Agriculture and the Environment: Information on and Characteristics of
Selected Watershed Projects (Letter Report, 06/30/95, GAO/RCED-95-218).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the effects of
agricultural production on water pollution, focusing on lessons learned
from nine innovative, successful watershed projects that reduced such
pollution.

GAO found that: (1) the watershed projects ranged from 5 acres to 150
million acres, and involved both surface water and groundwater
resources; (2) the watershed projects had received an estimated $514
million in federal funds since early 1995; (3) all nine watershed
participants stressed the need for flexibility in the kinds of financial
and technical assistance provided by federal agencies; (4) the watershed
participants were able to adopt local approaches to watershed
management, since the watersheds had different characteristics; and (5)
project participants at the local level emphasized that the keys to
reducing agricultural pollution are to build citizen cooperation through
education, get stakeholders to participate in developing project goals,
and tailor project strategies, water quality monitoring, and regulatory
enforcement to local conditions.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-218
     TITLE:  Agriculture and the Environment: Information on and 
             Characteristics of Selected Watershed Projects
      DATE:  06/30/95
   SUBJECT:  Water quality
             Water pollution
             Water pollution control
             Agricultural production
             Economic assistance
             Technical assistance
             Federal agencies
             Water supply management
             Water resources conservation
IDENTIFIER:  USDA Conservation Reserve Program
             USDA Hydrologic Unit Area Program
             Huichica Creek Watershed Project (CA)
             West Stanislaus County Watershed Project (CA)
             Otter Lake Watershed Project (IL)
             Big Spring Basin Watershed Project (IA)
             Tar Pamlico River Basin Watershed Project (NC)
             Big Darby Creek Watershed Project (OH)
             Coos Bay-Coquille River Watershed Project (OR)
             Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project (VR)
             Black Earth Creek Watershed Project (WI)
             USDA Agricultural Conservation Program
             Wisconsin
             Vermont
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. 
Senate

June 1995

AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT -
INFORMATION ON AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF SELECTED WATERSHED PROJECTS

GAO/RCED-95-218

Selected Watershed Projects


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AGNPS - [Delete from this list in page proofs]
  DDT - [Delete from this list in page proofs]
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  PCB - [Delete from this list in page proofs]
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261576

June 29, 1995

The Honorable Richard G.  Lugar
Chairman
The Honorable Patrick J.  Leahy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate

Recent federal, state, and local studies on water quality have
identified agriculture as the United States' greatest source of
nonpoint pollution--that is, pollution that cannot be traced to a
specific point of origin.  Agriculture contributes more than half the
pollutants entering the nation's rivers and lakes.  The threat to
water quality posed by nonpoint sources of pollution has prompted
renewed interest in watershed-based approaches to reducing such
pollution.\1 With this in mind, you asked us to (1) determine the
number, purpose, location, and funding of federal watershed projects
that address pollution caused by agricultural production and (2)
provide information on the lessons learned from selected innovative
or successful watershed projects. 


--------------------
\1 A watershed is generally a geographic area in which water,
sediments, and other dissolved materials drain to a common outlet. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Nationwide, 618 watershed-based projects aimed at agricultural
sources of pollution were being planned or carried out through early
1995.  The projects, ranging from as little as 5 acres to over 150
million acres in size, involved both surface water and groundwater
resources and addressed a gamut of agricultural pollutants, such as
animal waste, pesticides, and soil sediment.  Through early 1995,
these projects had received an estimated $514 million in federal
funds. 

While the lessons learned from the 9 innovative or successful
projects we reviewed cannot be projected to the entire inventory of
618 watershed projects,\2 participants in all 9 echoed two key
lessons learned:  the need for (1) flexibility in the kinds of
financial and technical assistance provided by federal agencies and
(2) local tailoring of approaches to watershed management.  Because
watershed projects differ in characteristics such as the type and
source of pollutants, local agricultural practices, and the
community's attitudes, participants believed that a prescriptive,
one-size-fits-all approach would be inappropriate.  At the local
level, the projects' participants emphasized that the keys to
reducing agricultural pollution include (1) building citizens'
cooperation through education, (2) getting stakeholders to
participate in developing the project's goals, and (3) tailoring the
project's strategies, water quality monitoring, and regulatory
enforcement efforts to local conditions. 


--------------------
\2 From a universe of projects that were cited as innovative or
successful by U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Environmental
Protection Agency, or state officials, we judgmentally selected and
reviewed nine:  Huichica Creek and West Stanislaus County,
California; Otter Lake, Illinois; Big Spring Basin, Iowa; Tar-Pamlico
River Basin, North Carolina; Big Darby Creek, Ohio; Coos Bay-Coquille
River, Oregon; Black Earth Creek, Wisconsin; and Lake Champlain,
Vermont. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Water pollution comes from two types of sources:  (1) specific,
single locations, such as industrial waste pipes or sewage treatment
plants, known as point sources, or (2) multiple dispersed sources
over large areas, such as runoff from farms, ranches, logging
operations, and urban areas, known as nonpoint sources.  Federal
officials believe that significant improvements in water quality can
be achieved by reducing nonpoint-source pollution. 

