outflow hydrograph from a proposed

stormwater management practice could exacerbate the peak flow in the main stem

channel because of differences in timing. The only way that this unintended, and

likely undesirable, downstream effect could be discovered is through a watershedscale evaluation. On the other hand, it is possible that multiple management practices

could work in concert to cumulatively reduce peak flows more than the sum of their

individual contributions. 

The next section discusses various approaches for quantifying effectiveness of

management practices, including the role of modeling and the types of models

available.

11.3 Select an Approach to Quantify the Effectiveness of the

Management Strategies

You can use various approaches to evaluate the performance of management

practices and strategies. Choosing the one that is right for you will depend on several

factors, including the objectives and targets you need to achieve, the types of sources

and management practices, the scale of the analysis, and the cost of implementation.

Some of the technical considerations associated with modeling are the types of

models that were used for loading analysis, the availability of data or resources to

collect management practice information, and the availability of the appropriate

modeling techniques. A wide variety of

approaches can be used to evaluate

management strategies. At one end, you can

use published literature values and a simple

spreadsheet-based tool that calculates loads

delivered to and removed by management

practices. At the other end, you can use a

detailed watershed model that requires

substantial amounts of input on each

management technique. Sometimes a

combination of approaches are used to address

various indicators and management practices

that might need to be addressed. Very simple

approaches can be appropriate for planning

and alternatives analysis and can provide

relative comparisons of various management
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-7

• What is the time frame for your analysis? Determine

whether the management practice performance is

compared to indicators on an annual, seasonal, or

storm basis. Determine if you have to perform

calculations on a daily, or even hourly, basis.

• Is your analysis continuous through time, or can you

evaluate discrete events? For instance, you might

need to look at only large storm events, not a

continuous hydrologic record.

• Are you calculating loads, concentrations, flow, or

some other measure? Make sure that your approach

reflects the units of measure of your indicator(s).

• Do you need to account for variation in

environmental conditions in your analysis, such as

weather, wet versus dry years, and so forth?

strategies. The common limitations of simplified techniques

include the lack of sensitivity to precipitation, seasonal

patterns, and storm events. 

11.3.1 Using Literature Values 

One of the most commonly used methods for predicting the

performance of management strategies is the use of literature

values of removal percentage typically associated with each

type of management practice and pollutant (e.g., detention

pond and sediment). The removal percentage is typically

estimated from one or more monitoring studies in which the

performance of practices was measured using flow and

chemical monitoring. 

The percentages from various literature sources and studies can

include ranges or variations in the expected reductions from

practices. This is because the effectiveness of management

practices in removing pollutants depends on many factors,

including local climate and conditions, design specifications,

and type of pollutant. Some monitoring studies have detailed data for only part of the

year, such as a few storms, and do not fully consider what the annual load reduction

might be for one or more years. When you use studies that document removal

percentages, consider the location and climate of the study area (e.g., arid, wet

region, cold weather) and the amount of data collected. If you have data that range in

values (e.g., from 20 to 80 percent), consider using a range of values in your analysis.

Note that the effectiveness of a series of management practices is not necessarily

cumulative. The removal percentage is typically calculated on the basis of monitoring

of an individual practice. Management practices are frequently combined on a site to

provide enhanced performance. If the same runoff is treated by more than one

practice, the configuration is referred to as a treatment train. One common pitfall is

that people add the performance results for all the management practices to obtain a

combined performance (e.g., 65 percent load removal plus 25 percent load removal

equals 90 percent removal). This method of calculation is not accurate and

overestimates reduction. 

Management practice combinations have some cumulative benefit; however,

depending on the pollutant type and the removal mechanism (e.g., settling), the

removal percentages can change for subsequent practices. If the removal is

cumulative, the removal rate is calculated as follows. If the first practice removes 65

percent of the load, 35 percent of the total load is passed to the second practice. The

second practice removes 25 percent of the remaining 35 percent, or 8.75 percent of

the total load. The overall performance is 65 percent plus 8.75 percent, or 73.75
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-8 Draft

percent. If the process is not cumulative, the second practice might be slightly less

effective than the first, resulting in a cumulative reduction of less than 73.75 percent.

Typical practices that are not cumulative include those which rely on settling. For

instance, the first practice might remove coarse, heavy sediment, but the second

practice might be less efficient in settling the remaining fine-grained sediment.

It might be tempting to apply more than two practices in a series to achieve better

results, but the mechanisms of pollutant removal suggest that additional removal is

not likely to be achieved. Pollutants are often composed of components with different

physical properties; for example, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and organic nitrogen make

up total nitrogen. Frequently, a practice can remove only one component of a

pollutant well. If the next practice in the treatment train removes the same

component, less removal results. What is left over is often difficult for any practice to

remove. For this reason, you should usually consider no more than two practices in a

given treatment train.

Watershed-scale reductions can be calculated by using simple spreadsheets to

provide an accounting of the estimated loading, areas treated, and the percent

reductions (or ranges of reductions) expected. Through the use of spreadsheets,

multiple scenarios or combinations of load reduction practices can be easily

evaluated. Figure 11-2 shows a simple spreadsheet analysis that evaluates one

management practice at one site and then broadens the analysis to the watershed

scale.

11.3.2 Using Models to Assess Management Strategies

Watershed models or management practice-specific models can also be used to

evaluate individual management practices or watershed-scale management strategies.

These approaches can build on models developed previously to assess source loads,

or they can be set up to supplement other approaches used to estimate source loading.

Watershed management modeling is an active research and development area. The

goal is to make existing models more flexible and to develop new tools for assessing

the placement, selection, and cost of management practices. You’re encouraged to

check EPA Web sites, publications, and journal articles for ongoing research on

management practice analysis.

Currently available models have significant capabilities to represent management

practices. However, the practices they represent vary depending on the specialities of

the models. Some agriculture-oriented models have excellent tools for assessing areabased management such as fertilizer and tillage practices. Others that specialize in

urban areas include techniques for assessing structural solutions like detention ponds.

Similar to the watershed modeling discussions highlighted in chapter 8, which model

you use depends on what questions you need to answer and the strategies under

consideration. The modeling approach you select should provide a process for
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-9

A rural/agricultural watershed is listed as impaired because of the impacts of sedimentation on fish communities. During the

watershed characterization portion of the study (chapters 7 and 8), you determined that upland sources are a major source

of sediment. Much of the load originates from fields planted in conventional-till row cropland. One of the potential

management practices you identified in chapter 10 is implementing no-till in areas currently farmed with conventional till.

You want to evaluate the effectiveness of the no-till practice on a 120-acre field. During your modeling analysis of sources,

you determined that conventional-till row cropland at this site has a loading rate of 1.6 tons/ac/yr. According to your local

extension agent, no-till practices are expected to reduce sediment loading by 75 percent. You perform the following

calculation to determine the pre-practice and post-practice sediment load:

Conventional till: 120 ac x 1.6 tons/ac/yr = 192 tons/yr

No-till: 120 ac x 1.6 tons/ac/yr x (1 ! 0.75) = 48 tons/yr

Your net reduction is 144 tons/yr for the selected site. 

If you want to evaluate this practice on a larger scale for several sites throughout the watershed, you can use a

spreadsheet to facilitate the calculation. For example, suppose your watershed has 10 potential sites where conventional till

could be converted to no-till. Each site has a unique area, of course, but you have also calculated loading rates for each

site, based on variations in slope and soil composition:

Site Area (ac)

Loading Rate

(tons/ac/yr)

Load

(tons/yr)

Removal

Percentage

Load Removed

(tons/yr)

Net Load

(tons/yr)

1 120 1.6 192 75 144 48

2 305 1.8 549 75 412 137

3 62 1.9 118 75 88 30

4 245 1.7 417 75 312 105

5 519 1.6 830 75 623 208

6 97 2.1 204 75 153 51

7 148 1.9 281 75 211 70

8 75 1.5 113 75 84 28

9 284 2.0 568 75 426 142

10 162 1.8 292 75 219 73

Total 2,017 N/A 3,564 N/A 2,672 892

From this analysis, you estimate that altogether converting to no-till on 10 sites will remove 2,672 tons of sediment. The

spreadsheet environment provides a powerful tool for testing and combining results for various scenarios. For example, you

might test combinations of other management practices, with varying removal at each site.

Figure 11-2. Using a spreadsheet analysis to evaluate one management practice at a single site.

assessing pollutant loads, evaluating management practices, and ultimately testing the

recommended approach for the watershed plan.

The following sections discuss how you can use the seven models highlighted in

chapter 8 to evaluate management strategies. The capabilities, strengths, and
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-10 Draft

AGNPS—agricultural practices, tillage, nutrient

application

STEPL—removal percentages for multiple

practices

GWLF—agricultural practices, tillage, simplified

nutrient/manure applications

HSPF—urban and agricultural practices, nutrient

applications, detention, and buffer areas

SWMM—urban practices, including detention and

infiltration

P8-UCM—urban practices, including detention

SWAT—agricultural practices, tillage, nutrient

applications

weaknesses of each model are summarized. In addition to the selected models,

descriptions are provided for additional models, supplementary tools, or specialized

techniques that can be used to assess management practices. Key data needs and

technical considerations in applying the models for management analysis purposes

are also discussed. 

Modeling Management Strategies with the Selected Models

The models discussed in chapter 8 have various capabilities for

representing management practices (table 11-1). As shown in the

summary table, each model can assess a variety of practices and

each has associated strengths and weaknesses. The models tend

to specialize in the following areas: 

• Agricultural practices: SWAT, AGNPS, GWLF, STEPL

• Urban practices: P8-UCM, STEPL, SWMM

• Mixed land use: STEPL, HSPF

For agricultural practices, the SWAT model provides the ability

to examine specific practices and specialized agricultural

techniques such as irrigation, drainage, and ponds. STEPL

includes a generalized capability to include management

practices and assign a removal percentage of pollutant loading.

The P8-UCM model provides a flexible set of tools for

evaluating specific urban management practices such as ponds

and infiltration structures. For mixed land use watersheds

STEPL or similar spreadsheet-based models can provide a

generalized description of the load reductions from a variety of sources. HSPF can

provide a more detailed representation of agricultural, forested, and urban areas,

although it is more limited than SWMM in representing structural practices.

KChapter 8 provides additional information on the selected models. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-11

Table 11-1. Summary of Management Practice Representation Capabilities of the Selected Models

Model

Types of Practices

Considered Strengths Limitations

STEPL • Contour farming

• Filter strip

• Reduced-tillage systems

• Streambank stabilization and

fencing

• Terracing

• Forest road practices

• Forest site preparation practice

• Animal feedlot practices

• Various urban and low impact

development (LID) practices (e.g.,

detention basin, infiltration

practices, swale/buffer strips)

• Easy to use; good for giving quick

and rough estimates 

• Includes most major types of

management practices

• Simplified representation of

management practices using

long-term average removal

percentage does not represent

physical processes

• Developed based on available

literature information that might

not be representative of all

conditions

GWLF • Agricultural area management

practices (e.g., contouring,

terracing, no-till) 

• Easy to use

• Long-term continuous simulation

• Does not have structural

management practice

simulation capabilities

HSPF • Agricultural practices

• Impoundment

• Buffer

• Can simulate both area and point

management practices

• Provides long-term continuous

simulation

• Land and management practice

simulation are linked

• Weak representation of

structural point practices

• Requires moderate to high

effort to set up

SWMM • Detention basin

• Infiltration practices

• Can simulate both area and point

management practices

• Long-term continuous simulation

• Physically based simulation of

structural management practices

• Management practice simulation is

coupled with land simulation

• Limited representation of nonurban area practices 

• Requires moderate to high

effort to set up

P8-UCM • Detention basin

• Infiltration practices

• Swale/buffer strip

• Manhole/splitter

• Tailored for simulating urban

structural practices

• Long-term continuous simulation

• Process-based simulation for

structural practices

• Management practice simulation is

coupled with land simulation, which

provides dynamic input to drive

practice simulation

• Cannot simulate nonstructural

and area practices

SWAT • Street cleaning

• Tillage management

• Fertilizer management

• Pesticide management

• Irrigation management

• Grazing management

• Impoundment

• Filter strips

• Strong capabilities for simulating

agricultural area practices

• Ability to consider crop rotation

• Long-term continuous simulation

• Limited urban and structural

practice simulation

AnnAGNPS • Feedlot management

• Tillage management

• Fertilizer management

• Pesticide management

• Irrigation management

• Impoundment

• Strong capabilities for simulating

agricultural area management

practices

• Long-term continuous simulation

• Limited urban and structural

practice simulation
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-12 Draft

Each model has a slightly different approach for including management practices, as

summarized in table 11-2. For example, the agricultural techniques in SWAT,

AGNPS, GWLF, and STEPL are already recognized during model setup by the

selection of parameters for predicting runoff (e.g., curve number equation) and

sediment loading (e.g., Universal Soil Loss Equation [USLE]). Other practices might

need to be specifically identified and separately input into the model. Some of the

agricultural models provide a continuous evaluation of the availability of nutrients in

the active soil layer or root zone. This provides for tracking of nutrient loading,

fertilizer applications, crop uptake, and leaching of nutrients. The HSPF model, with

its AGCHEM module, provides a similar ability to track nutrients in the soil.

Table 11-2. Summary of Management Practice Simulation Techniques of the

Selected Models

Model

Management Practice Evaluation Techniques

Water Quality

Constituents

AnnAGNPS • Sediment - RUSLE factors

• Runoff curve number changes 

• Storage routing

• Particle settling

• Sediment

• Nutrients

• Organic carbon

STEPL • Sediment - RUSLE factors

• Runoff curve number changes 

• Simple percent reduction 

• Sediment

• Nutrients

GWLF • Sediment - USLE factors

• Runoff curve number changes

• User-specified removal rate

• Sediment

• Nutrients

HSPF • HSPF infiltration and accumulation factors

• HSPF erosion factors

• Storage routing

• Particle settling

• First-order decay

• Sediment

• Nutrients

SWMM • Infiltration

• Second-order decay

• Particle removal scale factor

• Sediment - USLE (limited)

• Sediment 

• User-defined

pollutants

P8-UCM • Infiltration - Green-Ampt method

• Second-order decay

• Particle removal scale factor

• Sediment 

• User-defined

pollutants

SWAT • Sediment - MUSLE parameters

• Infiltration - Curve number parameters

• Storage routing

• Particle settling

• Flow routing

• Redistribution of pollutants/nutrients in soil

profile related to tillage and biological activities

• Sediment

• Nutrients

• Pesticides

Note: MUSLE = Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation; RUSLE = Revised Universal Soil Loss

Equation; USLE = Universal Soil Loss Equation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-13

Urban models use representation of impoundments to represent a variety of point

practices that collect runoff and remove pollutants through infiltration and settling.

Most of the urban models use settling of sediment and decay as the primary removal

mechanisms. SWMM can emulate the major management practice

processes—storage, infiltration, first-order decay, and sediment settling. The recently

added overland flow rerouting (land-to-land routing) options can be used to mimic

riparian buffers or infiltration areas. 

Modifying a watershed modeling application using any of the reviewed models

generally includes the following additional steps:

• Identify the specific or general practices to be included.

• Identify the practices that were included in the existing conditions.

• Incorporate each practice as appropriate into the model.

• Vary the adoption of the practices according to the management strategy.

• Summarize the results.

Typical data needs for simulating management strategies using the selected models

include specific information for area, point, and linear management practices. For

modeling purposes, you’ll need information on the existing and proposed

management practices, including location, drainage area for each practice, size, type,

and key characteristics. Consider carefully the current adoption of management

practices in the watershed and what might change in the future. Make sure that you

include the current practices in areas where significant restoration has already taken

place.

If you’re using the same model or approach from your watershed characterization,

you might need to add new land use categories. For instance, if you defined urban

development in terms of low intensity and high intensity, you might need to break

out urban categories in greater detail (e.g., low-density residential, high-density

residential, commercial, industrial, institutional). Some of your management

practices might be suited for only certain land uses.

You might also need to add a layer of complexity to an existing approach. For

instance, your assessment might have been based on generic land use classes, but the

evaluation of your management practice is driven by land cover (impervious surface,

lawn, forest). In this case, you should provide direct measures of land cover or

estimate proportions of land cover for each land use class.

Table 11-3 lists typical information needs for each of the selected models and major

practices. The specific information might vary depending on the level of detail of the

modeling tools used. For example, a detailed simulation of detention ponds in

SWMM might require detailed characteristics of the pond design (e.g., depth-volume

relationship, depth-outflow rate relationship), in addition to information on location

and the drainage area contributing to the pond.
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-14 Draft

Table 11-3. Data Needs for Management Strategy Modeling

Model Data Needs for Management Practices

AnnAGNPS • Tillage area, type and date, crop rotation

• Fertilizer application rate, method, and dates

• Manure application rate, method, and dates

• Strip cropping location and area

• Impoundment size and discharge rate

• Sediment settling rate

STEPL • Land use type and condition

• Practice type 

GWLF • Crop type and condition

• Manure application rate and date

• Runoff nutrient concentration

HSPF • Land use type and pollutant accumulation rates

• Nutrient and pathogen application rates and dates

• Impoundment size and discharge rates

• Settling rate and pollutant decay rate

SWMM • Land use type and pollutant accumulation rates

• Impoundment size, shape, and discharge rate

• Settling rates and pollutant decay rates

• Street cleaning frequency and areas affected

P8-UCM • Point practice drainage area

• Impoundment size and discharge rate, pollutant decay rate

• Bioretention size and infiltration rate

• Street cleaning frequency and area affected

SWAT • Tillage area, type and date, crop rotation

• Fertilizer and pesticide application rate, method, and dates

• Manure application rate, method, and dates

• Filter strip width

• Grazing dates and vegetation biomass affected

• Street sweeping pollutant removal rate, date, and curb length

In general, area-based practices require information on area affected and land use

management practices (e.g., tillage, fertilizer/manure applications), including

application date, amount, and technique. Simulating point practices generally

requires information on the drainage area to each practice and the design specifics for

each practice. Detention ponds would generally require information on storage

volume, shape, outlet structure, and retention time. Bioretention structures might

require information on the infiltration rate, volume of storage, soil media, and

pollutant removal rate. 

The performance of the model with management practices is typically tested for the

existing conditions, where historic monitoring data are available. However, because

management practices are dispersed across the watershed and are adopted

sporadically over time, the available monitoring data might not provide a distinct

response at the watershed scale. One solution to this problem is to use smaller-scale

pilot studies that simulate individual practices or combinations of practices for more

detailed small-scale testing. In addition, management practice simulations can build
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-15

When evaluating modeling approaches for evaluating

management practices, consider the following alternatives:

1. Modify original loading model to incorporate

management practices.

2. Add supplemental analyses for specific management

practices.

3. Perform alternative analyses for management

practices using spreadsheet or other simplified tools.

on the available data on removal effectiveness. These results are used to build the

best estimates of the potential benefits of management practice implementation.

Ultimately, these forecasts can be tested or evaluated for accuracy only through

monitoring after implementation. Once implementation has begun, a post-audit can

include monitoring of management effectiveness and a reassessment of modeling

results.

Other Models Available for Analysis of Management Practices

Although the selected models consider various

management practices, sometimes you might need an

additional model or models that specialize in a particular

type of management practice simulation. In some cases,

models are used to perform a detailed small-scale (small

representative watersheds or fields) analysis of

management practices. Some of the specialized

management practice models available today are the Site

Evaluation Tool (SET), the Prince George’s County

[Maryland] BMP Module (PGC-BMP), Model for Urban

Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization (MUSIC), and

Integrated Design and Evaluation Assessment of Loadings

(IDEAL). SET provides a simplified spreadsheet-based

approach for assessing management practices and is used in several examples

throughout this chapter. PGC-BMP, MUSIC, and IDEAL provide options for more

detailed simulation of multiple management practices. These systems are oriented to

examining networks of one or more management practices. However, many models

do not include ways to evaluate the benefits of buffer zones. The models that

specialize in the representation of buffer strips include the Vegetative Filter Strip

Model (VFSMOD) and Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM). Options

for reducing sediment loading, including forest and agricultural area management,

can be evaluated using Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP); the Erosion

Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) also provides evaluation of agricultural area

management. WETLAND and Virginia Field Scale Wetland Model (VAFSWM)

provide the capability to evaluate wetlands. These specialized models are

summarized in table 11-4 and described in more detail below. 
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-16 Draft

Table 11-4. Summary of Other Specialized Models for Management Analysis

Model

Types of Management Practice

Considered

Management Practice

Evaluation Techniques

Water Quality

Constituents

SET • Detention basin (e.g., wet pond,

extended dry detention, conventional

dry detention)

• Infiltration practices (e.g., infiltration

trench, dry well, porous pavement,

sand filter)

• Vegetative practices (e.g., wetland,

swale, buffer/filter strip, bioretention,

green roof)

• Wetland

• Storage (e.g., cistern/rain barrels)

• Simple percent reduction 

• Simple regression

• Sediment

• Nutrients (total nitrogen

and total phosphorus)

PGC-BMP • Detention basin

• Infiltration practices (e.g., infiltration

trench, dry well, porous pavement)

• Vegetative practices (e.g., wetland,

swale, filter strip, bioretention)

• Infiltration - Holtan’s equation

• Storage routing

• Weir/orifice flow

• First-order decay

• User-defined pollutants

MUSIC • Detention basin

• Infiltration practices

• Vegetative practices

• Infiltration

• Settling

• First-order decay (k-C* model)

• User-defined pollutants

IDEAL • Vegetative filter strip

• Detention/retention basin

• Infiltration

• Storage routing

• Settling

• Trapping efficiency 

• Bacteria die-off rate

• Sediment

• Nutrients

• Bacteria

VFSMOD • Vegetative filter strip • Infiltration - Green-Ampt equation

• Kinematic wave

• Sediment deposition and

resuspension

• Sediment

REMM • Riparian buffer strip • Infiltration - Green-Ampt equation

• Sediment - USLE parameters

• Storage routing

• Nutrient cycling: Century Model

• Nitrification: First-order

Weir/orifice flow

• Sediment transport: Einstein and

Bagnold equations

• Sediment

• Nutrients

• Organic matter

WEPP • Impoundment

• Tillage management

• Irrigation management

• Grazing management

• Filter strips

• Forest roads

• Forest and rangeland fire management

• Infiltration - Green-Ampt MeinLarson equation

• Erosion: Steady-state sediment

continuity equation 

• Kinematic wave

• Subsurface: Kinematic storagedischarge

• Sediment

EPIC • Tillage management

• Fertilizer management

• Irrigation management

• Feedlot management (lagoons)

• Infiltration: Curve number

equation or rational formula 

• Six variations of USLE equation

for soil erosion and sediment

delivery

• Storage routing

• Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling

• Sediment

• Nutrients

• Pesticides
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-17

Table 11-4. (continued)

Model

Types of Management Practice

Considered

Management Practice

Evaluation Techniques

Water Quality

Constituents

WETLAND • Detention basin

• Wetland

• Water budget

• Monod kinetics

• Nutrients cycling (carbon,

nitrogen, phosphorus)

• Constant vegetative growth rate 

• Freundlich isotherms for

phosphorus sorption/desorption

• First-order mineralization

• Nitrogen

• Phosphorous

• Carbon

• Dissolved oxygen

• Sediment 

• Bacteria

VAFSWM • Detention basin

• Wetland

• Water budget 

• Infiltration 

• Particle settling

• Continuously stirred tank reactors

in series

• First-order kinetics (adsorption,

plant uptake)

• User-defined

• Sediment

SET was developed to assess the impacts of development, including sediment and

nutrient loading, on a site scale. It provides a more robust environment for testing

multiple management practices and site configurations than simple export

calculations, and it incorporates several principles discussed previously in this

section. The tool lets the user define pre- and post-treated land use/land cover,

allowing for multiple drainage areas and various combinations of practices. An

important benefit of SET is that the user can test management practices in

combination with each other, in the context of a site or small catchment. In addition,

both structural and nonstructural practices can be represented, offering a suite of

options for evaluation.

PGC-BMP is an example of a more detailed management practice simulation tool. It

evaluates the effect of management practices or combinations of management

practices on flow and pollutant loading. It uses simplified process-based algorithms

to simulate management practice control of modeled flow and water quality time

series generated by watershed models like HSPF. These simple algorithms include

weir and orifice control structures, storm swale characteristics, flow and pollutant

transport, flow routing and networking, infiltration and saturation, and a general

loss/decay representation for pollutants. The tool offers the flexibility to design

retention-style or open-channel management practices; define flow routing through a

management practice or management practice network; simulate Integrated

Management Practices (IMPs), such as reduced or discontinued imperviousness

through flow networking; and compare management practice controls against a

defined benchmark such as a simulated pre-development condition. Because the

underlying algorithms are based on physical processes, management practice

effectiveness can be evaluated and estimated over a wide range of storm conditions,

management practice designs, and flow routing configurations.
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-18 Draft

MUSIC (Wong et al. 2005, Wong et al. 2001) was developed by the Cooperative

Research Center for Catchment Hydrology in Australia. It was developed to evaluate

small- and large-scale (100 km2

) urban stormwater systems using modeling timesteps

that range from 6 minutes to 24 hours. MUSIC provides an interface to help set up

complex stormwater management scenarios. The interface also allows the user to

view results using a range of graphical and tabular formats. The stormwater control

devices evaluated by MUSIC include ponds, bioretention, infiltration buffer strips,

sedimentation basins, pollutant traps, wetlands, and swales. The major techniques

used to evaluate management practices are settling in ponds and decay of pollutants

(first-order). KFor more information go to the MUSIC Web site at

www.toolkit.net.au/music.

IDEAL (Barfield et al. 2002) provides a spreadsheet-based technique for assessing

the benefits of urban management practices on flow, sediment, nutrients, and

bacteria. The model predicts watershed runoff, concentrations, and loads based on

your selection of vegetative filter strips, dry detention ponds, and wet detention

ponds. Urban areas are defined as pervious, impervious connected, and impervious

unconnected areas. Flow and loads can be directed to a pond that can be dry (no

permanent pool) or wet (permanent pool). The model then calculates the pollutant

removal efficiencies of the practices using empirical equations. The model predicts

single storm values and converts them to average annual storm values using a

statistical process. IDEAL is designed to help managers estimate long-term

management practice pollutant removal efficiencies and is not designed for

evaluating individual storms.

VFSMOD (Muñoz-Carpena and Parsons 2003) provides specialized modeling of

field-scale processes associated with filter strips or buffers. This model provides

routing of storm runoff from an adjacent field through a vegetative filter strip and

calculates outflow, infiltration, and sediment trapping efficiency. The model is

sensitive to the characteristics of the filter, including vegetation roughness or density,

slope, infiltration characteristics, and the incoming runoff volume and sediment

particle sizes. VFSMOD includes a series of modules: Green-Ampt infiltration

module, kinematic wave overland flow module, and sediment filtration module. The

model can also be used to describe transport at the edge of the field when flow and

transport are mainly in the form of sheet flow and the path represents average

conditions across the vegetative filter strip. VFSMOD uses a variable timestep that

helps to more accurately solve the overland water flow equation. The model inputs

are specified on a storm basis, and the model summarizes all the information after

each event to generate storm outputs. KFor more information go to the VFSMOD

Web site at www3.bae.ncsu.edu/vfsmod.

REMM is used to simulate hydrology, nutrient dynamics, and plant growth for land

areas between the edges of fields and a waterbody. Output from REMM allows

watershed planners to develop buffer systems to help control nonpoint source

pollution. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) developed REMM at the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-19

Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, in

Tifton, Georgia. KFor more information go to the REMM Web site at

www.cpes.peachnet.edu/remmwww.

WEPP (Flanagan and Nearing 1995) simulates water runoff, erosion, and sediment

delivery from fields or small watersheds. Management practices, including crop

rotation, planting and harvest date, tillage, compaction, stripcropping, row

arrangement, terraces, field borders, and windbreaks, can be simulated. WEPP has

been applied to various land use and management conditions (Liu et al. 1997,

Tiscareno-Lopez et al. 1993). KFor more information go to the Web site

http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/weppmain/wepp.html.

EPIC (Sharpley and Williams 1990) simulates the effect of management practices on

edge-of-field water quality and nitrate nitrogen and pesticide leaching to the bottom

of the soil profile. The model considers the effect of crop type, planting date,

irrigation, drainage, rotations, tillage, residue, commercial fertilizer, animal waste,

and pesticides on surface water and shallow ground water quality. EPIC has been

used to evaluate various cropland management practices (Edwards et al. 1994,

Sugiharto et al. 1994).

WETLAND (Lee 1999, Lee et al. 2002) is a dynamic compartmental model used to

simulate hydrologic, water quality, and biological processes and to assist in the

design and evaluation of wetlands. WETLAND uses the continuously stirred tank

reactor prototype, and it is assumed that all incoming nutrients are completely mixed

throughout the entire volume. The model can simulate both free-water surface and

subsurface-flow wetlands. WETLAND is modular and includes hydrologic, nitrogen,

carbon, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, sediment, vegetation, and phosphorus submodels.

