wisconsin; our land, our water: case studies in locally led successes - a national association of...

8/3/2019 Wisconsin; Our Land, Our Water: Case Studies in Locally Led Successes - A National Association of Conservation Districts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wisconsin-our-land-our-water-case-studies-in-locally-led-successes-a-national 1/56

Case studies in LoCaL suCCesses

Our Land, Our Water

A Na na Ass c a n C ns r a n D s r c s Sp c a R p r



3 Our Land, Our Water: Case Studies in Locally Led Successes

A lAbAmA’S recently comp-leted statewide watershedassessment incorporated input

rom every county in the state, thanks inno small part to the work o soil and waterconservation districts. What emerged isa much clearer understanding o waterquality concerns, changing land usepatterns, wildli e concentrations and awhole lot more.

The state’s 67 SWCDs – one or each

county – collected data, garnered publicinput and set local priorities, says J.O.Norris, water quality coordinator with theAlabama State Soil and Water Conser-vation Committee. District costs werecovered as part o a grant rom theAlabama Department o Environmental

Management that unded the state-wide e ort to update and vastly expandan assessment last completed in 1999.“Almost everything was done at the locallevel,” says Norris.

“Local districts held public meetingsin every county. They ran advertisementsin newspapers to publicize the meet-ings. Some had up to 100 people at theirmeetings, including state senators andrepresentatives.”

The local meetings were held so thatparticipants could review data and iden-ti y and prioritize local conservationneeds. Each district was asked to developwatershed plans based on priorities iden-ti ed at the public meetings.

The state assessment in ormation willbe shared widely on an innovative web-based database that provides an array o in ormation on activities that impact landand water resources in the state’s water-sheds.

It will also serve as a tool or obtainingunding to address local priorities. “Every-thing now is geared toward watersheds.Funding rom the national and state levelis targeted that way,” Norris says. “Local

SWCDs set those priorities. There’s neverenough money to go around, but youcan target the needs.”

In several counties, animal waste is thetop priority. Alabama is home to dozenso poultry operations. While high price o ertilizer has put poultry litter in demand,runo remains an issue.

Erosion continues to be a concern incounties with high-intensity cropping,but the assessment showed that it maybe abating because conservation tillage

has supplanted conventional methods onmany arms. Ten years ago, conventionaltillage was practiced on the majority o state arms. The new assessment showsthat the majority o arms have shi ted toconservation tillage.

The assessment also turned up somesurprises. “By ar the biggest problemrom erosion is going to be dirt roads,”

Alabama

B il i g b w sh ss ssm ool

Statewide watershed assessments that incorporate local conservationpriorities are valuable tools or identi ying local conservation needs, openingdoors to unding opportunities and developing new partnerships.

“Loc l is ic s h l p blic m i gs i v yco y. th y v is m s i wsp -p s o p bliciz h m i gs. Som h p o100 p opl h i m i gs, i cl i g ss o s p s iv s.”

J.O. Norris water quality coordinator

Alabama State Soil and Water Conservation Committee



Our Land, Our Water: Case Studies in Locally Led Successes 4

Norris says. One county gured itsproblem with animal wastes was romlivestock. Data collection showed thatdeer were the main cause o wastes in itswaterways.

With growing interest in land manage-ment or hunting, the assessment alsoocused on wildli e populations, oodsources and habitat. “You can look at the

assessment, and it will say that in somecounties, deer are overpopulated.”Land use trends can be tracked

with the new tool, which can be easilyupdated. Some parts o the state haveseen rapid growth since the last assess-ment was completed. “We have coun-ties in Alabama that need this assess-ment done every three to ve years withall the construction, building and land

use changes that are occurring,” he says.Other regions have seen little changeand will likely continue that way. “It wasorested 10 years ago and it will be 10years rom now.”

Soil types, orested resources, miningland, septic systems, cultural resourcesand other categories are available onspread sheets and maps. “Like I told

somebody the other day, you can look atthe inventory and get the total number o gol courses in Alabama,” Norris says.

More in ormation: Contact Norrisat [email protected] web-based inventory was in fnal stages o completion at press time. It will be posted at www.swcc.state.al.us/

Alabama soil and water conservation districts held public meetings in every county to allow participants to review watershed data and prioritize local con-

servation needs. Each district was asked to develop watershed plans based on priorities identi ed at the public meetings.

“W h v co i s i al b m h hisss ssm o v y h o v y s wi hll h co s c io , b il i g l sch g s h occ i g.”




Alaska

PeRCheD on the southwest edgeo the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska,the city o Homer has seen rapid

growth in recent years. Many peoplechoose the area or natural attributes likeviewscapes, wildli e and open spaces.

To help preserve those attributes, theHomer Soil and Water ConservationDistrict has developed suitability mapsthat pinpoint lands likely to be developedand those with high conservation value.It will introduce low-impact development

techniques and establish a developer’scerti cation program to meet develop-ment needs and preserve natural attri-butes.

“This is really an attempt to look atlarger systems rather than individuallots. It’s incentive-based and meant tomotivate landowners and developersto develop with a stewardship ethic,”

says District Manager Tara Schmidt.The project is unded by the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency WetlandsProtection Development Grant and a U.S.Fish and Wildli e Service Alaska CoastalCommunities Grant.

A technical advisory committee or theproject eatures broad representation,including excavators, contractors, realestate agents, surveyors, biologists, soilscientists and wetlands scientists. Thecity o Homer has cooperated in several

ways, including providing technical assis-tance.

In phase one o the project, the districtworked with DnA Design o Homer todevelop Geographic In ormation System-based landscape systems maps or thecity and an important watershed thatserves as its source o drinking water.

Suitability or developable lands isbased on physical landscape eaturesa ecting cost o construction, such asdrainage, topography, and soil types,along with amenities such as view,proximity to trails and parklands. Primeconservation lands ocus on actors thatinclude hydrologic unctions, wildli ehabitat corridors, trail connectivity andaesthetic qualities.

When the GIS maps are overlapped,areas where development is likely to

meet prime conservation lands are high-lighted. That serves as a tool or wise landuse planning. The project was under way

just as the city o Homer’s comprehensiveplan was up or review. The suitabilitymaps served as the basis or a green in ra-structure map that was adopted into therevised comprehensive plan as a guideor uture decision-making.

Much o the new development in andaround Homer has occurred on steepslopes. “We have topography that isa challenge,” Schmidt says. “We’retrying to understand how uplands areconnected to wetlands across the wholesystem to guide development.”

The suitability maps were introducedto the public at workshops in May 2008.Also introduced at the workshops was aBest Stewardship Practices Booklet high-lighting various low-impact development(LIDs) techniques and their values. About

Hom SWCd c s bo v lopm ’s imp c

The Homer Soil and Water Conservation District’s suitability maps showwhere development is likely to a ect conservation eatures o the land. Thenext step is to encourage low-impact development techniques to protectvaluable natural unctions and larger landscape systems.

“this is lly mp o look l gsys ms h h i ivi l lo s. I ’s i c -iv -b s m o mo iv l ow s v lop s o v lop wi h s w shiphic.”

Tara SchmidtHomer Soil and Water Conservation District Manager




80 people attended over three days. “It’simportant that people hear rom the startthat we’re not trying to limit develop-ment. We’re acknowledging these prop-erties have high value and will be devel-oped, but let’s try to motivate landownersto develop with an understanding thatthey are part o larger systems,” Schmidtsays.

A curriculum or the developer’s certi-cation program is being nalized during

phase two o the project. The programwill help individuals learn to use GIS toolsto integrate landscape systems into proj-ects. Developers who complete one ormore workshops would quali y or greencerti cation or projects.

Both passive and active incentives havebeen identi ed to encourage landownersand developers to apply voluntary bestmanagement practices. Passive incen-tives include construction techniques

that respect and take advantage o greenin rastructure unctions and larger land-scape systems. Bene ts may includereduced construction costs, increasedreal estate values, accelerated apprecia-tion, and/or avoidance o certain regula-tory requirements.

Active incentives provide economicor procedural “payments” to reimburseproperty owners or developing propertyin ways that protect green in rastructure

unctions and larger landscape systems.These could include expedited permit-ting, low-interest loans, tax bene ts orcash payments. The district is investi-gating low-interest rate loans that wouldbe available to quali ying developmentprojects.

Low impact development (LID) tech-niques have also been identi ed with theocus on protecting valuable natural unc-tions and larger landscape systems. LIDs

are intended to reduce developmentcosts and other costs that are ultimatelyborne by taxpayers when municipalitieshave to replace degraded natural unc-tions with structural solutions, such asstorm water drains and retaining walls.

In addition to instilling better under-standing o landscape impacts in theHomer area, Schmidt says the project canserve as a model or other communitiesseeking to better understand green in ra-structure unctions and larger landscapesystems as they guide development.

More in ormation: Contact TaraSchmidt at [email protected] ormation on the project is at www.suitabilitymap.org/.

Suitability mapping by the Homer Soil and Water Conservation District identi es natural resources characteristics such as moose habitat.




CooPeRAtioN across statelines between two conserva-tion districts is helping residents

in the Lake Tahoe basin protect one o America’s best-known water bodies.

Lodged in the Sierra Nevada Moun-tains, Lake Tahoe was developed rapidlyand not always wisely in the mid-20thcentury. With multiple jurisdictions in thebasin, including two states, cooperationis the key to making conservation gains.

The Tahoe Resource ConservationDistrict in Cali ornia and the NevadaTahoe Conservation District in Nevada

have the daunting task o helping about40,000 residential property owners inthe basin comply with mandated bestmanagement practices (BMP). Their workis part o a broader strategy to reducesediment and nutrient impacts on waterquality in Lake Tahoe and improve overallorest resource management.

The districts make regular use o thenational Backyard Conservation Programto provide private landowners conserva-tion education, technical assistance, and

whole-parcel conservation plans. The

Natural Resources Conservation Serviceo ers guidance on protocols or e ec-tiveness studies the districts conduct onrecommended practices.

While at least hal o the residen-tial properties in the basin are in needo attention, there has been progress.“We eel the program has made a lot o headway, and we’ve been able to helphomeowners and assist with lake clarity,”says Jason Brand, program manager inthe Nevada-Tahoe District. But there’sstill plenty o work to be done. Somecommunities in the basin have aggres-

sively worked toward compliance; othershaven’t moved as quickly. “There’s a hugeneed or BMPs,” says Brand.

His counterpart at the Tahoe ResourceConservation District says it’s importantthat the two districts provide consistentin ormation. “We try and be on the samepage as to materials and messages weprovide to homeowners,” says EbenSwain, BMP coordinator. “I you get a siteevaluation on the Nevada or Cali orniaside, it should be the same.”

“We cooperate extensively,” saysBrand. A memorandum o understandingpaves the way or districts to work acrossstate boundaries. They also share serviceson some projects. Invasive weeds are aconcern in the region, and the Nevada-Tahoe District uses the services o theTahoe RCD’s invasive weeds coordi-nator. The districts also partner withNRCS, Cooperative Extension, the TahoeRegional Planning Agency (TRPA), stateagencies and local communities.

Swain’s program has a sta o 10, plustwo or three seasonal employees. Brand

has a sta o ve. Both districts provideree site visits to residential properties.Conservation plans or private parcelsinclude recommendations or runo management and storm-water treat-ment, slope stabilization, soil protection,noxious weed removal, revegetation withnative and adapted plants, water andertilizer management, pest manage-ment, wildli e habitat improvement,orest management and reduction o rehazards. Swain’s program this year o ers

trees, ground cover and other vegetationree to cooperating homeowners, usingproceeds rom a state grant. The workhelps landowners comply with local ordi-nances and basin-wide water quality stra-tegic plans, some o them mandated bythe TRPA. The districts certi y complianceor homeowners.

BMP work is complicated by wild rerisks in the heavily orested region. TheAngora Fire last year destroyed more

Coop i g c osss li s o p o c thoBackyard conservation can have ar-reaching e ects, as homeowners in twostates o the Lake Tahoe Basin learn rom cooperating conservation districts.

California & Nevada

“W l h p og m h s m lo o h w y, w ’v b bl o h lp hom ow s

ssis wi h l k cl i y.” Jason Brand,

Program Manager, Nevada-Tahoe District




than 250 homes. The districts are workingto make sure their conservation goals areconsistent with de ensible-space require-ments or homes. This includes testingBMPs like mulch or re-resistance.

Outreach activities drive both programs.The Tahoe RCD reaches out to close to2,000 homeowners a year in a variety o ways, including workshops, conservationblock parties, person-to-person contacts,

phone calls, site visits and other contacts.In Nevada, the program is promotedthrough a community watershed plan-ning process in individual communities.Workshops, demonstration sites, educa-tional publications and on-site visits withhomeowners are used.

The work is costly, and both districtsrely on grants. A main source or both isunding rom the Southern Nevada PublicLand Management Act. NRCS adminis-

ters the unds or district programs. Bothdistricts also receive state unding orBMP work.

The work is clearly identi ed by bothdistricts as a local and regional priority.“We’re set up to deal with local issues,and in this area, one o the main issues isBMPs,” says Swain.

With studies showing that urbanupland areas in the basin are some o thebiggest contributors to nutrient and sedi-ment loading in Lake Tahoe, the districts

are working on a local issue that makes adi erence or a national treasure.

More in ormation: Contact JasonBrand at [email protected] and EbenSwain at [email protected]. Moreon the Tahoe RCD program is at www.tahoercd.org. More on the NevadaTahoe CD program is at www.ntcd.org.

An armored drip line installed around a home in the Lake Tahoe Basin captures rain all and keeps it on site, reducing runo rom the residential property.

“W ’ s p o l wi h loc l iss s, ihis , o o h m i iss s is BMPs.”

Eben Swain, BMP coordinator, California Tahoe District




belie is conservation districts are acilita-tors o in ormation, and that’s what we’re

doing,” Starkebaum says.E orts to interest producers in alter-native crops such as canola had somesuccess, but with high prices or tradi-tional crops, interest has backed o some. “So we re ocused and decided towork with producers growing traditionalcrops but using less water. We tried tobuild awareness, and we’re coming tond out it is very possible to reduce irri-gation consumption and not lose return,”Starkebaum says. He has the acts to

prove it, too. A big part o his job is togather data and success stories that willbe shared on an innovative database incooperation with the USDA’s AgriculturalResearch Service in Fort Collins. Onending: Pilot arm producers have cutwater use by hal without any productionlosses.

The project also ocuses on amiliar-izing producers with value-added vege-table crops and marketing opportunitiessuch as the fourishing local oods move-ment.

Starkebaum put together a whole armplanning notebook based on a similartool developed by NRCS in Minnesota.“A lot o the guys I’m working withalready know this, but we did nd that alot o them didn’t know about marketingopportunities, especially value-added,”he says.

As the project matures, more optionshave opened up. A Laura Jane Musser

Fund grant helped support e orts tobuild a team o local experts to deter-mine interest in developing a local oodscooperative. The project is under wayand includes public programs sharing

in ormation with producers.A state o Colorado NRCS Conserva-

tion Innovation Grant acilitated the part-nership with ARS or the online database.It will include a range o in ormation onwater use, crop economics, production,research and stories about producerswho’ve made the transition to lowerwater demand. “ARS bought the conceptimmediately,” he says. It may be adaptedor use across the country.

“We’re at the end o the line with whatwe can do with traditional practices.What we have to address now is manage-ment. That’s where the big leaps are.Producers are de nitely better managing

the resources they have.”