The watershed-based approach to reducing nonpoint-source pollution
has been receiving increasing interest.  Addressing nonpoint-source
pollution throughout a watershed allows consideration of the entire
hydrological system, including the quantity and quality of surface
water and groundwater as well as all sources of pollution.  Such an
approach leads to a holistic treatment, as opposed to piecemeal
efforts aimed at individual pollutants or pollution sources. 

A number of federal agencies have primary roles in watershed projects
involving agricultural sources of pollution.  The U.S.  Department of
Agriculture (USDA), through its various agencies and programs,
provides technical, financial, educational, and research support to a
variety of watershed projects.  These projects give farmers the
knowledge and technical means they need to voluntarily improve water
quality in their watersheds.  The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) also provides technical assistance and funds states' support
for watershed projects and other efforts to reduce nonpoint- source
pollution.  The Department of the Interior's U.S.  Geological Survey
provides technical assistance to individual watershed projects,
primarily in the areas of research, mapping, and water quality
monitoring, while Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service enforces the
Endangered Species Act, which provides for the protection and
restoration of fish and wildlife habitats--two common goals of
watershed projects.  The Department of Commerce, through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, provides technical and financial assistance. 
Finally, the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuing
permits under the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged and
fill materials into U.S.  waters, including wetlands.\3


--------------------
\3 The U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service makes advisory comments on
applications for these permits. 


   WATERSHED PROJECTS VARY IN
   SIZE, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Nationwide, federal agencies identified 618 watershed projects that
had received federal funds through early 1995.  The projects ranged
in size from as few as 5 acres to over 150 million acres; about 60
percent covered less than 80,000 acres.  Figure 1 shows the
distribution of projects by size. 

   Figure 1:  Distribution of
   Watershed Projects by Size

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Agencies did not report the size for 84 of the 618 projects. 

The projects were geared toward solving various types of problems. 
As shown in figure 2, over half of the projects were aimed at surface
water, about 7 percent at groundwater, and the remainder at both
surface water and groundwater resources.  More than 85 percent of the
projects addressed multiple types of pollutants, while the rest
addressed a single pollutant.  As shown in figure 3, nutrients and
sediments were the pollution problems most frequently addressed by
the watershed projects. 

   Figure 2:  Water Bodies
   Addressed by Watershed Projects

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 3:  Pollutants Addressed
   by Watershed Projects

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  The total exceeds 618 because some projects addressed more
than one pollutant. 

As illustrated in figure 4, the watershed projects were distributed
fairly evenly across the states.  Iowa had 32 projects, while Alaska
and Nevada had no ongoing projects; the rest of the states averaged
12 projects each. 

   Figure 4:  Watershed Projects
   by State

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The 618 projects had been operating for between 5 months and 33
years, with an average of 4 years.  Over the years, these 618
projects have received federal watershed funding totaling $514
million as of early 1995.  The estimated funding averaged about
$800,000 per project, ranging from a low of $8,000 to a high of $75
million.  In addition, some projects received additional funds from
other federal programs, such as USDA's Conservation Reserve Program,
which also contribute to water quality goals but are generally not
considered components of watershed projects. 


   FEDERAL FLEXIBILITY AND LOCALLY
   DRIVEN APPROACHES ARE KEY TO
   MANAGING NINE AGRICULTURAL
   WATERSHED PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The common experiences of the nine projects we looked at suggest that
achieving success in watershed-based approaches depends on (1) the
flexible application of federal assistance and (2) the ability of
local officials to enlist broad support and to craft solutions
customized to their local needs.  At the federal level, participants
believed that financial and technical assistance tailored to locally
established goals was more effective than prescriptive solutions.  At
the local level, they identified education, stakeholders'
involvement, and a customized approach to improving water quality as
the keys to a successful project. 


      PARTICIPANTS FAVOR FLEXIBLE
      FEDERAL ROLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Since each watershed project has unique local characteristics,
participants emphasized that federal agencies should adopt a flexible
approach, providing funding and technical assistance without
prescriptive solutions.  In some cases, inflexible federal rules
hampered the funding and execution of solutions to watershed
problems. 