The strength of WETLAND lies in the linked kinetics for the water quality variables

and the consideration of seasonal variation (variable user-defined parameter by

season/time period). The weaknesses of this model include the completely mixed

assumption, which overlooks the effect of the system shape, and the need for

extensive kinetic parameters.

VAFSWM (Yu et al. 1998) is a field-scale model for quantifying the pollutant

removal in a wetland system. It includes a hydrologic subroutine to route flow

through the treatment system and precipitation, evapotranspiration, and exchange

with subsurface ground water. VAFSWM simulates settling, diffusion, adsorption to

plants and substrate, and vegetative uptake for a pollutant in dissolved and particulate

forms in a two-segment (water column and substrate), two-state (completely mixed

and quiescent) reactor system by employing first-order kinetics. The governing

equations for quiescent condition are identical to that of turbulent condition;

however, far lower settling velocities are assumed to account for the greater

percentage of finer particles during the quiescent state. VAFSWM is a relatively

simple model that includes the most dominant processes within the wetland system.

However, the user needs to provide and calibrate the requisite kinetics parameters.
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-20 Draft

Regardless of the technique used, you should

record the rationale and justification for why the

various changes were made. This will provide

documentation for what was done and give you

a basis for future updates or improvements in

the methodology as more information becomes

available.

Considerations in Modeling of Management Strategies

Whether you use simplified approaches, one of the selected models, or a combination

of supplementary tools, there are some common considerations in developing your

approach to model management practices. Summarized below are some of the key

issues in the emerging area of watershed management practices simulation. It’s

important to recognize that simulation of management practices can make the

modeling process much more complicated and data-intensive, primarily because of

scale and the amount of information needed. For example, in a 1,000-acre watershed,

hundreds of management practices could be used. Some management practices cover

large areas, such as cropping practices that affect a percentage of corn fields. Others

are at specific locations, such as an individual pond that drains part of a watershed.

Others might stretch across part of the watershed, such as a riparian buffer zone on

either side of several miles of a river. For large watersheds, the information collection

needs can quickly become formidable. In addition, there are often issues related to

privacy and protection of information related to management practices installed on

private lands. Collecting some information on current management practice adoption,

however, is very important for the purposes of estimating benefits and evaluating

needs for future management.

When setting up models, some approaches involve identifying and

inputting information on each management practice. This is

appropriate for small watersheds and can provide a system for

evaluating the benefit of management actions and new initiatives. For

large watersheds, modelers use a variety of techniques to extrapolate

or estimate the benefits of management. One technique is a “nested”

modeling approach, in which a more detailed model is applied to a

smaller representative area. The results of the detailed modeling are

then used to define the land use characteristics used for the largescale watershed model. For example, a detailed model might be used

to evaluate new residential development techniques. The results of the detailed smallscale assessment would be used to create a new alternative “new residential

development” land use that would then be used in the watershed-wide simulation.

Sample or pilot studies can be used to test and evaluate a variety of management

techniques on a small scale before initiating a large, more complex and timeintensive application. Sometimes watershed-wide or large-scale applications can be

adjusted by using simple percentage reductions at the subwatershed or land use level

to reflect estimates of load reduction due to management practices.

Consider carefully what areas are really being treated by the management practices.

The drainage area or treatment area is used for calculations of loading and percent

removal. Site constraints usually prevent 100 percent treatment of a particular

development. Assume, for example, that a residential development will be treated by

a stormwater wetland. Site topography prevents 10 percent of the site from draining

to the wetland. If you’re using an ordinance to require a set-aside of undisturbed open
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-21

space, the untreated area increases because the open space cannot be graded. In this

example, complementary practices result in a change in the evaluation of one of the

practices.

Another consideration may be the drainage area for a buffer zone. The buffer is

located laterally along a channel and receives runoff from the drainage adjacent to the

channel. In an urban setting, however, runoff from storm events tends to accumulate

into concentrated flow within a short distance, probably no more than 150 feet

(Schueler 1995). These concentrated flows will likely bisect or cross a buffer without

treatment. In the eastern United States, this area of concentrated flows usually

translates to less than 10 percent of a watershed for perennial streams. The pollutant

removal rates in the literature reflect runoff received as overland flow. Removal

performance is therefore limited by the proportion of a site draining to it.

11.3.3 Example Model Applications to Assess Management Strategies

Using the approaches discussed in the previous section, you will now quantify the

effectiveness of the proposed management practices in meeting watershed goals and

objectives. This section presents three examples that reflect various management

objectives such as addressing multiple indicators using a variety of practices,

assessing sediment loading reductions, and improving habitat.

Quantify the Effectiveness of Multiple Management Practices

You can use a spreadsheet tool to assist with quantifying multiple practices. This

example demonstrates how a management strategy can be assessed for multiple

indicators using a simplified spreadsheet tool (SET). The example includes a suite of

structural management practices, nonstructural management practices and detailed

site layout, and a need to define multiple drainage areas and management practice

combinations, including treatment trains (figure 11-3).

Quantify the Effectiveness of Management Practices in Reducing

Sediment Loads

When reduction of sediment loading is the management objective, rates of sediment

generation from channel enlargement can provide a tool for quantifying

effectiveness. A monitoring approach is a good strategy for assessing longer-term

sediment loading and stream channel characteristics. Historical aerial photographs

allow comparison of channel width and location over discrete points in time, and

translating changes to an average annual rate can provide an estimate of the rate of

sediment loading due to instream sources. A more direct method of calculating

erosion rates is to install and monitor bank pins in the reach of interest. Stakes or pins

can be driven into channel banks flush with the surface. The amount of pin exposed

due to erosion is the amount of change at the streambank erosion site between your

times of observation. (Note: This would have been done during the earlier data
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-22 Draft

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is home to rapidly growing Charlotte and other surrounding communities. It has several

watersheds listed as impaired in part due to the impacts of upland sedimentation. In addition, nutrient loading from much of the

county affects several reservoirs on the Catawba River. The following example explores how the SET might be used to evaluate

various combinations of management practices. The team located sites in the watershed that were publicly owned, were larger

than 5 acres, and could be adapted for retrofit of possible management practices. The selected 10-acre site contains a public

school and lends itself well to placement of a structural practice to capture most of the runoff. Three scenarios are being

tested—a stormwater pond, a combination of bioretention cells in series with an extended dry detention basin, and the

conversion of 2 acres of lawn into forest. Thirty percent of the site is impervious surface, and the remainder is lawn or managed

herbaceous. The site configuration for each scenario is as follows:

Stormwater Pond: The pond is at the lowest point on the site, and it captures all runoff except that from 1 acre of lawn area.

Bioretention Cells and Extended Dry Detention Basin: Bioretention cells treat all the impervious area and 2.75 acres of the lawn

area; all bioretention cells are configured to drain completely to the extended dry detention basin. Another 3.25 acres of the site

drain to the extended dry detention only. One acre of lawn is not treated.

Forest Conversion: Two acres of lawn area are planted with saplings, fenced off, and no longer mowed. Modeled conditions

reflect brush/immature forest.

The amount of land in each of the three land cover types is summarized below for existing conditions and the three proposed

management alternatives:

Treatment

Land Cover in Drainage Area (acres)

Lawn Impervious Forest

Existing Site

Untreated 7 3

Stormwater Pond Scenario

Stormwater Pond 6 3

Untreated 1

Bioretention and Extended Dry Detention Scenario

Bioretention + Dry Detention 2.75 3

Dry Detention Only 3.25

Untreated 1

Forest Conversion Scenario

New Land Cover 5 3 2

The SET calculates annual loads from the site under each scenario for total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total

nitrogen and shows the percent reduction in load between the existing site and each scenario. The forest conversion scenario

by itself performs poorly, but results suggest it might be a good candidate as a complementary practice. The two structural

management practice scenarios perform better for pollutant reduction. Note that the bioretention/extended dry detention

scenario performs better than the stormwater pond for nutrient removal but worse for sediment removal.

TSS TP TN

tons/yr % red. lb/yr % red. lb/yr % red.

Existing Site 5.11 11.5 70

Stormwater Pond 1.79 65% 6 48% 50 29%

Bioretention/Ext. Dry Detention 1.97 61% 4.6 60% 36 49%

Forest Conversion 4.1 20% 10.6 8% 66 6%

Figure 11-3. Analysis of multiple management practices using multiple indicators.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-23

Cross Section 28 + 14 Right Bank

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Distance from Left Pin (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Oct. 1999 Oct. 2002

Bank pins were installed in a streambank in October 1999 to allow rates of streambank erosion to be measured. In

October 2002, 3years after the pins were installed, the distance that the pins extended from the streambank was

recorded. The streambank profiles are illustrated in the figure. Six bank pins were installed at approximately 1-foot

vertical intervals between the toe of the bank and top of the bank. This location along the stream is representative of

nearly 400 feet of channel. If the streambank along this reach was stabilized, what would be the effect on the average

annual contribution to the total sediment load?

The length that the six bank pins extended from

the bank at the October 2002 measurement, from

the lowest pin to the highest, are 3.5, 4.0, 3.5,

3.0, 3.0, and 3.0 feet, respectively.

Average amount of erosion = (3.5 + 4 + 3.5 + 3 +

3 + 3) / 6 = 3.3 feet

Conversion to average annual rate = 3.3 feet / 3

years = 1.1 feet per year

Average annual volumetric loading (using length

of 400 feet and average bank height of 5 feet)

 = 1.1 ft/yr * 400 ft * 5 ft = 2,200 cubic

feet per year

To convert to a weight-based sediment loading, a

unit weight of the streambank soil is needed.

Assume a unit weight of 100 pounds per cubic foot for this streambank soil.

Average annual weight of sediment loading

= 2,200 cubic feet per year * 100 pounds per cubic foot = 220,000 pounds per year

= 110 tons per year

Natural stable channels tend to have negligible rates of streambank erosion, so a channel that is stabilized can be

assumed to have a negligible rate of erosion as well. Thus, stabilization efforts along this reach of stream can be

expected to reduce average annual sediment loading by 110 tons per year.

Figure 11-4. Quantifying the effectiveness of stabilization practices in reducing sediment loads.

collection phase; chapter 6). Reductions in sediment loading can then be quantified

by comparing the estimated erosion rates with the rate for a stable reach

(figure 11-4).

Quantify the Effectiveness of Management Practices in Improving

Aquatic Habitat

For stream reaches where instream habitat is degraded, habitat sampling can provide

a gauge for quantifying the effectiveness of a management action. A straightforward

comparison of conditions before and after implementation can numerically quantify

the improvement in aquatic habitat. State agencies typically have habitat evaluation

forms that provide numerical rankings for observed conditions for various
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-24 Draft

A stream reach that is classified as impaired because of the condition of the instream aquatic habitat is being

considered for rehabilitation efforts. A few rehabilitation options are under consideration due to various levels of

effort and the associated costs. How can the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts be evaluated?

A physiographic region-specific instream aquatic habitat evaluation method can be used to characterize habitat

condition, and the numeric score linked to a functional level of support for the aquatic community. In this example,

the overall score can range from 0 (most impaired conditions) to 200 (capable of fully supporting a diverse and

abundant aquatic community). The functional levels of support are provided in the table A.

Table A. Habitat Quality and Use Classifications by Habitat Score

Habitat Assessment Score Habitat Quality Use Classification

170–200 Excellent Supporting

145–169 Good Supporting

95–44 Good–Fair Partially Supporting

50–94 Fair Not Supporting

0–9 Poor Not Supporting

The field form used for the example reach includes 10 key habitat parameters with a numeric scale for each

parameter for assigning 0–20 points. An example breakdown of possible points for the degree of physical channel

alteration is shown in Table B. Under the current conditions, the example reach scores a total of 90 points,

corresponding to Fair habitat quality and Not Supporting its use. Of the 90 points, 3 points were assigned to the

parameter for Physical Channel Alteration because of historical channelization (i.e., 100 percent of the reach is

disturbed, but no embankments are present).

For the proposed full-scale rehabilitation effort, a new natural channel will be excavated on the existing floodplain.

Because of the location of a sanitary sewer line along the right side of the floodplain, the sinuosity of the new

channel will be limited and channel bends will be no tighter than 45 degrees. Therefore, if the full-scale restoration

effort is pursued, the scoring for the Physical Channel Alteration is expected to increase from 3 points to 18 points.

Figure 11-5. Quantifying the effectiveness of management practices in improving aquatic habitat.

components of aquatic habitat. By using such forms, some of the subjectivity of

visual interpretations can be reduced, leading to better evaluations of effectiveness

(figure 11-5). EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) for Use in Wadeable

Streams and Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999) provides more information about

evaluating habitat (www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/index.html). Additional

descriptions of state protocols for assessing habitat quality can be found in EPA’s

Summary of Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes,

Territories, Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers at

www.epa.gov/bioindicators. (KSee section 6.5.6 for more information on assessing

habitat quality.)
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-25

To fully evaluate the effectiveness of the full-scale rehabilitation option, the anticipated conditions will need to be

compared with the existing scores. Although the scores for many parameters will be expected to increase,

decreases are possible and need to be realistically evaluated. (For example, if the existing canopy cover is dense

and scores high, but the restoration effort would result in clearing and revegetation that would not provide dense

cover until the vegetation had time to grow, the result would be a lower score.) In this manner, the effectiveness of

the various rehabilitation efforts can be quantified.

Table B. Scoring Thresholds for Physical Channel Alteration

Stream follows a normal and natural meandering pattern; alteration is absent

No evidence of disturbance; bend angles greater than 60 degrees 20

No evidence of disturbance; bend angles between 40 and 60 degrees 18

No evidence of disturbance; bend angles less than 40 degrees 16

Some stream alteration present but NO evidence of recent alteration activities

Bridge abutments present but older than 20 years; no other disturbances 15

10% of reach or less has channel disturbance other than bridge 14

20% of reach has channel disturbance 13

30% of reach has channel disturbance 12

40% of reach has channel disturbance 11

Somewhat altered; 40%–80% of reach altered; alterations may be within past 20 years

40% of reach has channel disturbance 10

50% of reach has channel disturbance 9

60% of reach has channel disturbance 8

70% of reach has channel disturbance 7

80% of reach has channel disturbance 6

More than 80% of reach altered; instream habitat highly effected

90% of reach has channel disturbance 5

100% of reach disturbed; straightened with no artificial embankments 3

100% of reach disturbed; straightened with artificial embankments 2

100% of reach disturbed; straightened with natural and artificial embankments 1

100% of reach disturbed; concrete or gabion lining 0

Figure 11-5. (continued)
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-26 Draft

Modeling can be used where nutrient reductions associated with improving

vegetation in riparian areas are the management goal. Loading rates for constituents

of concern within a limited distance of riparian areas can be coupled with the

removal efficiencies of the buffers to evaluate how effective the management action

is at reducing contaminant input to the stream. However, the benefits of nutrient

reduction associated with riparian revegetation are typically limited, especially in

locations where stormwater outfalls or drainage ditches result in concentrated flow

through the buffer.

In this section you were shown how to quantify the effectiveness of various

management practices to evaluate how well they achieve the management goal. Next,

you’ll compare the estimated costs of various management actions to identify the

most cost-effective opportunities.

11.4 Identify Costs and Compare Benefits of Management

Practices

Now that you’ve quantified the effectiveness of various management practices in

achieving your goals and objectives, you should incorporate cost considerations into

your evaluation. Economics is always a consideration in the evaluation and

formulation of management strategies. Stakeholders might offer insights and

concerns regarding the cost of various management options. This is why an ongoing

dialogue with stakeholders is critical to selecting management alternatives that they

will support. Cost considerations can also help to identify opportunities for

collaboration or leveraging practices with existing programs. 

To the extent possible, a cost estimate should consider all future costs of the

management strategy, including design and engineering, construction, labor, and

operation and maintenance. The following sections explain what to consider when

estimating the cost of management options and how to conduct a cost/benefit

analysis. Most of the guidelines center on structural management practices, but the

discussions of labor, inflation, discounting, and information sources are applicable to

nonstructural management options as well. 

11.4.1 Identify Cost Considerations

Construction Costs

The construction costs of various management practices can be estimated in one of

two ways: (1) with a total per unit cost or (2) with a detailed breakdown of individual

cost components. Total per unit costs are more appropriate when you’re considering a

large number of management practice sites or management practices that would be

applied throughout the watershed but at no specific location. If you need to estimate

the size of a specific practice, use published design guidelines or consult with a

stormwater engineer to ensure the accuracy of the cost estimate. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-27

If you’re comparing a few specific management practices, using a detailed cost

estimate would be more accurate than using a total per unit cost estimate. For

example, if you were comparing the use of a stormwater wetland with the use of a

wet pond for a single site, you should consider how the costs of these management

practices would differ on that particular site. You would estimate the cost of each

construction component (e.g., excavation, grading, outlet structure) and then sum the

component costs to arrive at a total cost estimate. Use guidance from a stormwater

engineer when determining preliminary quantities and costs of individual

management practice components. 

Whether you’re looking for total per unit costs or component costs, look for local

cost estimates that use the same design guidelines that your project will require. It’s

also important to use costs that represent soil, climatic, and geographic conditions

similar to those of your future project. Check several sources to determine whether

cost estimates vary geographically. 

The accuracy of cost estimates depends on how unit costs are used to translate

management practice design quantities into management practice costs. Although

your management practice might be appropriately sized, you can describe the

management practice size in many different ways. For example, a detention pond has

at least three volumes: a permanent pool, a detention volume, and a volume up to the

emergency spillway. You should determine to which measurements the unit cost

refers. Table 11-5 shows example formats of management practice unit costs and the

information you need before using the unit costs. 

Table 11-5. Considerations for Applying Management Practice Unit Cost Measures

Example

Management Practice

Example Cost

Units Issues to Consider Before Using Unit Costs

Grass swale $ per linear foot Find out the width of swale assumed in the unit cost, and make sure the width is

appropriate for your project. You will overestimate the cost if you use a unit cost

based on a swale that is wider than your proposed swale.

Water quality swale

(dry swale)

$ per square foot Find out whether the width should be measured across the filter media or across

the entire swale. You will overestimate the cost if you measure across the entire

swale, and the unit cost refers to only the filter media width.

Wet detention pond $ per cubic foot Determine the height at which to measure the pond volume. If the cost estimate

assumes the volume up to the emergency spillway, using the volume of the

permanent pool would underestimate the pond cost. 

Bioretention $ per impervious

acre treated

This cost estimate format might not be appropriate for all uses. If your bioretention

cell is treating a large amount of pervious area (e.g., grass lawn), this unit cost

would not accurately represent the size of the bioretention cell needed. 

Stormwater wetland $ per acre of

drainage area

treated

This unit cost would not account for how drainage areas vary in the amount of

impervious surface. Before using this type of estimate, you should make sure that

it assumes a level of imperviousness similar to that of your stormwater wetland’s

drainage area.
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-28 Draft

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

EDD + Sandfilter +

Bioretention

Wet Pond + Bioretention Wet Pond + WQ Swale

Tho usan ds of Do llars Per Acre

EDD Sand Filter Wet Pond Non-Ultra Urban Bioretention Water Quality Swale

Figure 11-6. Cost comparison of alternative treatment trains to meet specific

water quality and detention performance standards.

Management practice retrofit costs can differ from the costs of management practices

used in new development. Check whether the cost information refers to new

construction or retrofit sites. If you’re estimating costs for a retrofit site and can’t find

information on retrofit costs, consider how your project will differ from new

construction. A retrofit on an agricultural site is likely to be similar in cost to a

management practice on a new construction site, whereas a management practice

retrofit on a highly developed site could have a much higher cost than new

construction. For highly developed sites, you should estimate costs for demolition,

regrading, and other components in addition to new construction management

practice costs. 

Overall, construction cost

information can be an important

deciding factor for targeting

management practices in a

watershed. Figure 11- 6 shows a

comparison of the costs of

different treatment trains for a

mixed-use development. Each

treatment train achieves a 70

percent total phosphorus removal

objective, and the cost analysis

shows that treating runoff with

water quality swales leading to a

wet detention pond is the least

expensive option for this

development. Although this

treatment train is the least

expensive for one development, a

different combination of

management practices might be

more economical for a different

type of development or treatment objective. 

Labor and Nonstructural Management Options

When estimating construction costs, check that the cost information includes labor.

Most total construction cost estimates include labor. If you’re estimating costs for a

nonstructural management practice like training programs or site-specific nutrient

management plans, most of the costs will be labor. Request cost information from

local agencies that have recently developed a similar policy or plan. Also consider

how project costs vary by the site acreage or type of watershed being managed. If no

local information is available, you can check Internet references that provide cost

estimates for nonstructural management practices. For example, the EPA Web site

provides cost information for agricultural management practices, including a number
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-29

of nonstructural management options: Kwww.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm.

Information is also available for management practices for other source types,

including forestry (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt/), marinas and

recreational boating (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/index.html), and urban

areas (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html). 

Design and Engineering Costs

When researching construction cost estimates for various management practices,

determine whether the cost estimates include design and engineering. Typical design

and engineering costs represent an additional 25 to 30 percent of the base

construction cost. Use a local estimate if available; otherwise, consult a national

management practice reference for the approximate design and engineering costs

of your specific management practices. See appendix A for example

management practice reference guides. 

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Operation and maintenance costs vary by the type of management practice

and local requirements. Use local cost estimates when available; otherwise, use

the most recent estimates from national sources. Reference sources might report

operation and maintenance costs as average annual costs or as a percentage of

the base management practice construction cost. For example,

Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development &

Redevelopment (USEPA 2003b) estimates that the annual, routine

maintenance cost for a wet detention pond ranges from 3 to 5 percent of the

pond’s construction cost. For example, maintenance for a $150,000 wet

detention pond would cost about $4,500 to $7,500 per year. 

Inflation Adjustment

Prices of goods and services increase every year because of inflation. You should

adjust cost estimates for inflation if they are reported prior to the first year of your

project. You need to adjust only historical prices; maintenance and other costs after

the first project year do not have to be adjusted because your estimate should be in

the perspective of the first project year, or in “real” terms. The U.S. inflation rate

averages about 3 percent per year. Inflation rates for specific products are available

but are probably not necessary for preliminary cost estimates. 

To adjust historical costs, increase the cost by the inflation rate for every year that the

historical cost differs from the first project year. For example, a cost of about $4 per

cubic foot for an infiltration trench in 1997 would be converted to a cost of about

$5 per cubic foot in 2005 according to the following calculation:

2005 cost = $4.00 × (1 + 0.03) (2005-1997) = $5.07
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-30 Draft

Discounting

The costs that occur after the first project year should be estimated in “present value”

terms. The present value is the current value of the projected stream of costs

throughout a project’s lifetime. The process of calculating present value is known as

discounting. Discounting is important because the money allocated to future costs

could earn an average return in another investment. For example, assume that the first

project year is 2005 and your project will require maintenance after construction. If

you can invest the project’s maintenance funds in another project or fund and earn at

a return of r, consuming one unit of maintenance in 2006 would have a present value

of 1/(1+r) in 2005. One unit consumed in 2007 has a present value of 1/(1+r)

2

 in

2005, and so on. The r at which future returns are discounted to the present value is

called the discount rate (Helfert 1997, Sugden and Williams 1981). Discounting

simply reflects the time preference for consumption. Although not synonymous with

the interest rate, for governments it often reflects the rate at which funds can be

borrowed and loaned. Discounting is especially important if you’re comparing

projects with different maintenance costs and frequencies.

Project costs should be discounted if they are incurred after the first project year.

Costs are discounted according to the following formula:

PV = C / (1+r) (YC ! Y0)

where PV = present value, C = cost, r = discount rate, YC = year of cost, and Y0 = first

year of cost. 

After discounting, costs for all years should be summed to calculate the total present

value cost. 

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the discount rates

required for use in federal project evaluations. OMB currently requires a 7 percent

discount rate for projects evaluated in real terms (USOMB 2005). A discount rate of

7 percent would be appropriate to use with a government-funded project; a higher

discount rate should be used if the project is privately funded. 

Table 11-6 gives a hypothetical example of discounting costs for two management

practices, in which MP 1 is $2,000 more expensive to construct than MP 2. Over 20

years, the present value of maintenance costs for MP 1 is $2,000 less expensive than

that of MP 2. When construction and maintenance are considered together, MP 1 is

about $100 less expensive than MP 2. Although MP 1 is the more expensive

management practice to construct, the present value calculation shows that it is the

less expensive management practice when construction and maintenance are

considered. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-31

Buffer$, a Microsoft Excel-based tool, can be used

to analyze cost benefits of buffers compared to

traditional crops. To download the tool, visit

www.unl.edu/nac/conservation (right click on the

picture and click “save target as”; the file size is 6.0

Mb, so it might take a while to download). To

request a CD with the tool, contact Gary Bentrup at

gbentrup@fs.fed.us.

Table 11-6. Example of Discounting Management Practice Cost for Comparison

Purposes

Management

Practice

Construction

Cost

Annual

Maintenance

Present Value of

Maintenance Costs

over 20 Years, r = 7%

Total Present

Value of Costs

MP 1 $12,000 $300 $3,178 $15,178

MP 2 $10,000 $500 $5,297 $15,297

11.4.2 Compare Costs and Effectiveness of Management Practices

Choosing the most beneficial management practices for your

watershed involves comparing the cost and pollution reduction of

the available options. At a minimum, you should compare the

total costs and effectiveness of the management practices. First,

compare the total benefits and determine which management

practices achieve the goals of your project. Then, compare the

total costs of the management practices that achieve your goals

and determine which ones are the least expensive. If you wish to

prioritize further, calculate a cost-effectiveness ratio to determine

which management practice is the most cost-effective for

achieving your goals.

The following example illustrates how a cost-effectiveness ratio can be calculated.

Assume that you’re proposing a treatment train of bioretention cells draining to an

extended dry detention pond for a residential development. The total present value

cost of the management practice construction, operation, and maintenance is about

$200,000. The estimated annual reduction in total phosphorus load as 7 pounds per

year. Assuming a project lifetime of 20 years, the total reduction in phosphorus load

would be 7 lb × 20, or 140 lb. The cost per pound of phosphorus removed is

$200,000 divided by 140, or about $1,430. In this example, the pounds of phosphorus

removed are not discounted over the project lifetime. If you are comparing practices

with differing benefits over time, you might consider discounting pollution load

reduction and other nonmonetary benefits as prescribed by OMB (USOMB 2005).

You can determine which options are the most cost-effective by comparing the costeffectiveness ratios of your management options. The management option with the

lowest cost-effectiveness ratio provides the most benefit for the least dollars spent.

However, you also need to evaluate whether the most cost-effective options are

sufficient to meet your management goals. Sometimes you need to select less costeffective options because they represent the only way to achieve the required load

reductions or other specific goals. For example, in a watershed targeted for sediment

reduction that has significant sediment contribution from eroding banks, more

expensive structural stream restoration might be the only way to achieve the
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-32 Draft

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

90% 85% 72% 70% 70% 66% 60% 60% 45% 41% 40% 30% 30% 19%

UHMX COMM-H OI-H HMFR HMX IND MX MFR COMM-L HDR INS OI-L MDR MLDR

Percent Imperviousness

BMP Cost per Acre

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

TP Loading (lb/acre/year)

Construction, Design, and Engineering ($/acre)

SET Loading With BMPs (lb/acre/year)

SET Loading Without BMPs (lb/acre/year)

Figure 11-7. Example comparing construction cost and pollutant loading for

different urban land use types with decreasing levels of imperviousness.

necessary reduction; more cost-effective upland management practices might not be

able to achieve targets by themselves.

The examples above assume that you’re comparing management options for one type

of development or condition. Comparing costs and benefits is also useful when

targeting management practices across different types of land uses. Figure 11-7

compares the costs and pollutant loadings across 14 types of developments; the

percentage on the horizontal axis refers to the average percentage imperviousness of

the developments. A simplified spreadsheet, SET, was used in this example to

estimate the pollutant loading with and without management practices, and each

management practice treatment train achieved 70 percent phosphorus removal. The

figure shows that developments with a higher percentage of impervious area can cost

substantially more to treat than developments with lower levels of imperviousness.

Figure 11-8 compares the management practice construction cost per acre with the

cost per pound of total phosphorus removed. At below 70 percent imperviousness,

the cost-effectiveness ratio is fairly constant for the developments, but above that

level the cost-effectiveness ratio increases substantially. In this situation, you should

consider how much impact the developments with high imperviousness have on the

water quality of your watershed. You might find that these land uses are a small

percentage of your watershed and that a less expensive treatment option for these

land uses could achieve your watershed-wide water quality objectives. When certain
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-33

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

90% 85% 72% 70% 70% 66% 60% 60% 45% 41% 40% 30% 30% 19%

UHMX COMM-H OI-H HMFR HMX IND MX MFR COMM-L HDR INS OI-L MDR MLDR

BMP Cost per Acre

$500

$1,500

$2,500

$3,500

$4,500

$5,500

Cost per Pound TP Removed

Construction, Design, and Engineering ($/acre)

Cost per TP Load Removed ($/lb) 

 Figure 11-8. Example showing increased cost per pound of total phosphorus

removed for urban land uses with highest levels of imperviousness.

land uses are found to be the least cost-effective, stakeholders can be consulted to

determine the importance of treating all land uses versus saving on costs. Beyond

cost-effectiveness, stakeholders might be concerned about localized impacts on water

quality from highly impervious developments. 