More in ormation: Contact BrianStarkebaum at brian-starkebaum@

yumaconservation.org. More onthe Republican River project on thedistrict’s web site at www.yumaconser-vation.org.

Producers and researchers gather around a soil pit to gather in ormation rom a root-zone study con-ducted by an NRCS soil scientist in the Republican River Basin. The study helps producers see how croproots are developing in the soil and to monitor results rom nutrient and water planning.

“W sh i o gio ,

his o m o g i-c l is so vi l oo co omy.”

Brian StarkebaumProject Coordinator

Yuma District




imAgiNe a project that addressesa major conservation problem and

osters rural development. That’swhat supervisors in the Flint River Soiland Water Conservation District did, andthe results are impressive.

In southwest Georgia, the Flint Districtis joined by the Natural Resources Conser-vation Service, The Nature Conservancy,the University o Georgia, the GeorgiaAgriculture Innovation Center and otherpartners in the project. Thanks to theirwork, armers have important tools or

e cient irrigation and water use, andrural residents will soon have access to

wireless Internet service.The Flint District and NRCS haveapplied innovative technology andongoing education to help producersbe good stewards o water resourcesor years. It’s important work. The lowerportion o the Flint River basin in south-west Georgia is one o the most agricul-turally intensive areas in the southeast.Producers grow peanuts, cotton, cornand soybean. More than 5,000 center

pivot irrigation systems water about500,000 acres, straining already limited

ground and sur ace water resources inthe basin and challenging the region’sability to sustain crop yields without sacri-cing biodiversity. Recent drought yearshave intensi ed concerns, and armersare constantly juggling crop needs withwater conservation e orts. The districtand its partners have supported e ortsthat have conserved more than 10 billiongallons o water. That savings equates

G o ps combi co s v io l v lopm

Real-time soil moisture monitoring on irrigation rigs relies on broadband telemetry and wireless Internet to link rigs in the eldto computers in arm o ces.

The Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, NRCS and other partners achieve important water conservation gains and boostrural communities with innovative technology.

Georgia




to the annual water use o more than250,000 people.

Real-time soil moisture monitoring hasbeen introduced to meet irrigation needsand protect water resources. The districtand its partners are now pioneering tech-nology that uses broadband telemetryand wireless Internet to link irrigation rigsto computers in arm o ces. With a corenetwork in place, the partners are nowtaking steps to expand wireless Internetservice to other rural areas in Baker,Calhoun, Early, Miller and Mitchell coun-ties.

In 2004, the district and partners initi-ated a Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI) pilotproject to deploy 22 VRI systems onarms. The systems map crop acres andde ne irrigation patterns by soil type,slope and hydrology. Non-crop areas areremoved rom irrigation, and other areasreceive irrigation equal to their needs.

To more e ectively manage VRI, thedistrict in 2005 set up a 100-square-milewireless broadband telemetry network inCalhoun County. The network providedwireless connectivity to 17 center pivotirrigation systems covering 2,467 crop

acres. Participating armers were providedwith Internet access, allowing them tomonitor center pivot activity via camerasmounted to each boom and scheduleirrigation based on “near real time” soilmoisture readings recorded by wirelesssensors in their elds.

Internet connectivity is sometimeslacking in rural America, which can inhibitcommunity and economic development.To expand coverage, the district andpartners are assisting in the deployment

o a ve-county rural wireless broadbandnetwork. When completed, the networkwill serve area schools, hospitals, rstresponders, businesses and residencesin addition to arm operations. Goalsinclude advancing the development o education, health, sa ety and communi-cation resources in the coverage area.The network will also provide opportuni-ties to expand research and developmento new agricultural technology.

The Nature Conservancy is involvedbecause it is interested promoting sustain-able arming practices and protectingthe biodiversity o the ecologically richlower Flint River basin, part o the Apala-chicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin.This is the main source o drinking wateror southwest Georgia and north Florida.

David Reck ord, project director, is aNature Conservancy employee with hal o his salary paid by the district and hisequipment and o ce space provided by

NRCS. He credits district supervisors withproviding the leadership to embrace thenew techniques. “O tentimes you mayhave a good concept in an educationalinstitution, but you need to put it on aworking arm. Almost every technologywe have now was put on the arms o these district supervisors.”

One o those supervisors is boardChair Marty McLendon, who arms 8,000acres. “We wanted to show our willing-ness to partner with di erent agencies

and research and development institu-tions on cutting-edge practices. It helpsresearchers and helps makes it economi-cally easible or others. We put the prac-tices into the real world,” McLendon says.He’s sold on the value o partnerships toachieve conservation successes. “Myonly advice is there are extremely goodarmers and extremely good partners,and i you truly want to do somethingand be involved, you can do that.” As

or partnering with TNC, he says: “Fouryears ago, I never would have thought wewould be involved with an environmentalorganization, but it has worked beauti-ully. We agreed to go into relationshipwith open minds and see where we couldwork together and quit butting heads.”

Innovation has been rewarded withunding, including a U.S. Departmento Agriculture Conservation InnovationGrant or remote soil moisture moni-toring equipment and an Environmental

Protection Agency Strategic AgriculturalInitiative grant to develop a conserva-tion-based crop rotation practice. Theve-county broadband expansion projectwas unded by a $2.7 million grant romthe OneGeorgia Authority’s BRIDGE(Broadband Rural Initiative to DevelopGeorgia’s Economy) program and a $1million match rom the Flint River Soil andWater Conservation District. Each countyis contributing $10,000, as well as timeand resources to the project.

More in ormation: Contact Marty McLendon, chairman o the Flint River Soil and Water Conservation District at [email protected] or David Reck ord, director o the Flint River Basin Program at dreck [email protected] more about the South GeorgiaRegional In ormation Technology Authority at www.sgrita.org.

Georgia’s agriculture and water resources exist side-by-side in the Flint River Basin.




challenged by multiple resource issues,and restoring watershed health is theocus or Pelekane.

In both cases, volunteers and commu-nity partners have a big role in thee orts.

A rst step or Waiulaula (pronouncedWY ULA ULA) is a comprehensive moni-toring program. Water sampling stationsrecently put in place capture data rom theorested upper section, then below thetown o Waimea and nally at the moutho the watershed. Storms cause most o the fux in the watershed, so monitoringwill capture where nutrients, sediment,chemicals and suspended solids enter. “I

we can pick out areas with problems, wecan be proactive to address them” withappropriate best-management practices,Pipan says.

Geographic In ormation Systems so t-ware will compare land cover and runo sources rom the three di erent land useareas. Data will be presented in a docu-ment that makes recommendations tothe county in its zoning and communitydevelopment decisions. It’s importantin ormation in a watershed where popu-

lation has grown dramatically and wherecommunities like Waimea and its 7,000residents rely on watershed reservoirs ordrinking water.

A Waiulaula Watershed Advisory Groupprovides important community input,helps educate residents on water qualityissues, identi es pollution and will helpdevelop a watershed management plan.Monitoring by community members andstudents provides educational opportu-nities and community buy-in. The districthas also involved volunteers in othere orts to address water quality. Theyhave worked on inventories and inva-sive species eradication, o ten in di cultterrains dominated by rough lava fows.Students rom the Cornell UniversityField Program in Earth Systems Sciencehave been engaged or that work.

Community watershed clean-ups linkpeople to their watersheds. In additionto community members, service men and

women rom the Department o De ensePohakuloa Training Area donate theirtime, as do volunteers rom Starbucksand Outdoors Circles comprised o community members interested in greenspace.

The district reaches out to elemen-tary school students about the impor-tance and ragile nature o watersheds.A portable watershed model is used tosimulate what happens in nature.

Hawaii’s landscapes are challenged byan array o introduced plant and animalvisitors that have become persistent resi-dents. Invasive plant species requentlysupplant natives. Even when armingpractices address concerns aboutgrazing, eral goats and cattle roam manyhillsides, stripping them bare.

These and other actors challengewatersheds like Pelekane. It lies in therain shadow o Kohala Mountain, so itis dry much o the year. Parts o water-shed are completely bare earth, so whenrain does all, Pelekane Bay in the oceanis recipient o sediment loads. It’s nowconsidered seriously impaired.

”We’ve evaluated strategies or miti-gating sediment, and the bottom line is

the watershed will have to be re-vege-tated,” Pipan says. “It’s dry, so not muchgrows there, period. We have problemswith eral goats, and some o the vege-tation is grazed by cattle. We’ll need acombination o native and introduced

vegetation.” They’ll also need to trapand remove the goats.

Cleaning up Pelekane Bay will bemore challenging. Ancient cultural attri-butes such as the Hill o the Whale stoneworship site in the bay may precludedredging. Other options includeincreasing the fushing capacity o harborand constructing sediment basins.

Pelekane’s problems are di cult, butthey helped district o cials and otherpartners to see the value o protectingwatersheds like Waiulaula be ore theybecome impaired.

More in ormation: Contact JohnPipan at [email protected]. Learn more about the watershed programs at www.maunakeaswcd.org.

Waimea Middle School students learn about nonpoint pollution through the use o a watershed modelprovided as part o a watershed education program sponsored by the Mauna Kea Soil and WaterConservation District.




Whe N a neighborhood asso-

ciation raised concernsabout sediment in a pond innorthern Indiana, it ignited a discussionacross a whole watershed.

Residents around Goshen Pond Damlearned that the sediment was a symptomo a much larger problem in the 447,000-acre Elkhart River Watershed. With thehelp o the Elkhart County Soil andWater Conservation District and the stateDepartment o Environmental Manage-

ment (DEM), the group set out to do

something about the problem.“The pond was a sediment trap andwas ull o purple loosestri e,” says NancyBrown, program manager at the conser-vation district. “They asked whetherthere was anything we could do. I elt thebest way to get unding was to addresshow the sediment got there, and saidwe would do that and look at relatedissues.”

The district contacted a watershed

specialist with the Indiana DEM. “Wemet with the association and presenteda plan or assistance or watershed plan-ning,” says Brown. “Their group said theywere totally in agreement and ormed asteering committee called Elkhart RiverAlliance.”

“That original homeowners associationtook on this big project. I am amazed atthe ability o a small neighborhood groupto adopt a whole watershed. Even though

r l b olks joi o x h i w sh

Pervious pavement at the city o Elkhart Environmental Center increases on-site storm water in ltration. It is among many practices recommended by theElkhart River Alliance.

A small group o concerned citizens grew to a broad coalition o partners determinedto improve the health o the Elkhart River watershed. The Elkhart County Soil andWater Conservation District has been at the ore ront o the e ort.

Indiana




their original interest was their neighbor-hood, they saw a need to address water-shed issues on a watershed basis,” Brownsays.

Soon the group ormed a nonpro t

corporation, the Elkhart River RestorationAssociation, and began to reach out tointerested parties across the watershed.It ound plenty, including local and stategovernment, sportsmen’s group, conser-vation districts, Extension, propertyowners, armers, sportsmen, naturalists,youth organizations, service clubs, indus-tries and churches.

The watershed stretches across ourcounties and is a hal -and-hal mixtureo rural and rapidly growing urban areas.

The district had good contacts in bothsectors because o its program work inrural and urban conservation. “We cansay we work with both o you. Whenngers are pointed, quite honestly, wecan say we hear the opposite side romthe other group,” Brown says.

Assisted by an Environmental Protec-tion Agency 319 grant obtained throughthe DEM in 2006, the group embarkedon a year o planning and two years o implementation. The work is daunting,because the watershed is in rough shape.Most sections o the river – in both ruraland urban areas – are impaired waters.In addition to excessive sediment, it hasproblems with E. coli bacteria, nutrientloading, rapid land-use changes thatdegrade the watershed’s hydrology, losso wetlands and wildli e habitat, and landand water user conficts.

“We’re not protecting something pris-tine. We’re trying to x something that’sbroken,” says Brown.

Perhaps the group’s biggest accom-plishment was to get diverse groups andindividuals in the watershed to realizethey all played a part in its problems, justas they would all have a role in nursing itback to health.

A Water Management Plan is nowin place to do that. Ongoing unding isan issue, but i determination counts,the group is in good stead. “I’ve never

worked with a group with such passion,”says Brown.

The management plan outlines a set o goals, each accompanied by objectivesor implementation. The plan prioritizesobjectives and action items and identi esresponsible parties to implement actions.The plan has milestones and measurablegoals or short- medium- and long-term.

Goals include:

Sustaining the nancial and institu-•

tional capacity o the group itsel ;Reducing soil erosion and sedi-•

mentation;Reducing E. coli levels;•

Reducing nutrient loading;•

Increasing preservation, restora-•

tion and appreciation o openspace and maintaining land-usebalance; andDeveloping an outreach and•

education program to keep abroadened group o stakeholdersinvolved and in ormed.

Work is already under-way. Cost-shareprograms support agricultural and urbanbest management practices. They are

unded by state and ederal programdollars.

Two demonstration sites are beingdeveloped – one urban and one agri-cultural. The urban site is the city o Elkhart’s Environmental Center, whereconservation district sta has installed arain garden, pervious pavement and abio-retention area in a parking lot. Theagricultural demonstration site ocuseson exclusion encing and alternativewatering or livestock. Both sites will beshowcases or educational programming.“I like to tell the sta we’re doing thesame things at both sites. The practicesare just a little di erent,” says Brown.

The district is also training a cadreo volunteers or water monitoring ineach o the Elkhart’s 37 sub-watersheds.

“We’re a district, and this is what districtsdo – educate.”

More in ormation: Contact Brown at [email protected]. Detailson the ERA and the implementationplan are at www.elkhartriveralliance.org.

Bioretention areas are among practices recommended by the Elkhart River Alliance in its e orts torestore health to the Elkhart River Watershed. The Elkhart County Soil and Water Conservation Districtis joined by other partners in the e ort.




Kansas

the Marais des Cygnes River(MdC) Watershed covers 13rural counties in eastern Kansas

be ore crossing into Missouri. Addressingrural water quality issues over an area thatsize requires cooperation, creativity andold- ashioned rural rugality.

The Franklin County ConservationDistrict and its partners have appliedthose measures and good communi-cation to help agricultural producersaddress nonpoint pollution concerns andupgrade their arm systems.

Kansas uses the Watershed Restora-

tion and Protection Strategy, or WRAPS,process to meet ederal and state waterstandards. WRAPS involves local citizensin identi ying water quality and waterquantity issues within their watershed.With guidance and technical assistance,citizens then develop and implement aplan.

The MdC WRAPS was sponsored bythe Lake Region Resource Conservationand Development Council in partnershipwith the Kansas Department o Health

and Environment (KDHE). Five publicmeetings were held around the basin,where citizens identi ed concerns, goalsand actions. The RC&D, local conserva-tion districts, Kansas State Extension andthe Kansas Water O ce reviewed publiccomments and ashioned a nal report,completed in 2003.

A main ocus was reducing nonpointpollution across the basin by educating

and working with producers. Threeederal reservoirs in the watershed are

recipients o sediment and pollutantsrom nonpoint sources. The reservoirsand the Marais des Cygnes River are allpublic drinking water sources.

The plan gave conservation part-ners the speci city they needed to seekunding to address concerns. The RC&D,conservation district and CooperativeExtension took lead roles.