Each project we reviewed combined and addressed such characteristics
as the type and source of the pollutant, local agricultural
practices, impacts, and the community's attitudes.  For example, both
the Big Spring Basin and the Tar-Pamlico River Basin projects were
initiated to reduce pollution resulting from nutrients.\4 However,
the Big Spring Basin project addresses groundwater contamination from
agricultural sources, while the Tar- Pamlico River Basin project
addresses surface water contamination from municipal and industrial
sources in addition to agricultural sources.  An approach to
mitigating agricultural discharges that would improve water quality
at Big Spring Basin would likely have to be modified in the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin to mitigate municipal and industrial
discharges and would have to take into account that pollutants reach
surface water and groundwater in different ways.  Similarly, both the
Coos Bay-Coquille River and West Stanislaus County watersheds faced
problems resulting from erosion.  In the Coos Bay-Coquille River
project, the erosion was caused by a combination of timber and
agricultural practices, while in West Stanislaus the erosion was
caused by the runoff of irrigation water.  As a result, the two
projects need different strategies to reduce erosion.  In addition,
the Coos Bay-Coquille River project addressed other problems, such as
elevated water temperatures, that were not present in West
Stanislaus. 

Because of these combinations of various characteristics, the
projects' participants said that flexible program implementation is
crucial to achieving watershed goals.  Watershed projects frequently
depend on multiple sources of funding and technical assistance
obtained through different state and federal programs, each with
different requirements.  Federal assistance to the nine projects
represented about half of the projects' resources.  Agency staff
involved in most of the projects we reviewed demonstrated flexibility
in working with other participants to meet project goals.  For
example, USDA and EPA representatives involved in the Huichica Creek
project emphasized that they had to find creative ways to work within
their respective agencies' regulations to devise effective strategies
and encourage participation by producers.  Similarly, participants in
the West Stanislaus project said that a key to putting together an
effective program was the willingness of federal officials to focus
on the overall goal of the watershed project rather than their
individual programs. 

However, in several of the projects we reviewed, the participants
also pointed out a need for increased levels of and greater
flexibility in the financial assistance provided to farmers.  For
example: 

  Participants in the West Stanislaus County, Lake Champlain, and
     Tar-Pamlico River Basin projects said that changes are needed to
     (1) provide additional funding to farmers for adopting practices
     that reduce nonpoint-source pollution and (2) separate funding
     for improving water quality from funding for agricultural
     conservation.  According to participants, the annual
     $3,500-per-farmer maximum placed on Agricultural Conservation
     Program funding is inadequate to support some of the structural
     measures needed to reduce nonpoint-source pollution. 
     Furthermore, as currently structured, provisions for
     cost-sharing cover a variety of agricultural conservation
     practices, including those, such as leveling land for irrigation
     and building irrigation canals, that may be more related to
     water conservation and increased crop production than to efforts
     to improve water quality.  Farmers could apply the $3,500 to
     practices that increase their yield rather than to practices
     that reduce agricultural pollution but are of no financial
     benefit.  Efforts to reduce nonpoint pollution from agricultural
     sources can be hindered when competing conservation goals result
     in applying cost-sharing funds to practices that have little or
     no direct relationship to water quality. 

  Participants in the Huichica Creek project pointed out that USDA's
     Small Watershed Program, which is primarily geared toward flood
     control, provides funding for solutions that are unnecessarily
     complex.  For the problems at Huichica Creek, the solutions
     eligible for funding would cost far more than the simpler
     solutions the participants used.  For example, USDA staff and
     landowners wanted to stabilize stream banks to minimize erosion,
     but they believed USDA's solution of lining stream banks with
     rocks was too expensive.  Instead, they found that planting
     young saplings low on the exposed stream bank and interweaving
     their branches to create a living reinforcement was a much
     cheaper approach. 

  Participants in the West Stanislaus project said the funds received
     under USDA's Hydrologic Unit Area program cannot be used for
     monitoring water quality, and participants in the Coos
     Bay-Coquille River and the Otter Lake projects noted that funds
     received under section 319 of the Clean Water Act could not be
     used for the planning and additional demonstration activities
     they needed. 

The projects' participants also stressed the need for flexibility in
the role federal agencies play in providing technical assistance to
help farmers implement pollution- reduction practices.  USDA staff
served on the technical advisory committee for the Otter Lake
project, although the overall approach was set by the project's
resource planning committee.  In the West Stanislaus County project,
USDA staff took a more active role, writing the project plan that
established the implementation approach as well as identifying an
innovative technical solution:  using polymers in irrigation systems
to reduce sediment runoff.  In addition, USDA provided a sociologist
to help develop approaches that would maximize voluntary
participation. 

However, inflexible federal processes were also cited by some
participants.  For example, in voicing concern over rigid agency
procedures and operating methods, Coos Bay-Coquille River project and
state government officials said it took 9 months to obtain a permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers (which regulates the disposal of
dredged and fill material from wetlands) to build an off-channel pond
and to spread the few cubic yards of earth removed in the process
over a pasture.  Project officials said they could not understand why
it took so long to get a permit for such a simple project. 


--------------------
\4 Excessive nutrients are caused by point-source dischargers, such
as municipal sewage treatment plants, and by agricultural nonpoint
sources of pollution, such as the nitrogen contained in animal manure
and the chemical fertilizers applied to croplands.  Excessive
nutrients cause algae and plants to grow too rapidly.  When the
plants die and decompose, the dissolved oxygen in the water required
by fish and other species is consumed. 