When used in combination with an assessment of the project objectives and

stakeholder concerns, a comparison of costs and benefits can be useful in

management decisionmaking. The examples and strategies outlined above do not

cover all the possible watershed conditions and issues to be considered. With each

project, look at the situation critically and ensure that you’ve covered the most

important factors before making a decision on management practices.

11.5 Select Final Management Strategies

The process of narrowing down possible management options involves ultimately

matching the best candidate practices to your needs. 

When you screened management options (chapter 10), you used worksheets to

summarize promising alternatives, noting potential pollutant removal efficiencies,

identifying constraints in using the practice, and so forth. In this chapter, you’ve

refined those worksheets, quantified estimates of the total potential pollutant

removal, and identified which combinations of management practices meet your load
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-34 Draft

reduction or hydrology targets. You’ve also estimated

costs for these different watershed management

strategies (or different combinations of management

practices). Now it’s time to pull together information

from the environmental and cost analysis and select the

preferred strategies.

11.5.1 Decision Process 

In general, you’ll work through a process using

established decision criteria to identify the

management strategies that are most likely to succeed.

The process is likely to follow some variation of the

following steps:

• Develop decision criteria.

• Summarize evaluation results and present to stakeholders.

• Obtain feedback from stakeholders.

• Rank preferences and select management strategy(ies).

Develop Decision Criteria

In such watershed planning efforts you should address not only the state or local

water quality or hydrology targets but also such issues as

• Fiscal impact on local governments

• Cost to the development community

• Overall regulatory feasibility of the strategy

• Compatibility with other local planning objectives and policies

• Overall political feasibility

Pulling together the “big picture” for watersheds is critical for those trying to select

the preferred management strategies, but this can also be challenging. Most likely

you’ll select indicators and objectives that include both quantifiable indicators (Does

it meet the target? How much will it cost the development community?) and more

subjective indicators (Is it compatible with local policies? Is it politically feasible?). 

Summarize Evaluation Results and Present to Stakeholders

Before meeting with the stakeholder committee, develop a summary chart that can

convey the big-picture evaluation, noting which indicators you are able to quantify

versus those which must be evaluated subjectively. Fill in the chart for the indicators

you are able to quantify and evaluate (in absolute numbers or in relative percentages).

For more subjective indicators, you can use a “straw man” or “blank slate” approach

with the committee. The straw man approach involves conducting a preliminary

evaluation (e.g., evaluating how compatible the differing strategies are with local
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-35

Refer to appendix A for additional

resources concerning stakeholders.

planning policies) and presenting your evaluation to the committee for review,

discussion, and final evaluation. The blank slate approach allows the committee to

jointly or independently evaluate the criteria and develop a response. This evaluation

could be conducted through a survey of committee members, deliberations of the

committee, or both.

Obtain Feedback from Stakeholders

If stakeholders have concerns about a particular management strategy,

determine whether there is information that is already available or could be

readily obtained that would address their concerns. For example, if the

stakeholders are not familiar with a particular management practice and are

therefore hesitant to implement it, consider bringing in an extension agent familiar

with the practice who can further educate concerned stakeholders about the practice

and answer questions credibly. Perhaps increasing familiarity and confidence is all

that will be required for the stakeholders to support the practice. 

Where cost feasibility is an issue, present information regarding cost-sharing sources

or other funding options that might make implementation feasible. Consider

accessing technical support from organizations like Cooperative Extension, NRCS, or

other resource agencies or nonprofit organizations that can offer technical assistance

or cost-sharing dollars. Always keep the end in view, reminding those around the

table of the loading that you are trying to achieve and the load reduction needed.

Then focus on the solutions—practices that landowners are willing to implement and

can implement on their own or with assistance of agencies, nonprofit groups, or other

stakeholders. The more that you ensure that initial questions and concerns are

adequately addressed, the more buy-in you’re likely to have when the time for

implementation arrives.

Rank Preferences and Select Final Strategies

The process for selecting preferred strategies can be very

straightforward if you have a small watershed with a limited

number of landowners and a limited number of problems or issues

to resolve. Cost-effective choices might be quite clear, and there

might not be many other issues to work through. 

In small watersheds or watersheds with limited numbers of

landowners and parameters of concern, your management practice

worksheets can be used as the basis for evaluating management

strategies and making a final selection. The task might be as

simple as sharing the information regarding the effectiveness and

cost of the different practices with the landowners, explaining

how practices could be combined in complementary ways to

address the problem, and then discussing which management
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-36 Draft

practices they would be willing and able to implement. Discussions about feasible

options also need to address a reasonable timetable for implementing the options.

A more complex process is often needed when managing larger watersheds or small

watersheds with multiple issues and a broader set of stakeholders. In such cases it can

be helpful to develop formal criteria and methods for ranking stakeholder preferences

to support final decisions on selection. These formal methods can include weighting

some criteria as more important than others to best represent stakeholder preferences.

In addition, it might not always be necessary for stakeholders to agree on exactly the

same practices; if different stakeholders are willing to implement separate practices

that still achieve the objectives, there is no reason to force a single ranking or

preference.

The degree to which you feel the need to formally rank the candidate strategies will

depend on the circumstances. KYou can use a ranking process similar to the one you

conducted in section 10.3.8. The ranking factors and assumptions will change,

however. 

In reality, there are many more ways you can use to rank and select management

practices than can possibly be covered here. The following section provides two

examples in the range of options for selecting the preferred strategies. 

11.5.2 Example Procedures for Selecting Final Management Strategies

The following two examples are provided to help illustrate the range of methods for

selecting the preferred strategies. The first example represents the simple case where

a less formal process was used to select preferred practices; the second example

includes a more formal process in which evaluation criteria and objectives were

established and results were weighted before making final selections.

Muddy Creek Selects Final Strategies to Implement TMDL

Watershed planners in the Muddy Creek watershed went through a ranking process to

select management practices to implement their portion of the Virgin River Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Table 11-7 lists the management techniques

evaluated. Note that each is categorized by the level of engineering intensity. A

separate worksheet was developed for each technique during the screening and then

refined during the evaluation process. Table 11-8 lists the final selection of

management practices that the landowners plan to use to meet the load reduction

requirement, along with their estimated load reduction and a timeline for

implementation.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-37

Table 11-7. Selected Management Techniques for the Muddy Creek

Subwatershed, Virgin River TMDL Implementation 

Level A

Management Changes

1 Rotational grazing

2 Seasonal grazing

3 No-till farming techniques

Level B

Management practices and

Altruistic Techniques

1 Installation of cross-fencing

2 Use of sprinkler irrigation system

3 Decreased water usage

Level C

Mild Engineering

1 Stream grade stabilization structures

2 Revegetation of streambanks

3 Replacement of open ditches and diversions with

piped systems

Level D

Moderate Engineering

1 Installation of stream barbs

2 Installation of weirs

3 Stabilization of road cuts

Level E

Intensive Engineering

1 Slope stabilization

2 Change in meander and profile of stream sections

Table 11-8. Summary of Load Reduction Requirements and Expected Removal

Efficiencies for Selected Management Practices: Muddy Creek Subwatershed

TMDL Target

Values

Total Dissolved

Solids (lb/day)

Implementation

Technique(s)

Estimated

Percent Load

Reduction (%)

Timeline for

Implementation

Reductions

(mo)

Overall load

allocation: 12,320

A1 4 4–12

B2 8 6–12

B3 8 6–12

Current

measured load: 20,550

C1 10 9–24

C2 15 36–120

C3 15 12–36

Overall required

load reduction: 8,230

D2 20 24–48

E1 20 24–48

Town of Cary, North Carolina, Selects Final Strategies to Manage

Stormwater Runoff

The Town of Cary used a summary chart to evaluate different options and criteria for

managing future stormwater runoff from its Town Center area. The town had adopted

a redevelopment plan that encouraged urban redevelopment along a planned rail
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-38 Draft

State Regulations

• Meets state Nutrient-Sensitive Water TMDL and

Phase II requirements

• More protective than state regulations

• Comparable to existing Swift Creek watershed

drinking water supply protection rules

• Regulatory feasibility

Town Plans and Policies

• Supports Town Center Area Plan and preferred

growth areas

• Provides adequate infrastructure

• Preserves and protects natural resources

• Encourages attractive development

Fiscal Impact

• Cost-effectiveness in meeting targets

Overall Feasibility

corridor in the Town Center and the use of smart growth

principles. However, the planned redevelopment needed to

meet a number of stormwater management regulations,

including existing nutrient TMDL and drinking water supply

protection regulations and pending National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater

requirements.

At the beginning of the planning process, the stakeholder

committee was instrumental in developing and adopting the

evaluation criteria in the box at right for different management

options. Easily understood consumer report symbols were then

used to convey how well each option met the evaluation

criteria (figure 11-9). The options being compared by Cary

included onsite stormwater water quality and volume/peak

detention controls, an off-site shared facility (e.g., constructed

wetlands) for local control, regional controls to meet volume

and water quality performance standards, and combinations,

including a buy-down allowance for achieving nitrogen

reductions.

When presenting and discussing the results of the evaluation

of management options, the Stakeholder Committee prioritized

two of the criteria:

1. Meets state Nutrient-Sensitive Water TMDL and Phase II requirements

2. Supports the Town Center Area Plan and preferred growth areas

Although the other criteria were important in the evaluation, these two became the

most important in selecting the preferred management option. Therefore, option 1

was selected as the final management strategy.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Draft 11-39

Criteria

Meets State

TMDL More Restrictive than State TMDL

Option 1

On-site/Shared

Option 2

On-site/Shared

Option 3

Regional

Volume, TSS, TN

Option 4

Regional

Volume, TSS,

N Buy-Down

Option 5

On-site/Shared Water

Quality Control;

Regional Volume

State Regulations

Meets State NutrientSensitive Water and Phase

II Requirements—High

Priority

zz   

More Protective than State

Regulations {z { { 

Swift Creek Watershed:

Comparable to Existing

Swift Creek LMP

zz z z z

Regulatory Feasibility zz   

Town Plans and Policies

Supports Town Center

Area Plan (Urban Form/

Preferred Growth

Areas)—High Priority

z{   {

Provides Adequate

Infrastructure zz z z z

Preserves/Protects Natural

Resources zz   z

Encourages Attractive

Development zz   z

Fiscal Impact

Cost-Effectiveness of

Mitigation Target zz   z

Overall Feasibility (Counts

z//{) 8/0/1 7/1/1 2/6/1 2/6/1 5/3/1

Percent that Option Meets

Criteria 90% 85% 55% 55% 72%

Meets Both High-Priority

Criteria Yes No No No No

z Meets Criteria  Partially Meets Criteria { Does Not Meet Criteria

Figure 11-9. Evaluation of stormwater management options for the Town of Cary.

Now that you’ve selected the recommended management strategy that will meet the

objectives of your program, the more detailed implementation planning can begin. In

the next chapter implementation plans, schedules, and funding are discussed in more

detail. 
Chapter 11

Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

11-40 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-1

12. Design

Implementation

Program and Assemble

Watershed Plan

Read this chapter if...

• You want to know how to develop the implementation component of your

watershed plan

• You want to know how to set up an evaluation framework for your watershed

plan

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Information/education component

< Schedule for implementation

< Milestones

< Criteria to measure progress

< Monitoring component

< Financial and technical resources

needed

< Evaluation framework

< Assembling watershed plan
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-2 Draft

12.1 What Do I Need to Design My Implementation Program?

Now that you’ve identified watershed management measures that when implemented

should meet your objectives, it’s time to develop the remaining elements of your

implementation program. Designing the implementation program generates several of

the basic elements needed for effective watershed plans:

• An information/education (I/E) component to support public participation and

build management capacity related to adopted management measures

• A schedule for implementing management measures 

• Interim milestones to determine whether management measures are being

implemented

• Criteria by which to measure progress toward reducing pollutant loads and

meeting watershed goals

• A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation efforts

• An estimate of the technical and financial resources and authorities needed to

implement the plan

• An evaluation framework

12.2 Develop Information/Education Component

Every watershed plan should include an information/education (I/E) component that

involves the watershed community. Because many water quality problems result

from individual actions and the solutions are often voluntary practices, effective

public involvement and participation promote the adoption of management practices,

help to ensure the sustainability of the watershed management plan, and perhaps most

important, encourage changes in behavior that will help you achieve your overall

watershed goals.

 This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element e of the

nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element e is “An information and

education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and

encourage their early and continued participation in selecting designing, and

implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented.”

12.2.1 Integrate I/E Activities into the Overall Watershed Implementation

Program

The objectives of the public outreach program should directly support your

watershed management goals and implementation of the watershed management

plan. For example, the overall goal for your watershed plan might be to restore water
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-3

For more information on planning and implementing

outreach campaigns, refer to EPA’s Getting in Step: A

Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach

Campaigns. This comprehensive guide will walk you

through the six critical steps of outreach—defining

your goals and objectives, identifying your target

audience, developing appropriate messages, selecting

materials and activities, distributing the messages,

and conducting evaluation at each step of the way. K

You can download the guide at

www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/

getnstep.pdf or order it by calling 1-800-490-9198. Ask

for publication number EPA 841-B-03-002.

EPA developed a "Nonpoint Source Outreach Digital

Toolbox," which provides information, tools, and a

catalog of more than 700 outreach materials that state

and local agencies and organizations can use to

launch their own nonpoint source pollution outreach

campaign. The toolbox focuses on six nonpoint source

categories: stormwater, household hazardous waste,

septic systems, lawn care, pet care, and automotive

care, with messages geared to urban and suburban

residents. Outreach products include mass-media

materials, such as print ads, radio and television

public service announcements, and a variety of

materials for billboards, signage, kiosks, posters,

movie theater slides, brochures, factsheets, and

everyday object giveaways that help to raise

awareness and promote non-polluting behaviors.

Permission-to-use information is included for outreach

products, which makes it easy to tailor them to local

priorities. Evaluations of several outreach campaigns

also offer real-world examples of what works best in

terms of messages, communication styles, formats

and delivery methods. The toolbox is available online

quality to Brooker Creek, which has been badly degraded due

to nutrient inputs from fertilizers. To help meet that goal, you

might develop a public participation program that will “make

residents aware of proper fertilizer use to reduce application

rates.” The objectives will also be shaped by the size of the

community and the resources available to support efforts. The

I/E components identified should also include measurable

objectives and indicators for measuring progress.

You can develop a separate public outreach component in your

watershed plan that provides the foundation of your I/E

activities, but be sure to include the specific tasks, costs of

implementation, and responsible parties in the overall

implementation matrix.

12.2.2 Develop an I/E Program

Although it’s important to let people know about the water quality problems in the

watershed, sometimes simply informing and educating people on the issues is not

enough to initiate behavior change. Keep in mind that behavior change occurs over

time. First, audiences should be made aware of the issue or problem. Then they

should be educated on the problems facing the watershed.

Finally, they should know what actions they can take to help

address those problems.

To develop an effective I/E program, you should follow these

six steps:

1. Define I/E goals and objectives.

2. Identify and analyze the target audiences.

3. Create the messages for each audience.

4. Package the message to various audiences.

5. Distribute the messages.

6. Evaluate the I/E program.

The activities that occur in each of these steps are briefly

summarized below.

Step 1: Define I/E Goals and Objectives

In developing an I/E component, you should identify I/E goals

for the watershed plan implementation program. KStart with

the driving forces that you outlined at the beginning of the

watershed planning effort in chapter 4. 7 This will help set the

foundation for, and focus, your I/E activities. 
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-4 Draft

Remember . . .

As you progress through implementation, your

outreach objectives and activities will evolve. For

example, during the early stages it might be necessary

to generate basic awareness of watershed issues, but

as problems are identified during watershed

characterization your objectives will focus on educating

your target audiences on the causes of the problems.

Next, your objectives will focus on actions your target

audience can take to reduce or prevent adverse water

quality impacts. Finally, your objectives will focus on

reporting progress.

The outreach goals and objectives will reinforce the overall watershed goals and

objectives and should be specific, measurable, action-oriented, and time-focused.

Keep the desired outcome in mind when developing your

objectives. Do you want to create awareness, provide

information, or encourage action among your target audience?

It’s very important to make your objectives as specific as

possible and to include a time element as well as a result. This

approach will make it easier to identify specific tasks and will

enable you to evaluate whether you've achieved the

objectives. 

Step 2: Identify and Analyze the Target Audience

Next, you should identify the audiences you need to reach to

meet your objectives. The target audience is the group of

people you want to reach with your message. You should

break down your target audience into smaller segments using

demographics, location, occupation, watershed role, and other

factors. If your target audience is too broad, chances are you won't be able to develop

a message that engages and resonates with the entire audience. Be creative in

defining and developing perspectives on your target audiences and in finding out

what makes them tick. 

Step 3: Create the Message

After gathering information on members of the target audience, you’re ready to craft

a message that will engage them and help achieve your watershed planning

objectives. To be effective, the message must be understood by the target audience

and appeal to people on their own terms. The message should articulate what actions

the audience should take. These actions might include letting vegetation grow taller

along a stream, pumping septic tanks, or conducting soil tests before fertilizing

lawns. The actions should tie directly back to the goals of the watershed plan because

one of the goals of your I/E program will be to help implement the watershed plan. In

addition, your message should be clear, specific, and tied directly to something the

target audience values, such as

• Money savings 

• Time savings 

• Convenience 

• Health improvements

• Efficiency 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-5

In the Lake Champlain Basin, a cooperative venture

between the Lake Champlain Basin Program and a

local TV station produced weekly spots on the evening

news between May 1999 and September 2004 that

provided an in-depth look at many of the important

environmental issues surrounding the Lake, its basin,

and restoration efforts. Periodic half-hour special

reports showed compilations of these spots and

provided videos as a resource for teachers and

communities. The series won many awards, including

awards from EPA and the North American Lake

Management Society (NALMS). 

K www.anr.state.vt.us/champ/cham2000.htm

The Livable Neighborhood Water Stewardship Program

in Falls Church, Virginia, fulfilled community members’

desire to take part in watershed protection activities at

the neighborhood level. Volunteer leaders recruited

their neighbors to form household EcoTeams to help

each other become better water stewards. The teams

adopted behaviors such as creating a rain garden and

reducing the use of household chemicals. The team

aspect provided the motivation to carry out the actions

while establishing relationships that helped create a

more livable neighborhood. Studies show that such

community activities are successful in sustaining

significant behavior change. KGo to

www.empowermentinstitute.net/Files/WSP.htm for

more information on this program.

Step 4: Package the Message

Now it’s time to determine the best package or format for the message for eventual

delivery to the target audience. The information you collected in Step 2 while

researching the audience will help to determine the most appropriate format. When

selecting your message format, think about where the target audience gets its

information. A farming community might respond more

positively to door-to-door visits or articles in farm

publications than to an Internet and e-mail campaign. 

Work with the Media

If your message needs to be understood and embraced by the

public, it should be covered by the mass media. The media

can be a very cost-effective and efficient way to get your

message delivered. Formats using the mass media can be

broken down into two major categories—news coverage and

advertising. News coverage includes interviews, news stories,

letters to the editor, and event coverage. Advertising includes

the development of public service announcements (PSAs).

Publicity generated from news coverage is dependent on the

news organization, whereas you create radio, TV, and

newspaper advertising yourself. In many cases the advertising

you do can be leveraged later into news coverage. For

example, one state bought informational ads on agriculture-related water quality

issues from a radio station and received as a benefit some free news coverage of the

issues during the year. 

Develop Effective Print Materials

By far the most popular format for outreach campaigns is

print. Printed materials include items like fact sheets,

brochures, flyers, booklets, posters, bus placards, billboards,

and doorknob hangers. These materials can be created easily,

and the target audience can refer to them again and again. The

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

launched a nonpoint source outreach campaign in 2001 that

targeted watersheds with water quality problems where the

causes were known. In watersheds where pet waste was

identified as contributing to these problems, TCEQ developed

a full-color billboard display of a dog with the message,

“Please pick up my poop.” The billboards served as prompts

to encourage behavior change. KFor more information, visit

www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea/nps/nps.html.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-6 Draft

Hold Events

Also consider using activities to spread your message. A watershed event can be one

of the most energizing formats for distributing messages targeted at awareness,

education, or direct action. A community event plays into the desire of audience

members to belong to a group and have shared goals and visions for the community.

In urban areas, where knowing your neighbors and other members of your

community is the exception instead of the rule, community events can help to

strengthen the fabric of the community by creating and enhancing community

relationships, building trust, and improving the relationships between government

agencies and the public. And if done well, they’re just plain fun. 

Leverage Resources

If resources are limited and the message is fairly focused, try to piggyback onto an

existing event that involves the target audience. Trade shows and other events for

farmers, developers, boaters, fishers, the automobile industry, and other groups can

often be accessed with a little research and a few phone calls. As in all outreach, you

can’t deliver a message to the target audience if you don’t have access to it.

Approaches for generating interest and attention are limited only by your creativity.

Watershed groups have used bands, balloons, face-painting, mascots, interactive

displays, video games, giveaways, clowns, jugglers, and celebrities to draw crowds.

You can also increase the exposure of your event by inviting local TV and radio

stations to cover it.

Step 5: Distribute the Message 

Once the message has been packaged in the desired format, you can proceed with

distribution. Fortunately, you’ve already considered distribution mechanisms

somewhat while researching the target audience and selecting a format. Common

means of distribution are by direct mail, door-to-door, by phone, through targeted

businesses, during presentations, as hand-outs at events, through media outlets, and

by posting your message in public places. Consider which distribution method(s) is

best for your community. Local governments, for example, might choose to add

inserts to utility bills, whereas local community groups might prefer door-to-door

visits. One of the ways the City of Fresno, California, distributed its stormwater

pollution prevention message was through placemats at area fast food restaurants. Be

creative in your distribution mechanisms.

Consider the Messenger

In addition to how you’re going to deliver the message, you should decide who will

deliver the message. Analysis of the target audience can help you identify the most

trusted members of the community. An organization trusted by the public can use a

staff representative of its own. If the organization is a government agency, it might be

more effective to have a member of the target audience deliver the message.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-7

Programmatic

• Number of newspaper stories printed

• Number of people educated/trained

• Number of public meetings held

• Number of volunteers attending activities

• Number of storm drains stenciled

Social

• Number of calls to hotline

• Number of people surveyed with increased

knowledge of watershed issues 

• Number of people surveyed with changes in

behavior

• Participation at watershed events

• Number of trained volunteer monitors 

Environmental

• Number of gallons of used paint collected

• Number of people who purchased rain barrels

• Pounds of trash collected on stream clean-up

days

• Number of pet waste bags taken at kiosks

• Pounds of yard waste collected

In Grapevine, Texas, the “Conservation Cowboy” conducts

numerous visits throughout the year within the community to

promote environmental responsibility and nonpoint source

pollution prevention. The Conservation Cowboy has been a huge

hit with children and has become an effective messenger of

environmental education messages.

Remember to use your watershed stakeholder group to help

distribute the message. The group already has a vested interest in

the success of the watershed plan and will help you distribute

educational materials to the watershed community—perhaps

through in-kind support like helping erect watershed road signs, or

through financial or technical support to cover printing costs or

conduct presentations at community meetings. Members of your

stakeholder group will be trusted, respected members of the

watershed community and will make it easier to spread the word.

Step 6: Evaluate the I/E Program

Evaluation provides a feedback mechanism for ongoing

improvement of your outreach effort. Many people don’t think

about how they’ll evaluate the success of their I/E program until

after the program has been implemented. Building an evaluation

component into the plan from the beginning, however, will ensure

that at least some accurate feedback on outreach program impact

is generated. Ideally, feedback generated during the early stages of

the project will be used immediately in making preliminary

determinations about program effectiveness. Adapting elements of

the I/E effort continually as new information is received ensures

that ineffective components are adjusted or scrapped while

components that are working are supported and enhanced. KGo back to chapter 4

(section 4.6) to review the suite of potential indicators you can use to measure the

effectiveness of your I/E program. 

KAppendix A provides resource information on developing outreach programs.

12.3 Establish an Implementation Schedule 

 This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element f of the

nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element f is a “Schedule for

implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in the plan that

is reasonably expeditious.”
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-8 Draft

Short-Term (< 2 years)

• Achieve 5 percent reduction in sediment load on 1,000

acres of agricultural land in the Cross Creek

subwatershed by implementing rotational grazing

practices.

• Eliminate direct sources of organic waste, nutrients,

and fecal coliform bacteria to the stream by installing

5,000 feet of fencing to exclude direct access to cattle

along Cross Creek.

Mid-Term (< 5 years)

• Reduce streambank erosion and sediment loading

rate by 15 percent by reestablishing vegetation along

3,600 feet of Cross Creek.

Long-Term (5 years or longer)

• Achieve the fecal coliform water quality standard in

the upper section of Cross Creek above Highway 64.

The schedule component of a watershed plan involves turning goals and objectives

into specific tasks. The schedule should include a timeline of when each phase of the

step will be implemented and accomplished, as well as the agency/organization

responsible for implementing the activity. In addition, your schedule should be

broken down into increments that you can reasonably track and review. For example,

the time frame for implementing tasks can be divided into quarters. You will prepare

more detailed schedules as part of your annual work plans (Ksee section 13.4).

In developing schedules, it helps to obtain the input of those who have had previous

experience in applying the recommended actions. Locate experienced resource

agency staff and previous management practice project managers where possible to

identify the key steps. Be sure to note sequence or timing issues that need to be

coordinated to keep tasks on track.

12.4 Develop Interim Measurable Milestones

One means of supporting detailed scheduling and task tracking is to identify interim,

measurable milestones for determining whether management practices or other

control actions are being implemented. What do you want to accomplish by when? It

usually helps to think of milestones in terms of relevant time scales. For example,

• Short-term (1 to 2 years)

• Mid-term (2 to 5 years)

• Long-term (5 to 10 years or longer)

 This phase of the watershed planning process should

result in element g of the nine elements for awarding section

319 grants. Element g is “A description of interim

measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint

source management measures or other control actions are

being implemented.”

It’s also helpful to think of the milestones as subtasks, or

what needs to be accomplished over time to fully implement

the practice or management measure. When determining

time scales and subtasks for actions, place the milestones in

the context of the implementation strategy. Given the

selected practices and the available funds or time frame for

obtaining grants, estimate what can be accomplished by

when. First, outline the subtasks involved and the level of

effort associated with each to establish a baseline for time

estimates. Next, identify the responsible parties associated

with the steps so that you can collectively discuss milestones
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-9

and identify those which are feasible and supported by the people who will do the

work.

Groups should also consider economic, social, and environmental factors. When

selecting a milestone, make sure that it is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant to

a nonpoint source management measure, and time-sensitive.

Groups should consider staff availability and funding resources and how to determine

how the milestones will be evaluated. For example, will progress toward a milestone

be determined through monitoring, spot-checking, participation, adoption of

management practices, or some other methods? Answering this question will enable

the group to allocate and plan for resources and easily determine whether a milestone

has been met. It would be difficult to set a milestone at “installing 30 miles of buffer

strips within 2 years” if no staff were available to measure the miles of buffer strips

installed. Resources should be targeted toward the highest-priority milestones.

Finally, your plan should also provide a description of what will be done if the

milestones are not being achieved or how your program will take advantage of

milestones being achieved in a significantly shorter time frame. 

12.5 Establish a Set of Criteria to Measure Progress toward

Meeting Water Quality Standards and Other Goals

As part of your implementation program, you should set some criteria by which

you’ll determine whether you are achieving load reductions over time and making

progress toward meeting your overall watershed goals. These criteria can also

support an adaptive management approach by providing mechanisms by which to

reevaluate implementation plans if you’re not making substantial progress toward

meeting your watershed goals. 

 This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element h of the

nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element h is “A set of criteria that

can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time

and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards.”

These criteria can be expressed as indicators and associated interim target values.

You can use various indicators to help measure progress (chapter 4). You’ll want to

select indicators that will provide quantitative measurements of progress toward

meeting the goals and can be easily communicated to various audiences. It’s

important to remember that these indicators and associated interim targets will serve

as a “trigger,” in that if the criteria indicate that you are not making substantial

progress, you should consider changing your implementation approach.