The RC&D received an EnvironmentalProtection Agency grant through KDHE

or a riparian orestry initiative. It usedgrant unds to hire a orester who workson tree planting, timber stand improve-ment and other measures to protect andenhance riparian orests. Federal Envi-ronmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP) unds are available or cost sharingon timber stand improvement.

The Franklin District and Kansas StateExtension sought and received a $200,000

a big w sh b som loc l g li y

The Franklin County Conservation District and its partners stretch limitedunds a long way to address rural water quality issues across 13 counties.

Old implement tires become innovative and inexpensive alternative watering systems or producersin the Marais des Cygnes River Watershed in Kansas. The Franklin County Conservation District andpartners are addressing rural water issues across the multi-county watershed.




EPA 319 grant through the state or alivestock project in 2006. The Franklindistrict administers the program, which isoverseen by a board comprised o repre-sentatives rom 13 conservation districts,Extension and producers in the basin. Allthe partners are involved in educationand outreach to promote the program.

About 50 percent o the basin is grass-land where bee cattle are raised. “That’sa lot o area and a lot o producers. Weelt that big gains could be made workingwith producers,” says Franklin DistrictManager Keri Harris.

Projects include livestock stream cross-ings, renovations to con ned and uncon-

ned eeding sites and construction o alternate water supplies, several o whicheature solar pumping systems. Sedi-ment basins, grass bu ers and riparianencing are also among practices eligibleor cost-sharing.

“One thing we are proud o is that95 percent o the money is going toproducers,” Harris says. The FranklinDistrict board helped to stretch grantdollars by agreeing to cover Harris’ workon the grant as part o her regular salary.

“My board saw the bene t o me beinginvolved,” she says.

To urther limit costs, the board doesmuch o its project oversight work elec-tronically. Signup sheets are distributedand reviewed over the Internet. “We’vebeen able to get a lot o work done withlittle expense to the grant,” she says.

Dollars are stretched as much aspossible to o er a 50- to 60 percentcost share. Some state unds unneledto conservation districts and some EQIPunds are available, too.

One small project with a big impactis providing water supply tanks. Morethan 35 have been completed. “You puta ence around a pond and only allowcattle in to fash graze. Then you run asupply line through the pond dam ina reeze-proo concrete supply tank.”Bacteria tests show “amazing improve-ments,” she says. Streams that fow rom

the ponds are cleaner, and that has animpact across the watershed.

The project received an additional$53,000 in EPA 319 unding this year.It was less than expected, but withthe majority o unds going directly toproducers, “everyone is positive we canget a lot done,” she says. EQIP and theKansas Alliance or Wetlands and Streamsalso help the partners and producers withstreambank stabilization and riparianvegetation projects.

Kansas State University and KDHE areconducting scienti c monitoring o waterquality improvements, but one o thebest gauges o success or the livestockproject is how well it has spread by wordo mouth among producers.

More in ormation: Contact Keri Harris at district@ ccdks.org. Morein ormation on the WRAPS process isat http:// ccdks.org/wraps.htm.

Solar pumping systems move water to alternative watering systems in the Marais des Cygnes RiverWatershed in Kansas. The Franklin County Conservation District and partners are working to helpproducers install watering systems and protect ragile streams.




Kentucky

the success o Kentucky’s GreenRiver Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program hasn’tescaped national attention. The public-private partnership e ort received the“USDA Two Chie s Award,” as announcedby Forest Service Chie Abigail Kimbelland Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service Chie Arlen Lancaster inNovember 2007. The chie s saluted astrong partnership that links public andprivate entities in e orts to protect adistinctive and biologically diverse water-shed.

Back home in Kentucky, it was nosurprise that in 2002, armer and conser-vationist John Colliver and his brotherwere among the rst state landownersto enroll land on their ourth-generationBarren County arm in CREP. Colliveris chair o the Je erson County Soiland Water Conservation District and amember o the state board. His atherwas on the board o the Barren County

Soil and Water Conservation District or48 years.

About 100 acres o the 340-acreColliver arm are CREP lands, planted tonative grasses.

“We had a eld day out there, andU.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and (then)Secretary o Agriculture Ann Venemancame. I gave a talk and told them wewere doing it or three reasons. One, atthat time, we looked at the economics o it, and it was air. Two, both o us have ourhearts in conservation. We want to keepthe soil in good condition, and hearing

about e orts to protect the Green River,we wanted to help. Three, we elt con -dent in the conservation partnership.There’s a lot o trust involved when youtake land out o production. You hopethe money is there to pay the bills.”

The partnership Colliver re erred to isstrong and innovative. Steve Coleman,director o the Kentucky Soil and WaterConservation Commission, notes thatconservation districts provide technical

support and marketing in 14 counties inthe watershed, located in south central

Kentucky. The ve-year-old CREP reliesheavily on locally-led conservation at thecounty level, Coleman says. Conserva-tion district local work groups have beenimportant in reaching out to landowners.Forums were held to determine interestbe ore the proposal was submitted orconsideration. With the CREP in place,county-level meetings were organized topromote it.

The CREP is the single largest conser-vation program in Kentucky’s history. It

has solidi ed and strengthened a part-nership between the NRCS and theFarm Service Agency, which administersthe ederal portion o the program, saysColeman. Also involved are state agen-cies o Forestry, Conservation, Fish andWildli e Resources and Water.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) isa major private partner, providing $5million to boost enrollments in perma-nent easements. Its involvement in theproject marked a new direction or TNC,which is putting more ocus on strategiesto aid arm owners.

The CREP targets 100,000 acres o envi-ronmentally sensitive land. Landownerswho enroll receive direct payments, cost-sharing and other incentives. “We’re nowat 75 percent o the goal,” says Coleman.One eature o CREPs is that they canbe modi ed a ter adoption to betterocus on local conservation concerns.

G riv CrePj s s, v c s, p o c s

The Green River CREP orges a celebrated public-private partnership toprotect precious resources, control soil erosion and preserve working lands.

“th ’s lo o s i volv wh yo kl o o p o c io . Yo hop h mo yis h o p y h bills.”

John Colliver Farmer and Conservationist




“We expanded our CREP and modi-ed some practices in 2007. About thattime, FSA was updating rental rates. Thatwas the per ect storm,” Coleman says.Enrollments jumped a ter the CREP wasexpanded rom eight to 14 counties andmodi ed to include karst topography andsinkholes identi ed by Western KentuckyUniversity as having a signi cant impacton water quality and rare mussel species.

The CREP’s conservation goals includewater quality, erosion control, arm-land preservation, endangered speciesprotection and wildli e habitat improve-ments. Western Kentucky Universityspearheads monitoring and assessment.Coleman notes that the CREP is distinc-tive because it is proactive. “We have aworld treasure in Mammoth Cave, andwe’re protecting the resource be ore-hand, not cleaning up pollution.”

The Green River is one o the mostdiverse ecosystems in North America andis the most biologically abundant brancho the Ohio River System. The river fowsunhindered or more than 100 miles untilit reaches Mammoth Cave National Park,the world’s largest and most diverse cavesystem.

But back on the Colliver arm, theprogram has served its purpose, too. “Forthe rst time ever, I’ve seen wild turkeys

come out o the land there. We havemany di erent types o birds,” Colliversays. With his own children expressing aninterest in the arm, he has also managedto preserve the land.

More in ormation: Contact Colemanat [email protected]. Visit www.conservation.ky/progams/crep or more in ormation on the Green River CREP.

The Green River and Mammoth Cave are the ocus o a multi-county Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program e ort in Kentucky. It ocuses on helpingagricultural producers achieve conservation improvements on their own properties as they protect the highly valued watershed.

“W h v wo l s i M mmo h C v , w ’ p o c i g h so c b o h ,

o cl i g p poll io .”Steve Coleman,

Director of the Kentucky Soil and Water Conservation Commission




Louisiana

AN e ort to address water qualityin the Coulee Baton Streammicrowatershed is long on solu-

tions and short on nger pointing.As a result, agricultural producers and

residential homeowners can both takevoluntary steps toward improvements.The Vermilion Soil and Water Conser-vation District and Acadiana ResourceConservation and Development Councilare among several partners in thee orts.

The Coulee Baton was chosen becauseo its diverse topography, drainage andland use. Focusing on all the stakeholdersin the area was a deliberate strategy. “Wewant to stay away rom nger pointing,”says Ernest Girouard, chair o the Vermilion District Board. “The goal is to

identi y the problems and have everyonedo their share to improve water quality.We gured it had to be a team approachto promote ownership. I everyoneaccepts ownership and everyone doestheir part, you can make a di erence.”Field trips and public meetings are usedto reach out to armers, landowners andhomeowners with educational in orma-tion.

In addition to local stakeholders, stateenvironmental and agriculture agen-cies and university researchers are alsoinvolved. “That’s a result o our conserva-tion district’s work in the past,” Girouardsays.

The program is supported by Environ-mental Protection Agency 319 Grantsadministered by the state Department

o Environmental Quality. One phaseo the e ort that has drawn attentionprovides cost sharing o up to 60 percentto residential homeowners who want toupgrade their septic systems.

The work is de nitely needed. A prelim-inary survey ound that 55 o 110 homesdischarge directly into a public ditch withno secondary treatment o sewage. Theproject will allow all 110 homeowners inthe 6,200-acre watershed the opportu-nity to participate with a maximum cost-share o $4,000 per system or repair orreplacement o their systems. At leastthree options are provided, all o themleading to better treatment o wastes.A separate 319 Grant covers monitoringo the impacts o septic system improve-ments over ve years.

Many o the homeowners lack theresources to pay or improvements them-selves, Girouard says. Some will struggleto come up with their part o the cost-

share, and the district continues to searchor other unding to help them.Outreach to homeowners has been

extensive. Six meetings have been heldto educate them about options. “We’retrying to show them that part o being agood land steward is to make sure yoursewer system is up to snu ,” Girouardsays.

Three demonstration sites werechosen to display options available to

F om s p ics o agBMPs i Lo isiThe Coulee Baton Stream microwatershed is the center o an e ort by aconservation district, RC&D and other partners to address both agriculturaland residential water quality.

“th go l is o i i y h p obl ms h v

v yo o h i sh o imp ov wq li y. W g i h o b m pp o cho p omo ow ship. I v yo cc p sow ship v yo o s h i p , yoc m k i c .”

Ernest GirouardChair of the Vermilion District Board




homeowners. They include a spray irriga-tion system, a rock eld with water plantsand the more conventional systems thatrely on absorption into the soil.

Another area o work in the CouleeBaton ocuses on encouraging agricul-tural producers and other landownersto apply best management practices,including improved watering systems orcattle and cross- encing to protect water-ways. The partners are also working withrice producers on BMPs to reduce sedi-ment and stream loading when irrigationwater is released. Federal EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program unds providecost-sharing or that work.

Farmers in the area are also encour-aged to participate in the state’s Master

Farmer Program, an intensive educa-tional program that leads to develop-ment o an NRCS resource managementsystem plan and state certi cation. Thevoluntary program is an e ort to achieveconservation gains without regulation.Girouard serves as area agent or theMaster Farmer Program. He notes thatthe southwest region where he workshas the most participants. Maybe that’s

because he armed himsel or 35 yearsa ter earning a PH.D. at Louisiana StateUniversity.

More in ormation: Contact Ernest Girouard at [email protected].

E orts to address water quality in the Coulee Baton Stream microwatershed include a program to replace residential septic systems. Public meetingssponsored by the Vermilion Soil and Water Conservation District and Acadiana Resource Conservation and Development Council educate residents abouttheir options or cost-sharing projects.

“W ’ yi g o show h m h p o b i g goo l s w is o m k s yo s wsys m is p o s .”




Whe N Maine U.S. Sen.Edmund Muskie authoredthe 1972 Clean Water Act,

he may have had the Kennebec Riverin mind. The historic Kennebec was amess. As with many American rivers, ithad long served as a dump or munici-palities and industries. Decades o logdrives had harmed its physical attributes.What emerged a ter the clean-up was adiamond in the rough.

Groups worked to take advantageo the renewed resource, but a coor-

dinated e ort didn’t emerge until theKennebec River Initiative was created.The Kennebec Valley Council o Govern-ments looked to the Kennebec CountySoil and Water Conservation District toserve as lead agency or developmento an action plan or the river. The e ortwas boosted by grants rom the MaineOutdoor Heritage Fund, the Land andWater Conservation Fund o the NationalPark Service, the state o Maine, theSportsman’s Alliance o Maine and theCouncil o Governments.

Hundreds o citizens and dozens o groups guided the resulting e ort toenhance, protect and utilize the river’smany assets. The Kennebec Districtworked with this broad group to developa plan that paints a hope ul picture orthe river. A Kennebec River Council withbroad representation is being ormed.The council will implement strategiesoutlined in the action plan. “The wholereason or the KRI was, ‘Now that theriver’s clean what are we going to do withit? ’ ” says Josh Platt, project director onthe Kennebec District sta .

H s wo k o polish g m c ll K b c

Some o the best whitewater ra ting in the northeast is available on the Kennebec River in Maine. Recreational users are among a wide array o stakeholdersinvolved in the Kennebec River Initiative, coordinated by the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation District.

The Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation District spearheads a multi-county e ort to

secure the uture o the Kennebec River, one o the state’s most important resources. Multiple goals

ocus on enhancing the river’s assets, including scenic, ecological, fsheries, wildli e, recreation,

cultural and economic, and the potential or revitalization e orts in river communities.

Maine




He credits the guiding vision o longtimeriver activist Bill Townsend, a Skowheganattorney who wrote a detailed appraisalo the river in 1971 and ocused on thekey questions: “How do we sustain this

river, maintain its character and assure itsuse by the people o Maine?”The district rst coordinated e orts to

map the river and its diverse resources,using its own Geographic In orma-tion Systems expertise and extensiveinput rom citizens at mapping sessions.Mapping ocused on the river’s northern,central and tidal reaches, which aredistinct and diverse as the river cuts itsway rom south central Maine to theAtlantic Ocean. The river includes every-

thing rom high-quality whitewater ra tingto rich salmon sheries and importanttidal resources. Its shores are home towilderness areas, historic orts, commu-nity water ronts, agricultural and indus-trial users.

Twenty towns, 11 land trust groups,ve local trails groups, nine businessesand several state agencies participatedin mapping. The resulting 15 maps detailareas o the river that need a closer look ataccess, o er opportunities or economicdevelopment or better marketing,provide high-value habitat and may needprotection or restoration work.

A series o orums ollowed. Morethan 300 citizens participated. Theirinput led to a plan that ocuses on riveraccess improvement; trail enhancementand development; corridor protectionand enhancement, including sheries;community-based water development;agricultural land preservation; andmarketing and tourism. The action plan isa menu o possible projects and a compi-lation o ideas and proposals or utureaction.

“The plan talks about not only thenatural resources piece, but also thepeople piece,” Platt says. “It asks how wecan revitalize downtowns and promotewise development. We look at the naturalresources the river o ers as a way toimprove wise use.”

A cleaned-up Kennebec River is

already home to community river esti-vals, concerts, trails and other assets.The action plan seeks to enhance andadd to those activities and nd ways tolink them regionally while protecting thebase resource.

How did a conservation district getinvolved? “The district was hired becausedistricts tend to get things done,” saysPlatt. “Districts in Maine and across thecountry have a history o developing agoal, planning, getting partners together

and then getting something done on

the ground.” While the district had theproject lead, it worked with our other

conservation districts on plan develop-ment. Such cooperation will be neededin the uture.