      PARTICIPANTS FAVOR LOCALLY
      DRIVEN APPROACH
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The nine innovative or successful projects we reviewed were able to
adopt a locally driven approach to achieving the goals for the
watersheds.  Key elements in a local approach were educating
prospective participants about how water quality improvements would
benefit them; achieving consensus among these stakeholders in
selecting a project's goals and approaches; and tailoring the
project's strategy, water quality monitoring, and regulatory
enforcement to local conditions. 


         EDUCATING PROSPECTIVE
         PARTICIPANTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

Education and public outreach played an important role in encouraging
cooperation in many of the projects we reviewed.  Farm demonstration
projects and myriad educational activities were used to familiarize
farmers and the general public with the relationship between
agricultural or other activities and water quality problems and to
encourage the adoption of practices designed to reduce these
problems. 

The Big Spring Basin project in Iowa, for example, used an intensive
strategy of public education and farm demonstration projects to
introduce farmers to management practices that would improve their
efficiency and profitability while also reducing the impacts of
agriculture on water quality in the watershed.  According to
participating farmers, the opportunity to observe-- through a manure
management demonstration project on a neighbor's farm--that nutrients
could be reduced gave them the knowledge and confidence they needed
to change their own manure management practices. 

In the Lake Champlain project, a great deal of effort is being
expended to inform the public about the water quality problems
affecting the lake and to encourage the community's involvement. 
Educational and outreach activities include public meetings, the
formation of grassroots environmental groups, videos, newsletters,
school presentations, and water quality fairs.  Similarly, the Coos
Bay-Coquille River project, recognizing the role of future
generations, has developed a high school curriculum to help students
better understand the watershed they live in and the potential impact
their activities have on water quality. 

Public education can also involve less structured efforts.  For
example, the Coos Bay-Coquille River and Huichica Creek project
staffs noted that they spent a lot of time meeting with potential
participants informally, answering questions and concerns over a cup
of coffee. 


         ACHIEVING CONSENSUS AMONG
         STAKEHOLDERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2

In addition to achieving public awareness, projects need to solicit
stakeholders' consensus on goals and approaches, according to
participants.  Watershed projects typically involve a variety of
stakeholders, often having different views about a project's
appropriate scope, approach, and management.  The stakeholders may
include the government agencies responsible for environmental issues
or land management; agricultural, timber, fishery, mining, or other
commercial industries; recreational users; municipalities; and urban
homeowners.  For most of the projects we reviewed, participants
agreed that broad-based participation by stakeholders is critical in
breaking down barriers and building trust among groups.  We noted in
several projects that respected community leaders with strong
interpersonal skills were instrumental in bringing the stakeholders
together. 

One example of successful consensus building is the Coos Bay-Coquille
River project, which was managed by associations comprising
representatives of timber companies, private landowners, federal land
management agencies, state agencies with water and habitat
responsibilities, and other interested parties.  According to
association members, inclusion of the agricultural community in the
watershed associations helped members of that community overcome
their general distrust of government regulation and negative
attitudes about "environmental" initiatives, emanating from federal
activities to protect the spotted owl and salmon, which local
citizens blamed for harming the local economy. 

Projects that impose solutions without getting stakeholders' buy-in
have a greater difficulty in achieving success, as illustrated by the
experiences of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin project in North Carolina. 
The project used a two-phase process to address nutrient pollution. 
The project's organizers used public hearings to obtain input from
those in the watershed and negotiation and consensus to reach
agreement on the implementation strategy and water quality goals. 
Although this worked well for the first phase, the process broke down
during the negotiations in the second phase.  The state ultimately
approved phase two of the project over the objections of
environmental and community groups, which disagreed with (1) the
goals for reducing nutrients, (2) the allocation of most of the
burden for the reduction to nonpoint sources, and (3) the revised
formula used to determine the amount of funds that point-source
dischargers would contribute to reduce nonpoint-source pollution in
an innovative nutrient credit trading program.  Under this program,
point-source dischargers agreed to contribute to a nutrient credit
trading fund whenever they exceeded the discharge limits.  The fund
would be used to finance more cost-effective actions to reduce
nutrient pollution from agricultural nonpoint sources.  However,
environmental and community groups felt that concessions made to
point-source dischargers in the agreement in phase two shifted too
much of the financial burden of improving water quality to the
agricultural community.  Unless steps are taken to address the
misgivings of these groups, a key stakeholder is contemplating a
lawsuit against the state to block this phase of the project. 