These indicators might reflect a water quality condition that can be measured

(dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, total suspended solids) or an action-related achievement
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-10 Draft

that can be measured (pounds of trash removed, number of volunteers at the stream

cleanup, length of stream corridor revegetated). In other words, the criteria are

interim targets in the watershed plan, such as completing certain subtasks that would

result in overall pollutant reduction targets. Be careful to distinguish between

programmatic indicators that are related to the implementation of your work plan,

such as workshops held or brochures mailed, and environmental indicators used to

measure progress toward water quality goals, such as phosphorus concentrations or

sediment loadings.

The indicators and interim target values you select should reflect the performance of

the management measures being implemented, the concerns identified early in the

process by stakeholders, and the refined goals that were outlined (chapter 9). Because

of the confounding, dynamic conditions that occur in a watershed, you should be

careful how you interpret these indicators once implementation begins. For example,

if you’ve selected turbidity as your indicator for measuring sediment load reductions

and the turbidity value actually increases after installation of management practices,

does this mean you’re not making improvements in the watershed? You should

determine whether additional activities, such as new development activities, are

contributing additional loads that you didn’t consider. You also should realize that

the initial land disturbance that installation of management practice sometimes

generates initially could create a short-term increase in sediment loadings. In

addition, you might actually see a decrease in sediment loads while turbidity remains

the same or increases due to increased biological production. Therefore, you also

want to include long-term progress measurements such as reduced frequency of

dredging as an indication of reduced sediment loads, or improved aquatic habitat as a

result of reduced sediment loads. Table 12-1 demonstrates how you can use a suite of

indicators to measure progress in reducing pollutant loads depending on the issues of

concern.

There are various factors to consider before setting criteria, such as the

implementation schedule of the management measures, the nature of the pollutants,

and the time frame for applying the criteria. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-11

Table 12-1. Example Indicators to Measure Progress in Reducing Pollutant Loads

Issue Suite of Indicators

Eutrophication • Phosphorus load

• Number of nuisance algae blooms

• Transparency of waterbody or secchi depth

• Frequency of taste and odor problems in water supply

• Hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen in a lake or reservoir

• Soil test phosphorus in agricultural fields

Pathogens (related to recreational use) • Bacteria counts

• Compliance with water quality standards (single sample or geometric mean)

• Number and duration of beach closings

• Number of shellfish bed reopenings

• Incidence of illness reported during recreation season

Sediment • Total suspended solids concentration and load

• Raw water quality at drinking water intake

• Frequency and degree of dredging of agricultural ditches, impoundments,

and water supply intake structures

12.5.1 Schedule for Implementation of Management Measures

Before developing any criteria to measure progress in reducing loads, you should

review the schedule you’ve developed for implementing the proposed management

measures. Obviously, you won’t see any load reductions until the measures are

installed. Check to see if the management measures are to be installed evenly over

the duration of the plan or whether most practices are to be installed in the first few

years of implementation. Often, long and uncertain lag times occur between

implementation and response at the watershed level.

12.5.2 Nature of Pollutants to Be Controlled

The speed with which loads can be reduced is also dependent on the nature of the

pollutants. Pathogens in animal waste, for example, tend to die off quickly in the

environment, so response to a decrease in pathogen delivery to a waterbody might be

noticed quickly. If direct deposition of waste in a stream by grazing livestock is the

problem, fencing the animals away from the stream might cause nearly immediate

reductions in pathogen levels in the water. Implementation of erosion controls,

however, might show results more slowly as sediments already in the drainage

network move through the system even as soil loss from cropland or construction

sites is controlled. If runoff of soluble phosphorus due to excessive soil phosphorus

levels is the problem, measurable change might take years or even decades to

demonstrate in response to nutrient management as accumulated phosphorus is

slowly depleted by crop harvests. 
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-12 Draft

12.6 Develop a Monitoring Component

As part of the development of your watershed plan, you should develop a monitoring

component to track and evaluate the effectiveness of your implementation efforts

using the criteria developed in the previous section. 

 This phase of the watershed planning process should result in element i of the

nine elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element i is “A monitoring component

to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured

against the criteria established to determine whether loading reductions are being

achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water

quality standards.”

Monitoring programs can be designed to track progress in meeting load reduction

goals and attaining water quality standards, but there are significant challenges to

overcome. Clear communication between program and monitoring managers is

important to specify monitoring objectives that, if achieved, will provide the data

necessary to satisfy all relevant management objectives. The selection of monitoring

designs, sites, parameters, and sampling frequencies should be driven by the agreedupon monitoring objectives, although some compromises are usually necessary

because of factors like site accessibility, sample preservation concerns, staffing,

logistics, and costs. If compromises are made because of constraints, it is important

to determine whether the monitoring objectives will still be met with the modified

plan. There is always some uncertainty in monitoring efforts, but to knowingly

implement a monitoring plan that is fairly certain to fail is a complete waste of time,

effort, and resources. Because statistical analysis is usually critical to the

interpretation of monitoring results, it’s usually wise to consult a statistician during

the design of a monitoring program. 

Measurable progress is critical to ensuring continued support of watershed projects,

and progress is best demonstrated with the use of monitoring data that accurately

reflect water quality conditions relevant to the identified problems. All too frequently

watershed managers rely on modeling projections or other indirect measures of

success (e.g., implementation of management measures) to document achievement,

and in some cases this approach can result in a backlash later when monitoring data

show that actual progress does not match the projections based on surrogate

information.

There is no doubt that good monitoring can be complex and expensive. Monitoring

can be done at numerous levels; the most important criterion is that the monitoring

component should be designed in concert with your objectives. If documenting the

performance of particular management practices under seasonal conditions is

important, a detailed and intensive water quality monitoring regime might be

included. If your objective is to restore swimming at a beach previously closed, you
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-13

might monitor progress by keeping track of the number of days the beach is open or

the number of swimmers visiting the beach. If restoration of life in a stream is the

objective, annual sampling of benthic invertebrates and fish might be included, or a

count of anglers and a creel census could be useful. If another agency is already

conducting monitoring (e.g., making annual measurements of phosphorus load or

regulating shellfish beds based on bacteria counts), you might be able to use such

ongoing monitoring to track your project’s progress. In North Carolina, the Long

Creek Watershed Project used the frequency of dredging at a water supply intake as a

measure of the progress in controlling erosion in the watershed (Lombardo et al.

2004). Regardless of the specific objective, keep in mind that documental measures

of progress toward your water quality goals are important. 

Because of natural variability, one of the challenges in water quality monitoring is to

be able to demonstrate a link between the implementation of management measures

and water quality improvements. To facilitate being able to make this connection, the

following elements should considered when developing a monitoring program.

12.6.1 Directly Relate Monitoring Efforts to the Management Objectives

The data you collect should be directly related to the management objectives outlined

in your watershed plan. Often data are collected for historical purposes, but the

information is not used to help determine whether watershed plan objectives are

being met. The monitoring component, which will be used to assess the

effectiveness of implementation strategies, can also be used to address other

important information needs in the watershed with minimal changes or addition

of resources. Consider a range of objectives like the following when developing

your monitoring program:

• Analyze long-term trends. 

• Document changes in management and pollutant source activities in the

watershed.

• Measure performance of specific management practices or implementation

sites.

• Calibrate or validate models.

• Fill data gaps in watershed characterization.

• Track compliance and enforcement in point sources.

• Provide data for educating and informing stakeholders.

When developing a monitoring design to meet your objectives, it’s important to

understand how the monitoring data will be used. Ask yourself questions like the

following:

• What questions are we trying to answer?

• What assessment techniques will be used?

• What statistical power and precision are needed?
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-14 Draft

• Can we control for the effects of weather and other sources of variation?

• Will our monitoring design allow us to attribute changes in water quality to the

implementation program?

The answers to these questions will help determine the data quality objectives

(DQOs) (section 6.4.2), that are critical to ensuring that the right data are collected.

These DQOs also take into consideration practical constraints such as budget, time,

personnel, and reporting requirements and capabilities. Parameters measured,

sampling locations, sampling and analysis methods, and sample frequency are

determined accordingly. It’s helpful to know the degree of measurement variability

you might encounter for a given parameter method and watershed. If variability in a

parameter concentration or value is relatively high because of natural or

methodological causes, it will be difficult to identify actual improvements over time.

You might need to collect more samples, consider different methods, make more

careful site selections, select different parameters or indicators, or use a combination

of approaches.

12.6.2 Incorporate Previous Sampling Designs

If you already developed a sampling plan as part of additional data collection efforts

(chapter 6), start with that plan to develop the implementation monitoring

component. The plan, which was focused on immediate data needs, should have

followed the key steps in the monitoring process (study design, field sampling,

laboratory analysis, and data management). Most important, that additional data

collection plan should have been developed with an eye toward supporting your

long-term monitoring program. The data collected in that effort, along with other

historical data, can be analyzed to evaluate the locations of hot-spots, the sampling

frequencies necessary to adequately capture variability, and other parameters of a

monitoring program. The sampling and analysis done during that phase can provide

an evaluation of baseline conditions; continued monitoring under a similar program

during and after implementation can be used to track trends in response to

implementation of the plan. 

Many of the specific elements developed as part of that effort, including DQOs,

measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and a quality assurance project plan

(QAPP), can be modified or expanded for this final monitoring component. KGo

back to section 6.4 to review the information and resources on the selection of sample

design, field and lab protocols, and standard operating procedures.

12.6.3 Monitor Land Use Changes in Conjunction with Water Quality

Monitoring

The monitoring component of your watershed plan should include not only water

quality monitoring but also monitoring on the land, including the land treatments

being implemented and the land use activities that contribute to nonpoint source
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-15

loads. Land treatment tracking is important to determine whether the plan is being

implemented appropriately and in a timely manner. At a minimum, you should track

where and when practices were installed and became operational. But you should

look beyond dollars spent or points on a map and consider how the measures are

working. Structural practices like waste storage lagoons or sediment basins might be

easy to see and count, but their associated management activities are more difficult to

monitor. How have nitrogen and phosphorus applications changed under nutrient

management? Are riparian buffers filtering sheet flow or is runoff channelized

through the buffer area? Are contractors following erosion and sediment control

plans?

Sometimes such questions can be answered only by asking the landowners. Some

agricultural watershed projects have had success in asking farmers to keep records of

tillage, manure and fertilizer application, harvest, and other management activities.

Several Vermont projects, for example, used log books and regular interviews by

local crop management consultants to gather such information (Meals 1990, 1992,

2001). In urban settings, public works staff can be valuable sources of information.

Aerial photography and windshield or foot surveys are also useful (section 6.5.1).

Remember to monitor not just where implementation is occurring but in all areas in

the watershed that might contribute to nonpoint source loads.

A good land treatment/land use monitoring program will help you to

• Know when and where measures are implemented and operational

• Determine whether measures are working as planned and how much they have

accomplished

• Get a handle on contributions of non-implementation areas to watershed

nonpoint loads

• Prevent surprises

Surprises can derail the best watershed plan. An accidental release from a waste

storage facility, a truck spill, land use changes, technology adoption, or the isolated

actions of a single bad actor can have serious water quality consequences and, if the

source is not documented, can cause you to question the effectiveness of your plan.

The result of a good land use/land treatment monitoring program is a database of

independent variables that will help you explain changes in water quality down the

road. The ability to attribute water quality changes to your implementation program

or to other factors will be critical as you evaluate the effectiveness of the

implementation effort and make midcourse plan corrections.

12.6.4 Use an Appropriate Experimental Design 

You can choose from many different monitoring designs, such as the paired

watershed, upstream/downstream monitoring before, during, and after land treatment;
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-16 Draft

A covariate is a measurement of those

variables that are not controllable by the

researcher.

and multiple watershed monitoring (Clausen and Spooner 1993; Grabow et al. 1999a,

1999b). Your decision should be based on the pollutants of concern, the length of the

monitoring program, the size of the study area, and the objectives of the monitoring

program. 

Loads can be measured at many levels of resolution; tributaries and watersheds

commonly serve as the geographic unit for load estimation. Loads can also be

measured for specific subwatersheds or sources, providing watershed managers with

opportunities to track priority areas and determine whether funding is being directed

efficiently to solve the water quality problems. The time frame for estimating loads

should be selected to fit the watershed plan and the watershed of interest. For

example, seasonal loads might be most relevant for nonpoint sources, whereas annual

loads might be more appropriate in watersheds with fairly consistent wastewater

treatment plant discharges. Because nonpoint source loads are subject to considerable

variability due primarily to weather but also to source management, it is

highly advantageous to use controlled studies (e.g., paired watersheds,

upstream-downstream pairs before and after implementation) and

covariates (e.g., flow) to aid in interpreting load patterns. KSee appendix

A for resources on developing an effective monitoring program.

12.6.5 Conduct Monitoring for Several Years Before and After

Implementation

You should conduct multiple years of monitoring both before and after

implementation of your management measures to increase your chances of

documenting water quality changes. Year-to-year variability is often so large that at

least 2 to 3 years each of pre- and post-management practice implementation

monitoring may be necessary to document a significant water quality change

following management practice implementation. Also, longer-duration monitoring

may be necessary where water quality changes are likely to occur gradually.

Sampling frequency and collection should be consistent across years.

12.6.6 Build In an Evaluation Process

When developing your monitoring program implementation strategy, plan for

evaluation and reporting processes that will record change and provide the basis for

appropriate modifications to the watershed plan. Link assessments and reporting

formats back to the objectives by comparing monitoring results for the indicators to

the criteria for judging progress toward milestones.

Monitoring programs frequently should be modified as they are implemented.

Flexibility is important in the implementation strategy so that staff can make minor

refinements “on the fly,” while significant adaptations might need to be considered

periodically by sponsors and decisionmakers (e.g., following review of an annual

progress report). This applies to revisions to the QAPP as well. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-17

Improper maintenance is one of the most common

reasons for failure of water quality controls to function

as designed. It’s important to consider who will be

responsible for maintaining permanent management

practices, what equipment is required to perform the

maintenance properly, and the long-term cost involved

in maintaining structural controls.

KFor a complete list of federal funding, visit the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(www.cfda.gov). This Web site provides access to a

database of all federal programs available.

Also visit www.epa.gov/watershedfunding to view the

Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed

Protection. This interactive Web site helps match

watershed project needs with funding sources.

12.7 Estimate Financial and Technical Assistance Needed and

the Sources/Authorities that Will Be Relied on for

Implementation

 This phase of the monitoring process should result in element d of the nine

elements for awarding section 319 grants. Element d is “Estimate of the amounts of

technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and

authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.”

A critical factor in turning your watershed plan into action is the ability to fund

implementation. Funding may be needed for multiple activities such as management

practice installation, I/E activities, monitoring, and administrative support. In

addition, you should document what types of technical assistance are needed to

implement the plan and what resources or authorities will be relied on for

implementation, in terms of both initial adoption and long-term operation and

maintenance (O&M). For example, if you have identified adoption of local

ordinances as a management tool to meet your water quality goals, you should 

involve the local authorities that are responsible for developing these ordinances.

The estimate of financial and technical assistance should take into account the

following:

• Administration and management services, including

salaries, regulatory fees, and supplies, as well as in-kind

services efforts, such as the work of volunteers and the

donation of facility use

• I/E efforts

• The installation, operation, and maintenance of

management measures

• Monitoring, data analysis, and data management activities

12.7.1 Identify Funding Sources

You can access hundreds of funding sources to help fund the

implementation of your watershed plan. These sources include

funding opportunities from federal, state, local, and private

sources. Try to access several different funding sources so you

don’t put all of your eggs into one basket. The greatest

challenge is identifying these opportunities in an efficient

manner. Several online tools can help narrow the places you

need to look. For example, EPA has developed Guidebook of

Financial Tools: Paying for Sustainable Environmental

Systems, which is available for download at

www.epa.gov/efinpage/guidbkpdf.htm. The guide was

designed to enable watershed practitioners in the public and
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-18 Draft

KVisit www.rivernetwork.org for the Directory of

Funding Sources for Grassroots River and Watershed

Conservation Groups. It lists private and corporate

sources, as well as federal sources. Note: This

resource is for River Network members only.

Plan2Fund was developed by the Environmental

Finance Center (EFC) at Boise State University to

help organizations determine the amount of outside

funding necessary to achieve the goals and objectives

of their watershed management plan. The Plan2Fund

tool leads organizations through the process of

estimating implementation costs for their goals and

objectives, evaluating local funding options, and finally

identifying gaps in funding. With the output from

Plan2Fund, users can then search EFC's Directory of

Watershed Resources database for federal, state, and

private funding sources based on identified funding

needs.

Khttp://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/Tools_Services/Plan2

Fund/plan2fund.htm

private sectors to find appropriate methods to pay for environmental protection

efforts. It was developed by EPA’s Environmental Financial Advisory Board and the

Agency’s network of university-based Environmental Finance Centers. 

12.7.2 Leverage Existing Resources

Some of the costs needed to implement your watershed plan can be defrayed by

leveraging existing efforts as well as seeking in-kind services. Some examples

follow.

Use existing data sources. Most geographic areas have some associated background

spatial data in the public domain, such as digital elevation models, stream coverages,

water quality monitoring data, and land cover data in the form of imagery like

orthophoto quads or raster satellite image files. 

Use existing studies. Many agencies have reports of previous analyses, providing

useful baseline information and data, such as delineated subwatersheds or a historical

stream monitoring record. They might have been done for

another purpose, such as a study on fish health in a particular

stream, but they can contribute to understanding the

background of the current concerns.

Use partnerships. State, county, or federal agencies working

as technical assistance providers and implementing natural

resource program initiatives can offer computer services and

expertise, such as performing GIS analysis or weaving

together elements of different programs that might apply to

the local area. They might be in a position to write part of the overall watershedbased plan if they have existing generalized watershed

characterization studies.

Cover incidental/miscellaneous costs through contributions.

For example, staff time to assemble needed elements, supplies,

and meeting rooms for a stakeholder or scoping meeting can

all be donated. As a start, Krefer back to the checklist you

compiled from your stakeholder group in section 3.3.4 to

determine what resources are available within the group. 

12.7.3 Estimating Costs

Many factors affect the cost of implementing management

measures as part of a watershed plan, including the following:

• Type of management practice/restoration activity

• Installation costs
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-19

• Operation and maintenance costs

• Method of cost calculation

• Annual tasks and milestones that you establish (see the next sections) 

KGo back to section 11.5, where you researched cost considerations related to the

proposed management measures. Some management measures might be more

diffusely implemented across the watershed, and therefore the costs might be difficult

to quantify. For example, developers across the watershed are encouraged to use

fencing to prevent sediment runoff on their construction sites, and homeowners are

encouraged through educational outreach to keep their neighborhood storm drains

free of debris. These actions are voluntary, and therefore no specific operational costs

are associated with them. However, costs would be associated with the I/E activities.

In refining the implementation plan to establish your overall financial and technical

assistance needs, you should develop a more detailed estimate of the annualized cost

of your actions. Table 12-2 provides annualized cost estimates for selected

management practices from Chesapeake Bay installations. 

Monitoring Program Costs

The cost of your monitoring program will depend on many factors, including the

program design, the number and locations of sampling stations, the types and number

of samples collected, the variables measured, staff and equipment required, local

conditions, and others. Because these factors vary so much from watershed to

watershed, it is impossible to establish general unit costs for monitoring activities. In

building a monitoring budget for your program (or in putting together a grant

application to support monitoring), you should consider costs in several common

categories, which are described below.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-20 Draft

Table 12-2. Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices from Chesapeake Bay

Installationsa

Practice

Practice Life Span

(Years)

Median Annual Costb

 (EACc)

($/ac/yr) 

(1990 dollars)

Median Annual Cost (EACc

)

($/ac/yr) 

(2002 dollars)

Terraces 10 84.53 116.35

Diversions 10 52.09 71.70

Sediment retention water control

structures

10 89.22 122.81

Grassed filter strips 5 7.31 10.06

Cover crops 1 10.00 13.76

Permanent vegetative cover on

critical areas

5 70.70 97.31

Reforestation of crop and

pastured

10 46.66 64.22

Grassed waterwayse 10 1.00/lin ft/yr 1.38

Animal waste systemf 10 3.76/ton/yr 5.18 a

 Median costs (1990 dollars) obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office management practice tracking database and

Chesapeake Bay Agreement Jurisdictions' unit data cost. Costs per acre are for acres benefited by the practice. b

 Annualized management practice total cost, including operation and maintenance, planning, and technical assistance costs. c

 EAC = equivalent annual cost: annualized total costs for the life span. Interest rate = 10%. d

 Government incentive costs.

e

 Annualized unit cost per linear foot of constructed waterway. f

 Units for animal waste are given as dollars per ton of manure treated.

Source: Camancho 1991.

Staffing

Consider how much staff time you’ll need to carry out the activities necessary to

conduct monitoring, including

1. Researching and selecting sampling sites

2. Installing and maintaining structures or instruments

3. Collecting samples and other field data

4. Delivering samples to the laboratory

5. Maintaining field data and other records

Note that the relationship the between number of stations or samples and the staff

requirement is not always linear; operating 20 stations might cost only 25 percent

more in staff time than operating 10 stations. This is especially true if you are hiring

full-time staff dedicated to a single project. Consider sharing staff with other

activities if possible. Monitoring programs associated with a college or university can

take advantage of graduate student efforts to provide some staff support.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-21

Twelve state and local Vermont entities facing Stormwater

Phase II requirements formed the Chittenden County

Regional Stormwater Education Program (RSEP). The

RSEP focused on increasing awareness and changing

behaviors through social marketing by hiring a local

marketing firm to craft a communications and marketing

strategy based on the results of a public stormwater

awareness survey. Each entity provided $5,000 toward the

development and implementation of the strategy. This

approach was cost-effective for each entity and allowed for

the development of a consistent message across the state.

The RSEP paid $20,500 in message distribution through

the media (newspaper, cable TV, and radio broadcasts) in

the first year. KFor more information, visit the RSEP Web

site www.smartwaterways.org.

Equipment

Sophisticated monitoring instrumentation like autosamplers, electronic flow

recorders, and dataloggers can automate much of the monitoring program and offset

some staffing resources. This might be a desirable approach in long-term, relatively

intensive monitoring programs. However, such equipment is often expensive, has a

steep learning curve, and sometimes has a greater risk of failure compared to manual

sampling and measurement. The balance between hightech, high-initial-expense equipment and more manual,

labor-intensive approaches will depend on your available

budget and monitoring design. Remember to consider

power, shelter, and security requirements for expensive

electronic equipment in your budget. If you decide to use

electronic equipment, consider renting or purchasing used

equipment rather than purchasing new equipment

outright, especially for short-term projects.

Supplies

Remember to account for sampling supplies like bottles,

batteries, chemicals, labels, ice, shipping, and so forth in

estimating your monitoring costs, as well as supplies

needed to tabulate and report data collected.

Logistics

Operating and maintaining a sampling network requires logistical support. The cost

of travel between the project base and remote sampling locations must be considered.

Be sure to include routine maintenance and field checks in mileage estimates, in

addition to actual sampling runs. You might also need to factor in some additional

costs to deal with difficult weather conditions such as harsh winters or major storms.

Consider the sample handling and holding requirements for the variables you’re

monitoring. The cost of collecting, preserving, and transporting a sample for analysis

of a variable with a 24-hour holding time might far exceed the costs associated with a

variable with a 7-day holding time. Factor this into your decision on whether it’s

really necessary to measure soluble reactive phosphorus or whether total phosphorus

analysis will meet your needs. Travel distance and time to deliver samples, as well as

the lab’s ability to accept certain kinds of samples on certain days will affect costs, as

well as your decisions on where to collect samples and what lab to chose. The lowest

quoted per sample price might not adequately represent the total cost to your

monitoring budget.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-22 Draft

Laboratory 

Analytical costs are relatively straightforward to estimate using direct price quotes

from one or more laboratories. Be sure to discuss sample numbers and schedules at

the start so that the lab can give you its best price. Remember to include your own

field quality control samples in your estimates of total sample numbers for the lab.

Training 

Your monitoring staff might need training in specialized monitoring techniques such

as stream morphologic assessment or collection and identification of stream biota.

Determine the costs (both tuition and travel) for any such training your staff will

require in carrying out your monitoring program. Remember to budget for training

for staff turnover that is likely to occur over the course of the monitoring program.

Data management

Hardware, software, or programming costs might be associated with storage and

manipulation of monitoring data. Budget for anticipated costs in statistical analysis or

other data reporting that may be contracted out.

I/E Program Costs

Just as for other parts of the watershed plan implementation, you should determine

roughly how much funding you’ll need to implement your I/E program. I/E program

costs are almost always higher than you expect, especially if you plan to use mass

media formats such as TV or radio PSAs. When planning your I/E budget, don’t

forget to include travel expenses, supplies (e.g., display booths, paper, stormdrain

stencil kits), giveaways, and vendor services such as printing and Web site

registration. You can keep costs down by teaming with universities, local civic

organizations, or area businesses. You might also team with other localities or

watershed organizations that face the same issues.

12.7.4 Identify Technical Assistance Needs

Technical assistance can take many forms. At the beginning stages of your watershed

planning process, it might be collecting or compiling data on the watershed. Later it

might involve the work of selecting an appropriate model to work on your

watershed's particular issues (e.g., lake-based pollution, sediments) and then actually

running the model. After specific practices have been selected, technical assistance in

siting chosen practices or selecting among several different management practices for

cost-effectiveness might be necessary. Technical assistance can also include advice

on the best combination of practices and tools to apply to a particular site based on

previous similar work and experience.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-23

Federal

In addition to the in-house technical support that USDA provides

through Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service

Agency, and conservation districts, the Department has expanded the

availability of technical assistance to landowners by encouraging the

use of technical service providers (TSPs). TSPs are independent of

USDA but are certified in delivering conservation technical services to

landowners. Keep in mind that TSPs are private professional

consultants that provide services to landowners at a cost, unlike the

extension agents, Soil and Water Conservation District technicians,

and NRCS field staff whose services are free to the landowner. USDA

developed a registry of TSPs to enable landowners to locate and

choose TSPs in their service area. KGo to http://techreg.usda.gov. 

State

USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service partially sponsors its state partners through Extension Service

programs based in land-grant universities. Frequently state

Cooperative Extension Services have a research and education focus

that results in their being able to provide cutting-edge technical

expertise at a regional scale. KGo to

www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html.

The process of delivering technical assistance

can include working one-on-one with a

landowner to share technical design

specifications and similar site experiences;

developing engineering plans for a property;

showing a demonstration site; presenting

drawings, plans, and documents that can be used

as a technical record to go along with a

watershed plan; or simply providing oversight.

Technical assistance is offered by many agencies

and organizations, including local conservation

districts, state natural resources agencies,

universities, and federal agencies.

12.7.5 Identify the Relevant Authorities

Needed for Implementation

In addition to the required technical assistance

you might need, it’s critical to identify any

relevant authorities or legislation that

specifically allows, prohibits, or requires an

activity. For example, if you’re planning a

streambank restoration project that involves

working in the stream channel, a section 404

dredge and fill permit might be required. You should also identify the available

authorities that can help you to implement your plan. For example, you might

identify stream buffer ordinances, nutrient management plans, or animal feeding

operation (AFO) regulations. KIn chapter 3 you identified other local, state, tribal,

and federal planning efforts that you wanted to coordinate with, and these same

programs can help you identify any relevant authorities that you might have missed.

Close communication with the local agency staff and state agency personnel can help

ensure that you have considered the relevant statutes and authorities needed for

implementation.

12.8 Develop the Implementation Plan Basics

The implementation plan is a road map for turning your management strategies from

paper into reality and for determining how you’re going to measure progress toward

meeting your goals. Putting the implementation pieces together involves laying out

the detailed tasks that need to be done, identifying who will do them, identifying the

funding and technical assistance needed, and setting up a process to measure the

effectiveness of the program. The implementation plan, or action plan, is a subset of

the overall watershed plan.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-24 Draft

If you’ve followed the approach of this handbook, you’ve already defined the

scope of your plan (chapter 4); estimated pollutant loads and set goals for load

reductions (chapters 8 and 9); and identified, evaluated, and selected a

management strategy (chapters 10 and 11). From information developed in these

steps, you should have a reasonable idea of what, where, and when practices need

to be implemented in the watershed to achieve your goals. Although the level and

source of resources necessary to complete implementation might not be completely

known at this point in time, the procedures recommended in this section will help

identify responsible parties, costs, sources of funds, and ways to track progress that

will improve the likelihood of assembling the pieces necessary to successfully

implement your plan. A good implementation plan that is part of a good overall

watershed plan can be very helpful in securing funds for implementation. 

To provide a clear guide for stakeholders implementing the watershed plan, it is

recommended that you compile basic information into several matrices. For each

selected management option or related management options, work with your

stakeholders to outline the following:

• Actions that need to be taken (including any special coordination, education, or

public outreach needed to improve the chances of implementation.)

• The responsible party(ies) for the action/education

• Time frame for implementing the actions

• Time frame for operation and maintenance requirements

• Estimated total cost and annual cost for each action

• Funding mechanism(s) for each action

• Measures or tracking indicator

Your implementation plan should include all activities, including I/E activities and

monitoring requirements. Once all the elements of the plan are laid out in matrices,

you’ll be able to identify any gaps you might have or areas that you did not address. 