Platt is now working with variousgroups to write grants, urther developmapping and take other steps towardmeeting the plan’s goals. The KennebecRiver is in good hands.

More in ormation: Contact Platt at [email protected], and visit the district web site at www.kcswcd.org.

An array o stakeholders participated in planning e orts or the Kennebec River Initiative.

“th pl lks bo o o ly h lso c s pi c , b lso h p opl pi c . I

sks how w c vi liz ow ow s p omo wis v lopm . W look hl so c s h iv o s s w y o

imp ov wis s .” Josh Platt

Project Director, Kennebec District staff




Michigan

ReStoRAtioN work on two

watersheds in southwest Mich-igan piloted use o a little-knownFarm Bill program and led to ongoingcooperation among a broad group o partners. Gregg Strand and KristineBoley-Morse, project coordinators orthe Calhoun Conservation District, saythere are lessons aplenty rom work onthe Rice Creek and Battle Creek Riverwatersheds.

The watersheds comprise more than225,000 contiguous acres in southwest

Michigan. They are tributaries o the Kala-mazoo River, where an approved TotalMaximum Daily Load (TMDL) or phos-phorus is currently being implemented.The waters ultimately drain to Lake Mich-igan. With support rom the MichiganDepartment o Environmental Quality,the two watersheds were selected totake part in a pilot U.S. Department o Agriculture partnership initiative makingthem a priority area or Farm Bill undingin Michigan.

The rivers are impacted by phosphorusand sediment runo rom agriculturallands, excessive levels o PCBs in sh,stream bank erosion and storm waterloads rom contaminated, impermeablesur aces. Agriculture is the dominantland use, but the watersheds are typicalo how ormerly rural areas have becomehome to a variety o land uses and stake-holders, including urban sprawl resulting

rom proximity to two major interstate

highways. Riparian wildli e habitat, publicwater supplies, public/county drainage,tourism and recreation all depend onimproved water quality.

Comprehensive watershed manage-ment plans were completed with supportrom Environmental Protection AgencySection 319 unding. Farmers, land-owners, agency sta , town o cials andconcerned citizens took part in planning.Both plans included an inventory o bestmanagement practices, cost estimates,

implementation time rames and leadpartners.

In February 2004, more than 20 agen-cies and organizations in both watersheds joined the partnership. They includeUSDA’s Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service and Farm Service Agency;U.S. Fish and Wildli e Service, Mich-igan Department o Natural Resources,Michigan Department o EnvironmentalQuality, Michigan Department o Agri-culture, several conservation districts,county drainage commissioners, countyhealth departments, The Nature Conser-vancy, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited,Pheasants Forever and the SouthwestMichigan Land Conservancy.

Impetus was a section o the 2002Farm Bill called “Partnerships and Coop-eration.” It authorized USDA to enterinto stewardship agreements or specialprojects, encouraging producers to

install and maintain practices that a ect

multiple resource concerns in water-sheds. The partnership allowed USDAgreater fexibility to adjust applicationo eligibility criteria, approved practicesand other elements o USDA programs. Italso allowed the state to target Farm Billunds to high-priority watersheds.

The Battle Creek River and Rice Creekpartnership is an example o how multipleunding sources and programs can beused to address shared concerns. WhileSection 319 unding supported the devel-

opment o the watershed plans, Farm Billunding was targeted to address agri-cultural-related water quality concerns.“In this way, unding rom the variousprograms can be leveraged so that itdoes not duplicate, but rather comple-ments, other programs,” says Strand.

NRCS Assistant State ConservationistAlan Herceg credits local involvement ordevelopment o the agreement. Abouthal o the watersheds lie in CalhounCounty, and the Calhoun County Conser-vation District administered unding orwatershed planning. The Calhoun CountyConservation District, “really built all theadditional partners at the local level,”Herceg says.

Forming those partnerships early inthe process was important, says Strand.“Developing a ormal partnership on theront end o these 319 projects is criticalto success ully implementing manage-

F m Bill p og m boos sw sh coll bo ioWatershed work under an innovative agreement takes advantage o a little-known Farm Bill program and leads partners down new roads that extendbeyond the limits o a single project.




ment practices in the plan, and it alsoleads to sustainability when you haveall agencies and organizations workingtogether in an area. It gets bigger thanthe project really ast, and the partnerstend to stick around a ter projects arecompleted,” Strand says.

Broad partnerships also boost thewhole watershed, he says. “It’s prettyeasy or projects to get too ocused andwork only on certain types o practices.But that leaves the other 99 percent o watershed alone.” With more partners,projects have the opportunity to ocuson a more inclusive list o resources andland use issues – rural, urban, in-stream,upland. That’s the key to watershedwork,” he says.

The impact o the broad partnership isrefected by the list o completed projects.They include bu ers, lter strips, grazing

plans, wetland restoration, planting o trees and native grasses, stream bankstabilization, three major river restorationprojects associated with removal o ageddams, urban river clean-ups and soiltests, low-impact development practices,rain gardens, acquisition o conservationeasements, prescribed burns, sh habitatimprovements and outreach and educa-tion provided to thousands o residentsin the watersheds. The Calhoun Districtalone completed more than 35 projectsin one year o the agreement.

Conservation districts working onwatershed projects are able to diversi ytheir range o duties, the project coordi-nators say. “We’re growing and gettingbetter about how we can give our citizensopportunities to do some really goodthings,” Boley-Morse says. Strand adds:“Districts in the past were seen as the

ones who do tree sales, or were one in thesame with USDA. Working on watershedprojects means we have our ngers in somany di erent resource areas. Districtshave evolved because o these projectsand become more diverse.”

The partnership is also credited withhelping lead to development o a Mich-igan Stream Team comprised o the agen-cies that deal with water resource issues

in the state. The group meets regularly tocoordinate strategies, avoid duplicationand improve communication.

More in ormation: Contact GreggStrand at [email protected] Kristine Boley-Morse at [email protected]. Moreon the watershed work is at www.calhouncd.org.

Watershed restoration in Michigan addresses the concerns o many stakeholder groups, including recreation and tourism interests.




t he Nemadji River tumblesdown slopes that cut throughrugged orest country in north-

east Minnesota and northwest Wisconsinon its way to Lake Superior’s south bay.

Along the way, the Nemadji and itstributaries drain about 433 square miles,or 277,400 acres o land in the two states.The streams are food-prone, and whenthey fash, the water cuts into clay banks.The streams carry a lot o red clay and silt,

much o it deposited thousands o yearsago by glaciers. That sediment a ects thewater quality o the streams, which arehome to prime trout habitat, and ends upin south bay, where dredging is requiredto clear the harbor or Great Lakes ships.

These concerns have long drawn atten-tion, with studies going back decades,says Brad Matlack, Carlton Soil and WaterConservation District manager. Thedistrict has taken a lead role in watershedrestoration e orts, working with local

stakeholders, representatives o the twostates and ederal agencies.

Sometimes moving orward requiresstepping back, and one major projectat the district has been to reassemblein ormation rom the 1970s-era Red ClayProject. That was a joint e ort spon-sored by the Environmental Protec-tion Agency and the Soil ConservationService, orerunner to today’s NaturalResources Conservation Service. The

project encompassed parts o Superior’ssouth shore in Wisconsin and a couple o targeted watersheds in Minnesota.

One outcome was the construction o 18 erosion-control and sediment trap-ping dams that have outlived their li eexpectancy and are in various states o disrepair. Now the district and its part-ners are determining what to do with theaging structures.

NRCS led a watershed study thatgenerated a report in the late 1990s. TheNemadji River Report sought to quanti yerosion and sedimentation rom tribu-taries and served as the impetus or orga-nized e orts throughout the watershed.

Thus was born the Nemadji River BasinProject. EPA 319 grants and unding romthe Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyClean Water Partnership Grant Programspurred activity among a growing list o

Minnesota

P o c i g w sh G L k

The Nemadji River watershed o ers multiple challenges to partners in atwo-state region. At stake is prime aquatic habitat in the watershed andwater quality and shipping in Lake Superior. The Carlton Soil and WaterConservation District is a major partner in the e ort.

Riparian orest bu ers planted in the Nemadji River Watershed are among practices aimed at improv-ing water quality.




partners that includes orest-productscompanies, Trout Unlimited and LakeSuperior Steelheads, so named or thetrout that travel between the streams andthe big lake. “We’re collectively trying

to implement goals and recommenda-tions in the NRCS report,” says Matlack.“We installed practices like re orestation,riparian bu ers and sh passages throughroad culverts.”

The project includes extensive publiceducation and outreach through newslet-ters, meetings and other activities. About1,200 landowners in the region keptin ormed about activities. “All the part-ners play a role, some more signi cantthan others,” says Matlack. The ArmyCorps o Engineers is heavily engaged,he notes, because its tab or harbordredging runs about $200,000 a year.

The district serves as lead agency,provides technical assistance and admin-isters grants. Recently, the Carlton SWCDBoard o Supervisors approved a contractwith Minnesota Pollution Control toconduct phase 1 o a total maximumdaily load TMDL study on the Nemadjiand a tributary, Deer Creek, both listed asimpaired waterways. As part o the publicstakeholders component o the TMDLprocess, the district hosted a meetingo representatives this year rom a dozenagencies involved in the two-state e ort.Many o the groups have been involvedin committees working on solutionssince the NRCS report was released.The TMDL work will allocate sedimentloads to various sources. Matlack notesthat the partners will only be able to doso much. “There is a signi cant amount

o sedimentation that is natural.” Thisresults rom steep clay deposits le t bythe glaciers that are transported both bysur ace and ground waters.

But with some o the best trout habitatin all o the Lake Superior region and animportant Great Lakes shipping hub atstake, the partnership can’t turn its headthe other way. “We know that by a ectingthe hydrology o these watersheds, wecan have an impact on food fows going

down through these streams. Riparianbu ers, upland open land cover andre orestation with coni ers that reducesnow melt can make a di erence,”Matlack says.

The TMDL process will ocus localattention on the streams. “We knowsome o the waters are impaired, butsome stretches are not. We’re trying to

quanti y them and get the impaired tribu-taries back to better condition,” he says.

More in ormation: Contact Brad Matlack at [email protected]. More in ormation on the Nemadji River Basin Project is at www.carlton-swcd.org/nrbp.htm.

Monitoring on Deer Creek, a stream in the Nemadji River Watershed, helps the Carlton Soil and Water

Conservation District determine the source o sediment that degrades water quality and moves toLake Superior.




Mississippi

lAk e Washington’s turn has comeup again in Mississippi. The lakeand its 27,170-acre watershed

in Mississippi’s delta were recognizedseveral years ago by the National AwardsCouncil or Environmental Sustainabilitya ter substantial water quality gains wereaccomplished during a demonstrationproject there in the early 1990s.

That project saved an average o 711tons o soil per acre on 6,505 acres wherebest management practices (BMPs)were installed. It also resulted in marked

improvement in water quality in thepopular lake.Now, state and local conservation o -

cials are installing more and bigger bestmanagement practices, such as slottedboard risers and grade stabilization struc-tures to urther reduce sedimentation. Inaddition to landowners in the watershed,Washington County is participating inthe $680,000 project, including doingsome in-kind work. Some o the larger

structures are being installed on countyroads to halt the movement o sedimentto the lake. Despite earlier successes, thelake is still subject to excess phosphorousloading.

“It looks pretty promising,” says long-time Washington County Soil and WaterConservation District board memberJohn Oglesby o the new work. “I it doesas much good as the work did last time,it’ll be something.”

The Lake Washington project hasbecome a showcase or the Mississippi

Department o Environmental Quality(DEQ) and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), says Mark Gilbert, environ-mental administrator or the MississippiSoil and Water Conservation Commis-sion.

Sedimentation is the major waterquality concern in Mississippi, where thestate’s Department o EnvironmentalQuality has its hands ull addressingimpaired waterways. The Mississippi

Conservation Commission and the state’slocal conservation districts play big rolesin helping to accomplish improvements.

DEQ uses a basin managementapproach to ocus unding on one o its10 basins each year. “The approach is togo through one basin per year and seewhat priorities are in the basin and thento direct unding there,” says Gilbert.Usually the ocus goes to watershedswhere total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)have been established, primarily becauseo sedimentation.

Basin teams identi y projects o interestto soil and water conservation districts,helping the commission to select proj-ects based on local needs. The commis-sion then contracts with DEQ or workunded by Environmental ProtectionAgency 319 grants. The three-year grantsund an array o projects, most o themproviding cost-sharing o 60 percent orbest-management practices.

The traditional conservation partner-ship provides local support. SWCDs

prioritize and approve landowner appli-cations. Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service (NRCS) personnel assist withproject design, and conservation districtsprovide lists o private contractors whodo the work.

To monitor results, NRCS collects dataon soil loss be ore and a ter installation.

The ocus is on achieving water qualitythrough installation o BMPs, but most o the projects also serve to educate land-

doi g m s l i gi MississippiUsing a basin management approach, Mississippi spreads itswater resource activities across the state.

“W s ill s bj c o hos l so cco c s. W h v f g o hillyg o , so w h v foo i g, h b i gso h p obl ms.”

Don Underwood Executive Director Mississippi Conservation Commission




owners about the economic and environ-mental value o BMPs. Individual projectsrange rom $200,000 to $700,000, saysDon Underwood, executive director o the commission. “It’s an evolving process.Some things it eels like we’ve been doingorever, and some are airly new. Some o it takes a long time to change people’sbehavior and attitudes.” Some projectsover the years have unded BMP manualsand other educational tools meant toreach producers and other audiences.

Even with BMPs on many locations,nature plays a big hand in Mississippi.Flooding is an ongoing issue. “We arestill subject to those natural resourceconcerns,” Underwood says. “We havefat ground and hilly ground, so wehave fooding, and that brings otherproblems.” Stream bank erosion is oneconcern.

Like Lake Washington, the TwentyMile and Donivan Creek watershedsare unded in the current cycle a ter

bene ting rom a demonstration projectearlier. About $280,000 is targeted to thecurrent project. The two watercoursesare tributaries o the Tombigbee River,the major source o drinking water or thecity o Tupelo. A recent study identi edthe watersheds as being impacted by anumber o agricultural pollutants. Bothare listed as impaired. Several state andederal agencies are implementing theproject. BMPs include grade stabilization,

stream bank stabilization, stream encingand o -stream watering. About 40 land-owners have signed up to participate.

“It’s all interconnected,” says Under-wood o the conservation work. “You doone thing, and you don’t realize how it’sgoing to a ect something else. We’relearning the synergy o all the naturalresources.”

More in ormation: Contact DonUnderwood at [email protected].

Sunset on Lake Washington in the Mississippi delta, where conservation e orts to reduce sedimentation are under way.

“Yo o o hi g, yo o ’ liz how i ’sgoi g o c som hi g ls . W ’ l i gh sy gy o ll h l so c s.”




the historic Missouri River

zigzags rom west to east as itbisects the state o Montana.

Roughly hal o the corridor is in privateownership spread over 14 counties, andthe other hal is managed by three sepa-rate public agencies.

The Missouri River ConservationDistricts Council has emerged over thepast decade as an important local voicein decisions that a ect the river and itsmany uses. Fi teen districts participate,and the council serves as a collectivevoice or districts and private land-owners in dialogues with ederal agen-cies, putting voluntary conservation onthe ground and educating a growing andchanging population along the river.