         TAILORING STRATEGIES,
         MONITORING, AND
         ENFORCEMENT TO LOCAL
         CONDITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.3

The experiences of successful projects illustrate that strategies,
water quality monitoring, and regulatory enforcement efforts vary,
depending on local conditions.  For instance, while all the projects
generally engaged in some form of planning to ensure that
stakeholders agreed on the causes of the problem and the corrective
actions needed, they devoted different levels of time, effort, and
funding to developing such plans.  For example, the Lake Champlain
project staff spent significant time identifying the cause of that
area's water quality problem before developing a watershed strategy. 
They systematically monitored the water quality in rivers and streams
feeding into the lake, which allowed them to gradually pinpoint the
sources of the problem.  In contrast, for the Coos Bay-Coquille River
project, which is smaller and has less complex problems, a lengthy
planning process was not necessary.  The community agreed that
sediment and riparian (riverbank) destruction in the Coquille
watershed were impeding fish spawning and that the salmon fishery was
a resource they wanted to save.  They quickly established goals for
improving the salmon population and measured progress using fish
counts. 

Similarly, implementation strategies varied according to local
conditions and preferences.  The Big Spring Basin project, for
example, heavily emphasized demonstration and educational activities,
whereas the Big Darby Creek project undertook relatively few
demonstration projects, preferring instead to provide funds to
support individual farmers' practices.  The Big Darby Creek project
also took advantage of a state program that provides low-interest
loans to those who implement solutions for nonpoint-source pollution. 
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin project developed the innovative nutrient
credit trading program described previously, which meets the overall
goal for reducing the discharge of nutrients by allowing the
point-source dischargers to finance the reduction of discharges from
nonpoint sources. 

While all participants agreed on the importance of evaluating a
project's performance, they tailored the rigor of their evaluations
to the project's goals.  The Coos Bay-Coquille River projects used
fish counts to monitor progress, and the West Stanislaus project used
sediment assessments, which were easily accomplished by viewing the
color of the farms' agricultural drain water.  In contrast, the Big
Spring Basin project had over 50 sites to monitor groundwater flow,
conductivity, alkalinity, temperature, nitrates, and pesticides. 

The projects' participants pointed out, however, that even given
rigorous monitoring, demonstrating a link between changes in land use
and diminished chemical pollution is difficult, if not impossible,
especially within a short time frame.  For example, participants in
the Lake Champlain, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, and Big Darby Creek
projects noted that current science can demonstrate only a tenuous
link between land use practices and water quality, and it may take
years for their projects to produce chemical improvements in water
quality.  Similarly, participants in the Big Spring Basin project
said that climatic variations, such as droughts followed by years of
heavy rainfall, and other factors have made it difficult to establish
a link between changes in farming practices and groundwater quality,
despite more than 10 years of monitoring and analysis. 

All nine watershed projects we reviewed are striving to promote
voluntary participation by farmers, but several felt it was also
necessary to provide for regulatory enforcement in case cooperation
was lacking.  Three states--Wisconsin, North Carolina, and
Illinois--and two projects have included regulatory components in
their watershed management strategies.  Wisconsin has enacted
statutes that provide for state enforcement actions, such as revoking
cost-share agreements, against uncooperative individuals.  North
Carolina requires the adoption of certain best management practices. 
Illinois allows public water suppliers to use watershed management
strategies to comply with safe drinking water standards, but if
compliance is not accomplished within specified time frames,
contingency measures must be implemented.  In the West Stanislaus
project, one water district, which is responsible for managing
irrigation canals and maintaining water quality within its
jurisdiction, can withhold irrigation water from farmers who refuse
to adopt practices that reduce sedimentary runoff from their fields. 
In the Huichica Creek project, participants voluntarily developed
additional restrictions on the use of certain pesticides, which EPA
approved for inclusion on the labels of pesticides sold in the
Huichica Creek area.  At some projects, such regulatory provisions
were considered unnecessary and in fact counterproductive.  For
example, the environmental members of the Coos Bay-Coquille River and
the Lake Champlain projects said voluntary efforts were the most
feasible way of reducing nonpoint-source pollution, given their
communities' resistance to regulatory enforcement. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We discussed the facts in this report with USDA officials, including
the Special Assistant, Strategic Natural Resources Issues Staff,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and with EPA officials,
including the Deputy Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, Office of Water.  They fully agreed with the information
presented, and we have included their comments where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

We performed our review between December 1994 and June 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

To compile an inventory of federal watershed projects, we contacted
officials at USDA, EPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
Department of the Interior headquarters and regional offices to
obtain their internal inventories of federal watershed projects
addressing water quality problems caused by agricultural production. 
While we reviewed and refined these lists to eliminate duplication
and clarify the descriptive information provided, we did not verify
the data provided. 

To obtain information on the lessons learned at innovative or
successful watershed projects, we judgmentally selected and reviewed
nine projects from a universe of innovative or successful watershed
projects identified by USDA, EPA, and state water quality officials. 
These nine projects were chosen to reflect a variety of project
sizes, locations, agricultural sectors, water quality problems, and
management and technical approaches.  We cannot make generalizations
based on our analysis of these projects since they were judgmentally
selected and represent only a small portion of the more than 600
projects nationwide that receive federal funds.  We visited each site
and discussed the project's activities in detail with federal, state,
and local government officials as well as with the project's
participants.  We also reviewed project documents, such as management
plans, status reports, and the results of water quality monitoring. 
Appendixes I through IX discuss each project's location and problem,
genesis and management, planning and funding, key approaches and
observations, and accomplishments. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.  We will also
make copies available to others upon request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix X. 