Developing an implementation plan matrix can also help to increase the likelihood of

completing actions on time and within budget, as well as facilitating the development

of annual work plans. The challenge, however, is to generate implementation

information that is accurate and acceptable to the stakeholders responsible for

carrying out the recommended actions. Meeting that challenge requires research by

each responsible party (and consensus-building discussions where multiple parties

are involved) regarding feasibility, constraints, possible funding sources, and timeline

confirmation for each primary action to be taken. It’s important to identify areas of

uncertainty and constraints so they can be addressed or planned for where possible.

Where funding resources among stakeholders appear to be falling short of projected

needs, place emphasis on identifying other potential sources of funding or technical

assistance from outside watershed partners. Worksheet 12-1 (below) is an example of

an implementation matrix, based on the Kblank worksheet provided in appendix B.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-25

As a companion matrix to the implementation of your management practices, I/E

activities, and monitoring program, you should document how you will measure

progress toward reducing pollutant loads and meeting your goals. The criteria you

select should correspond to the management objectives in the previous table. KA

blank worksheet 12-2 is provided in appendix B.

12.9 Develop an Evaluation Framework

There are two primary reasons to evaluate your watershed program. First, you want

to be able to prove, or demonstrate, that by implementing the management measures,

you are achieving your water quality and other environmental goals. Second, you

want to be able to continually improve your program in terms of efficiency and

quality. This adaptive management process should be built into your program before

implementation so that you ask the right questions and use the answers to strengthen

your program. Collecting information does no good if you don’t use the information

to improve your watershed program.

You should develop an evaluation framework to use once you begin to implement

your watershed plan. The framework should be developed before implementation so

that you can effectively identify what measures you want to evaluate and determine

how you will obtain the information. You should recognize that you’ll continue to

build on the initial characterization, filling information gaps and refining the

connections between sources, pollutants, and load reductions. You’ll adapt your

implementation efforts on the basis of new information collected, changes in the

operational structure of your partnership, emerging technologies, and monitoring

results.

12.9.1 What Parts of Your Program Should You Evaluate?

In general, you will evaluate three major parts of your watershed implementation

program to be able to demonstrate progress and make improvements in your

program. You need to structure your evaluation framework to consider all three

components and develop indicators that will measure each. The components are

inputs, outputs, and outcomes. When “filling in” these components, you’ll work

backward, starting with your desired outcomes (goals) and working toward

identifying the specific inputs needed to achieve those outcomes.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-26 Draft

O

Watershed Goals

Goal 1: Restore water quality to meet designated uses for fishing

Objective 1: Reduce sedimentation by 20 percent 

Tasks for G1/O1

Respon.

Party

Total

Costs

Funding

Mechanism Indicators Milestones

Short

< 1 yr

Med

< 3 yr

Long

< 7 yr

Remaining

Task 1

Seek donation of

conservation easements

from property owners

along Baron Creek

Local land

trust

$0 # acres donated 2 7 10 10

I/E Activities Task 1

Hold informational

workshop with property

owners

Develop brochures on

how to donate easements

Local land

trust

$3,000 Sect. 319

funding

# workshops held

# participants

# requests for

assistance

3

40

2

3

45

4

 0

Task 2

Purchase greenway

alongside Baron Creek

County park

district

$2,000/

mile

County

general

funds

# miles purchased 2 4 7 5

I/E Activities Task 2

None

Task 3

Develop ordinance

requiring a 150-ft

easement for new

construction in floodplain

of Baron Creek

Local

municipalities

$0 # ordinances

adopted

1 2 4 0

I/E Activities Task 3

Run articles in local

newspapers on benefits of

ordinances

Watershed

Committee

$0 # articles 2 5 8 0

Task 4

Install 300 ft of riparian

buffer along Baron Creek

County dept.

of natural

resources

$2,500 EQIP, CREP # ft of buffers 100 

Monitoring Activities for

Task 1/2/3

Monitor sediment load

before and after

implementation

State DEP $5,000/

yr

Section 319

funding, state

funds

Annual TSS load

(kg/yr)

2,500 2,250 2,000

Evaluate substrate habitat State DEP &

Watershed

Committee

$3,000/

yr

Section 319

funding, local

volunteers

% embeddedness

% sand

12

10

6

5

3

2
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-27

O

[Note: Complete one worksheet for each management objective identified.]

Management Objective: Reduce nutrient inputs into Cane Creek by 20 percent

Indicators to Measure

Progress Target

Value or

Goal

Interim Targets

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

P load 44 t/yr 52 t/yr 49 t/yr 44 t/yr

# of nuisance algae blooms 0 2 1 0

transparency 5.5 m 4.1 m 4.9 m 5.5 m

frequency of taste and odor

problems in water supply

0 11 0

hypolimnetic DO 5.0 mg/L 2.5 mg/L 4.0 mg/L 5.0 mg/L

1. Inputs: the process used to implement your program. This includes inputs to your

program such as resources of time and technical expertise, organizational structure

and management, and stakeholder participation.

Sample evaluation questions:

• Are the human and monetary resources allocated sufficient to carry out the tasks?

• Did stakeholders feel they were well represented in the process? (K appendix B,

O worksheet 13-1)

2. Outputs: the tasks conducted and the products developed. This includes the

implementation activities such as installing management practices, developing

brochures, holding workshops, preparing fact sheets, and so forth.

Sample evaluation questions:

• Are we meeting our implementation schedule?

• Are we meeting our milestones?

• Did we meet our milestones sooner than expected?

• Did we reach the appropriate target audiences with our I/E materials?

3. Outcomes: the results or outcomes seen from implementation efforts. This

includes increased awareness and behavior changes among the watershed

community, as well as environmental improvements such as water quality, habitat,

and physical changes. Outcomes can be further broken down into short-term

outcomes and long-term outcomes.

Sample evaluation questions:

• Did the target audience increase its awareness of watershed issues?
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-28 Draft

• Did the behaviors of the target audience change as a result of implementing the

watershed plan?

• Are we meeting our interim targets for pollutant load reductions?

• Are pollutant loads being reduced?

Once you’ve determined the questions you want to answer, you can set up the

framework to collect the necessary information. One approach to setting up an

evaluation framework is to use a logic model.

12.9.2 Using a Logic Model to Develop an Evaluation Framework

Many programs use a logic model (figure 12-1) to set up and evaluate their programs.

The model is an important tool in the adaptive management process because it allows

you to better document the results you find and helps you determine what worked

and why. Logic models have been used for years in social programs and are now

being used in the context of watershed management.

Basically, a logic model is a picture or visual representation of your program,

showing the inputs needed to implement your program, the expected outputs to be

performed, and the anticipated outcomes from implementing these activities. Using a

logic model can help you to better document the outcomes, discover what works and

why, and continually make changes to your program based on your evaluation

results.

There are several benefits to using a logic model. First, the model puts all the

information about your program in one place and can summarize a complex program

Figure 12-1. Logic model components.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-29

in a simple picture. This is particularly helpful when communicating key activities to

stakeholders. A logic model also shows the connections that link the inputs to results

so that you can readily identify any gaps in the sequence. Finally, a logic model

provides a “to do” list for evaluation, signaling what needs to be evaluated and when.

The basic structure of a logic model includes stating your situation or problem,

recording the inputs or resources needed, listing anticipated outputs from activities,

and ultimately outlining the expected outcomes from the program. As you move from

the inputs through the outputs and to the outcomes, there should be a direct link

between the steps. These links are called “if...then” relationships. For example, if you

invest the required staff time and resources (inputs), you’ll be able to conduct the

outlined activities (outputs). If you conduct those activities, you’ll see the expected

results (outcomes). Setting up a logic model this way can help you to identify gaps

and revise some of the parameters. See figure 12-2 for an example logic model for

water quality improvements.

KThe resources section in appendix A provide more information on how to develop

and use logic models to evaluate your program.

12.9.3 Evaluation Methods

You will use various methods and tools to evaluate your watershed program, such as

baseline surveys, focus groups, direct measurements, and stakeholder interviews. The

important point is to determine what methods you will use before your implement

your program. Identifying these methods will help make sure you are collecting

information that will directly relate to your program. For example, if you wish to do

any before-and-after comparisons, you should have baseline information with which

you can compare the final results. The methods will be used to measure the indicators

you have selected. For each indicator selected, you will identify the method for

measuring the indicator. K See appendix A for resources for evaluation approaches.

Figure 12-2. Sample logic model.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-30 Draft

12.9.4 Timing of Evaluation

Once you know what you want to evaluate and how you’ll collect the information,

you’ll develop a timeline for evaluation. Typically, there are four times to evaluate

your watershed management program. The first is once you’ve completed the plan

but have not yet begun to implement it. The second is during the implementation of

project activities; the purpose of this evaluation is to provide feedback on the

activities so that changes can be made if needed to increase their effectiveness. The

third time is after the project activities have been completed; the purpose of this

evaluation is to provide some measures of project effectiveness. Finally, you will

continue to evaluate after the project has been completed to observe its effects. This

is the most difficult aspect of the evaluation to complete because of lack of long-term

funding. You have the greatest chance of following through on this if you have built

your partnership into a sustaining organization to maintain continuity and stability

through the years. KChapter 13 provides more information on conducting

evaluations during the implementation phase and shows how to use the information

collected to make changes in your program.

12.10 Devise a Method for Tracking Progress

Whether you track your implementation program by using index cards or create a

computer database tracking system, you should identify how you’ll track your

program before you begin to implement it. Specifically, you want to set up a system

that makes it as easy as possible to perform subsequent evaluations of your watershed

plan’s effectiveness

First, examine the type of data that you’ll collect to perform the evaluations and

match it to the appropriate format. For example, if you want to perform periodic

statistical analysis to answer one or more types of evaluation questions, storing data

in a spreadsheet (or a more powerful database program if you have large amounts of

data for numerous indicators) that can be linked to the analysis. If you plan to

conduct spatial analysis and present results in map form, storing information in a GIS

database will be appropriate. You might also be using a complex simulation model

from your assessment on an ongoing basis, and need to update and maintain it with

new information. Whatever your plans for evaluation of the implementation program,

be sure you consider the type and use of the data when setting up the tracking system.

You should also consider how you plan to communicate results to stakeholders and

other parties, and determine your needs for that process. Examine the format of the
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-31

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the

University of Illinois Extension, in cooperation with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency, initiated

a pilot program to develop a GIS-based information system

to track conservation practices being implemented in Illinois

and, in particular, the Illinois River Basin. 

The project goals are (1) to provide baseline data to assess

the efficacy of conservation practices and management

techniques in improving water quality and habitat in the

Illinois River Basin and (2) to create a tool that will aid state

and federal partner agencies in planning and implementing

watershed management activities within the Illinois River

Basin, as well as visualizing the individual and cumulative

impact of programs. 

To date, conservation easement data for approximately

123,000 acres have been entered and mapped for all active

Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

(CREP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) contracts

in a six-county area of the Middle Illinois River Basin. 

The initiative will continue to expand programmatically and

geographically, with the eventual goal of creating a

statewide system that tracks all conservation management

activities of agencies in Illinois. 

results—are you communicating progress in improvement

of your indicators, costs of management measures, a

schedule of progress? Also consider your method of

communication—are you sending emails and do you need

to maintain an email list, or do you need a listserv (a

program for distributing email to a large number of

recipients)? Are you sending newsletters through the

Postal Service and do you need to maintain a database of

names and addresses? If you are planning to maintain a

Web site, have you arranged for access to a Web server,

and do you know the Web site address? Be sure to plan

for all of your data management needs as they pertain to

stakeholder communication.

Next, think about staff experience, training, and ease of

use. For instance, if you need to input and track a large

amount of water quality monitoring data and are using a

database, you might need to train others to use the

database system. Alternatively, you could have a database

administrator develop data input forms that are easy to use

and require little training. Web site design and

maintenance require a certain level of expertise,

depending on your expectations about the quality and

complexity of the Web site. There are a number of boxed

programs you can purchase that make Web site design

and maintenance relatively easy.

There are several administrative issues to consider as well.

Be sure to plan for the following:

1. Process and Ownership. Process refers to the procedures you set up to ensure

that tasks are performed and completed. Ownership refers to the specific person

responsible for carrying out each process. It’s helpful to have processes written

out in detail and easily accessible by staff. This helps staff reference how to

perform procedures that occur infrequently, and it facilitates transfer of

responsibilities when someone is out of the office or leaves a position.

Ownership is critical to ensuring that tasks are completed on time.

2. Maintenance Schedule. This is an important component of defining processes.

You should determine a set timetable for various activities, such as data entry,

Web site updates, and database maintenance.

3. Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Be sure to have procedures for QA/QC.

For example, you might want to have a manager responsible for examining data

before they are entered into a database to make sure the data are reasonable. You
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-32 Draft

might want to have a third party look over data that have just been entered. For

correspondence or reports, you should have someone else do proofreading.

4. Versioning. In some cases it’s important to maintain a file history. This is

important in tracking down errors and preventing important information from

being overwritten. You might also want to refer back to previous versions to

detect changes or report on long-term progress. For files, you might find it

helpful to insert the date and version number into the filename itself (e.g.,

“Progress Report 3-25-05 V2.wpd”). For simulation models, you might want to

create a new directory each time you do a model run. GIS files might also need a

version history.

5. Metadata. Metadata means “data about data,” and it communicates the who,

what, when, where, why, and how about data. You might want to maintain

metadata about certain aspects of project areas. For instance, a database could

have metadata describing its contents, who maintains it, the time period it covers,

sources of information, and so forth. You should give special consideration to

metadata for GIS files that you generate. In fact, some state or federal agencies

might require that you maintain GIS metadata in a specific format if you’re

working under contract for them. You should document sources of data,

processing steps, definitions of database fields and their values, projection

information, and the like. Several scripts and plug-ins for ArcView help with

metadata generation and tracking, and ArcGIS has built-in functionality for this.

Remember that the high-quality work is key for maintaining credibility with your

stakeholders and with regulators. Through careful planning, attention to detail, and

high standards for accuracy, you will retain the respect of those that benefit from

your work.

12.11 Putting It All Together

There is more than one way to assemble your watershed plan, but most plans follow a

similar sequence of organization. An example table of contents from the White Oak

Creek, Ohio, watershed plan (figure 12-3) is provided. KTo download a complete

copy of this watershed plan, go to http://brownswcd.org/action_plan.htm.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-33

White Oak Creek Watershed Plan

Plan Endorsement

Table of Contents

Acronyms

General Watershed Facts

Executive Summary

Project Partners

Section 1: Introduction

Mission Statement

Water Quality Goals

Comprehensive White Oak Creek Watershed Goals

Purpose of Action Plan

Updates and Revisions

Previous Water Quality Efforts

White Oak Creek Watershed Group

Development of the Action Plan

Education/Marketing Strategies and Outreach Goals

Education and Community Outreach

Section II: Inventory of the Watershed

Fact Sheet

Map of Watershed

Introduction

Physical Description

Administrative Boundaries

Districts

Demographics

Economics

Agriculture and Economy

Geology and Topography

Land Form and Slope

Soils

Land Uses

Livestock in Streams

Forested Areas and Riparian Corridors

Floodplains

Agriculture

Chemical Use Patterns

Precipitation and Climate

Surface Water Resources

Wetlands

Tributary

Groundwater Resources

Climate and Precipitation

Flow and Depth

Threatened and Endangered Species

Wildlife

Recreation

Historical Information

Historical Sites

Dams

Physical Attributes of the Stream and Floodplain Area

Section III: Water Quality Data

Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Designated Uses and Subcategories for Surface Water

Resources

Aquatic Life Habitat

Water Supply

Recreation

State Water Resources

Aquatic Life Use Designations

Potential Contamination Sources

Overview of Water Quality Impairments

Section IV: Water Quality Issues

Critical Area Table

Major Water Quality Issues

Sedimentation and Loss of Riparian Area

Improperly Treated Wastewater

Excessive Nutrient and Pesticide Runoff

Section V: Load Reductions

STEPL Program

Section VI: Sub-watershed Inventory

Subwatershed Introduction and Goals

1997 Use Attainment Status Summary

Individual Subwatersheds

Physical Description

Tributaries, Reservoirs, Dams, Special Features

Land Use

Point and Nonpoint Causes and Sources

Water Quality Results

Subwatershed Map

Impairments

Background

Problem Statement

Goals

Implementation Strategies/Task Table

Causes/Sources by Tributary

Inventory Spreadsheet

Section VII: Watershed Programs

Previous and active programs

Section VIII: Water Quality Monitoring

Introduction

Program

High School Volunteer Monitoring Sites

Monitoring Parameters

Macroinvertebrate Testing

Future Water Quality Monitoring Activities

Section IX: Funding and Evaluation

Funding Guideline

Evaluation Activity Table

Appendices

Figure 12-3. Table of contents from White Oak Creek, Ohio, watershed plan.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-34 Draft

12.11.1 The Final Review

 Once you’ve assembled your watershed plan, take a few minutes to review the

sections. Ensure that you have included the recommended elements for a watershed

plan, which will help to ensure that you have identified measurable goals that will

lead to measurable results. Use the following checklist (worksheet 12-3) as a guide.

KA blank worksheet is provided in appendix B. In addition, some states have

developed checklists to help groups submit watershed plans that meet the nine

elements. KWorksheets from Michigan and Missouri are included in appendix B

(Oworksheets 12-4 and 12-5).

O

Key watershed planning components Chapter Done? Comments

Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by the plan. 4

Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the appropriate water

quality standards and designated uses.

4, 5, 8, 9

Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be

controlled to achieve the water quality standards.

4, 5, 6

Break down the sources to the subcategory level. 7

Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody. 8

Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water quality goals. 9

Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed. 7, 9, 10

Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the

load reductions.

10, 11

Prepare an information/education component that identifies the education and

outreach activities needed for implementing the watershed management plan.

12

Develop a schedule for implementing the plan. 12

Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining whether management

measures are being implemented.

12

Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading reductions are being

achieved and progress is being made toward attaining (or maintaining) water

quality standards, and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not

been demonstrated.

12

Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being

implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or

maintenance of applicable water quality standards is being achieved.

6, 12

Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, I/E

activities, and monitoring.

12

Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and

associated authorities available to implement the management measures. 

12 

Appx C

Develop an evaluation framework 12
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

Draft 12-35

12.11.2 Make the Plan Accessible to Various Audiences

Your plan provides an exceptional opportunity to educate the watershed community about

the key watershed issues, goals, and planned implementation activities. Consider

developing a reader-friendly summary version of the watershed plan, a short executive

summary, or a list of frequently asked questions that you can distribute to various

audiences. Distribution mechanisms could include mass mailings, handouts at community

events, or articles in local papers. A press release could also be used to communicate the

availability of your watershed plan for public comment or review. Press releases should be

clear, straightforward, and free of unnecessary words or details. The goal of a press release

is to arouse the curiosity of reporters and furnish information they can use in developing

new stories to publicize your plan.

You should also consider posting the watershed plan on the Internet. With a Web-based

format, readers can view the document at their leisure and you can easily update the plan

as necessary. In addition, you should provide background information on the Web site that

describes how the plan was developed, who was involved in developing it, and how

citizens can get in involved in implementing it. Keep in mind that the downloading

capabilities and processing speeds of computers vary widely, so you should allow readers

to choose which format they would like to view or download, depending on their

computer capabilities. The Upper Neuse River Basin Association posted the Upper Neuse

Watershed Management Plan on its Web site (www.unrba.org/projact.htm#mgmtplan) in

May 2003. Since the plan was posted, it has been downloaded more than 850 times.

When it comes to publicizing your watershed plan, be creative. Team with local schools to

build watershed lessons into science curricula. Develop a slide presentation on the

watershed plan and present it at Master Gardeners or Kiwanis Club meetings. Try to

piggyback on the efforts of other organizations to help spread the word about the

watershed plan. Finally, be inclusive in your efforts to get the plan out. Be sure to develop

written communication in all languages relevant to your community and across various

education levels.
Chapter 12

Design Implementation Program

and Assemble Watershed Plan

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

12-36 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-1

13. Implement Watershed

Plan and Measure

Progress

Read this chapter if...

• You want to figure out what to do after you’ve started to implement the

watershed plan

• You want to get organized for implementation

• You’re ready to implement activities

• You want to prepare work plans that will outline implementation activities over

time

• You’d like to share the results of your effort

• You want to evaluate your program

• You need to make adjustment to your watershed plan

Handbook Road Map

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Watershed Planning Process

3 Build Partnerships 

4 Define Scope of Watershed Planning Effort

5 Gather Existing Data and Create an Inventory

6 Identify Data Gaps and Collect Additional Data

if Needed

7 Analyze Data to Characterize the Watershed

and Pollutant Sources 

8 Estimate Pollutant Loads

9 Set Goals and Identify Load Reductions

10 Identify Possible Management Strategies

11 Evaluate Options and Select Final

Management Strategies

12 Design Implementation Program and

Assemble Watershed Plan

13 Implement Watershed Plan and Measure

Progress 

Chapter Highlights

< Creating an organizational structure

< Implementing activities

< Preparing work plans

< Sharing results

< Evaluating your program

< Making adjustments
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-2 Draft

13.1 What Do I Do Once I've Started to Implement My Watershed

Plan?

Although you’ve expended a tremendous effort to develop your watershed plan,

remember that it is nothing if you don’t implement it. Although many watershed

planning handbooks end with development of the plan, the plan is just the starting

point. The next step is to implement the plan in your watershed. Implementation can

begin with an information/education (I/E) component or with on-the-ground

management measures. Remember, implementation activities should follow the road

map developed in your plan.

When implementation begins, the dynamic of your watershed group, as well as

stakeholders’ level of participation, might change. This is the time when most

members of your watershed group are really excited that something more than a

written plan will come out of the planning efforts. This chapter offers tips and

suggestions on measuring implementation progress, determining when you need to

make changes to your current plan, and sharing the results of your efforts with the

rest of the community.

13.2 Create an Organizational Structure for Implementation

After the plan is completed, you need to determine how you want to continue to

operate. Don’t just assume that you’ll proceed with the same group that helped to

develop the plan. Take a hard look at the planning team and ask the team members if

they want to continue to be involved in implementing the plan. It’s useful to ask the

stakeholders to evaluate the process used to prepare the watershed plan so that you

can improve on the process during implementation. OUse worksheet 13-1 to ask

your stakeholders for input. KA blank copy of the worksheet is provided in

appendix B.

Identify any gaps in skills or resources, and try to find some new faces with skills,

energy, and enthusiasm to move the ball forward. Consider creating a watershed

implementation team made up of key partners, whose responsibilities include making

sure tasks are being implemented, reviewing monitoring information, identifying or

taking advantage of new funding sources, and sharing results. 

Make sure, however, that new players that join the team are committed to the plan

and its goals. Seek a balance between bringing in new ideas and energy and

allegiance to following through on your hard-won plan.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-3

To help ensure that you can continue to implement your watershed plan for many

years, consider “institutionalizing” your watershed team. Try to create several

positions that are funded by outside sources to provide continuity and stability. These

positions might reside in other organizations but are tasked with administering the

watershed plan. For example, the county might fund a part-time watershed

coordinator out of the environmental planning department to assist with

implementing your watershed plan.

If you want to make your partnership official, many guides explain how to create a

nonprofit organization such as a 501(c)3. Having this designation is often useful in

O

Possible Evaluation Questions for Participants

Purpose: To determine how the level of participation in the Watershed Stakeholder Committee has changed over the past 2

years and why, and to assess the usefulness of the Committee.

Name/Affiliation: ______________________________________.

PARTICIPATION

1. How many Watershed Stakeholder Committee meetings have you participated in over the past 2 years?

2. If you have not participated in all the meetings, what factors would have increased your participation?

G Hosting the meeting closer to where I live.

G Hosting the meeting at a time that was more convenient for me, such as _______________.

G Providing more advance notice of where and when the meeting was to be held.

G Including topics for discussion that were more relevant to my interests.

G Other: 

GROUP STRUCTURE 

1. Do you feel the size of the group was adequate? Please explain.

2. Do you feel the composition of the group was representative of the watershed community? Please explain.

GROUP INPUT

1. Do you feel the meetings were held to optimize participation from the attendees? Please explain.

2. Do you feel that your input was incorporated into the watershed management planning process? Please explain.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. What do you think are the most useful aspects of the Watershed Stakeholder Committee?

2. What do you think can make the Watershed Stakeholder Committee more useful?

3. Would you like to be involved in future watershed protection efforts?
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-4 Draft

applying for funding from foundations. KGo to www.foundationgroup.com for

information on how to set up a nonprofit organization.

13.3 Implement Activities

Implementing the watershed management plan involves a variety of expertise and

skills, including project management, technical expertise, group facilitation, data

analysis, communication, and public relations. Your watershed plan implementation

team should include members that can bring these skills to the table. The

management measures you selected, schedules and milestones you set, financial and

technical resources you identified, and I/E programs you developed in the course of

assembling your plan provide a road map for implementation. Follow it. Take

advantage of the partnerships you formed during plan development to work toward

efficient implementation of the plan. 

Key implementation activities include the following:

• Ensuring technical assistance in the design and installation of management

measures

• Providing training and follow-up support to landowners and other responsible

parties in operating and maintaining the management measures

• Managing the funding mechanisms and tracking expenditures for each action and

for the project as a whole

• Conducting the land treatment and water quality monitoring activities and

interpreting and reporting the data

• Measuring progress against schedules and milestones

• Communicating status and results to stakeholders and the public

• Coordinating implementation activities among stakeholders, multiple

jurisdictions, and within the implementation team.

To keep the implementation team energized, consider periodic field trips and site

visits to document implementation activities in addition to the necessary regular team

meetings.

13.4 Prepare Work Plans

You’ll use your overall watershed plan as the foundation for preparing work plans,

which will outline the implementation activities in 2- to 3-year time frames. Think of

your watershed plan as a strategic plan for long-term success; annual work plans are

the specific “to-do lists” to achieve that vision. Work plans can be useful templates

for preparing grant applications to fund implementation activities. Depending on the

time frame associated with your funding source, your work plan might need to be

prepared annually with quarterly reporting. It’s also possible to update work plans
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-5

and make some changes, within the original scope of the work plan, as needed.

However, completely changing the focus of the work plan after receiving funding is

unacceptable to most funding sources. Table 13-1 presents similarities and

differences in the scope and breadth of a hypothetical watershed plan with a

hypothetical 319 grant application/work plan for the same area. A written work plan

would go beyond this tabular format and explain each parameter in much greater

detail.

Table 13-1. Comparison of Example Parameters in a Hypothetical Watershed Plan and 319 Work Plan

Parameter Lake Fraser Watershed Management Plan 319 Work Plan #1

Period 2003–2013 2003–2006

Geographic scope 180,000 acres 24,000 acres

Critical areas 52,000 acres 7,000 acres

Goal statement Improve watershed conditions to support sustainable

fisheries

Reduce sediment loadings from priority

subwatershed X

Example objectives

and key elements

• Increase the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) from 30 to 75

• Identify causes and sources of sediment

• Identify load reduction expected

• Identify management practices needed

• Identify critical areas

• Treat 5,000 acres of cropland with crop

residue management (CRM) practices

• Install six terraces to treat 1,200 acres

• Establish five buffer strips for a total of 8,000

feet 

Implementation • CRM: 2,000 acres of row crop/year into CRM

• Terraces: 4 fields/year, 40 fields total

• Buffers: restore 1 to 1.5 miles of riparian area/year,

8 miles total

• Field buffers: 100 fields total

• Develop training materials on CRM in year 1

• Hold two workshops each in years 2 and 3

• 2 terraces/year

• One buffer strip in first year and two each in

years 2 and 3

Costs $4.02 million over 10 years

• $800,000 for information and education (I/E)

• $600,000 for monitoring and reporting

• $1,980,000 for buffers (18,000 acres at $110/acre)

• $140,000 for 40 terraces

• $500,000 for CRM

$250,000 over 3 years

• $50,000 to prepare training materials and

give 5 workshops on CRM

• $160,000 for management practice cost

sharing

• $40,000 for monitoring and reporting

Schedule • Begin slowly and accelerate (build on successes)

• Establish interim milestones

- Cropland: 2008 – reduce soil erosion by 80,000

tons/year

- Streambanks: 2006 – stabilize 10,000 feet of

eroding streambanks

- 2010 – stabilize 30,000 feet of eroding

streambanks

• Push I/E early and complete by year 6

• Annual reports that track progress

• Coordinate with partners

• See above

• Annual progress reports

Monitoring • Environmental – water quality, IBI, acres treated, tons

of soil erosion reduced, feet of streambank stabilized

• Administrative – contracts approved, funds expended,

and funds obligated

• Social - landowners contacted

• Changes in public understanding resulting from I/E

• Attendance at CRM training workshops

• Acres of cropland using CRM

• Feet of stream buffers established

• Feet of field buffers established

• Number of terraces

• Environmental: reduction in sediment loads

• Administrative: contracts approved and funds

expended

• Social: landowners contacted
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-6 Draft

KMore ideas regarding sharing success can

be found in the Section 319 Nonpoint Source

Success Stories at:

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319

There are two other key pieces of information to include in your work plans. To help

keep track of what will need to be done in the future, it’s important to document what

will not be done in your proposed work plan that relates to the overall watershed

plan. This helps to provide continuity from year to year. In addition, you should

indicate other activities that will be conducted using other funds and activities

conducted by other cooperating groups as part of the watershed implementation.