An early success was the council’sadvocacy o a 2002 Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program (CREP) along theriver. The ederal-state program enhances

water quality and sh and wildli e habitat

on agricultural lands along the Missouriand Madison rivers. The council was alsoinstrumental in later revisions to the CREPthat boosted enrollments.

Communicating with ederal landmanagement agencies was a big reasonthe council was ormed. “Councilmembers are great about keeping thingslocal and where they make sense. They’reout there on the land and have concerns,and they are really good about conveyingthem to ederal agencies,” says Vicki

Marquis, coordinator or the council.The 370,000-acre Upper Missouri River

Breaks National Monument in centralMontana is managed by the Bureau o Land Management. Charles M. RussellNational Wildli e Re uge in north-centralMontana extends along 125 miles o theriver and is managed by the U.S. Fishand Wildli e Service. The re uge extends

up river rom Fort Peck Dam, which is

managed by the Army Corps o Engi-neers. Each has a di erent set o chal-lenges.

The Missouri River Breaks was contro-versial when established by presiden-tial decree in 2001. The council heardconcerns rom private landowners andserved as their voice. About 80,000 o its acres are privately owned. Grazingdisputes, trespassing, easements andcampsite development are among theissues. Public lands decisions have an

impact on private lands, Marquis says.But the dialogue has improved. BLM hasprovided signage that designates privatelands, sponsored a video eaturingprivate landowners and contracted with aNational Riparian Services Team to assesscultural and natural impacts on the river.

“So much o it is relationship building,”Marquis says. The council invited BLMo cials to tour private lands and explorelocal issues, and that led to better under-standing. A ter our tries, Marquis wasseated on the BLM’s Resource AdvisoryCouncil or central Montana, an impor-tant 15-member citizens advisory council.“There’s a lesson or others: Don’t giveup,” says Marquis.

The council also has a seat on the plan-ning team working to develop a manage-ment plan or the CMR Wildli e Area.“One o our conservation districts askedto be a cooperating agency and was

Montana

Misso i riv Co cil voico p iv l s co s v ioFi teen conservation districts cooperate to represent privateconservation perspectives in complex management challenges alongthe Missouri River corridor.

“Co cil m mb s g bo k pi ghi gs loc l wh h y m k s s .th y’ o h o h l h vco c s, h y lly goo bo co v yi g h m o l g ci s.”

Vicki Marquis Missouri River Conservation Districts Council Coordinator




denied. The council took up the causeand did get a seat,” Marquis says.

Much o the success working with agen-cies comes rom interaction with the ArmyCorps o Engineers. Dam managementa ects irrigators like council membersBuzz Mattelin o Roosevelt County and

Ron Garwood o Valley County. They hadsuccess with the Corps on water releasesand other concerns. “They’ve as irriga-tors been very involved and proactive.Their encouragement and success havekept us going in our work with otheragencies,” she says.

In upper reaches o the river, issuesdi er. Several counties are seeing aninfux o people who want to live on thestream bank and remove vegetation or a

view o the water. There are now concernsabout storm water runo , wells that drawdown ground and sur ace water andseptic systems that pollute. The councilocuses its action on education. “Wehave a couple o projects to get peopleto look at the importance o the river

and riverbanks.” One provides historicphotos o the river in food stage. “Ourgoal was to give people a deeper respector the river. A river can move and rise. It’sbetter to develop back a ways,” Marquissays. “The best way to do the right thingor the resource is to get people to wantto do things right. It’s more sustainable.That’s why we’ve taken the educationalapproach to the resources.”

Speaking o sustainability, the councilworked or and received guaranteedunding or its coordinator positionrom the state Legislature. It was undedthrough the state Department o NaturalResources and Conservation, whichMarquis credits or strong support and

cooperation in council activities.From sitting on the planning team orthe Missouri River Recovery Implemen-tation Committee to working with fyshers who want to clean up landings,the council takes on jobs big and small.

More in ormation: Contact Vicki Marquis at [email protected] o. Visit the council’s web siteat www.missouririvercouncil.in o/.

The Missouri River, pictured here at the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, is impacted by multiple land users and land owners. The MontanaMissouri River Conservation Districts Council o ers the voice o private landowner/conservationists to discussions about the watershed.




Nebraska

t he Papio-Missouri NaturalResources District (NRD) ollowswatershed, rather than juris-

dictional boundaries. That has empow-ered the NRD to address watershed-scale conservation issues and work as a

regional resource or local governmentsin the metropolitan Omaha area.

Eight cities, two counties and the NRDormed the Papillion Creek WatershedPartnership to address water qualityand quantity, fooding and storm water

control. The NRD was the logical entityto coordinate and administer the group’sactivities. “Water knows no boundaries,”says Marlin Petermann, assistant generalmanager o the district. “Forming thispartnership would not have been possible

Walnut Creek food control reservoir is an example o the multiple-use reservoirs avored by the Papillion Creek Watershed Partnership. The reservoir o ersshing, camping and other recreational activities, and its water quality is protected by a subwatershed plan.

n l so c s is ic s s w sh p shipEleven local units o government including the Papio-Missouri Natural

Resources District are working collectively to address water quality andquantity issues in the Omaha metropolitan area.




without one entity with jurisdiction overthe watershed,” he says.

Petermann joined the NRD in 1974,when it was dealing with water quality andquantity issues in a rural setting. Urbangrowth has added new challenges. One-quarter o the state’s population lives inthe Omaha urban area. The growth hasled to changes in hydrology and theability o the landscape to assimilatestorm water, and has broadened district’socus.

“We continue with our roots o soil andwater conservation,” Petermann says.“As the Omaha metro area has grown,we have seen our e orts shi t to being

involved not only with rural needs, butalso a great deal o urban conservationneeds.”

The Papillion Creek Watershed Part-nership is a prime example. Its missionis to establish regionally common goalsand objectives that address waterquality and water quantity issues in the402-square-mile watershed by the year2040. The partnership is nearing comple-tion o a management plan or the water-shed, a process that has taken three

years. It is ocusing on a variety o strate-gies, including low-impact developmenttechniques that hold water where it alls,enhanced stream corridors, setbacks andregional water detention strategies suchas food control structures.

The ootprint o rural activitiesremains in the orm o Army Corps o Engineers food control structures andNatural Resources Conservation Serviceerosion control structures. Several werecompleted be ore the Corps ran out o unding and the landscape changed romrural to urban. The existing structureshave value, and the district has addedothers, primarily or food protection. Thenew structures are multiple-use. Theycontrol foods but also serve as commu-nity amenities – lakes with walking trails,water access and other bene ts.

One success ul strategy has been toemploy public-private partnerships in

the construction o food-control dams.“The latest structure we built in 2006 costabout $8 million, and a developer contrib-uted more than $1.5 million,” Petermannsays. The resulting housing develop-ment bene ts rom being near water. Themanmade lake is ringed with a bu er orwater quality, o ers public access and ispart o a park. “We got a needed food-

control structure, and they got to buildhouses around water. It’s a win-win situ-ation i we work together,” Petermannsays. “With our limited unding, we needto be creative.”

Urban water quality e orts are drivenby storm water permitting requiredby ederal law and administered bythe Nebraska Department o Environ-mental Quality. Communities will bere-permitted in 2009, and the partnershipis developing a new regional storm waterplan. “By addressing water quality issuesrom a watershed basis rather than indi-vidually as communities, it can not onlybe more e cient and e ective, but alsoless costly, because many o the activitiescan be combined,” Petermann says.

Communities have already seen theadvantages o working together. Thepartnership has developed a single set o rules or controlling erosion on develop-

ment sites. The city o Omaha serves asinspector or all the communities. Devel-opers know that rules are consistent romcommunity to community, and havingone inspector is more uni orm and e -cient.

Developing a comprehensive planthat addresses multiple issues is a tallorder, especially because the group

relies on consensus rather than majorityvotes to reach agreement. But progresshas been steady. Extensive public inputwill be incorporated into a nal plan,and regular reviews and adjustments torefect progress and changing conditionswill be needed. Most o the unding orimplementation will come rom localsources. “We’re looking at the best waysto maximize local resources to meetfood control and water quality needs,”Petermann says.

More in ormation: Contact MarlinPetermann at [email protected]. Learn more about the PapillionCreek Watershed Partnership at www.papiopartnership.org/.

A drainage and food control channel in the community o Papillion is lined with trails that people useor walking, biking and other activities.




Nevada

g AiNiNg a oothold in e ortsto eradicate noxious weeds islike herding cats. They’re not

always where you want them to be.That’s one o the lessons learned by

partners in noxious weed control on theWalker River basin in western Nevada. But

the weeds may be corralled by a projectthat ocuses on pinpointing where theyare and then eradicating them a water-shed at a time. The rst step is devel-oping a comprehensive map.

“We’ve known or some time thata comprehensive map is not avail-

able,” says Michelle Langsdor , districtmanager o the Mason Valley and Smith

Valley conservation districts. The districtschair the Walker River Basin Coopera-tive Weed Management Area (CWMA),comprised o landowners and local, stateand ederal agencies. “All the stake-

The Mason and Smith Valley conservation districts in Nevada participated wi th partners in a Streambank Soil Bioengineering Technical Training Workshop.The site was experiencing drastic bank erosion. Partners in the workshop included the Nevada Division o Environmental Protection, Western NevadaResource Conservation and Development, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Nevada Division o Water Resources. Workshop participantsreshaped the stream bank, installed rock re usal trenches, rock and vegetated barbs, willow bundles, juniper revetments, live stakes and erosion controlblankets.

t ckli g oxio s w s w sh im

Controlling noxious weeds requires watershed approaches and strongpartnerships. Two conservation districts have joined orces with local,state and ederal partners to get the work done.




holders in the basin got together to ndthose gray areas where noxious weedsaren’t targeted or unding is not avail-able. Those are the areas where weedsthrive most,” she says.

The partners decided to coordinatee orts to have a greater impact. Theconservation districts have a central role.The partners decided to address weedson a watershed basin. The Walker Riverhas east and west branches that join into amain stem. Each o the stems has a reser-voir that serves agricultural producerswho grow al al a, garlic and onion andgraze cattle and sheep.

“We’ve targeted the east stem rst.It’s about 75 miles long and has privatelandowners and ederal land managersalong the way,” she says. “Some o theareas are pretty remote, and becausepeople aren’t back there, we don’t reallyknow what’s in there.” Gaining access ormapping and subsequent eradicatione orts isn’t always easy, but the conser-vation districts’ local identity helps. “Wehave access to 99 percent o the eastork, and the portions we haven’t gottenaccess to, the landowners haven’t saidno,” she says.

The districts are developing a compre-hensive map o the basin, and that willbe ollowed by eradication e orts spear-headed by the CWMA and the districts.The partners will move on to the westbranch next year and then the mainstem.

Funding includes the ederal DesertTerminal Lakes Program, in this caseadministered by the U.S. Fish and Wild-li e Service. The program’s goal is to

assure water supplies to at-risk desertterminal lakes. Lyon County providesbase unding, and the Nevada Depart-ment o Agriculture helps und CWMA.The Walker River Irrigation Districtprovides equipment. The state Depart-ment o Wildli e will provide work crewsor eradication e orts, especially on di -cult terrain. State departments o WaterResources and Environmental Resourcesare engaged, as are Cooperative Exten-

sion and dozens o local landowners. Inaddition to the Fish and Wildli e Service,the ederal Environmental ProtectionAgency and Forest Service are involved.The Natural Resources Conservation

Service provides technical assistance.“The districts would not be doing

good work i not or our partners,” Langs-dor says.

Langsdor has the services o a districttechnician, and she also contracts withthe Americorps Program or a two-personseasonal eld sta . She also trains volun-teers who replant native species.

Targeted weeds include tamarask(salt cedar), perennial pepper weed,Canada thistle, puncture vine, hoarycress, spotted and Russian knapweed.What makes them noxious weeds? “Thesimplest way I explain is all noxious weedsare invasive, but not all invasive weedsare noxious,” she says. Nevada identi-es noxious weeds or several reasons,including displacement o native vegeta-tion; reduced value o an area or wildli e,agriculture, recreation and other uses;reduced biodiversity; altered nutrientand water cycling; and increased streamsedimentation.

The weeds’ impact on marketing agri-cultural commodities can be signi cant.It’s illegal to transport noxious weeds inNevada. The vast majority o crops aresold to Cali ornia, which has even more

stringent noxious weed laws.Langsdor likes the partners’ chances.

“We eel there’s a possibility to eradicaterather than manage some o these popu-lations.”

The traditional role conservationdistricts serve in education is important,Langsdor says. “I people don’t under-stand why something is a bad plant andcare about why, we’re not going to getanywhere,” she says.

The districts hold workshops or localresidents on weed identi cation andmanagement, and on sa e use o herbi-cides. In the schools, the districts and theWestern Nevada Resource Conservationand Development Council combine tosponsor Walker River Basin Work Days,which reaches out to elementary andsecondary students with education in theschools and in the eld.

More in ormation: Contact Langs-dor at michelle.langsdor @nv.nacdnet.net.

Education is crucial to understanding watershed issues. Here, students participate in a Walker RiverBasin Workday held in Smith, Nevada.




New Jersey

C oNSeRvAtioNiSt AldoLeopold taught that the rst ruleo intelligent tinkering is to save

all the parts.In the case o heavily developed states

like New Jersey, some o the parts werediscarded, and new, di erent parts wereadded. Managing storm water and

improving watershed unction in thissetting is a challenge, but local conser-vationists working in the Camden SoilConservation District and other districtshave rolled up their sleeves to get thework done.

In New Jersey, legal authorizationsto discharge storm water are issued by

local soil conservation districts in coop-eration with the State Soil ConservationCommittee and the New Jersey Depart-ment o Agriculture. That has led to abroader role or districts in watershed-based planning and regulatory activity.

“When you have this much activitygoing on or so long, you have to work

S ki g b l c i l b w sh

Watershed work is challenging in any environment, but highly developed urban areaspresent multiple layers o issues and many stakeholders. The Camden Soil ConservationDistrict and others in The Garden State are leaders in storm water management e orts.

Degraded stream beds resulting rom fashing storm water are among the ocuses o e orts by the Camden Soil and Water Conservation District to improvewatershed unction in a primarily urban setting.




to get it cleaned up,” says Craig McGee,Camden District project manager orregional storm water management.

Using a grant rom the New JerseyDepartment o Environmental Protection

(DEP), Camden has worked with the Burl-ington, Gloucester and Cape-Atlanticdistricts to develop regional storm watermanagement plans. “We’ve been thelead agency, but when we work in theirdistricts, they help out and coordinateactivities. The ability o districts to worktogether is important. Watersheds don’tstop at boundaries,” McGee says.

The DEP grant targeted developmento regional storm water managementplans in ve watersheds. They range in

size rom 200 acres to 80 square miles,and represent varied conditions on thecoastal plain. The district partnered withmunicipalities, DEP, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, Rutgers and Rowanuniversities and the New Jersey Depart-ment o Agriculture on various aspects o the work.

“We prepared characterization andassessment reports and, ultimately,management strategies,” McGee says.A broad group o local stakeholders wasinvolved. “The technical work is easy. Thestakeholder part is the hard work,” saysMcGee. “There’s an education process.Why care about a river? It requires a lot o people to come to the table, to partici-pate and nd out what they are interestedin, or at least what they will support. Imust say, it hasn’t been easy. When inthe room, people are supportive o whatwe’re talking about. But are they going toollow up with their municipalities?”