John W.  Harman
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues


HUICHICA CREEK WATERSHED
=========================================================== Appendix I

The major lessons of the Huichica Creek watershed project were that
(1) federal program guidelines and financial assistance need to be
more flexible and (2) involving stakeholders in project planning can
result in a high level of participation and motivate landowners to
voluntarily seek tougher regulatory restrictions to head off an
environmental crisis before it occurs. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Huichica Creek watershed represents about 4,500 acres of rolling
to steep hills in California's Napa Valley, as shown in figure I.1. 
Huichica Creek drains into the Napa River, which eventually empties
into San Francisco Bay.  The watershed is primarily vineyards and
dairy pasture land. 

   Figure I.1:  Location of the
   Huichica Creek Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Huichica Creek area, historically considered unsuitable for
vineyards, was used primarily for dairy operations and pasture lands. 
Vintners began to recognize the potential for growing grapes in the
Huichica Creek watershed as a result of additional viticultural
research and the increasing use of new grape varieties. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

In 1988, staff from the Napa County Resource Conservation District\5
and the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) began to contact the
landowners in the Huichica Creek watershed to discuss the need for a
long-range resource management plan.  Landowners and vineyard
managers were very receptive to this concept, and some had already
begun efforts along this line.  In 1991, agency staff and landowners
joined together in a partnership called the Huichica Creek Land
Stewardship.  Participants describe the stewardship as a ï¿½land use
ethicï¿½ rather than an organization.  The Napa County Resource
Conservation District acts as a focal point for stakeholder
communication and coordination, and the stakeholders hold meetings
when they believe it is necessary. 


--------------------
\5 Resource conservation districts are local governmental
organizations that implement programs for the conservation, use, and
development of soil, water, and related resources. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The stewardship issued the Huichica Creek Watershed Natural Resource
Protection and Enhancement Plan in May 1993, about 2 years after they
began the project.  The plan emphasizes (1) advice and information on
practices that landowners can use to farm in the watershed without
negatively affecting water quality and wildlife habitat and (2)
low-tech approaches, such as planting ï¿½cover cropsï¿½ between the rows
of grape vines to reduce erosion.  Participants are also replacing
chemical approaches to pest control with biological ones, such as
installing housing to attract insect-eating bats or roosts to attract
predator birds that keep the rodent population in check. 

As shown in table I.1, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the state were the major government funding sources.  However,
conservation district staff said that landowners had contributed far
more in labor, materials, and funds than the federal and state
agencies, although they were unable to estimate the community's total
contribution. 



                          Table I.1
           
               Huichica Creek Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
USDA                                                 $11,000
EPA                                                   88,000
State                                                 95,000
Sonoma Valley Vintners and                             4,000
 Growers Association
============================================================
Total                                               $198,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Napa County Resource Conservation District. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Agency staff and participating landowners said that federal watershed
program guidelines were too restrictive and inflexible.  For example,
they said that programs such as USDA's Small Watershed Program, while
beginning to move away from a strong tradition of construction and
flood control, were still using a pre-selected menu of engineered
practices instead of creative solutions developed specifically for
each site.  They felt this approach was not sufficient to preserve
and enhance the diversity of plants and wildlife in a way compatible
with agricultural operations.  Furthermore, they believed the
solutions arrived at through that process were overengineered for
their situation.  Agency staff and landowners wanted to stabilize
stream banks to minimize erosion, but they believed USDA's solution
of lining stream banks with rocks was too complex and expensive. 
They found that they could reinforce stream banks by planting young
saplings low on the exposed bank and interweaving their branches to
create a living reinforcement.  This approach cost a fraction of the
cost of installing rocks. 

Participants identified several reasons for the high level of
participation in the stewardship and for landowners' quick acceptance
of the Huichica Creek implementation plan--they adopted practices
suitable for their operations even before the plan was complete. 
First, landowners were heavily involved in developing the plan and
were therefore disposed to implement the recommended practices. 
Second, having 90 percent (63 of 70) of the Huichica Creek landowners
involved in the stewardship facilitated communication and fostered a
sense of community.  Third, some vintners were also motivated by
market concerns, such as potential consumer reactions to pesticide
use or the endangerment of a protected species. 

Stakeholders' involvement and high participation rates were
instrumental in the stewardship's reaching consensus to seek tougher
regulations regarding the use of certain pesticides in the Huichica
Creek watershed.  These additional regulations, sought by the
landowners with technical support from county, state, and federal
agencies, were approved by EPA in 1992.  As a result, Huichica Creek
farmers must comply with 12 additional handling and use requirements
on certain pesticides that are potentially toxic to the California
fresh-water shrimp. 