13.5 Share Results

As part of the I/E program developed in chapter 12, you should

have included opportunities to publicize the plan to increase

awareness of the steps being taken during implementation.

Continuous communication is essential to building the credibility

of and support for the watershed implementation process. Lack of

communication can impede participation and reduce the likelihood

of successful implementation. This is especially critical if you’re

using a stakeholder-driven process. Transparency of the process

builds trust and confidence in the outcome. Regular

communication also helps to strengthen accountability among

watershed partners by keeping them actively engaged. Such

communication might also stimulate more stakeholders to get

involved in the effort and offer new ideas or suggestions. Sharing

results can also help to ensure more consistent watershed

approaches across subwatersheds.

The many stakeholders that have invested time and money in the

watershed plan will want to know if the plan is making a difference.

They’re also likely to want to know what resources have been used to

make that difference and what resource gaps remain. You can be

accountable to stakeholders by regularly reporting information. You

should provide information on interim results and report the ways in

which the plan is working and how you plan to address the

deficiencies. Encourage stakeholders to contribute ideas on how to make

improvements.

Progress and implementation results can be shared through various media formats,

such as press releases, ads in local newspapers, television or radio public service

announcements, or presentations at community meetings such as those of homeowner

associations and local civic organizations, PTA meetings, or other gatherings of

members of the watershed community. You could secure time on the local cable

access station to discuss the watershed plan and share monitoring results with the

public. You might also consider hosting a press conference with local officials and

the stakeholders as a way to thank them for their participation and to inform the
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-7

Figure 13-1. Watershed report card for Clermont County, Ohio.

larger community about the plan’s contents and how they can participate in

implementing the plan. (KSee section 12.2.2 on developing an I/E program.) 

Remember to publicize the project team’s accomplishments to county

commissioners, elected local and state officials, watershed residents, and other major

stakeholders. The group might wish to issue a watershed “report card” (figure 13-1)

or develop a fact sheet, brochure, or annual report to highlight its successes. Report

cards let the community know whether water quality conditions are improving

overall. They also allow people to compare results across specific areas to see if

things are improving, whether some aspects seem to be connected, and whether a

change in direction is needed to bring about greater improvements. This is an

effective way to build awareness of the watershed issues and the progress of
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-8 Draft

Figure 13-2. Example adaptive management approach using a logic model.

watershed plan implementation. In addition, when people see progress, they’ll

continue to work toward making the plan a success.

13.6 Evaluate Your Program

Once you’ve started to implement your watershed plan, you need to monitor both

water quality and land treatment to ensure smooth implementation and to measure

progress toward meeting goals. The adaptive management approach is not linear but

circular, to allow you to integrate results back into your program. You need to create

decision points at which you’ll review information and then decide whether to make

changes in your program or stay the course. Figure 13-2 illustrates how the adaptive

management approach feeds back into your program based on information gathered

from monitoring and management tracking. As part of your evaluation efforts, you’ll

periodically review the activities included in your work plan and the monitoring

results to determine whether you’re making progress toward achieving your goals.
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-9

This time series plot of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)

data collected in three Vermont watersheds illustrates

the importance of frequent data evaluation. Obviously,

something happened around May 1996 that caused a

major shift in TKN concentrations in all three streams.

In addition, it is clear that after October, no values less

than 0.5 mg/L were recorded. In this case, the shift was

not the result of some activity in the watersheds but an

artifact of a faulty laboratory instrument, followed by the

establishment of a detection limit of 0.50 mg/L.

Discovery of this fault, although it invalidated a

considerable amount of prior data, led to correction of

the problem in the lab and saved the project major

headaches down the road.

O

• Administrative and management activities

• I/E activities

• Monitoring activities

• Additional issues

13.6.1 Track Progress Against Your Work Plans

As part of developing your implementation plan, you devised

a method for tracking progress (section 12.10). Using that

tracking system, you should review the implementation

activities outlined in your work plan, compare results with

your interim milestones, provide feedback to stakeholders,

and determine whether you want to make any corrections.

These reviews should address several key areas:

• The process being used to implement your pro9gram. This

process includes the administrative and technical

procedures used to secure agreements with landowners,

develop specifications, engage contractors, and the like.

• Progress on your work plan. Check off items in your

annual work plan that have been completed.

• Implementation results. Report on where and when

practices have been installed and have become

operational.

• Feedback from landowners and other stakeholders.

Review information on the stakeholders’ experience with

the implementation process and with operation and

maintenance of the practices.

Schedule reviews regularly and formalize the routine

procedures. A simple way to gather this information is to

provide worksheets to the project team at their regularly

scheduled meetings. O Use worksheet 13-2 to check in with

the group and evaluate how things are going. KA copy of the

worksheet with detailed questions is provided in appendix B. Maintain agendas,

minutes, and other records so that important issues and decisions are well

documented. Consider tying each meeting to a simple progress report so that all team

members stay up-to-date. Above all, involve all team members, not just those directly

involved in the specific items outlined above. Communication and sharing of

knowledge among team members is an essential ingredient for success. 

13.6.2 Analyze Monitoring Data

As part of the monitoring component developed in section

12.6, you have determined how and where the data are

stored, how frequently they are compiled and analyzed, the

types of analyses that will be performed, and how results

will be interpreted. Two types of analyses should be

considered during the implementation phase: (1) routine

summary analysis that tracks progress, assesses the quality
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-10 Draft

Inventory of practices/measures implemented.

Where and when were measures implemented?

Consider locating implementation as points or areas in

a geographic information system (GIS) and developing

standard maps.

Status of practices/measures implemented

How were structural measures built or maintained? Are

landowners following management practices? For

practices that “grow in” such as riparian buffers, report

on growth of vegetation.

Index of effects of implementation

What is the magnitude of implementation? What are

the estimated effects? In agricultural watersheds, for

example, the number or proportion of acres treated or

animal populations under management practices in the

critical areas can be useful indices of how much

treatment has been implemented. Where land

treatment tracking data allow, report estimates of

changes in nitrogen and phosphorus application under

nutrient management. If possible, estimate changes in

soil loss using tools like the Revised Universal Soil

Loss Equation (RUSLE).

of data relative to measurement quality objectives (i.e.,

whether the data are of adequate quality to answer the

monitoring question), and provides early feedback on trends,

changes, and problems in the watershed and (2) intensive

analysis to determine status, changes, trends, or other issues

that measure the response to the implementation of the

watershed plan.

Routine summary analysis should examine both water quality

and land treatment monitoring data fairly frequently. Simple,

basic data analysis should be done at least quarterly as part of

the regular review process. Progress reports (self-imposed, not

necessarily reports to funding agencies or the public) and

regular team meetings are effective ways to accomplish this.

Even though the process might seem demanding, early

suggestion of trends or problems can prevent major headaches

down the road by detecting changes or problems early.

Feedback from monitoring data can be invaluable in tracking

the effectiveness of your plan and making small adjustments.

To promote consistency and continuity, consider appointing a

single team member as the primary gatekeeper for routine data

analysis.

Routine data analysis in this context does not have to be

complex or sophisticated. Your primary goals are to make

sure your monitoring effort is on track and that you get a

general sense of what’s going on in your watershed.

Because many watershed activities can affect nonpoint source loads, you should pay

attention to broad watershed land use patterns such as overall land use change (e.g.,

abandonment of agricultural land, timber harvest, large urban development); changes

in agriculture, such as acres under cultivation or animal populations; and changes in

watershed population, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and so forth.

An annual look at watershed land use is probably enough in most cases.

Types of Data Analyses

In general, intensive data analysis should be conducted at least annually in a

multiyear watershed plan. The types of data analyses you perform on the monitoring

data depend on the overall goals and objectives, the management approach, and the

nature of the monitoring program; several types of analyses might be appropriate

depending on the monitoring questions. For example, an assessment of the Clinch

River watershed in Virginia used a variety of statistical analyses to relate land

use/land cover data and biological or stream habitat indices. Some of these analyses

involved relatively simple procedures, such as correlations between percent urban
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-11

Evaluate data collection effectiveness and data

quality

Are all planned samples and measurements being

collected? If not, why not? Are there technical,

logistical, laboratory, or financial issues? Are

measurement quality objectives being met? Is the

laboratory meeting the stated detection limits and

quality control standards? 

Screen data

Are the data reasonable? Are there major outliers that

suggest sampling or analytical errors that require

attention or something going on in the field that needs

investigation?

Conduct exploratory data analysis

What can the data tell you? Characterize the data with

simple descriptive statistics like mean, median, and

standard deviation. Plot the data as a time series that

is added to each quarter. This approach allows the

team to visualize seasonal patterns, compare data

from different locations, and compare current data with

data from previous years.

Look at supporting data

What other data are available to support your

monitoring? Weather data from the local National

Weather Service station, for example, are often key to

explaining patterns in your data and putting the data in

context. Was this year unusually wet or dry? Did a

100-year storm occur in part of the watershed?

area and fish Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs). Other analyses

were more complex, involving multivariate procedures such

as clustering, multiple regression, or factor analysis to tease

out the stressors most responsible for fish community

impairments in the watershed. Where analysis and evaluation

of management practices are the focus of monitoring, it might

be feasible to use relatively simpler analyses, such as t-tests

comparing indicator levels before and after implementation,

above and below implementation sites, or between areas

where management options were implemented and areas

where they were not. Where adequate preimplementation data

are not available, trend analysis can be used to look for

gradual changes in response to your implementation program.

In some cases, more sophisticated statistical techniques like

analysis of covariance might be required to control for the

effects of variations in weather, streamflow, or other factors. 

Determine Who Should Review the Data

Monitoring data might need to be reviewed by several types

of personnel depending on the complexity of the data. For

bigger watershed projects, it’s often necessary to enlist the

help of an expert in GIS applications because maps and land

use relationships are usually critical to the analyses. A

statistician is often required to review the data and help design

appropriate analyses. Note that even the most capable

statistician cannot completely compensate for a weak

monitoring design. Consult a statistician during the

development of your monitoring design (section 12.6).

Additional specialists might be necessary depending on the

types of data reported. For example, a toxicologist should

review toxicity data and a biologist should review

bioassessment data. Finally, the watershed coordinator should review the results of

analyses to ensure that they are on track and to help determine whether midcourse

changes are needed.

Run Models to Compare Actual Results with Predicted Results

Under some circumstances, models might be useful to evaluate the progress of

implementing your plan. You can, for example, compare the predictions of a model

that has been validated for your watershed against actual monitoring data. Such a

comparison can confirm that you are on track toward your load reduction goals or

can tell you that something is amiss. If data do not match predictions, you might be

able to track down possible reasons. The failure of a treatment measure to reduce
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-12 Draft

pollutant load as expected, for example, could be due to problems in installation or

management that can be corrected.

Models are also useful when you need to extrapolate monitoring data to the

watershed scale. For example, you can’t monitor every inch of stream and runoff

from every square inch of land. In fact, often you’ll be lucky if there are monitoring

stations (or more than a couple) in your watershed. With modeling techniques, you

can sometimes extrapolate data from monitoring stations to other locations to check

instream flows, concentrations, loads, or other parameters.

However, always use models with caution. You should not use models as the sole

means of assessing progress or evaluating the effectiveness of your efforts. Models

incorporate many assumptions about how management practices perform, and

without good monitoring data, model predictions can overstate or misstate changes in

water quality. In the Chesapeake Bay, for example, model results have suggested

major reductions in pollutant loads that are not borne out by monitoring data, leading

to a great deal of controversy and uncertainty over the status and direction of the Bay

restoration plan. Always remember that you’re working to reduce pollutant loads to a

real waterbody and that is where you should look to evaluate the effectiveness of

your plan.

13.7 Make Adjustments

If you’ve determined that you are not meeting the implementation milestones or

interim targets that you set for load reductions and other goals, what should you do?

There are several possible explanations for why you haven’t met your interim

milestones or why pollutant loads aren’t being reduced. Sometimes it takes much

longer to see results in the waterbody than anticipated. Sometimes management

practices have been installed but are not being used or maintained properly so they

have lost their effectiveness. Before making any modifications to your watershed

plan, ask yourself the questions in sections 13.7.1 and 13.7.2.

13.7.1 Not Meeting Implementation Milestones

Did weather-related causes postpone implementation?

Installation of many management practices depends on favorable weather conditions.

If you were unable to install these practices because of weather conditions, you might

want to stay the course, assuming you’ll be able to install them in the near future.

Was there a shortfall in anticipated funding for implementation of

management measures?

You might have identified funding sources to implement several of the management

measures. For example, the availability of crop subsidies or funding for cost-share
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-13

(e.g., USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP]) can affect the

installation and maintenance of management practices. If these sources were

insufficient or became unavailable, you need to determine whether the management

practices can still be installed and adjust new targets for the milestones.

Was there a shortage of technical assistance?

Many management practices require technical assistance (e.g., Natural Resources

Conservation Service [NRCS] engineers, Extension personnel, or private crop

management consultants) in design and construction or in management. Lack of such

assistance can slow implementation. You should consult with NRCS and other

sources of technical assistance to determine future availability and possibly adjust

your timetable accordingly.

Did we misjudge the amount of time needed to install some of the

practices?

Installation of structural practices, growth of vegetative measures, or adoption of

management or behavioral changes might take longer than predicted. You might

want to adjust your timetable to reflect this new reality.

Did we fail to account for cultural barriers to adoption?

Cultural or social barriers to the adoption of some practices exist. Some stakeholder

groups might avoid participation in government programs. Traditional aesthetic

preferences might conflict with development of riparian buffers. If such factors

become evident, you might need to increase incentives to landowners or undertake

additional I/E efforts.

13.7.2 Not Making Progress Toward Reducing Pollutant Loads

Are we implementing and using the management measures correctly?

Are structural practices being installed, operated, and maintained correctly?

Remember that the existence of an animal waste storage structure does not itself

guarantee effective animal waste management. Are management changes being

followed? Don’t assume that phosphorus inputs are automatically reduced by a set

amount for each acre of nutrient management implemented. Changes in phosphorus

applications following nutrient management must be documented. This is one big

reason for the land treatment monitoring discussed earlier. If you have instituted

erosion and sediment control regulations in portions of the watershed but the

sediment loads are not decreasing, determine whether the regulations are being

followed, with the proper setbacks, installation of silt fences, and so forth. If

management measures are not being implemented or followed correctly, more

education or technical assistance might be needed.
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-14 Draft

Has the weather been unusual?

Extended wet periods or storm events of unusual magnitude or unfortunate timing

can increase nonpoint source loads. Furthermore, many management practices have a

finite capacity to control nonpoint source loads, and this capacity might be exceeded

during extreme weather events. Before concluding that your implementation program

needs to be revised, check to see if unusual weather events might have contributed to

the failure to reach milestones.

Have there been unusual events or surprises in the watershed?

One purpose of land treatment and land use monitoring is to identify factors other

than the implementation program that might affect water quality. Are there new

sources of pollutants that you did not consider? Before setting off to revise your

implementation program, check to see that no surprises, disasters, or bad actors have

created problems in the watershed that affect your progress or mask the progress that

your plan implementation has made elsewhere.

Are we doing the right things?

If all your measures are being implemented according to specifications and there has

been no unusual weather or other unusual events, you might need to examine the

specifications themselves. If erosion and sediment control regulations have not

reduced sedimentation problems enough, you might need to extend the setback or

increase the inspections of constructions sites for these areas. If your nutrient

management practice is nitrogen-based but phosphorus loads remain high, you might

need to move to phosphorus-based nutrient management. Alternatively, you might

need to expand the level of implementation so that more watershed area comes under

improved management.

Are our targets reasonable?

If load reductions were predicted on the basis of models, plot studies, or idealized

systems, the milestones set for load reductions could be overly optimistic. For most

management practices, reports of effectiveness vary widely, depending on the

pollutant inputs, climate, and monitoring regime. Riparian buffers, for example,

might perform well in plot studies when runoff occurs as sheet flow, but in the real

world concentrated overland flow might bypass the treatment processes. You might

need to revisit your assumptions about expected load reductions.

Are we monitoring the right parameters?

Despite your best efforts to develop a monitoring program that’s targeted to

measuring progress, review the parameters you selected to ensure that they truly will

tell you if load reductions are occurring. Data on turbidity, for example, might not

tell the whole story on the success of erosion control measures if high turbidity
Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Draft 13-15

results from fine clay particles that are not controlled effectively by your

management practices.

Do we need to wait longer before we can reasonably expect to see

results?

The nonpoint source problems may have taken time to develop, and it may take time

to clean them up. Pollutants like phosphorus might have accumulated in soils or

aquatic sediments for decades. Sediment could continue to move through drainage

networks even after upland erosion has been reduced. It might be a mistake to expect

an immediate response to your implementation program. You might want to rethink

your targets or timetable for some pollutants.

Revisit the watershed plan

If you’ve ruled out all the above possibilities, you need to consider whether your plan

has called for the right management measures. It’s possible that the identification of

the causes and sources of pollutants earlier in the planning process was not

completely correct or that the situation has changed. For example, from 1978 to

1982, the New York Model Implementation

Project attempted to reduce phosphorus loads to

the Cannonsville Reservoir by implementing

improved management of dairy barnyards and

barnyard runoff. This approach was based on an

assessment that had identified barnyards as the

main source of the excessive phosphorus load.

When the phosphorus load reduction targets were

not met, the project team determined that winter

spreading of dairy manure, not barnyard runoff,

was the actual culprit (Brown et al. 1989). In

such a case, no amount of barnyard management

would address the fundamental problem.

Revisiting the plan and reexamining earlier assessments of the sources of pollutant

loads might be the only answer at this point. The good news is that the land treatment

and water quality monitoring data you’ve collected during this process can contribute

to a better understanding of your watershed. The watershed team can change any of

the elements on the schedule of activities, especially a management measure or

responsible party. It can also change priorities and shift resources to achieve a highpriority milestone. 

13.8 A Final Word

Volumes have been written on watershed management, and not all the permutations

and combinations that you might encounter in your watershed planning effort could
Chapter 13

Implement Watershed Plan and

Measure Progress

Handbook for Developing Watershed

Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters

13-16 Draft

be included in this handbook. However, the authors have tried to provide a

framework to help you develop a scientifically defensible plan that will lead to

measurable results and an overall improvement in the water quality and watershed

conditions that are important in your community.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-1

General Watershed Planning Information

The Indiana Watershed Planning Guide

This guide was developed by the Indiana Department of Environmental

Management to assist local groups in developing successful watershed plans and

to establish a common approach for watershed planning throughout Indiana. It

helps users answer the following watershed planning questions: Where are we

now? Where do we want to be? How are we going to get there? How will we

know when we’ve arrived? The guide is available at

www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/wsm/iwpg/content.html.

Michigan’s Developing a Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality: An

Introductory Guide

This guide was developed to help local units of government, nonprofit

organizations, and citizens develop watershed management plans. It outlines a

process for gathering people, information, and resources to protect and improve

Michigan’s water resources. The guide is available for download at

www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-Watershe.pdf.

Ohio EPA’s A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio

This guide helps users develop local watershed plans. It provides background

information about watershed planning, including the watershed approach, what a

watershed plan is and why it is important to develop one, why the plan needs to

be locally based, who should participate in planning, when to prepare the plan,

and limitations to the approach. The guide also provides guidelines to help users

get started with the planning process, inventory the watershed, define the

problem, develop solutions and set goals, and implement the action plan. The

guide is available for download at 

www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf.

Pennsylvania’s Watershed Stewardship - A Planning and Resource Guide

This guide, which was developed by the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, consists of six toolboxes designed to give grassroots

watershed groups and local governments guidance and a framework for

developing comprehensive watershed plans that address local goals, are

compatible with regional and state-scale planning efforts, and are based on the

most current information available. The Guide focuses on six components,
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-2 Draft

including watershed organization development and sustainability, securing

financial and human resources, watershed assessments, developing the watershed

management plan, implementation, and monitoring for success. The guide is

available on CD or hardcopy by contacting the Watershed Protection Division at

717-772 5807 or emcdonald@state.pa.us The guide may also be downloaded at

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/wsnotebks/

newbooks/guide%20intro1.doc.

The California Watershed Assessment Manual (CWAM)

The California Watershed Assessment Manual provides guidance for conducting

a watershed assessment in California. It is intended to support the planning and

technical needs primarily of watershed groups, but also local and state agencies,

academic scientists, consultants, and individuals involved in developing and

conducting a watershed assessment. The Manual includes guidance on planning

and operational principles and steps that are useful for assessment processes

anywhere in the state. The topics addressed in the Manual cover the primary

natural and human processes in rural watersheds of northern and central

California. The optimal organizational and geographic scale for use of the

Manual is for watershed groups conducting assessments in 10,000-acre to 1

million-acre watersheds. The guide is available for download at

http://cwam.ucdavis.edu.

The Watershed Project Management Guide

This book presents a four-phase approach to watershed management that is based

on a collaborative process that responds to common needs and goals. Chapters in

the book focus on watershed importance, the watershed management process,

partnership development and operation, the assessment and problem

identification phase, plan development, the watershed management plan,

implementation, evaluation, monitoring, models, and social building capacity.

The book is available for purchase at

www.enviroscapes.com/watershed_management.htm.

The Clean Water Act: An Owner’s Manual

This manual was written by River Network to make the Clean Water Act

comprehensible and usable for every American working to protect or restore a

watershed. The Owner’s Manual provides citizen activists with clear descriptions

of the provisions of the act that enhance citizen involvement. The document is

available for purchase at http://www.rivernetwork.org/marketplace/

index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=5.

The Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series

This series from the Center for Watershed Protection includes 11 manuals on

techniques to restore small urban watersheds. The entire series of manuals was

written to organize the enormous amount of information needed to restore small

urban watersheds in a format that watershed groups, municipal staff,
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-3

environmental consultants, and other users can access easily. The manuals are

organized by the following topics: an integrated approach to restore small urban

watersheds, methods for developing restoration plans for small urban watersheds,

stormwater retrofit practices, stream repair and restoration practices, riparian

management practices, discharge prevention techniques, pervious area

management practices, pollution source control practices, municipal practices

and programs, a user’s manual for Unified Stream Assessment (USA), and a

user’s manual for Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR). The

manuals are available from the Center for Watershed Protection at

www.cwp.org/USRM_verify.htm.

Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum

The Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum, which is held each year, provides tools

for watershed planning. The 2004 Forum was a daylong presentation about the

nuts and bolts of preparing a watershed plan. A discussion of nine critical

elements of watershed-based NPS pollution control plans was also provided.

Additional information about the 2004 Colorado Nonpoint Source Forum is

available at www.ourwater.org/econnection/connection15/npsforum.html.

Information about the Colorado NPS Program is available at

www.npscolorado.com.

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans

EPA’s National Estuary Program was established to improve the quality of

estuaries of national importance. The Clean Water Act section 320 directs EPA

to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in an estuary. This

includes protection of public water supplies; protection and propagation of a

balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, allowance of

recreational activities, in and on water; and required control of point and

nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution. Each

National Estuary Program establishes a Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan (CCMP) to meet the goals of section 320. Program-specific

CCMPs are available at www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ccmp/index.htm.

Additional information about the NEP is available at www.epa.gov/nep.

Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National

Estuary Program

This document (EPA 842-B-05-003) describes the highly successful approaches

to watershed management implemented by National Estuary Programs

throughout the United States. The principles and lessons learned contained in the

document are relevant, not only to the NEPs, but also to other watershed

organizations who are working to implement watershed protection and

restoration efforts. To obtain a copy, contact the National Service Center for

Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or

www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-4 Draft

A Guide for Local Governments: Wetlands and Watershed Management

This guidebook (Dr. Jon Kusler, Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy

of the Association of State Wetland Managers) was written to help local

governments integrate water resources management and wetland ecosystem

protection efforts. The guidebook has been written for engineers, biologists,

botanists, planners, not for profit staff, legislators and others. It makes

recommendations for integrating wetlands into broad watershed management

efforts and more specific water programs, including floodplain management,

stormwater management, source water protection, point source pollution control,

and nonpoint source pollution control programs. Case study examples are

provided from throughout the Nation. The guidebook is available for download

at www.aswm.org/propub/pubs/aswm/wetlandswatershed.pdf.

Planning As Process: A Community Guide to Watershed Planning

Some of the most successful efforts at solving environmental problems have

happened through local watershed planning projects. Since most environmental

problems originate as local land use issues, it makes sense that local efforts

should be the primary means of determining ways to control land use generated

pollution. This guide, which was developed by the Washington State Department

of Ecology, adapts those efforts and presents a watershed planning process that

has been used through out Washington State by local entities who have

successfully battled water quality problems. However, this guide can be applied

to most environmental problems that require local involvement. Developing a

general process that can be converted into the various applications is the idea

behind this guide. The guidebook is available for download at

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9901.pdf.

Example Watershed Plans

Mill Creek Subwatershed Management Plan, Michigan:

www.hrwc.org/program/mid.htm#plan

White Oak Creek Watershed Action Plan, Ohio:

http://brownswcd.org/action_plan.htm

Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan, North Carolina:

www.unrba.org/projact.htm

Virgin River Management Plan, Utah:

http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/WebPage/ReportsPlanAgreements/VRMP/

TitlePage.html
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-5

Oneida Lake Watershed Management Plan, New York:

www.cnyrpdb.org/oneidalake/

Clean Water Act Information

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program

Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987 to establish the section 319

Nonpoint Source Management Program. Under section 319, states, territories,

and American Indian tribes receive grant money to support a wide variety of

activities, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,

technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success

of specific nonpoint source management projects. Go to

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories

EPA has developed guidelines for state implementation of nonpoint source

management programs under section 319 and for awarding of section 319 grants

to states to implement those programs. The guidelines are available, under “EPA

Guidance,” at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html.

Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement

Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense

of Place

This guide addresses the social and cultural aspects of community-based

environmental protection. To obtain a copy, contact the National Service Center

for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or

www.epa.gov/ncepihom. The guide is also available at

www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/pdf/ccecomplete.pdf.

Getting In Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed

This guide provide tips and tools to identify stakeholders, make decisions using

consensus, build a stakeholder group, maintain momentum in the watershed

planning process, and resolve conflict. The guide is available only in pdf format

at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/stakeholderguide.pdf.

Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns

This guide provides detailed information on developing and conducting effective

watershed outreach campaigns. You can download a pdf version at

www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep.pdf.
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-6 Draft

Know Your Watershed

The Center for Technology Information Center (CTIC) has developed a series of

documents to know your watershed. This information clearinghouse for

watershed coordinators helps assure measurable progress toward local goals. The

clearinghouse is available at www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW.

Model Ordinance Language

Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center 

Located at CWP, the center provides technical assistance for stormwater

management. CWP also provides a checklist to evaluate community needs and

model ordinances. Go to www.stormwatercenter.net.

EPA’s Web site for stormwater control operation and maintenance

This site provides model ordinance language, example ordinances, and

supporting materials. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/stormwater.htm.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District 

The district provides a model stormwater management ordinance. Go to

www.northgeorgiawater.com/stormwater.htm.

Putting the Water Quality Plan into Action: Tools for Local Governments

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments provides specific actions local

communities can implement to protect their water resources, including

ordinances. Go to www.semcog.org.

Evaluation Tools

Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together

Planning, Evaluation, and Action

This guide provides a step-by-step approach using logic models to effectively

evaluate programs. Available in pdf on their Web site at 

www.wkkf.org. 

Logic Model Worksheets

The University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension has done quite a bit of

research on logic models and provides online courses and worksheets that you

can download at www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-7

Seeking Signs of Success: A Guided Approach to More Effective Watershed

Programs

This guide includes a step-by-step process and worksheets to conduct meaningful

evaluations of watershed programs. Available for $19.95 at www.rivercare.org.

Establishing Watershed Benchmarks — Tools for Gauging Progress (River

Network. Volume 8, Number 3) 

This issue of River Voices focuses on establishing watershed benchmarks,

including watershed health, organizational health, and watershed activities.

Available for $2 at www.rivernetwork.org.

Monitoring Program Design and Implementation

Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source

Controls

This EPA manual gives an overview of nonpoint source pollution and covers the

development of a monitoring plan, data analysis, quality assurance/quality

control, and biological monitoring. To obtain a copy, contact the National

Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 800-490-9198 or

www.epa.gov/ncepihom.

EPA’s Monitoring and Assessment Web site

This site includes a wealth of information on assessment and reporting

guidelines, databases and mapping capabilities, biological assessment, and

volunteer monitoring. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring.

Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program

This guidance recommends ten basic elements of a holistic, comprehensive

monitoring program that serves all water quality management needs and

addresses all waterbody types. It describes a process in which States develop a

monitoring program strategy to implement these basic components over a period

of up to 10 years. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements.

DQOs, MQOs, and Performance Characteristics

The Methods and Data Comparability Board

This board is a workgroup of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and

has developed data and method quality objectives tools. Go to

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/dqomqo/index.htm.

Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) Appendix C

Appendix C provides information on statistical considerations for data quality
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-8 Draft

objectives and data quality assessments in water quality attainment studies. Go to

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm/calm_appc.pdf.

Sampling Design

Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Survey Design and Statistical

Evaluation of Biosurvey Data 

This guidance provides methods to help managers interpret and gauge the

confidence with which biological criteria can be used to make resource

management decisions. Go to www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/biolstat.html.

Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs)

For more information on SAPs check out the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

publication titled Engineering and Design - Requirements for the Preparation of

Sampling and Analysis Plans (specifically chapter 3 – Sampling and Analysis

Plan: Format and Contents and Appendix J – Sampling and Analysis Plan

Review Checklist). Go to www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/

em200-1-3.

Visual Stream Assessment Tools

Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams (SOS) Program

The Izaak Walton Save Our Streams (SOS) program is a national watershed

education and outreach tool to provide innovative educational programs for

groups and individuals. SOS has educated and motivated citizens to clean up

stream corridors, monitor stream health, restore degraded streambanks and

protect dwindling wetland acreage through biological and other assessments,

education, and training. Go to www.iwla.org/sos.

Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT)

RSAT is a methodology for visually evaluating a stream to assess the stream

quality and to identify potential pollutant sources. RSAT was developed for

Montgomery County, Maryland, to provide a simple, rapid, reconnaissance-level

assessment of stream quality conditions. Go to

www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/rsat/

smrc%20rsat.pdf.

Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP)

SVAP is designed as an introductory screening-level assessment method for

people unfamiliar with stream assessments. The SVAP measures a maximum of

15 elements and is based on visual inspection of the physical and biological

characteristics of instream and riparian environments. To download a copy of a

SVAP document, go to www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-9

Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR) 

USSR is designed to assess upland areas for behaviors that can potentially

influence water quality and to identify promising restoration project

opportunities. Go to www.cwp.org.

Biological Assessment 

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers:

Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, 2nd edition

This document describes refined and revised methods for conducting costeffective biological assessments of streams and small rivers. It focuses on

periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages, and on assessing

the quality of the physical habitat. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp.

Stressor Identification Guidance Document

This guidance leads water resource managers through a rigorous process to

identify stressors that cause biological impairment in aquatic ecosystems and to

assemble cogent scientific evidence that supports conclusions about potential

causes. Go to www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html.

Summary of Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States,

Tribes, Territories, Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers

This EPA document includes an overview of biological assessment programs and

protocols used at the state level. Go to www.epa.gov/bioindicators.

Modeling Tools

Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development

The Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development

supports the watershed approach by summarizing available techniques and

models that assess and predict physical, chemical, and biological conditions in

waterbodies. Go to www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/comptool.html.

The Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM)

The Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM) promotes

consistency and consensus within the Agency on mathematical modeling issues,

including model guidance, development, and application, and enhances both

internal and external communications on modeling activities. The CREM is the

Agency's central point to address modeling issues. CREM has a comprehensive

online database that provides links to model reviews and resources. Go to

http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem.
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-10 Draft

Management Measures

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint

Pollution in Coastal Waters

This 1992 EPA document describes management measures and associated

management practices for all six nonpoint source categories. The document

includes extensive cost and effectiveness information as well as examples and

detailed descriptions of management practices. EPA has updated and expanded

several chapters of the 1992 guidance. Updated sections are available for

agriculture, forestry, marinas and recreational boating, and urban areas. All of the

chapters can be downloaded at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.

International Stormwater Best Management Practices database

This database is operated by the Urban Water Resources Research Council of the

American Society of Civil Engineers under a cooperative agreement with EPA.

The database provides technical documents, software and tools to evaluate the

effectiveness of stormwater runoff BMPs. These tools include standardized BMP

monitoring and reporting protocols, a stormwater BMP database, BMP

performance evaluation protocols, and BMP monitoring guidance. Go to

www.bmpdatabase.org.

National Handbook of Conservation Practices

Written in 1977 by NRCS, it is updated annually. Provides details on nationally

accepted management practices. Available in hardcopy and electronically at

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/nhcp.html.

National Menu of BMPs for Storm Water Phase II

This compliance assistance tool was developed by EPA to help small

communities develop stormwater management programs and select management

practices to control pollutants in runoff. It includes descriptions, cost and

effectiveness data, and case study examples for more than 100 management

practices. Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm.

Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation of

Nonpoint Source Control Measures

There are three documents that provide information on the techniques used to

track, evaluate, and report on the implementation of nonpoint source control

measures. Each document focuses on a different measure: agriculture, forestry,

and urban areas. Go to www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix A

Resources

Draft A-11

BMP Costing Information

A list of currently available cost references is given below. Most of these

references are available for free download, but some might only be available at a

university library or by purchase. You should look for local costs before using

these references since construction costs and designs can vary between states.

USEPA BMP Fact Sheets

This comprehensive list of BMP fact sheets contains information on construction

and maintenance costs as well as other monetary considerations. Information is

provided on both structural and non-structural BMPs. Go to

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Some state NRCS offices publish cost information on agricultural practices to

support the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). For an example

of this cost information, go to the “cost lists” section of the following Web site

www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/2005Signup.html.

Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project

This demonstration project has produced cost estimating criteria for both

structural and non-structural management practices. The project continues to

publish information on recent BMP projects. The most recent cost estimating

criteria can be found at www.rougeriver.com/pdfs/stormwater/sr25.pdf.

International Stormwater BMP Database

The American Society of Civil Engineers and USEPA have developed a

stormwater BMP database that contains site-specific BMP information from

across the country. Depending on the location and type of BMP, the database

may provide BMP cost information. It’s available at www.bmpdatabase.org.

Low Impact Development Center

Among many LID resources, the Low Impact Development Center offers a series

of fact sheets with BMP construction and maintenance cost information at

www.lid-stormwater.net/intro/sitemap.htm.

RS Means Construction Cost Data

RS Means publishes construction cost data and updates this information

annually. RS Means publications usually can be found at university libraries. In

addition to construction cost, the RS Means publications contain indices for

converting prices between cities and states. Go to www.rsmeans.com.
Appendix A

Resources

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

A-12 Draft

Performance and Whole Life Costs of Best Management Practices and

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (2005)

Provides an extensive review of BMP costing techniques for selected controls, as

well as a spreadsheet model to estimate costs. Reviewers include Black & Veatch

Corporation; Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas;

Glenrose Engineering; Urban Water Technology Center, University of Abertay;

HR Wallingford Ltd.; Black & Veatch Consulting Ltd. The document is available

from the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) at www.werf.org.

Funding Resources

List of NPS Funding Opportunities 

This EPA site provides links to various federal, state, and private funding sources

available to address nonpoint source issues. Go to

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/funding.html.

Catalog of Federal Funding Opportunities

This interactive EPA Web site helps match project needs with funding sources. It

also provides administrative guidelines and applicability for each source. Go to

www.epa.gov/watershedfunding.

Grassroots Fundraising Journal

The Grassroots Fundraising Journal helps nonprofit organizations learn how to

raise more money to support their goals. It offers practical, how-to instructions

on implementing fundraising strategies such as direct mail, special events, major

gift campaigns, and phone-a-thons. It also has tools to help you build a board of

directors that is willing to raise money, choose a database to track donors,

manage your time effectively, and ultimately develop a successful fundraising

program. Go to www.grassrootsfundraising.org/index.html.

A Guidebook of Financial Tools

EPA’s Environmental Financial Advisory Board and the Agency's network of

university-based Environmental Finance Centers developed this guidebook as a

working tool to enable practitioners in the public and private sectors to find

appropriate methods to pay for environmental protection efforts. Go to

www.epa.gov/efinpage/guidebook/guidebooktp.htm.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Appendix B

Worksheets

Draft B-1

WORKSHEET 3-1: Identifying Stakeholder’s Skills and Resources 

Name:

Phone: Email:

Skills/resources

U If you possess

these skills or

have access to

these resources

Comments

SKILLS

Accounting

Graphic design

Computer support

Fund-raising

Public relations

Technical expertise 

(please describe)

Facilitation

Other:

Other:

RESOURCES

Contacts with media

Access to volunteers

Access to datasets

Connections to local organizations

Access to meeting facilities

Access to equipment 

(please describe)

Access to field trip locations

Other:

Other:

Other:

Please identify any other skills or resources you bring to the group:
WORKSHEET 4-1: What Do We Already Know?

1. What are the known or perceived impairments and problems in the watershed? 

2. Do we already know the causes and sources of any water quality impairments in the

watershed? If so, what are they?

3. What information is already available, and what analyses have been performed to support 

development of a TMDL, watershed plan, or other document?

4. Have the relative contributions from major types of sources of the pollutant or stressor 

causing impairment been estimated?

5. Are there any historical or ongoing management efforts aimed at controlling the problem 

pollutants or stressors?

6. Are there any threats to future conditions, such as accelerated development patterns?

7. Have any additional concerns or goals been identified by the stakeholders? 
WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model

The conceptual model is essentially made up of three parts—the sources (at the top); the

impairments (at the bottom); and the stressors (or the steps/relationships between the

sources and impairments (in the middle). 

1. Start at the end: Define the impairments

The impairments are the endpoints for the conceptual model. Add the impairments in boxes at

the bottom of the next page. Put each impairment in its own box on the worksheet. Be as

specific as possible. Keep the impairments on the same sheet (don’t make a separate model for

each impairment). You might find that the impairments share a common source and are linked

in unexpected ways.

2. Go to the top

Start listing the most likely sources of impairment. In general, you will identify many more

sources than impairments. List the sources in boxes at the top of the next page.

3. Identify the stressors and impacts that link sources to impairments

These boxes provide the links between the sources and the impairments. Draw in as few or as

many stressors and impacts as are needed to show cause and effect between sources,

stressors, and impairment.

4. Connect the sources, stressor, impacts, and impairments

Start drawing arrows between the sources, linkages, and impairments. You might have arrows

that go from sources to sources (e.g., between logging and unpaved roads), from sources to

linkages, and finally from linkages to the impairments.

Examples

Use the template and examples on the next page as guides to identifying sources, stressors,

impacts, and impairments in your watershed.
Your sources here

your impairments here

WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model (continued)
WORKSHEET 4-2: Building a Conceptual Model (continued)
WORKSHEET 4-3: Identifying Concerns, Causes, Goals, and Indicators

What are the

problems/

concerns in

the

watershed?

What do you

think caused

the problems? 

How can we

assess current

conditions?

(Indicators)

What would

you like to see

for your

watershed?

(Goals)

How will we

measure progress

toward meeting

those goals?

(Indicators)
WORKSHEET 7-1: What Data Analyses Do We Need to Conduct?

Questions to Help Determine What Kinds of Data Analyses Are Needed

Question Answer

1. Are water quality standards being met? If so, are they

maintaining existing levels?

2. Is water quality threatened?

3. Is water quality impaired? 

4. Are there known or expected sources causing impairment?

5. Where do impairments occur?

6. When do the impairments occur? Are they affected by

seasonal variations?

7. Under what conditions (e.g., flow, weather) are the impairments

observed?

8. Do multiple impairments (e.g., nutrients and bacteria) coexist? 

9. Are there other impairments that are not measured by water

quality standards?

Questions to Answer Based on Results of the Data Analysis

1. What beneficial uses for the waterbodies are being impaired? What pollutants are impairing

them?

2. What are the potential sources, nonpoint and point, that contribute to the impairment? 

3. When do sources contribute pollutant loads? 

4. How do pollutants enter the waterbody (e.g., runoff, point sources, contaminated ground

water, land uses, ineffective point source treatment, pipe failures)?

5. What characteristics of the waterbody, the watershed, or both could be affecting the

impairment (e.g., current or future growth, increased industrial areas, future NPDES permits,

seasonal use of septic systems)?

6. Revisit the conceptual model showing the watershed processes and sources, and revise it if

necessary.
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts

Wastewater Discharges

(Source of information: state water quality program administering NPDES permits)

1. Where are wastewater discharges located in the watershed? If possible, map the locations.

2. What volume of wastewater is being discharged?

3. What are the parameters of concern in the effluent?

4. For each permit, what are the existing requirements?

5. What is the recent (5-year) history of permit compliance? How severe are the violations, and 

what caused them?

6. Are significant treatment plant upgrades being planned? If so, will the future discharge show

a net increase or decrease in pollutant loading?

7. Have potential threats to diminishing water supplies been identified in a source water

assessment?

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems

(Source of information: local health department)

8. Where are concentrations of on-site systems located? If possible, map the locations.

9. Are there known concentrations of failing on-site systems? If so, where?

10. Is there a homeowners’ education program for proper maintenance of on-site systems? Is

there an inspection program?

11. What is the depth of the water table?
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)

Urban Stormwater Runoff

(Source of information: local government engineering and planning department)

12. Are cities and counties in the watershed covered by an NPDES stormwater permit? If so,

what are the conditions of the permit?

13. Do local governments in the watershed have stormwater ordinances? If so, what are the

requirements? 

14. Do the regulations address stormwater volume and pollutant loading?

15. Do the stormwater requirements apply to redevelopment of existing developed areas?

16. Does the local government have a public education program for pollution prevention?

17. Does the local government have a stream restoration and BMP retrofit program? Are 

projects being located in your watershed?

18. Are any new ordinances or programs being developed or planned?
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)

Agricultural and Forestry Practices

(Sources of information: local NRCS Conservation District office and Forest Service office, state soil and

water district office, and state forestry service office)

19. Are there areas with active farming or logging in the watershed? If so, map them if possible.

20. Are management plans in place where these activities are occurring?

21. What percentage of the area uses management practices for controlling sediment and other

pollutants? Are these practices effective? If not, why? Are monitoring data available?

22. For areas not using management practices to control runoff, what have been the obstacles 

to their use?

23. Are there existing stream side buffers? If so, how wide are they?

Note: Farm*A*Syst is a voluntary, confidential program in each state that helps farmers and ranchers

evaluate pollution risks to their property and take preventive action to reduce those risks. Further state

program information and Web links can be accessed through www.uwex.edu/farmasyst/index.html. Click

on “Resources” and the state of interest. Other programs that have developed from Farm*A*Syst include

Forest*A*Syst, Stream*A*Syst, and Cotton*A*Syst. Forest*A*Syst provides a series of questions for

landowners on the types of practices conducted on their forestland. Stream*A*Syst is a set of materials

that landowners review to determine whether there are stream-related factors to improve with better

management practices. Cotton*A*Syst is an assessment tool to measure current levels of integrated pest

management (IPM) implementation and help cotton farmers improve management practices.
WORKSHEET 10-1: Identifying Existing Management Efforts (continued)

Wetlands and Critical Habitat Protection

(Sources of information: Association of State Wetlands Managers, Association of State Floodplain

Managers, local wetlands partners)

24. Have wetlands been identified and evaluated for the habitat value, water quality benefits,

and flood control contributions? 

25. To what extent do natural buffers and floodplains remain in the watershed? 

26. What projects have gone into create or restore wetlands and wetland formations?
WORKSHEET 10-2: Documenting Management Measure Opportunities and

Constraints

Sources:

(e.g., streambanks, urban stormwater, failing septic systems, livestock in stream)

Causes:

(e.g., eroding streambanks, unlimited access of livestock, undersized culverts)

Name of management measure or program 

(NRCS code if applicable)

Data source (i.e., where you obtained your information on the management measure)

Description (what it is and what it does)

Approximate unit cost (including installation and operation and maintenance costs; may be expressed as

a range)

Approximate or relative load reduction for each parameter of concern (could be high, moderate, low, or

unit reduction per acre per year)

Planning considerations (e.g., project factors such as site size and contributing watershed area; physical

factors such as slope, depth of water table, and soil type limitations or considerations; operation and

maintenance requirements

Skill needed to implement the management measures (e.g., engineering, landscape design,

construction)

Permitting considerations

Other (e.g., stakeholders’ willingness to use the measure)
WORKSHEET 12-1: Template for Implementation Plan Matrix

Note: prepare one worksheet for each management objective identified.

Watershed Goal:

Management Objective (MO 1):

Implementation Activities

Management Measures Who Needs to Be

Involved?

(Authorities/Resp.

Party/Other

Organizations)

Costs

(Annual/Total

Funding Sources)

Schedule/Milestones

Short Med Long Remaining

MM 1

Benefits/estimated load

reduction

MM 2

Benefits/estimated load

reduction

MM 3

Benefits/estimated load

reduction

I/E Activities

I/E1

I/E 2

I/E 3

Monitoring Component
WORKSHEET 12-2: Developing Criteria to Measure Progress in Meeting Water

Quality Goals 

Note: Complete one worksheet for each management objective identified.

Management Objective:

Indicators to Measure Progress Target Value

or Goal

Interim Targets

Short-term Medium-term Long-term
WORKSHEET12-3: Basic Components of a Watershed Plan

Key Watershed Planning Components Done? Comments

Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by

the plan.

Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the

appropriate water quality standards and designated uses.

Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar

sources that need to be controlled to achieve the water

quality standards.

Break down the sources to the subcategory level.

Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody.

Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the

water quality goals.

Identify critical areas in which management measures are

needed.

Identify the management measures that need to be

implemented to achieve the load reductions.

Prepare an information/education component that identifies

the education and outreach activities needed for

implementing the watershed management plan.

Develop a schedule for implementing the plan.

Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining

whether management measures are being implemented.

Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading

reductions are being achieved and progress is being made

toward attaining (or maintaining) water quality standards,

and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not

been demonstrated.

Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the

plan is being implemented appropriately and whether

progress toward attainment or maintenance of applicable

water quality standards is being achieved.

Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including

management measures, I/E activities, and monitoring.

Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical

assistance and associated authorities available to

implement the management measures. 

Develop an evaluation framework.
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans

319 WATERSHED PLANT REVIEW LIST

Watershed: 

Plan(s): Document(s) reviewed and dates.

a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be

controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to

achieve any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed in

item b immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the

significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the

watershed (e.g., including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility, Y acres of

row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control, or Z linear miles of

eroded streambank needing remediation).

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under

paragraph c below (recognizing the natural variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting

the performance of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the

same level as in item a above (e.g., the total load reduction expected for row crops, or

eroded streambanks).

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans

(continued)

c. A description of the BMPs and techniques (nonpoint source management measures) that

are expected to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under item b

above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan),

and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas (by pollutant or

sector) in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, monitoring and

I&E cost, associated administrative costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be

relied on to implement the entire plan (include administrative, I&E, and monitoring costs).

Expected sources of funding, states to be used section 319 programs, State Revolving

Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve

Program, and other relevant federal, state, local, and private funds to assist in implementing

this plan.

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

e. An information/education component that will be implemented to enhance public

understanding of the project and enable the public’s early and continued participation in

selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures that will be

implemented (cost needs to be included in item d above).

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

f. A schedule for implementing the activities and NPS management measures identified in this

plan.

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 
WORKSHEET 12-4: Example Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans

(continued)

g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management

measures or other control actions are being implemented and what will be done if the

project is not meeting its milestones.

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

h. A set of environmental, social, and administrative criteria that will be used to determine

whether the implementation schedule is being met, loading reductions are being achieved

over time, and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standard.

These criteria provide the basis for determining whether the watershed-based plan needs to

be revised or whether the nonpoint source TMDL needs to be revised.

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 

i. A monitoring and evaluation component to track progress and evaluate the effectiveness of

the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under items

g and h above. 

G Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. 

G Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required: 
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management 

Planning Worksheet

The attached worksheet provides guidance for the development of watershed management

plans that meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency to be eligible for

certain grant funding. It is designed to help the user find basic information to begin the

development of these watershed management plans, as well as providing information about the

nine elements that are required in the plan. The completion of this worksheet does not

constitute an approved plan, but it should provide the user with the basic necessary information

from which an approved watershed management plan can be developed and ultimately

implemented.

Completing the Worksheet:

This worksheet must include the Waterbody Identification Number (WBID) of the impaired

waterbody that the planning effort will impact. 

If a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been written for the watershed, the Watershed

Management Plan must be designed to achieve the reduction in pollutant load called for in the

NPS Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL). If a TMDL has not been developed for the waterbody,

the plan must include implementation practices to remove the waterbody from the 303(d) list. 

Project Name:

Waterbody Name(s): Waterbody ID Number:

Project

Sponsor:

Address: 

Project

Manager:

Phone:

Email:

Watershed Identification

Name of Watershed:

HUC Codes for all 14-Digit Watersheds

 in Planning Effort:

Total Area Encompassed in Planning

Effort (Acres):

Approved TMDLs with nonpoint source

impairments (if any) See Attachment B

Waterbody WBID Size Pollutant(s) Source

Does the area encompass a Public Water

Supply?

Yes Name(s): 

No 
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management 

Planning Worksheet (continued)

Elements of the Watershed Management Plan (see Attachment C)

Element A

Pollutant(s)

Addressed in the

Plan:

Pollutant Category (see Attachment D) 

(Mark all that apply)

Element A

Quantify Sources of Pollutant 

(e.g., # of cattle, # of acres,

miles of stream, etc.)

Ag

CP

Ag

AP Silv. C U/

SW HM LD RE

Sediment

Nutrients

Pesticides

Fecal Coliforms

Dissolved Oxygen

Metals

pH

Other/Unknown

AgCP-Agriculture Crop Production, AgAP-Agriculture Animal Production, Silv.-Silviculture, C-Construction, 

U/SW-Urban/Stormwater, HM-Hydrologic/Habitat Modification, LD-Land Disposal, RE-Resource Extraction

NPS Management Measures – Element C

BMP to be

Implemented (For a list

of some BMPs, refer to

the Natural Resources

Conservation Service’s

(NRCS) Electronic

Field Office Technical

Guide) Total # or Area Unit of Measure Estimate of Pollutant Load Reduction – Element B

Describe Methods Used to Estimate Pollutant Load Reduction:
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management Planning Worksheet (continued)

Estimate of Assistance Needed – Element D

Agency Providing Technical Assistance

(For a list of some agencies, refer to appendix J of the

Nonpoint Source Management Plan) Technical Assistance to be Provided

Agency Providing Financial Assistance 

(For a list of some agencies, refer to appendix J of the

Nonpoint Source Management Plan) Amount of Financial Assistance Provided

Schedule for BMP Implementation – Element F

BMP to Be Implemented

Anticipated Date of Completion

25% complete 50% complete 75% complete 100% complete

Description of Interim Milestones – Element G

Describe interim, measurable milestones:

Method Used to Determine Load

Reduction – Element H Pollutant Type(s)

Fixed Station Network

Intensive Surveys

Toxics Monitoring Program

Biological Monitoring Program

Fish Tissue Analysis

Volunteer Monitoring Program

Other(s)
WORKSHEET 12-5: Missouri’s Nine-Element Watershed Management

Planning Worksheet (continued)

Monitoring Program – Element I

Describe monitoring component(s):

Information/Education Component – Element E

Describe Information/Education component(s):
WORKSHEET 13-1: Sample Watershed Stakeholder Committee Evaluation

Purpose: To determine how the level of participation in the Watershed Stakeholder Committee

has changed over the past 2 years and why, and to assess the usefulness of the Committee.

Name/Affiliation:

PARTICIPATION

How many Watershed Stakeholder Committee meetings have you participated in over the past

2 years?

If you have not participated in all the meetings, what factors would have increased your

participation?

G Hosting the meeting closer to where I live.

G Hosting the meeting at a time that was more convenient for me, such as _______________.

G Providing more advance notice of where and when the meeting was to be held.

G Including topics for discussion that were more relevant to my interests.

G Other: 

GROUP STRUCTURE 

Do you feel the size of the group was adequate? Please explain.

Do you feel the composition of the group was representative of the watershed community?

Please explain.

GROUP INPUT

Do you feel the meetings were held to optimize participation from the attendees? Please

explain.

Do you feel that your input was incorporated into the watershed management planning

process? Please explain.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

What do you think are the most useful aspects of the Watershed Stakeholder Committee?

What do you think can make the Watershed Stakeholder Committee more useful?

Would you like to be involved in future watershed protection efforts?
Worksheet 13-2: Sample Questions to Ask Implementation Team at Quarterly

Review of Watershed Management Plan

Review Administrative and Management Activities

1. Are we on track with resources and expenditures?

2. Do we have any gaps in skills or do we need additional technical assistance?

3. What implementation activities have occurred since the last quarterly meeting?

4. Are we meeting our implementation milestones?

5. What are the next management measures to be implemented?

6. Do we have the resources/skills/authorities to proceed?

Review I/E Activities

7. Are we getting participation at the events?

8. What materials have been produced?

9. How were they distributed?

10. What are the upcoming I/E activities?

Review Monitoring Activities

11. Are we meeting our interim load reduction targets?

12. When is the next round of monitoring?

13. How will we publicize the monitoring results? 

Additional Issues

14. Are there any upcoming initiatives or new regulatory requirements of which we need to be

aware?

15. Are there any additional issues that we need to discuss?
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Glossary

Draft Glossary-1

Glossary

The following terms are used throughout this handbook. Refer back to this list if you need to determine the meaning

of any of these terms. In addition, EPA’s Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms provides

definitions for a variety of environmental terms and is available at www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms.

Baseline An initial set of observations or data used for comparison or as a control; a

starting point.

Beneficial uses See Designated uses.

Best management practice

(BMP)

A method that has been determined to be the most effective, practical means of

preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources. 

Biocriteria The biological characteristics that quantitatively describe a waterbody with a

healthy community of fish and associated aquatic organisms. Components of

biocriteria include the presence and seasonality of key indicator species; the

abundance, diversity, and structure of the aquatic community; and the habitat

conditions required for these organisms.

Calibration Testing and tuning of a model to a set of field data not used in developing the

model; also includes minimization of deviations between measured field

conditions and output of a model by selecting appropriate model coefficients.

Clinger richness A metric used to measure the diversity of macroinvertebrates that have the

ability to attach to the substrate in flowing water.

Coefficient of skewness (g) Most commonly used measure of skewness. It is influenced by the presence of

outliers because it is calculated using the mean and standard deviation. 

Combined sewer overflow

(CSO)

Overflow from systems designed to collect runoff, domestic sewage, and

industrial wastewater in the same pipe system.

Criteria Standards that define minimum conditions, pollutant limits, goals, and other

requirements that the waterbody must attain or maintain to support its

designated use or uses. Criteria describe physical, chemical, and biological

attributes or conditions as measurable (e.g., parts per million of a certain

chemical) or narrative (e.g., no objectionable odors) water quality components.

CWA section 303(d) Section of the Clean Water Act under which states, territories, and authorized

tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters.

CWA section 305(b) Section of the Clean Water Act under which states are required to prepare a

report describing the status of their water quality every 2 years.
Glossary Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Glossary-2 Draft

CWA section 319 Section of the Clean Water Act under which EPA has developed guidelines to

help states, territories, and tribes implement nonpoint source pollutant

management programs and provide grants to fund the programs.

Delineation The process of identifying a watershed boundary on the basis of topographic

information.

Designated use Simple narrative description of water quality expectations or water quality

goals. A designated use is a legally recognized description of a desired use of

the waterbody, such as (1) support of communities of aquatic life, (2) body

contact recreation, (3) fish consumption, and (4) public drinking water supply.

These are uses that the state or authorized tribe wants the waterbody to be

healthy enough to fully support. The Clean Water Act requires that waterbodies

attain or maintain the water quality needed to support designated uses.

Discounting The process of calculating the present value of a project on the basis of the

current value of the projected stream of costs throughout the project’s lifetime. 

Eutrophication Enrichment of an aquatic ecosystem with nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) that

accelerate biological productivity (growth of algae and weeds) and an

undesirable accumulation of algal biomass.

First-order decay A reaction in which the concentration decreases exponentially over time.

Geographic information

system (GIS)

A tool that links spatial features commonly seen on maps with information from

various sources ranging from demographics to pollutant sources. 

Hydrologic unit code (HUC) A unique code, consisting of two to eight digits (based on the four levels of

classification in the hydrologic unit system), that identifies each hydrologic unit.

Information/education (I/E)

activities

Public outreach.

Impaired waterbody A waterbody that does not meet the criteria that support its designated use. 

Indicator Direct or indirect measurements of some valued component or quality in a

system. Can be used to measure the current health of the watershed and to

provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the watershed goals.

Interquartile range (IQR) The difference between the 25th and 75th percentile of the data. Because the

IQR measures the range of the central 50 percent of the data and is not

influenced by the 25 percent on either end, it is less sensitive to extremes or

outliers than the sample variance and standard deviation. 