The ve watershed reports came outover about a year and a hal , in 2004-05,ollowed by a nal report. One lessonlearned was that the state has work to dobe ore it can truly enact regional stormwater management. New Jersey munici-palities are accustomed to home rule.“It’s hard or a regional agency or evenworse no regional agency to say ‘Youhave to adopt those requirements,’ ”says McGee. Still, the watershed work has

value as municipalities seek to complywith phase two o the Change CleanWater Act to National Pollutant DischargeElimination System and develop stormwater management plans. Implementing

local plans will bene t rom the regionalplanning process and rom municipalcooperation on that work. “Whetheryou’re urban or rural, storm water issuescannot be addressed by one municipality.It has to be holistic, a watershed-wideapproach,” says McGee.

Now the district is ocused on imple-menting recommendations in the water-shed plans. With plans in place, targetedunding such as Environmental Protec-tion Agency 319 grants administered

by the state can be applied to addresspriorities.

One model project is in the CooperRiver Watershed, where fooding typicalo altered urban systems o ten occurs.Early development pretty much ignoredstorm water management, except to “getit o o the road and down to the creek,”says McGee. Over the years, storm waterbasins were added. One recommenda-

tion was to retro t some o the basins tohandle the more requent storm watersurges in the urban setting and improvewater quality in the system.

The district received grant unds to

retro t ve basins in the town o CherryHill. Work was completed in spring 2008and included reintroducing or enhancingwetlands, replacing mowed grass withriparian bu er vegetation and modi yingoutlet structures in basins to lengthenwater fow patterns and improve in ltra-tion. Monitoring or water quality, infowand outfow will gauge success.

The district has also received undingor stream restoration work at the head-waters o the river, where erosion has

pushed sediment downstream.There’s plenty o work ahead in this and

other watersheds, but the process hasalready led to some intelligent tinkering.

More in ormation: Contact McGeeat [email protected]. Morein ormation on the district’s work is at www.camdenscd.org/watershe.htm.

Volunteers are busy planting nearly 800 herbaceous and woody plants in a basin in Cherry Hil l Town-

ship, New Jersey. The planting was part o a project led by the Camden Soil and Water ConservationDistrict to retro t an existing food control basin into a bio-in ltration basin with extended stormwater detention. Woody plants were selected to enhance wildli e habitat, while the herbaceous plantsare helping to lter pollutants rom storm water runo .




New Hampshire

Whe N 11 partners gatheredin May 2008 to sign an agree-ment orming the Coastal

Watershed Invasive Plant Partnership(CWIPP), one local group was repre-sented. Standing with representatives o state and ederal agencies was CynthiaSmith, chair o the Rockingham CountyConservation District in New Hampshire.

“I am signing this on behal o thelandowners o Rockingham County,” saidSmith, a dairy armer and member o theconservation district board since 1989.

Smith’s brie comments had realmeaning. “When they decided toormalize the weed management areawith this agreement, they knew thedistrict was going to play an integral role,because we are the only entity that workswith the landowners,” says Mary Currier,district executive director. “They reallyneeded and wanted us at the table. Thedistrict is the one entity that can repre-sent all o the landowners.”

It’s believed that CWIPP is the rstormal agreement o its kind in NewEngland.

Other signatories include ve stateagencies, the Natural Resources Conser-vation Service, U.S. Forest Service, TheNature Conservancy, the Great BayNational Estuarine Research Reserve andUniversity o New Hampshire Extension.

CWIPP’s goal is to stop the spread o invasive plant species in New Hampshire’scoastal watershed, an area covering 42towns in Rockingham and Stra ord coun-ties. The coastal watershed is habitat ormore than 130 native plant species, butthey have been put at risk by the advanceo non-native species. The newcomersinclude pepperweed, phragmites,oriental bittersweet, burning bush andpurple loosestri e.

Based on an organizational modelpopular in the western United States,the new partnership aims to reduce thethreat o invasive plants through preven-

tion, various control methods ( rommechanical to biological), monitoringand outreach.

The Rockingham District was a knowncommodity or many o the partners.The district’s work on coastal restorationstretches back to 1992, when it partneredwith the U.S. Fish and Wildli e Serviceand other agencies on a cooperativeagreement to restore a tidal marsh. Thedistrict coordinated that project. In 2005,the district joined with F&WS and otheragencies to coordinate habitat restora-tion on private lands degraded by humanactivity. Work included invasive speciescontrol.

District involvement on these proj-ects began with the leadership o itsboard. “Our board o supervisors madea long-term commitment that we wouldbe a party to this process. Since thattime, we have stepped up and taken amajor active role in some o the undingand oversight o projects. We handledmoney, contracted or services and havegotten some o the invasives control work

done,” says Currier. “The heritage o thisdistrict is to move orward and get thework done. We don’t have time to messaround.”

Currier and Conservation SpecialistTracey Degnan handle sta duties onthe projects. The district’s roles in CWIPPwill be varied. It will work with NRCSon management plans or some sites,handle requests or proposals or work

dis ic ol c ci l o

co s l i v siv pl s o A conservation district serves as the local link in an ambitious partnershipto control invasive plant species along a coastal watershed.

“Wh h y ci o o m liz h wm g m wi h his g m , h yk w h is ic w s goi g o pl y i g lol , b c s w h o ly i y h wo ks

wi h h l ow s.” Mary Currier

Executive Director, Rockingham County Conservation District




on project sites and coordinate its activi-ties with other agencies.

Controlling invasive species is nosimple task. “There are di erent treat-ments depending on the species,”Currier says. In many cases, the plantshave altered natural systems. “Some o them have created such pools o waterthat mosquitoes are terrible. We need

to have fow coming and going in thesecoastal areas so that the other critters cando their jobs,” Currier says.

There are concerns that global climatechange will cause more disruption.“Pepperweed is moving north becauseo warming. What we want to do is stop itrom moving arther north,” Currier says.

The district was part o the CWIPP plan-ning process rom the start. The partner-

ship ormalizes and streamlines e orts tocontrol invasive species and achieve saltmarsh restoration. Project monitoringwill be supported by an extensive data-base created by The Nature Conservancy(TNC). Using Geographic In ormationSystem technology, TNC documentedplant distribution on sites across theproject area. Project work will be trackedon that database, providing a livingrecord or uture work.

Currier’s advice or other local conser-vation entities: “Think big. Under ourstate law, at least, there isn’t much conser-vation districts can’t do. So we do it.”

More in ormation: Contact Currier at [email protected]. Visit the www.rockinghamccd.org or more in orma-tion on CWIPP and other district activi-ties.

Representatives o 11 partnering agencies gathered in May 2008 to sign an agreement to orm the New Hampshire Coastal Watershed Invasive Plant

Partnership. Representing the Rockingham County Conservation District was Board Chair Cynthia Smith (third rom le t). The Rockingham District plays amajor role in the partnership.

“thi k big. u o s l w, l s , his ’ m ch co s v io is ic s c ’ o. So

w o i .”




Ohio

A RePoRt on Ohio’s agingand neglected rural drainagesystems doesn’t mince words:

“What i someone told you thatin rastructure critical or daily li e andcommerce over two-thirds o Ohio, or 17million acres, was at risk? Would you beconcerned? The ODNR Division o Soiland Water Conservation and the OhioFederation o Soil and Water Conserva-tion Districts and their partners are, andhope you are, too.”

The report, issued in early 2008, istitled “Rural Drainage Systems: Agen-cies and Organizations Reach Consensuson Ways Forward.” It outlines problems

such as unding shortages, project back-logs, resistance rom some stakeholdersand a general lack o in ormation aboutthe importance o the in rastructure.It also steers a course or uture action,addresses environmental concerns andsets the stage or water quality trading asa part o uture projects. Partners in thebroad-based initiative included groupsrepresenting rural and agricultural inter-ests, state and local agencies, and envi-ronmental and nature organizations.

Producer Kenneth Riedlinger, aWyandot County Soil and Water Conser-vation District board supervisor, is cred-ited with raising awareness about the

issue. Riedlinger, also a member o the National Association o Conserva-tion Districts board o directors, wasco-leader o the initiative. He, in turn,credits co-leader David Hanselmann,chie o the Ohio Department o NaturalResources (ODNR) Division o Soil andWater Conservation, or oresight andleadership.

The importance o the issue backhome in Wyandot County is what gotRiedlinger and other board supervisorsinterested. Ohio requires ormal peti-tions or group drainage problems, thosethat a ect multiple landowners. Theprocess was clogged by backlogs and

Members o an advisory committee view a drainage system as part o eld tours to in orm the development o the Ohio drainage report.

n w lli c s o g o ss

gi g i g sys msEducation and solid in ormation replace discord in discussions about fxingthe state’s aging rural drainage in rastructure.




challenges rom environmental groupsand some landowners who stood to beassessed or projects. “We brought thesegroups to the table to discuss how wecould continue addressing rural drainageproblems. Sometimes maybe you bringin your partners that are somewhat inopposition to what you’re doing, and yougive them an education,” says Riedlinger.“Education o other people was probablyone o the biggest things that made thissuccess ul.”

“Our co-leaders saw the need toaddress this huge problem on two levels,environmental and agricultural,” says KirkHines, ODNR engineering administrator.“We made it very much like a watershed,where you pull all the stakeholders in.”

The process was an eye-opener onseveral ronts. It included a survey o 88 SWCDs and a like number o countyengineers responsible or drainage proj-ects. In addition to conficts with environ-mental organizations that saw drainage asa negative impact, the survey producedother issues not previously identi ed,including sta and unding shortages,lack o public education and outreach

and the need to address environmentalconcerns.The report calls on conservation

districts and county engineers to heightenpublic awareness. Also recommendedare unding increases, a streamlinedreview process and an appeals processor landowners/petitioners. It also callsor a more consistent and uni orm costvs. bene t analysis that considers envi-ronmental, social, economic and otheractors.

Next steps include incorporating someo the recommendations into state stat-utes and development o a drainagemanual that includes a drainage needsassessment tool. The manual will serveas a re erence guide or SWCDs, countycommissioners and engineers, contrac-tors, stream/wetland mitigation enti-ties, private landowners and residentsinvolved with projects.

The report o ers tables that seek tostrike a air balance or project consider-ation, depending on environmental valuesassigned to speci c projects. One o thetables outlines a ramework to developincentives and an “economic trading

market-driven” approach to ditch designin upland and transition landscapes o agricultural watersheds. Ohio is in theprocess o dra ting new rules on waterquality and stream use, and portions o the tables will be incorporated into thoserules.

Ohio already has water quality trading,says Hines. Installing drainage BMPscould open the door or public undingrom entities like wastewater treatmentplants that would invest in reducing nutri-

ents be ore they arrive at the plant, ratherthan treating them.

One reason the group reachedconsensus was the demonstration o need or drainage, especially in westernOhio, where glaciated soils drain poorly.“We’ve had enough sound in ormationthat we can show poor drainage cana ect productivity by 30 percent in ourglaciated areas in state,” says Riedlinger.

The group also came to better under-stand how changing rural land usescompound the di culties getting groupimprovement projects approved. “Weused to have ve landowners in a groupproject, and now there are maybe 20 that

we have to get approval rom to moveorward,” Hines says. Field trips helpededucate group members about theimpact o changing land use.

As Riedlinger says, the value o educa-tion gained through the process can’tbe underestimated. “We have agingdrainage in rastructure that’s a ectingeverybody. It needs to be xed. Hope-ully the increased public knowledge willlead to unding and support.”

More in ormation: Contact Riedlinger at [email protected]. Contact Hinesat [email protected]. Read the drainage report at www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/20157/de ault.aspx.

A naturalized stream channel design or an Ohio drainage ditch incorporates “benches” and vegeta-tive lters. Sponsors o the model project included Mr. and Mrs. Joe St. John, Hillsdale Soil and WaterConservation District, Hillsdale County, the Hillsdale County Drainage Commission, NRCS and OhioState University. Funders were The Nature Conservancy and the Great Lakes Commission.




Oklahoma

A S watershed-scale conservationwork advances across America,monitoring becomes more

important to validate spending publicresources on voluntary measures aimedat improving water quality.

“Water quality monitoring is essen-tial. You have to collect oodles o data,because what you are doing with waterquality monitoring is just taking snap-shots at any one time,” says Shanon Phil-lips, assistant director o the OklahomaConservation Commission Water QualityDivision. Extensive monitoring was parto projects on two impaired waterways,Beaty Creek in eastern Oklahoma andwestern Arkansas, and Peacheater Creek

in eastern Oklahoma. It showed that best-management practices work and openedthe door to new unding opportunitiesor work on other watersheds.

The streams are both part o largerwatersheds and are lodged in one o

the nation’s top poultry-raising regions.Land-spread poultry litter ertilizes grass-lands, enhancing their value or livestockgrazing. It’s a good ormula or pairedoperations, but streams in the watershedsbecame impaired rom overloading o phosphorous and other byproducts o animal agriculture.

The Conservation Commission estab-lished locally led watershed advisorygroups comprised o stakeholders in

the watersheds. The groups identi edbest-management practices (BMPs) orstreams and upland areas. State appro-priations were combined with Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) 319grant unds to provide cost-sharing or

producers, and conservation districtsplayed a major role in implementing theprojects at the local level.

That’s a amiliar approach or watershedprojects, but the Beaty and Peacheaterprojects had another important compo-nent. EPA provided additional undingor monitoring using a statistical modeldeveloped at North Carolina State Univer-sity. Control watersheds were paired with

Mo i o i g l s o mo oppo i i sHeightened monitoring on two watershed projects shows that best-managementpractices work and opens doors to more cost-sharing opportunities.

Monitoring or Oklahoma watershed projects includes collecting data on benthic macro-invertebrate communities in streams.




project watersheds to gauge the e ect o BMPs.

“This paired or nested monitoringallows you separate out impacts o climateover time to ocus on changes due to

implementation,” Phillips says. “Youchoose watersheds close to one anotherthat have the same weather conditions.Be ore you move to implementation,you do monitoring in the watershedsand prove that they respond similarlyto natural conditions. You can then usethe pre-implementation relationship tocompare to post-implementation.”

Conventional modeling may require 10to 20 years to show impacts. The paired-watershed approach produces valid data

within three years and can detect signi -cant changes within ve to 10 years, Phil-lips says.

Monitoring or phosphorous producedve years o weekly loading estimates.The results or Beaty showed BMPsreduced phosphorous loading by 31percent. Peacheater had a 71 percentdecline. Substantial declines in nitrogenwere also recorded, and sh populationsincreased signi cantly.

Phillips credits the monitoring resultsor increased state unding or work inother watersheds and or directing state-ederal Conservation Reserve Enhance-ment Program cost-sharing to someprojects to achieve long-term riparianimprovements.

But monitoring is only o value i enough BMPs are established to makea di erence. Conservation districts andother partners made that happen. In theBeaty watershed, the Delaware CountyConservation District in Oklahoma andBenton County Conservation Districtin neighboring Arkansas played majorroles, cooperating with numerous otherpartners ranging rom ederal and stateagencies to Cooperative Extension andthe city o Tulsa. The Peacheater projectincluded the Adair and Cherokee districtsworking with several other partners.

“These programs that seek to a ectagricultural impacts cannot happen

without local conservation districts,” Phil-lips says. “Those are the people localproducers go to or results.” Partners relyon that credibility when new programsare introduced, she says. “It takes time toconvince people when you come in withnew programs that there aren’t going tobe negative impacts down the road.”