Finally, although the stewardship focuses on getting commitment to
changing practices rather than achieving a particular goal, it
recognizes the need to monitor results.  Therefore, the project
includes a number of quantifiable measures to monitor the condition
of the watershed.  These include monitoring soil structure and
quality, endangered species habitat, use of irrigation water, water
quality, and the stability of stream banks and channels. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

The Huichica Creek project's accomplishments include (1) enlisting 63
of the 70 local landowners to participate in the watershed
stewardship, (2) restoring and stabilizing 800 feet of stream banks,
(3) planting at least 10,000 trees to revegetate stream banks and the
upper reaches of the watershed, (4) planting four demonstration sites
to show the suitability of different cover crops to various
soil-hydrology combinations, and (5) completing a water survey to
estimate the average runoff from each watershed section to help
landowners and managers stabilize stream flows. 


WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY WATERSHED
========================================================== Appendix II

The major lessons of this project were that (1) involving local
stakeholders is key to getting voluntary participation, (2) financial
assistance limits and inflexible requirements hindered efforts to
reduce nonpoint-source pollution, and (3) the threat of regulation
can help motivate farmers to take action. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The West Stanislaus watershed is located about 70 miles southeast of
San Francisco, California, as shown in figure II.1.  The watershed
occupies 134,000 acres, of which approximately 122,000 acres are
irrigated farmland, such as row and field crops, orchards, and
vineyards.  The watershed encompasses about 400 farms. 

   Figure II.1:  Location of the
   West Stanislaus County
   Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Eight creeks flow across the watershed and drain into the San Joaquin
River.  During the arid summer months, the water in the creeks is
composed entirely of agricultural runoff, primarily from furrow
irrigation.  This irrigation method usually results in some erosion,
but the highly erodible soil in the West Stanislaus watershed
exacerbates the problem.  The average level of sediment in the
irrigation runoff is 1,500 milligrams of soil per liter, although
erosion in some areas reaches as high as 9,000 milligrams of soil per
liter.  USDA officials describe the irrigation runoff as being
chocolate brown in color. 

Such high levels of sediment have a number of impacts on the San
Joaquin River.  Of particular concern are organochlorine pesticide
residues, especially DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane)
residues, which persist in the soil for decades.  In addition to
having a negative impact on fish and other aquatic life, the sediment
increases needed maintenance for the river, drainage ditches, and
canals, which have to be periodically dredged to remove built-up
sediment. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

After almost 20 years of study, the farmers in West Stanislaus
decided it was in their best interests to solve the sediment problem
voluntarily rather than have a regulatory agency dictate a solution. 
The state of California is considering a water quality strategy that
includes three levels of implementation--voluntary implementation of
conservation practices; regulatory or institutional encouragement of
conservation practices, such as waiving requirements concerning
discharges if practices are implemented; and regulation, such as
issuing permits that specify the type, amount, and concentration of
pollutants that may be discharged. 

The West Stanislaus Resource Conservation District sponsored the
watershed project and worked closely and cooperatively with USDA
staff to establish the overall goals and implementation strategy for
reducing erosion.  An additional 25 federal, state, and local
agencies provided financial and technical support, including EPA, the
California EPA Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the Central
Valley Water Quality Control Board. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

USDA staff took the lead in developing a strategy to achieve the
chosen goal of reducing sediment to 300 milligrams of soil per liter
of drain water, an 80-percent reduction in average erosion.  USDA
issued the West Stanislaus Sediment Reduction Plan in February 1992,
after it had been reviewed and approved by the resource conservation
district.  The strategy for reaching the project's goal is to (1)
develop and conduct a comprehensive information and education
program, (2) provide cost-sharing assistance, (3) provide technical
assistance, and (4) provide for monitoring and evaluation.  The plan
describes 17 conservation practices that reduce erosion, outlines
each practice's advantages and disadvantages, and estimates the costs
and reductions in erosion.  It then provides detailed work sheets to
help farmers identify the most cost-effective combination of
practices, given their soil and crops.  According to USDA staff, the
plan does not include a detailed water quality monitoring strategy
because the funds received under USDA's Hydrologic Unit Area program
cannot be used for water quality monitoring. 

As shown in table II.1, most of the government funding came from
USDA, but farmers also contributed a significant amount in labor and
materials. 