Management measure A group of cost-effective practices implemented cooperatively to achieve more

comprehensive goals, such as reducing the loads of sediment form a field to

receiving waters.

Management practice A method that is effective and practical for preventing or reducing pollution

from nonpoint sources. Management practices, which are the building blocks of

management measures, are similar to best management practices.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Glossary

Draft Glossary-3

Maximum (statistics) The highest data value recorded during the period of record.

McNeil core A streambed sample collected with a McNeil core sampler and used to

characterize the composition of the substrate.

Mean The sum of all data values divided by the number of samples. The mean is

strongly influenced by “outlier” samples (extremely high or low samples), with

one outlier sample possibly shifting the mean significantly higher or lower. 

Measure of central tendency Measure that identifies the general center of a dataset. 

Measure of range Measure that identifies the span of the data from low to high.

Measure of skewness Measure that shows whether a dataset is asymmetrical around the mean or

median and suggests how much the distribution of the data differs from a

normal distribution.

Measure of spread Measure of the variability of the dataset. 

Median (P0.50) The 50th percentile data point; the central value of the dataset when ranked in

order of magnitude. The median is more resistant to outliers than the mean and

is only minimally affected by single observations. 

Mesotrophic Describes reservoirs and lakes that contain moderate quantities of nutrients and

are moderately productive in terms of aquatic animal and plant life.

Minimum (statistics) The lowest data value recorded during the period of record.

Model A representation of an environmental system obtained through the use of

mathematical equations or relationships.

Model application The use of a model or models to address defined questions at a specific location.

Modeling system A computer program or software package that incorporates a model and input

and output systems to facilitate application.

Narrative criteria Nonnumeric descriptions of desirable or undesirable water quality conditions.

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES)

A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the discharge of pollutants

into waters of the United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state,

or, where delegated, a tribal government on an Indian reservation. 

Nine minimum elements Components that EPA has identified as critical for achieving improvements in

water quality. EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for section

319-funded watershed plans and strongly recommends they be included in all

watershed plans that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.

Nonpoint source Diffuse pollution source; a source without a single point of origin or not

introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are

generally carried off the land by stormwater. Common nonpoint sources are

agriculture, forestry, urban areas, mining, construction, dams, channels, land

disposal, saltwater intrusion, and city streets. 
Glossary Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Glossary-4 Draft

Nonstructural practice A practice that prevents or reduces runoff problems in receiving waters by

reducing the generation of pollutants and managing runoff at the source. This

type of practice may be included in a regulation or may involve voluntary

pollution prevention practices.

Numeric criteria Criteria or limits for many common pollutants that are based on laboratory and

other studies that test or otherwise examine the effects of pollutants on live

organisms of different species.

Point source A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any

single identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, or

factory smokestack. 

Pollutant A contaminant in a concentration or amount that adversely alters the physical,

chemical, or biological properties of the natural environment.

Pollutant load The amount of pollutants entering a waterbody. Loads are usually expressed in

terms of a weight and a time frame, such as pounds per day (lb/d).

Probabilistic sampling Sampling in which sites are randomly chosen to represent a larger sampling

population for the purpose of trying to answer broad-scale (e.g., watershedwide) questions.

Quality assurance project

plan (QAPP)

A project-specific document that specifies the data quality and quantity

requirements of a study, as well as the procedures that will be used to collect,

analyze, and report the data.

Quartile skew coefficient (qs) Measure of the difference in the distances of the upper and lower quartiles

(upper and lower 25 percent of data) from the median. The qs is more resistant

to outliers because, like the IQR, it uses the central 50 percent of the data. 

Reach file A series of national hydrologic databases that uniquely identify and interconnect

the stream segments or “reaches” that compose the country’s surface water

drainage system.

Remote sensing The collection of data and information about the physical world by detecting

and measuring radiation, particles, and fields associated with objects located

beyond the immediate vicinity of the sensor device(s).

Sample variance (s

2

) and its

square root standard

deviation (s)

The most common measures of the spread (dispersion) of a set of data. These

statistics are computed using the squares of the difference between each data

value and the mean, so that outliers influence their magnitudes dramatically. In

datasets with major outliers, the variance and standard deviation might suggest

much greater spread than exists for the majority of the data.

SCS curve number Number used to determine runoff, as a result of rainfall, for a specific land area

based on the area’s hydrologic condition, land use, soil, and treatment.

Stakeholder Individual or organization that has a stake in the outcome of the watershed plan.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Glossary

Draft Glossary-5

Sanitary sewer overflow

(SSO)

An occasional unintentional discharge of raw sewage from a municipal sanitary

sewer.

Structural practice A practice, such as a stormwater basin or streambank fence, that requires

construction, installation, and maintenance.

Targeted sampling Sampling in which sites are allocated to specific locations of concern (e.g.,

below discharges, in areas of particular land use, at stream junctions to isolate

subwatersheds) for the purpose of trying to answer site-specific questions.

Threatened waterbody A waterbody that is meeting standards but exhibits a declining trend in water

quality such that it will likely exceed standards.

Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) 

The amount, or load, of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and

still meet the water quality standard for its designated use. For impaired waters

the TMDL reduces the overall load by allocating the load among current

pollutant loads (from point and nonpoint sources), background or natural loads,

a margin of safety, and sometimes an allocation for future growth.

Universal Soil Loss Equation

(USLE)

An equation used to predict the average rate of erosion of an area on the basis of

the rainfall, soil type, topography, and management measures of the area.

Validation Subsequent testing of a precalibrated model to additional field data, usually

under different external conditions, to further examine the model’s ability to

predict future conditions. Same as verification.

Water quality standards Standards that set the goals, pollution limits, and protection requirements for

each waterbody. These standards are composed of designated (beneficial) uses,

numeric and narrative criteria, and antidegradation policies and procedures.

Watershed Land area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary,

wetland, or ultimately the ocean. 

Watershed approach A flexible framework for managing water resource quality and quantity within

specified drainage area, or watershed. This approach includes stakeholder

involvement and management actions supported by sound science and

appropriate technology.

Watershed plan A document that provides assessment and management information for a

geographically defined watershed, including the analyses, actions, participants,

and resources related to development and implementation of the plan.
Glossary Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Glossary-6 Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-1

Bibliography

Arnold, J.G., and J.R. Williams. 1987. Validation of SWRRB—Simulation for Water Resources in Rural Basins.

J. Water Res. Plan. Man. 13:243-256. 

Arnold, J.G., J.R. Williams, A.D. Nicks, and N.B. Sammons. 1990. SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil

and Water Resources Management. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1993. Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models. American Society

of Civil Engineers, Task Committee of the Watershed Management Committee.

Athayde, D.N., P.E. Shelley, E.D. Driscoll, D. Gaboury, and G.B. Boyd. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban

Runoff Program: Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams

and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

Barfield, B. J., J. C. Hayes, K. F. Holbrook, B. Bates, J. Gillespie, and J. Fersner. 2002. IDEAL Model User Manual.

J. C. Hayes and Associates, Clemson, SC. 

Beasley, D.B., L.F. Huggins, and E.J. Monke. 1980. ANSWERS: A model for watershed planning. Trans. ASAE

23:938-944.

Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources

Bulletin 18(6): 1013-1024.

Beck, M.B. 1987. Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Res. Research

23(8):1393-1442.

Beyer, A.S., C.K. Contant, and M.J. Donahue. 2001. Seeking Signs of Success: A Guided Approach to More Effective

Watershed Programs. Harbor House Publishers, Michigan.

Bingner, R.L., C.E. Murphree, and C.K. Mutchler. 1987. Comparison of Sediment Yield Models on Various

Watersheds in Mississippi. ASAE paper 87-2008. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

Bosch, D.D., R.L. Bingner, F.D. Theurer, G. Felton, and I. Chaubey. Evaluation of the AnnAGNPS Water Quality

Model. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, July 12-16, 1998, Orlando, Florida. Paper no.

982195. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1999. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia: Coastal Watershed

Assessment Procedure Guidebook (CWAP), Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook. 2nd ed. British

Columbia Ministry of Forests.
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-2 Draft

Brown, E., A. Peterson, R. Kline-Robach, K. Smith, and L. Wolfson. 2000. Developing a Watershed Management

Plan for Water Quality: An Introductory Guide. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

<www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-Watershe.pdf>.

Brown, M.P., P. Longabucco, M.R. Rafferty, P.D. Robillard, M.F. Walter, and D.A. Haith. 1989. Effects of animal

waste control practices on nonpoint-source phosphorus loading in the West Branch of the Delaware River watershed.

J. Soil Water Cons. 44(1):67-70.

California SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2003. A Process for Addressing Impaired Waters in

California. Draft. California State Water Resources Control Board, CA.

Camacho, R. 1991. Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies in

the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Unpublished draft. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.

Caraco, D., R. Claytor, P. Hinkle, H.Y. Kwon, T. Schueler, C. Swann, S. Vysotsky, and J. Zielinski. 1998. Rapid

Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.

Cassell, E.A. and J.C. Clausen. 1993. Dynamic simulation modeling for evaluating water quality response to

agricultural BMP implementation. Water Sci. & Technol. 28(3-5): 635-648.

CCRS (Canada Centre for Remote Sensing). 2005. Fundamentals of Remote Sensing.

<www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/learn/tutorial/fundam/fundam_e.html>.

Clausen, J.C. and J. Spooner. 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-F-93-009. 8 p.

Claytor, R.A., and W.E. Brown. 1996. Environmental Indicators to Assess Stormwater Control Programs and

Practices. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.

Cleland, B. 2002. TMDL Development from the “Bottom Up.” Part II. Using Duration Curves to Connect the Pieces.

America’s Clean Water Foundation, Washington, DC. 

Cohn, T.A., and E.J. Gilroy. 1991. Estimating Loads from Periodic Records. U.S. Geological Survey Branch of

Systems Analysis Technical Memo 91.01.

Cronshey, R.G., and F.D. Theurer. 1998. AnnAGNPS—Nonpoint Pollutant Loading Model. In Proceedings of First

Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, April 19-23, 1998, Las Vegas, NV.

CTIC (Center for Technology Information Center). Know Your Watershed Kits. <www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW>. 

CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). 1996. Crafting better urban watershed protection plans. Watershed Protect.

Techn. 2(2): 329-337.

CWP. 2004. Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: A User’s Manual, Version 1.0. Urban Subwatershed

Restoration Manual Series, Manual 11. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-3

Dai, T., R.L. Wetzel, T.R.L. Christensen, and E.A. Lewis. 2000. BasinSim 1.0: A Windows-Based Watershed

Modeling Package. User’s Guide. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering #362. Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

Davenport, T.E. 2003. The Watershed Project Management Guide. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

<www.enviroscapes.com/watershed_management.htm>. Accessed March 2005.

Deal, J.C., J.W. Gilliam, R.W. Skaggs, and K.D. Konyha. 1986. Prediction of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses as

Related to Agricultural Drainage System Design. Ag. Ecosys. and Envir. 18:37-51.

Donigian, A.S. 1983. Model Predictions vs. Field Observations: The Model Validation/Testing Process. In Fate

of Chemicals in the Environment, ACS Symposium Series 225, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC,

pp.151-171.

Donigian, A.S., and W.C. Huber. 1991. Modeling of nonpoint source water quality in urban and non-urban areas.

EPA/600/3-91/039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.

Edwards, D.R., V.W. Benson, J.R. Williams, T.C. Daniel, J. Lemunyon, and R.G. Gilbert. 1994. Use of the EPIC

Model to Predict Runoff Transport of Surface-applied Inorganic Fertilizer and Poultry Manure Constituents. Trans.

ASAE 37(2):403-409.

Elder, D. 1997. Establishing watershed benchmarks: Tools for gauging success. River Voices 8(3).

Evans, B.M., D.W. Lehning, K.J. Corradini, G.W. Petersen, E. Nizeyimana, J.M. Hamlett, P.D. Robillard, and R.L.

Day. 2002. A Comprehensive GIS-Based Modeling Approach for Predicting Nutrient Loads in Watersheds. J. Spatial

Hydrology 2:2. <www.spatialhydrology.com/journal/paper/nutrient/nutrient.pdf>. 

Flanagan, D.C., and M.A. Nearing, eds. 1995. USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope Profile and

Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report no. 10. West Lafayette, IN.

Follet, R.F., D.R. Kenney, and R.M. Cruse. 1991. NLEAP or Nitrogen Leaching and Economic Analysis Package.

Soil Science of America, Inc., Madison, WI.

Foster, M.A., P.D. Robillard, D.W. Lehning, and R. Zhao. 1996. STEWARD, a knowledge-based system for

selection, assessment, and design of water quality control practices in agricultural watersheds. Water Res. Bull. In

review.

GLNPO (Great Lakes National Program Office). 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments

(ARCS) Program: Assessment Guidance Document. EPA 905-B94-002. Great Lakes National Program Office,

Chicago, IL.

Grabow, G.L., J. Spooner, L.A. Lombardo, and D.E. Line. 1999a. Detecting water quality changes before and after

BMP implementation: Use of SAS for statistical analysis. p. 1-11. In NWQEP notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group

Newsletter. January 1999. North Carolina State Univ. Coop. Ext., Raleigh. 
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-4 Draft

Grabow, G.L., J. Spooner, L.A. Lombardo, and D.E. Line. 1999b. Detecting water quality changes before and after

BMP implementation: Use of SAS for trend analysis. p. 1-8. In NWQEP notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group

Newsletter. July 1999. North Carolina State Univ. Coop. Ext., Raleigh.

Griffin, M.L., D.B. Beasley, J.I. Fletcher, and G.R. Foster. 1988. Estimating Soil Loss on Topographically

Nonuniform Field and Farm Units. J. Soil Water Cons. 43:326-331.

Haan, C.T., B. Allred, D.E. Storm, G.J. Sabbagh, and S. Prabhu. 1995. Statistical procedure for evaluating

hydrologic/water quality models. Trans. ASAE 38(3):725-733.

Haith, D.A. 1985. Variability of pesticide loads to surface waters. J. WPCF 57(11):1062-1067.

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to

Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Heidtke, T.M., and M.T. Auer. 1993. Application of a GIS-based nonpoint source nutrient loading model for

assessment of land development scenarios and water quality in Owasco Lake, New York. Water Sci. Technol.

28(3-5):595-604. 

Helfert, E. 1997. Techniques of Financial Analysis. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Chapter A3 in Book 4, Hydrologic

Analysis and Interpretation of Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey.

Howard County SWMD (Stormwater Management Division). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Howard

County Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program. Howard County, Department of Public Works, Stormwater

Management Division, Columbia, MD. 

Huber, W.C. 1992. Experience with the USEPA SWMM Model for analysis and solution of urban drainage problems.

Proceedings, Inundaciones Y Redes De Drenaje Urbano, ed. J. Dolz, M. Gomez, and J. P. Martin, eds., Colegio de

Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales Y Puertos, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 199-220.

Huber, W.C., and R.E. Dickinson. 1988. Storm Water Management Model Version 4, User’s manual. EPA 600/3-88/

001a (NTIS PB88-236641/AS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.

IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2003. Indiana Watershed Planning Guide. Indian

Department of Environmental Management. <www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/wsm/iwpg/content.html>. Accessed

March 2005.

IEP, Inc. 1990. P8 Urban Catchment Model User’s Manual, v1.1. IEP, Inc.

Illinois CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program). 2002. Illinois Conservation Practices Tracking System.

Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. <www.ilcrep.org>.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-5

ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1995. The Strategy for Improving Water Quality

Monitoring in the United States. Final report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. OFR

95-742. U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA.

Keith, L.H. 1991. Environmental Sampling and Analysis: A Practical Guide. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Knisel, W.G., R.A. Leonard, and F.M. Davis. 1991. Water Balance Components in the Georgia Coastal Plain: A

GLEAMS Model Validation and Simulation. J. Soil Water Cons. 46(6):450-456.

Lauenroth, W.K., G.V., Skogerboe, and M. Flug. 1982. Developments in Environmental Modeling 5. Elsevier

Scientific Publishing Company.

Lee, E R. 1999. SET-WET: A Wetland Simulation Model to Optimize NPS Pollution Control. Master’s thesis, Dept.

of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Lee, E.R., S. Mostaphimi, and T. M. Wynn. 2002. A model to enhance wetland design and optimize nonpoint source

pollution control. J. AWRA 8(February):17-32.

Lin, J.P. 2004. Review of Published Export Coefficient and Event Mean Concentration (EMC) Data. ERDC

TN-WRAP-04-03. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Line, D.E., S.W. Coffey, and D.L. Osmond. 1997. WATERSHEDSS—GRASS AGNPS modeling tool. Trans. ASAE

40(4):971-975.

Liu, B.Y., M.A. Nearing, C. Baffault, and J.C. Ascough. 1997. The WEPP Watershed Model: Three Comparisons to

Measured Data from Small Watersheds. Trans. ASAE 40:945-952.

Lombardo, L.A., G.L. Grabow, J. Spooner, D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, and G.D. Jennings. 2000. Section 319 Nonpoint

Source National Monitoring Program Successes and Recommendations. North Carolina State University, Biological

and Agricultural Engineering Department, NCSU Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC.

Lombardo, L.A., G.L. Grabow, D.E. Line, J. Spooner, and D.L. Osmond. 2004. 2004 Summary Report: Section 319

National Monitoring Program Projects. National Nonpoint Source Watersheds Project Studies, NCSU Water Quality

Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

MD Tributary Strategy. 1997. Close to Home: A Focus on Small Watersheds.

<www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/monitor/ss/small_shed.html>

MDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 303(d)

Monitoring and Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality,

Office of Pollution, Jackson, MS.

MDEQ. 2003. Mississippi Gulf Coast Stormwater Toolbox Ranking Report. Mississippi Department of Environmental

Quality, Department of Marine Resources. <http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/CoastalEcology/Storm/SECTION-2/Section2-Text.pdf>.
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-6 Draft

Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program: Comprehensive

Final Report. Program report no. 12. University of Vermont, Vermont Water Resources Research Center, Burlington,

VT.

Meals, D.W. 1992. Relating land use and water quality in the St. Albans Bay Watershed, Vermont. In The National

Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, September 1992, Orlando, FL, pp. 131-144. EPA/625/R-92/006. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Meals, D.W. 2001. Lake Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program

Project, Final Project Report: May, 1994–September, 2000. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation,

Waterbury, VT.

Mill Creek Subwatershed Stakeholder Advisory Group. 2003. Mill Creek Subwatershed Management Plan. Available

from the Huron River Watershed Council. <www.hrwc.org>.

Mullens, J.A., R.F. Carsel, J.E. Scarbrough, and I.A. Ivery. 1993. PRZM-2, A Model for Predicting Pesticide Fate in

the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 2.0. EPA/600/R-93/046. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.

Munoz-Carpena, R., and J.E. Parsons. 2003. VFSMOD-W— Vegetative Filter Strips Hydrology and Sediment

Transport Modeling System, Model Documentation and User’s Manual. University of Florida, Agricultural and

Biological Engineering. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2005a. Remote Sensing: Special Signatures.

<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/remote_05.html>.

NASA. 2005b. Remote Sensing: Remote Sensing Methods. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/remote_08.html>.

NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2003. North Carolina Nonpoint

Source Management Program, Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy. <http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarpam.htm>.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005a. NOAA’s Remote Sensing Activities.

<www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag13.htm>.

NOAA. 2005b. NOAA Uses Remote Sensing Technology to Monitor and Identify Harmful Algal Blooms. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s2096.htm>.

Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, Identification, and Management of Diffuse Pollution.

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1997. National Handbook of Water Quality Monitoring. 450-viNHWQM. National Water and Climate Center, Portland, Oregon. 
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-7

NRCS. 2005. National Conservation Practice Standards. <www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards>.

NSFC (National Small Flows Clearinghouse). 1993. National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Summary of Onsite

Systems in the United States. National Small Flows Clearinghouse, Morgantown, WV. 

NWQMC (National Water Quality Monitoring Council). 2005. Water Quality Data Elements.

<http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/wqde/index.htm>.

Ohio EPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI):

Rationale, Methods, and Application. Ohio, Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Assessment Section,

Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment. Columbus, OH.

Ohio EPA. 1997. A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio.

<www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/wsguide.pdf>.

PGDER (Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources). 1995. Biological Monitoring and

Assessment Program, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Maryland Department of Environmental Resources,

Programs and Planning Division, Technical Support Section, Landover, MD.

Prince George’s County. 2001. Low-Impact Development Management Practices Evaluation Computer Module,

User’s Guide. Prepared for Prince George’s County, Maryland, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. 

Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under

Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

Richards, R.P. 1997. Estimation of Pollutant Loads in Rivers and Streams: A Guidance Document for NPS Programs.

Draft. Heidelberg College, Water Quality Laboratory, Tiffin, OH.

Ritchie, J.C., and C.M. Cooper. 2001. Remote sensing techniques for determining water quality: Applications to

TMDLs. In TMDL Science Issues Conference, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, pp. 367-374.

<www.wef.org/Home>.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 

Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.

Metropolitan Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 

Schueler, T.R. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, MD.

Shaffer, M.J. 1985. Simulation Model for Soil Erosion-Productivity Relationships. J. Environ. Qual. 14(1):144-150.

Shaffer, M.J., and W.E. Larson, eds. 1985. NTRM: A Soil-Crop Simulation Model for Nitrogen, Tillage, and Crop

Residue Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, St. Paul, MN.
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-8 Draft

Shaffer, M.J., S.C. Gupta, D.R. Linden, J.A.E. Molina, C.E. Clapp, and W.E. Larson. 1986. Simulation of Nitrogen,

Tillage, and Residue Management Effects on Soil Fertility. In Analysis of Ecological Systems: State-of-the-art in

Ecological Modelling, ed. W.K. Lauenroth, G.V. 

Sharpley, A.N., and J.R. Williams, eds. 1990. EPIC—Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model

Documentation. Bulletin no. 1768. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Shilling, F., S. Sommarstrom, R. Kattelmann, B. Washburn, J. Florsheim, and R. Henly. 2004. California Watershed

Assessment Manual. Prepared for the California Resources Agency. <http://cwam.ucdavis.edu>. 

Skaggs, R.W. 1980. A Water Management Model for Artificially Drained Soils. North Carolina Agricultural Research

Service technical bulletin 267. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Smith, M.C., A.B. Bottcher, K.L. Campbell, and D.L. Thomas. 1991. Field testing and comparison of the PRZM and

GLEAMS models. Trans. ASAE 34(3):838-847.

Sugden, R., and A. Williams. 1981. Principles of Practical Cost Benefit Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

UK.

Sugiharto, T., T.H. McIntosh, R.C. Uhrig, and J.J. Lavdinois. 1994. Modeling alternatives to reduce dairy farm and

watershed nonpoint source pollution. J. Environ. Qual. 23:18-24.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000. Ecological Data Application System (EDAS): A User’s Manual. Prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, by Tetra Tech, Inc.,

Owings Mills, MD. (For more information on this report, contact Robert King, USEPA, at 202-566-1177).

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. Greater Battle Creek Area Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Springfield. 

Tiscareno-Lopez, M., V.L. Lopes, J.J. Stone, and L.J. Lane. 1993. Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP watershed model

for rangeland applications: I. Hillslope Processes. Trans. ASAE 36:1659-1672.

University of Nebraska. 2005. Development and Implementation of a Comprehensive Lake and Reservoir Strategy for

Nebraska as a Model for Agriculturally Dominated Ecosystems. The Center for Advanced Land Management

Information Technologies (CALMIT), University of Nebraska-Lincoln (supported through EPA STAR Grant

R828635). <www.calmit.unl.edu/lakes>. 

University of Texas. 2002. Symposium on Terrain Analysis for Water Resources Applications, December 16-18, 2002.

Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas, Austin.

<www.crwr.utexas.edu/terrainAnalysis/presentations.cfm>.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1996. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning

with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Wessies, D.K. McCool, and

D.C. Yoder, coordinators. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 703. 404 pp.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-9

USDA-ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service). No date. User’s Guide for REMM:

Riparian Ecosystem Management Model. <http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/remmwww/remm/users.htm>.

USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service formerly Soil Conservation

Service). 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical release no. 55, rev. ed. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under

Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1985. Field Agricultural Runoff Monitoring (FARM) Manual. EPA/600/3-85/043. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.

USEPA. 1986. Eastern Lake Survey. Phase 1. Characteristics of Lakes in the Eastern United States: Volume 1.

Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical Relationships. EPA/600/4-86/007a. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and

Development, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1989. A Probabilistic Methodology for Analyzing Water Quality Effects of Urban Runoff on Rivers and

Streams. Final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1993a. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1993b. Post-Audit Verification of the Model AGNPS in Vermont Agricultural Watersheds. EPA

841-R-93-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1997a. EPA’s Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation of Nonpoint Source

Control Measures—Agriculture. EPA 841-B-97-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1997b. BASINS Training Course, December 8-12, 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997c. Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development. EPA 841-B-97-006. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997d. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls. EPA

841-B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 630-R-095-002F. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1999a. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-007. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-10 Draft

USEPA. 1999b. Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs. EPA 841-B-99-004. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/R-96/055. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000b. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000c. Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community Growth

and Change on Land-Use Patterns. EPA 600-R-00-098. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research

and Development, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2001a. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. 1st ed. EPA 841-R-00-002. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2001b. Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002a. 319 Success Stories, Volume III: The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's Section 319

Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. EPA 841-S-01-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2002b. Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. EPA

842-B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002c. Water Quality Assessment of the Black Warrior River Basin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Nonpoint Source Branch.

USEPA. 2003a. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture. EPA

841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

<www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm>.

USEPA. 2003b. Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development & Redevelopment. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management.

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/post.cfm>.

USEPA. 2003c. Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns. EPA 841-B-03-002. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA, Montana Operations Office, Flathead National Forest, and Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004. Water Quality Assessment

and TMDLs for the Flathead River Headwaters Planning Area, Montana. Prepared for Montana Department of

Environmental Quality.
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters Bibliography

Draft Bibliography-11

USEPA and USDA. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005a. Remote Sensing.

<www.gcmrc.gov/about/programs/isp/dasa/survey/remotesensing.htm>.

USGS. 2005b. About Terrestrial Remote Sensing. <http://terraweb.wr.usgs.gov/about.html>.

USGS. 2005c. LIDAR—Light Detection and Ranging.

<http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Monitoring/LIDAR/description_LIDAR.html>.

USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2005. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of

Federal Programs (Revised), January 2005. Circular no. A-94.

<www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html>.

Van Ness, K., K. Brown, M.S. Haddaway, D. Marshall, and D. Jordahl. 1997. Montgomery County, Water Quality

Monitoring Program, Stream Monitoring Protocols. Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed

Management Division, Rockville, MD. 

Walker, W. W. 1985. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 3, Phase III: Model

Refinements. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Walker, W. W. 1986. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 3, Phase III:

Applications Manual. Technical Report E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Walker, W.W. 1990. P8 Urban Catchment Model Program Documentation, v1.1.

Walker, W.W. 1996. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. Chapter 2,

FLUX. Instruction Report W. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Operations Technical Support Program.

Wischmeier, W.H., and D. Smith. 1965. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky

Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Conservation. USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook no.

282. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Wischmeier, W.H., and D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning.

USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook no. 537. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Wong, T.H.F., Duncan, H.P., Fletcher, T.D. and Jenkins, G.A. 2001. A Unified Approach to Modelling Urban

Stormwater Treatment. In Proceedings of the 2nd South Pacific Stormwater Conference. Auckland, New Zealand,

June 27–29, 2001. pp.319-327.

Wong, T.H.F., J. Coleman, H. Duncan, T. Fletcher, G. Jenkins, L. Siriwardena, A. Taylor, and R. Wootton. 2005.

MUSIC: User Guide. MUSIC Development Team, Cooperative Research Center for Catchment Hydrology,

Australia.
Bibliography Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans

to Restore and Protect Our Waters

Bibliography-12 Draft

Wright, J.F., D.W. Sutcliffe, and M.T. Furse. 2000. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and

Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK.

Wylie, B.K., M.J. Shaffer, M.K. Brodohl, D. Dubois, and D.G. Wagner. 1994. Predicting Spatial Distributions of

Nitrate Leaching in Northeastern Colorado. J. Soil Water Cons. 49:288-293.

Wylie, B.K., M.J. Shaffer, and M.D. Hall. 1995. Regional Assessment of NLEAP NO3-N Leaching Indices. Water

Res. Bull. 31:399-408.

Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1994. Agricultural NonPoint Source Pollution Model,

Version 4.03 AGNPS User’s Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Morris, MN.

Yu, S.L., G.M. Fitch, and T.A. Earles. 1998. Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Management. VTRC 98-R35RB.

Virginia Department of Transportation Research Council.

Zacharias, S., C. Heatwole, T. Dillaha, and S. Mostighimi. 1992. Evaluation of GLEAMS and PRZM for Predicting

Pesticide Leaching Under Field Conditions. ASAE paper 92-2541. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,

St. Joseph, MI.