She also credits districts or convincingthe state Legislature to increase undingor the state’s match to ederal grants.

The commission uses some o itsproject unds to place additional sta indistricts to help implement watershedprograms. Districts are engaged withoutreach, sign-ups, approval o plansand certi ying cost-share payments.District board members serve on water-shed advisory groups along with otherstakeholders. In the case o Peacheaterand Beaty, stakeholder members alsoincluded agricultural producers, home-owners, minority membership and repre-sentatives rom the Oklahoma Trust orPublic Land.

The Beaty project also eatured coop-eration and use o EPA unds across statelines. In that project, 63 percent o land-owners in Oklahoma and 28 percent inArkansas installed BMPs that includedriparian management, bu ers, streambank stabilization, composters/animal

waste storage acilities, pasture manage-ment, proper waste utilization and septicsystems.

Lessons learned rom Oklahoma’sprojects include the need to ocus workon areas that produce the most bene t.“It’s important to target implementationtoward your most signi cant sourcesthat a ect water quality. In smaller water-sheds, it’s pretty easy to do that, but ina larger watershed, you can’t be every-where at the same time,” Phillips says.The state uses the Source Water Assess-ment Program avored by EPA to assist inwatershed assessment.

The commission has done projects ineight o the state’s top 10 priority water-sheds. “With the success we’ve hadgetting landowners energized and docu-menting achievements, we’re ndingnew sources o money to support thesee orts,” she says.

More in ormation: Contact ShanonPhillips at [email protected]. More in ormation on thewatershed work is at www.ok.gov/ okcc.

Measuring or stream bank erosion on an Oklahoma stream.




Oregon

i f necessity is the mother o inven-tion, Rapid Watershed Assessments(RWAs) are good examples o what

results.Originally applied to the 2001 water

crisis in the Klamath Basin o Oregon andCali ornia, Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service (NRCS) RWAs have becomevaluable planning tools across thecountry. More than 20 states have usedRWAs, and many o those states havedone so in multiple watersheds.

RWAs collect existing in ormation toprovide initial estimates o where conser-vation investments will best address theconcerns o landowners, conservationdistricts and other organizations andstakeholders within a watershed. RWAshelp conservation districts develop localwork plans linked to available programunds and other resources.

Drought and impacts o the Endan-gered Species Act had more than 1,300arms and ranches on the ropes with the

threat o irrigation water shuto s in theKlamath Basin in 2001. Tom Makowski,NRCS leader or the water resources

planning team in Oregon, says inputrom the Klamath Soil and Water Conser-vation District in Oregon and eventuallyve other districts established our localconservation objectives: irrigated waterconservation, sh and wildli e habitatimprovement, orest land health andgrazing land health. “What they wantedwas in ormation to make decisions,”Makowski says. Districts wanted a big-picture idea o programs and resourcesthat would be available to sustain

producers and address conservationconcerns.

“We worked with Cali ornia andOregon planning teams. It soundsobvious in hindsight, but we said, ‘Let’stake the in ormation that’s available,’ ”Makowski says. “The problem was, it wasa huge area o public and private land,ve million acres out there. We were

used to a maximum o 550,000. It was hal public and hal private land. That’s wherethe idea o watershed boundaries came

in. How else could we break this up todo some work on it? We had to prioritizeareas. Certain areas had more grazing,other watersheds more irrigated acres.We pulled in ormation together on landuse, land cover, precipitation, climate,stream fow data and other areas. Weadded census and social data on armsand armers and their history and thehistory o conservation there. That wasthe rst descriptive piece, a watershedpro le.”

To this in ormation, the teams addeda matrix that included an assessment o current conditions and a table o utureconditions that identi ed appropriatesuites o conservation practices availableto deal with the local resource concernsor various land uses. Numerous localmeetings ollowed to make sure in orma-tion corresponded with what conservationdistricts knew and how they addressedlocal resource concerns in their businessplans.

The tool helped NRCS at the nationallevel to clearly identi y needs or policy-makers. That led to $50 million beingdesignated or the Klamath Basin in the2002 Farm Bill.

Their e ectiveness highlighted, RWAswere seen as processes that could be repli-cated in watersheds across the country.Thus, in 2006, was born a new watershedplanning tool. RWA teams were assem-

to gh p obl m o g

impo ool NRCS Rapid Watershed Assessments use existing in ormation to provide a big-picture look at

watersheds and costs associated with protecting them. The assessments allow conservation districts

and partners to identi y and apply unding sources to accomplish local conservation goals.

“Wh yo c g p opl lki g o o hp opl i h w sh h y ll h v p so l i s i wh ’s goi g o i h

w sh , i h lps h m o s h y h v hs m missio .”

Jan Marie SurfaceNRCS national watershed planner




bled within states and regions. Fundinghas come rom baseline conservationtechnical assistance appropriations.Initially, the agency sought both externaland internal requests or proposals (RFPs)to conduct assessments. But outsideorganizations didn’t have access toenough in ormation to complete assess-ments, so RFPs are now conducted byagency teams. In addition to nationalunding, states can choose to use someo their base unding to complete RWAs.

“We’ve had more requests or undingthan we have unding available tocomplete them,” says Jan Marie Sur ace,NRCS national watershed planner.

Makowski is quick to note that becauseRWAs provide a big picture o water-sheds, they aren’t speci c enough toserve as watershed action plans. “RWAshelp get discussion started by providinguse ul in ormation to people,” he says.

“RWA really does acilitate the locally led,community-based approach.”RWAs are also reality checks. “What

they invariably show is that the price tox resource concerns is way too expen-sive or NRCS. What it says is that no oneagency is going to be able to solve theproblem,” Makowski says. Local conser-vation districts sometimes realize theycan do the job cheaper. RWAs also serveto point the way to other agencies thataddress land uses NRCS doesn’t, such

as upland orests. In ormation compiledin RWAs can also be the basis or grantproposals and e orts to corner resourcesneeded to achieve watershed goals.

The assessments serve these and otherunctions, Sur ace says. “It could be agood tool to determine where sta ngneeds might be in the uture.” Talking tostate contacts, she’s learned that RWAsconnect stakeholders. “When you canget people talking to other people in the

watershed and they all have a personalinterest in what’s going on in that water-shed, it helps them to see they have thesame mission. This o ten brings peopleace to ace or the rst time, and I thinkthat’s invaluable.” For the past coupleo years, she has encouraged RWA workacross state lines.

Previously, RWAs ocused on soil,water, air, plants, animals and humanimpacts. Under the new Farm Bill, energywas added.

Sur ace sees RWAs as one toolamong many to make watershed plan-ning possible. “Although I’m the NRCSnational watershed planner, it doesn’thave to be our process. Other tools canwork, as long as we’re getting partnerstogether,” she says.

For more on RWAs, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/rwa/index.html.

NRCS rapid watershed assessments pinpoint resources and land uses within a watershed, rom mountains and orests to grazing and other agriculturalpractices. (NRCS photo)




South Dakota

A bout 10 years ago, a smallbut determined group o landowners and conservation

district representatives decided the time

was right to take matters into their ownhands. Rather than waiting or outsidegroups to determine the ate o the hugeBelle Fourche River Watershed in westernSouth Dakota and eastern Wyoming andMontana, they decided to get to workthemselves.

Thus was born the Belle Fourche RiverWatershed Partnership, a model that hasbeen showcased or visiting audiencesrom across the nation. “It was localleadership at its nest and an early inno-

vation in the watershed concept,” saysproject consultant Jared Oswald. “It’s theepitome o locally led, and it’s success ulbecause they are innovators.”

The Butte, Lawrence and Elk Creekconservation districts and the BelleFourche Irrigation District are votingmembers o the partnership. It works withdozens o other local, state and nationalpartners to address sedimentation andsuspended solids in the South Dakota

portion o the watershed, a landscapedominated by rangeland, irrigated crop-ping and, increasingly, residential devel-opment. The group has made steady

progress on several impaired segmentso the watershed over the past decade.

Tim Reich, president o the group,recalls that the idea was born over acup o co ee with a riend who workedwith the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service (NRCS). “We were looking atour watershed, and we said we neededto gure out where to prioritize e ortsrather than picking up a little piece hereand there or the next 50 years,” saysReich. He is no stranger to locally led

conservation. He’s a longtime conserva-tion district leader in South Dakota and aormer national o cer with the NationalAssociation o Conservation Districts.

State and ederal o cials discouragedthem, saying it was too big a task orthe small group. But the idea took hold.“We listened to their arguments, devel-oped our counters and nally developeda proposal to do a macro study o thewatershed,” Reich says. The three-year

study was conducted in cooperationwith the South Dakota School o Minesand Technology. The study producedsolid data that helped the fedgling

partnership begin to address watershedissues. An NRCS watershed analysis wasconducted in conjunction with the study,urther solidi ying the group’s data.

“We wanted to establish that withthe arming, ranching, mining and someurban development in the watershed, wewere doing some things responsibly,”Reich says. We established a base thatsaid we can do things better in someareas, but also that said we’re doingsome things right.”

I success is measured in dollars, thepartnership has had its share. Total invest-ment in the watershed work has exceeded$9 million. That includes $2.5 million inEnvironmental Protection Agency 319unds, $3.7 million rom local and statesources and $2.5 million in ederal undsrom sources such as the EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program (EQIP). A2007 NRCS Conservation InnovationGrant o $500,000 is unding develop-ment o a Web-based interactive irriga-tion scheduling calculator customized orproducers.

The ocus o the partnership’s e ortshas been improving irrigation and range-land practices, based on a 10-year Stra-tegic Implementation Plan. It includesapplying best management practices(BMPs) such as replacing open canals andlaterals with pipelines, addressing unusedwater storage ponds, improving grazingmanagement through the use o rota-

Loc l l ship, i ov io

p i So h d koA small group o local landowners and organizations partnered to improve waterquality in the Belle Fourche River Watershed. The results are impressive.

“I w s loc l l ship i s s ly i ov io i h w sh co c p . I ’s

h pi om o loc lly l , i ’s s cc ss lb c s h y i ov o s.”

Jared OswaldProject Consultant, Belle Fourche River Watershed Partnership




tional grazing and providing o -streamwater supplies or livestock. Producersin the irrigation district have relied onfood irrigation in the past. Several haveconverted to center-pivot systems, whichincreases e ciency dramatically andeliminates the fow o sediment-ladenwater into the river.

Cost-sharing on BMPs has come rom319 grants, state support and FarmBill program unds. “The partnershiphas piggy-backed with EQIP to helpproducers,” Oswald says. “The partner-ship works well with NRCS. The NRCSsta has good relations with the commu-nity. Maybe a producer doesn’t quali y orEQIP, but the sta may be able to connecthim to the partnership and its programs,”says Oswald.

Oswald credits targeted implementa-

tion o practices or water quality gains.“We’re using modeling to determinewhere to put practices. It provides thebiggest bang or the buck,” he says.The long-term goal is to have the BelleFourche River meet all o the water qualitystandards or the river’s uses, includingproviding water to residents, livestockand agriculture.

Reich is concerned about the need toaddress the whole watershed and also

about the rapid increase in residential

development. But he’s convinced that thedecision to put local talent to the task o protecting the watershed was right. Notthat he’s looking or attention. “We canget a lot done i we really, truly don’t carewho gets the credit,” he says, adding:“Resource work is never done.”

Contact Tim Reich at 605-892-4366.More on the partnership is at www.belle ourchewatershed.org.

Success accomplished by the Belle Fourche River Watershed Partnership has drawn tour groups rom across the U.S.

“W c g lo o i w lly, ly o ’ c who g s h c i .”

Tim ReichPresident, Belle Fourche River Watershed Partnership




Virginia

t he Landcare movement madeits way rom Australia to Americaseveral years ago. In Virginia, it

is described as a cooperative, sustain-able approach to land management that

produces economic, social, and environ-mental bene ts desired by landownersand their partners.

With support rom the Virginia TechLandcare Center and other partners, twoLandcare organizations have emerged.Catawba Landcare and Grayson Land-care share a common trait: Their actionsare driven by local citizens who identi yissues and actions. Conservation districts

will recognize this approach or its simi-larities to their locally led process.

Catawba Landcare in southwest Virginia was ormed by a group o land-owners in the Catawba Valley. It works

to encourage a healthy and sustainableenvironment in the Catawba Creek andNorth Fork watersheds and promotesopen space across Roanoke and Mont-gomery counties. Landowners make upthe core group, but a variety o otherpartners participate in meetings.

Grayson Landcare near the North Caro-lina border is comprised o armers, land-owners and other residents concernedabout economic and environmental

problems and retaining the rural char-acter o the Appalachian landscape o southwest Virginia.

The groups ocus on what they wantthe land to look like in the uture and

what steps can be taken to get there.They deal with similar issues, includingrapid increases in land values, develop-ment and encroachment on rural lands.

The Catawba group gathers tosocialize and explore issues and opportu-nities, says Coordinator Christy Gabbard.“People are at the same level, talkingabout things that matter at the commu-nity level. Landowners say it’s a di erentway o learning, and it’s non-threatening.

Stream bank restoration was an early accomplishment o Catawba Landcare.

L c s cc ss s s wi h l ow sLandcare helps shape conservation rom the ground up in two regions o the state. The results are citizen-led sustainable land use e orts that supportlocal economies and the environment.




Caring or the land is the crux o theirinterest, but coming out o it is the ideao building community networks.”

The group has worked some with theNew River and Blue Ridge conservationdistricts, and Gabbard sees opportuni-ties or more engagement in Landcare,especially to acilitate and coordinate ornew groups.

In its brie existence, Catawba Land-care’s work includes community-drivenstream restoration e orts on a tributary o the Roanoke River. It ocused on restoringtrout habitat and improving water quality.Funds rom the Virginia Department o Game and Inland Waters provide costsharing o 90 percent. One landowner

restored 2,500 steam eet. More than8,000 stream eet will be restored thisyear. Other bene ts include protectingreservoirs that provide communitydrinking water.

Sustainable working lands projectsare explored at a 400-acre arm ownedby Virginia Tech, where the Landcaregroup has ocused on developing inno-vative initiatives and the markets neededto support them. Among several proj-ects, the group is experimenting with

growing warm season grasses or orageand bioenergy. Talks are under way withCatawba Hospital, located across theroad, which is interested in using thegrass as a uel source or its boiler. “Thehospital is very interested, but we will notbe able to supply enough, so we’ll haveto connect with landowners to grow eed-stock as well,” she says.

The arm is also being used to providecommunity trails, showcase low-impactdevelopment and agro orestry, anddevelop protocols and guidelines orstream bank mitigation credits. Land-owners are experimenting with commu-nity-supported agriculture, raising polli-nator bees and developing a local oodsdistribution center.

Grayson Landcare Coordinator JerryMoles’ work or New River Land Trustled him to Landcare. Conservation ease-ments can help preserve rural character,but developing sustainable working lands

activities is also important. “I you’regoing to work with the land, you have towork with the people on it,” he says.

That approach led to the ormation o Grayson Landcare and some o its proj-ects. Several landowners agreed to worktogether to use rotational grazing to raisevalue-added “natural” bee . They ocus

on serving local markets to sustain salesand control costs.

Landowners also set up the Blue RidgeForestry Cooperative. With 2,500 acresin the co-op, the group obtained grantunds to develop markets. Sustainableorestry is a goal. “We ocus on each treeas part o a port olio. I you don’t toucha wild cherry tree, it will gain 17 percentvalue a year. This is how you do timberstand improvements,” he says.

Grayson Landcare also holds an essay

competition or high school kids ocusingon how they can sustain themselves, thelocal environment and their cultural heri-tage. It hosted the rst national Land-care workshop in October 2007. As abyproduct o that meeting, the groupis now exploring a Fuels or Schoolsprogram. It is also extending into sixneighboring counties, three in NorthCarolina and three in Virginia, to explorecommunity development under a USDA

Rural Development Business Opportuni-ties Grant.

Partners include the New River High-land Resource Conservation and Devel-opment, and the New River and Skylinesoil and water conservation districts,along with Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service. But the decision-making

rests with landowners. David Robertsonheads the Landcare Center at VirginiaTech. “We try to not get ahead o land-owners and local community. We wantthem to be responsible, rather than usea top-down approach,” he says.

More in ormation: Contact Christy Gabbard at [email protected] Moles can be reached at jmoles@ igc.org. Contact David Robertsonat [email protected]. Catawba

Landcare’s web site is www.catawbal-andcare.org. Grayson Landcare’s website is www.graysonlandcare.org.

Frequent meetings o landowners and other stakeholders are key organizing activities or Landcareorganizations such as Catawba and Grayson in Virginia. Landowners set the agenda, and attendees saythe meetings are in ormational and non-threatening.




Wyoming

R eSiDeNtS o Sheridan County,Wyoming, consider waterresources issues among their

major conservation concerns. Folks in thisrugged and beauti ul country also like tond local solutions to local problems.

Knowing those acts has helped theSheridan County Conservation District

to take a leading role as it works in threewatersheds. “We are the local olks here,”says District Manager Carrie Rogacze-wski. “That’s what we have as our missionand de ning principles.”

A district survey in 2001 showed that 60percent o respondents identi ed waterresources among their top concerns. By

that time, work was well under way on theUpper Tongue River Watershed. Watersampling in 1996 by the district and theNatural Resources Conservation Serviceshowed that coli orm bacteria levels werehigh. “Actually, that watershed had notbeen ound by the state to be impaired.

Streambank restoration work on the Tongue River is part o an e ort to improve watershed health in Sheridan County, Wyoming.

Loc l olks boos Wyomi g w sh wo k“Local” is the key word as the Sheridan County Conservation District,

NRCS and stakeholders guide watershed assessment, planning and

improvement projects on three watersheds.




It’s something we ound as part o ourprocess,” she says.

That process includes watershedassessment, plan development andimplementation, all guided by local

input. District materials note: “Watershedplanning is a locally led, voluntary, anddynamic process driven by the expecta-tions o the stakeholders and developedthrough active, public participation.”

A steering committee was ormed aspart o the assessment process or theUpper Tongue. It included representativesrom towns, ranchers with large stakesand landowners o smaller parcels. “Wemet with them periodically throughoutthe assessment, and they identi edcoli orm bacteria as the biggest issuein the county,” she says. Broader publicinvolvement was then incorporated asthe steering committee wrote a plan o action.

A series o public meetings helped toshape the action plan. As part o plandevelopment, landowners also identi edother issues and concerns important to thewatershed, such as sprawl and aesthetics.“The exciting thing happening is groupsthat typically don’t talk to each other areat the table,” Rogaczewski says.

Mailings and other outreach e ortskeep those who don’t attend meetingsengaged and in ormed.

The Upper Tongue plan was updated in2007, and it has provided a variety o cost-share options. Ranchers can receive helpor relocating corrals, installing streambank bu ers, permanent cattle crossingsand sh- riendly structures or irrigationdiversions. Failing septic systems known

to have a possible impact on water qualityare eligible or 50-percent cost sharingor replacement.

Work on another watershed, GooseCreek, started in 2001, in response to thestream being listed as impaired by thestate because o bacteria. The processwas similar, although the steeringcommittee was comprised o representa-tives o the district and the city and countyo Sheridan. Public input was incorpo-

rated in plan development. “Each water-shed is a little di erent. They are di erentpeople. You get to know them and howthey like to unction. Goose Creek ismore ormal,” she says.

A third watershed, Prairie Dog Creek,

is in the second year o assessment a terthe state identi ed it as impaired. “We’renot trying to counter that, but an assess-ment gives us in ormation we don’t have.We’re also engaging landowners to getaccess and permission, getting theminterested in the watershed early on. It’sthe oundation o it all,” Rogaczewskisays.

In all cases, the watershed planincludes a progress register to track long-term changes. With limited resources,the district samples or water qualityevery three years. Over time, the impacto improvement measures logged on theregister will become more apparent.

EPA 319 grants administered by thestate have supported planning andassessment, and municipalities haveprovided matching dollars. Projects areunded by 319 and state Department o Agriculture grants. NRCS EnvironmentalQuality Incentives Program cost-sharing

supports improvements on working lands.Wyoming Game and Fish has providedunding or sh passages.

Sheridan is a small district with limitedresources. Its partnership with NRCSsta is invaluable, Rogaczewski says.“We call ourselves ‘the partnership.’ Weshare personnel, vehicles and resources.”The state Department o EnvironmentalQuality has an o ce in Sheridan, andcooperation there is excellent, she adds.

There will be challenges in the uture –Goose Creek is scheduled to be the rstwatershed in the state to be assignedtotal maximum daily loads or pollutants.But thanks to the heavy local involvementthat serves as the bedrock o the water-shed process, local olks better under-stand their watershed and its needs.

More in ormation: Contact Rogacze-wski at [email protected]. More in ormation on the partners’ watershed work is at www.sccdo wyo.org.

A restored site along the Tongue River sports a healthy stream bank and protective vegetation.




Partners in Watershed and Landscape Work

Central to the work America’s conser-vation districts are doing on watershedsand landscapes are robust partnerships.Conservationists across America whohelped us prepare this report providedample evidence o the value and impor-tance o these relationships. Here weprovide a list o some o the partnerswho played important roles in the casestudies we eature. It is not meant tobe all-inclusive list o partners or everyproject, but it does illustrate the widerange o partners willing to participatein the important work o watershed andlandscape protection.

AlabamaAlabama Soil & Water Conservation CommitteeAlabama city and county engineersAlabama Cooperative ExtensionAlabama county governmentsAlabama Department o Environmental ManagementAlabama soil and water conservation districtsAlabama State ForestryUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS Fish and Wildli e ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

AlaskaHomer Soil and Water Conservation DistrictBiologistsCity o Homer

ContractorsExcavatorsReal estate agentsSoil scientistsWetland scientistsSurveyors

CaliforniaCooperative ExtensionTahoe Regional Planning AgencyTahoe Resource Conservation DistrictUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

ColoradoAgricultural producers

Cope, Yuma, Washington conservation districtsUS Environmental Protection AgencyUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

GeorgiaBaker, Calhoun, Early, Miller and Mitchell countiesFlint River Soil and Water Conservation DistrictThe Nature ConservancyGeorgia Agricultural Innovation CenterUniversity o Georgia Environmentally Sound Produc-tion Agriculture LaboratoryUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceHawaii

Big Island Resource RC&D CouncilCommunity volunteersCornell University Field Program in Earth SystemsScienceHawaii Department o HealthLocal K-12 schools

Outdoor Circles o community membersStarbucks Team volunteersService men and women rom Department o De ensePohakuloa Training AreaUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

IndianaAgricultural producersBusinesses (canoe rentals, banks, sports stores)ChurchesCity and county plan commissions, park departmentsand surveyorsCollege pro essionals (Goshen and Merry Lea)County commissioners (Elkhart, Kosciusko, LaGrangeand Noble)

Elkhart River Restoration AssociationElkhart River AllianceElkhart, Noble, LaGrange and Kosciusko County Soiland Water Conservation DistrictsHigh schools (all in watershed)Indiana Department o Natural ResourcesIndustry (Construction, developers, utilities, recreationalvehicle businesses)Lawmakers (all in the project area)Municipalities (all in watershed)Purdue Cooperative ExtensionWawasee Area Conservancy FoundationPheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited and other sportsmengroupsRiverside property ownersService organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Optimists, Lions)USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Youth organizations (FFA, Boys and Gi rls Club, 4-H)

KansasAgricultural producersConservation districts rom 13 countiesKansas Department o Health and EnvironmentKansas Rural CenterKansas State ExtensionKansas Water O ceLake Region RC&D CouncilUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUS Environmental Protection Agency

KentuckyKentucky conservation districts: 14 countiesKentucky Department o Fish and Wildli e ResourcesKentucky Divisions o Conservation, Forestry and WaterThe Nature ConservancyUSDA Farm Service AgencyUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

LouisianaAcadiana RC&D CouncilAgricultural enterprises and businessesCoulee Baton Gravity Drainage DistrictGul o Mexico ProgramHomeowners

LandownersLouisiana Cooperative Extension ServiceLouisiana Departments o Agriculture, EnvironmentalQuality, Forestry and Natural ResourcesLouisiana State University AgCenterTarleton University (Texas Institute or Applied Environ-

mental Research)University o Louisiana at La ayetteUS Environmental Protection AgencyUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUSDA Farm Service Agency Vermilion Parish Police Jury Vermilion Soil and Water Conservation District

MaineBusiness interestsCitizens throughout the watershedKennebec Soil and Water Conservation District and ourother SWCDsKennebec Valley Council o GovernmentsLand trusts (regional and municipal)

Maine Department o ConservationMaine RiversMaine Department o Agriculture and other state agen-ciesMaine Farmland TrustMunicipal o cialsNatural Resources Council o MaineSportsmen’s Alliance o MaineTrails groupsTrout Unlimi ted

MichiganCalhoun, Thornapple-Grand and Jackson CountyConservation DistrictsMichigan Department o Agriculture, EnvironmentalStewardship Division (ESD)Michigan Department o Natural Resources Wildli eDivision, Fisheries Division and Habitat ManagementUnitMichigan Department o Environmental QualityNonpoint Source ProgramPotawatomi RC&D CouncilCalhoun, Eaton & Jackson County Drain CommissionsCalhoun County Community DevelopmentCalhoun County Chapter o Wild OnesCities o Battle Creek, Marshall & CharlotteDucks Unlimited – Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional O ceThe Southwest Michigan Land ConservancyKalamazoo Valley Chapter o Trout UnlimitedPheasants ForeverThe Wild OnesUS Fish and Wildli e ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUSDA Farm Service Agency

MinnesotaArmy Corp o EngineersCarlton CountyCarlton County Soil and Water Conservation District(Minnesota)Douglas County Land Conservation Department(Wisconsin)Lake Superior Steelhead AssociationLocal citizens and landowners




Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyMinnesota DNR Fisheries and ForestryPotlatch Corp./Sappi Fine PapersSt. Louis River Citizens Action CommitteeTrout UnlimitedUniversity o Minnesota Extension Service

USDA Forest ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

MontanaAgricultural producersConservation districts (15)LandownersMontana Department o Natural ResourcesSportsmen’s groupsUS DOI Bureau o Land ManagementUS Fish and Wildli eUSDA Forest ServiceUSDA Farm Service AgencyUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

NebraskaCommunities and citizens o Bellevue, Girls and BoysTown, Gretna, La Vista, Omaha, Papillion, RalstonCounties o Douglas and SarpyPapio-Missouri River Natural Resources District

NevadaAmericorpsCooperative ExtensionMason Valley and Smith Valley Conservation DistrictsNevada Departments o Agriculture and Wildli eNevada schoolsUS Fish & Wildli e ServiceUS Forest ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeed control districtsWalker River Basin Cooperative Weed ManagementAreaWalker River Irrigation DistrictWestern Nevada RC&D CouncilCounties o Washoe and DouglasFire protection districtsMunicipalitiesNational Fish and Wildli e FoundationNevada Divisions o Environmental Protection and StateLandsNevada Tahoe Conservation DistrictUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

New HampshireGreat Bay National Estuarine Research ReserveNew Hampshire Department o Environmental ServicesCoastal ProgramNew Hampshire Fish and Game DepartmentNew Hampshire Department o TransportationNew Hampshire Department o Agriculture, Markets &FoodNew Hampshire Department o Resources and EconomicDevelopmentRockingham County Conservation DistrictThe Nature ConservancyUniversity o New Hampshire Cooperative ExtensionUS Forest ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

New JerseyCamden, Burlington, Gloucester and Cape-Atlantic soilconservation districtsMunicipalitiesNew Jersey Departments o Environmental Protection

and AgricultureNew Jersey State Soil Conservation CommitteeRowan UniversityRutgers UniversityUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

South DakotaBelle Fourche Irrigation DistrictButte, Elk Creek and Lawrence County conservationdistrictsLawrence CountySouth Dakota Conservation CommissionSouth Dakota Department o AgricultureSouth Dakota Department o Environment and NaturalResources

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SD GF&P)South Dakota Grassland CoalitionSouth Dakota School o Mines and TechnologySouth Dakota State UniversityUS Bureau o ReclamationUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS Geological SurveyUS Fish and Wildli e ServiceUSDA Natural Resource Conservation ServiceWyoming Department o Environmental Quality

OhioAllen, De ance, Delaware, Fair eld, Seneca Soil andWater Conservation DistrictsAuglaize, Madison, Ottawa, Wood County engineersCounty Commissioners Association o OhioCounty Engineers Association o OhioDarby Watershed ProjectOhio Association o Soil and Water Conservation DistrictEmployeesOhio Department o AgricultureOhio Division o Natural Areas and PreservesOhio Division o Soil and Water ConservationOhio Environmental CouncilOhio Environmental Protection Agency Division o Sur ace WaterOhio Farm Bureau FederationOhio Federation o Soil & Water Conservation Distr ictsOhio Land Improvement Contractors AssociationOhio Soil and Water Conservation CommissionOhio State University Department o Agricultural, Envi-ronmental and Developmental Economics and Depart-ment o Food, Agricultural and Biological EngineeringThe Nature Conservancy, Ohio ChapterUSDA Agricultural Research ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

OklahomaAdair, Cherokee and Delaware County ConservationDistricts, OklahomaAgricultural producersAnimal waste marketersArkansas Soil and Water Conservation CommissionCity o Tulsa

Benton County Conservation District, ArkansasCity o TulsaHomeownersMinority representativesOklahoma Cooperative ExtensionOklahoma Conservation Commission

Oklahoma Department o AgricultureOklahoma Trust or Public LandsUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS Geological SurveyUSDA Farm Service AgencyUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

VirginiaAgricultural producers, orest owners and landownersCarroll, Catawba, Floyd, Grayson, Roanoke, Mont-gomery and Withe counties, VirginiaAllegheny, Nash and Watauga counties, North CarolinaCarroll Grayson Cattle ProducersNational Fish and Wildli e FoundationNew River Highland RC&D Council

Blue Ridge, New River and Skyline Soil and WaterConservation DistrictsNew River Land TrustUSDA Forest ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Virginia Farm Bureau Federation Virginia Tech Virginia Department o Game and Inland Fisheries,Department o Agriculture

WyomingAgricultural producersCity and County o SheridanCommunitiesLandowners and other interested citizensSheridan Conservation DistrictUS Environmental Protection AgencyUSDA Natural Resources ServiceWyoming Departments o Environmental Quality, Agri-culture and Game and Fish

wisconsin; our land, our water: case studies in locally led successes - a national association of...

Documents