                          Table II.1
           
           West Stanislaus County Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
USDA                                              $1,391,000
Department of the Interior                           268,000
State                                                407,000
Farmers                                            4,000,000
============================================================
Total                                             $6,066,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Several factors were considered influential in gaining participation
in a watershed project.  First, USDA staff and the project's
participants agreed that the involvement of the members of the
Conservation District's Board of Directors, who are well-known and
respected farmers, was a key to garnering local support.  If
outsiders come into the community with solutions, local farmers are
skeptical, because they believe each farm is unique in its
combination of crops, soils, and management techniques.  Second, to
discover how to motivate local farmers to participate in the project,
a USDA sociologist was used to develop enlistment strategies and
estimate the farmers' participation rates.  Although participants
were initially skeptical, many felt that the sociologist was very
helpful in understanding the social and economic currents that
contributed to the project's success.  Third, participants' ability
to see reductions in erosion with their own eyes helped increase
participation.  USDA staff developed a guide that shows the color of
irrigation drain water at three sediment levels:  300 milligrams of
soil per liter, 1,000 milligrams of soil per liter, and 9,000
milligrams of soil per liter.  Farmers can easily determine whether
they are meeting the goal of 300 milligrams, as well as observe
whether their neighbors are meeting it. 

Financial assistance also helped increase participation, but
cost-sharing ceilings and inflexible requirements limited its
usefulness.  USDA staff noted that farming is viewed as a financially
risky occupation; thus, farmers are reluctant to adopt new, unproven
practices that could threaten their profit margin.  They said that
USDA's cost-sharing program helped mitigate the financial impact of
new practices, but farmers are limited to $3,500 per year in
cost-sharing assistance.  Some farmers told us that this hindered the
effectiveness of the program because many of the practices
recommended by the USDA technical experts, such as installing
irrigation piping that can control water flow, require significant
financial outlays. 

After the plan was developed, USDA staff learned of a new technique
that could help reduce sediment but is not eligible for cost-sharing
funding.  Adding a polymer to the irrigation water causes the
sediment to settle out much faster, reducing erosion runoff from the
fields.  The polymer has been used in water treatment plants for
years but has not yet been approved for agricultural use. 
Participants obtained permission to test the polymer, which costs
about $10 per acre, for agricultural uses in West Stanislaus County
but had to proceed without federal cost sharing because this
treatment is not authorized in USDA's program guidance. 

Although the project's participants were motivated in part by a
desire to avoid regulation, some felt that encouraging voluntary
participation by itself was insufficient to ensure that the project's
goals are achieved.  One of the water districts\6 in the watershed
decided to require that farmers reduce the sediment in their runoff
to 1,000 milligrams per liter to receive water for irrigation, under
the threat of halting water deliveries.  The water district, which
covers 25 percent of the watershed, has never had to cut off water
deliveries, and 90 percent of its farmers are in compliance. 


--------------------
\6 Water districts are responsible for operating the irrigation and
drainage canals and maintaining the water quality in their districts. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

Structural and managerial best practices have been adopted on about
20 percent of the watershed, or 25,000 acres.  USDA estimates that
the project has reduced the sediment reaching the San Joaquin River
by about 340,000 tons since the project began and thereby reduced the
DDT reaching the river by about 620 pounds.  Another benefit of
changing irrigation techniques is that farmers have reduced the
amount of irrigation water they use by 18 percent, saving about
11,000 acre-feet of water. 


OTTER LAKE WATERSHED
========================================================= Appendix III

The major lessons of the Otter Lake watershed project were that (1) a
holistic approach is important for successful watershed management
and (2) federal financial assistance can be instrumental in improving
water quality. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Otter Lake covers 765 acres in southern Illinois, as shown in figure
III.1.  Built in 1968, Otter Lake is one of eight lakes contributing
to the public water supply of Macoupin County and provides drinking
water and recreational uses for about 14,000 people in seven
communities.  The lake's water supply is recharged by runoff water
drained from the 12,250-acre watershed, 87 percent of which is
agricultural land. 

   Figure III.1:  Location of the
   Otter Lake Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Excess sedimentation, caused by cropland and shoreline erosion, is a
primary cause of the declining water quality in Otter Lake.  Sediment
has increased turbidity (murkiness), which has reduced aquatic
vegetation.  It may also be impairing the levels of dissolved oxygen,
harming fish reproduction and overall health.  All of these factors,
in turn, may force a shift in the fish species that populate the
lake. 

Pesticide residues and other organic materials in farm runoff are
also impairing the water quality in the lake.  In 1993, Otter Lake
was one of three public water supply lakes in the county found to
have atrazine levels exceeding the standard established by EPA under
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Atrazine, an herbicide commonly
used on corn, is a potential carcinogen for humans; it is water
soluble and takes 15 to 20 years to break down. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Responding to a 1990 USDA request to identify and prioritize concerns
about water resources, the Macoupin County Soil and Water
Conservation District board selected five lakes that contribute to
the public water supply for priority attention, including Otter Lake
because of its high sediment levels.\7 After the Otter Lake Resource
Planning Committee was formed in June 1992, preliminary evidence of
atrazine problems in the Otter Lake was discovered. 

Responsibilities for managing the project are shared by three
organizations representing community, state, and federal agencies-- a
commission, a resource planning committee, and a technical advisory
committee.  The commission, a quasimunicipal corporation that sells
water to seven communities in the watershed, has decision-making
authority for all matters related to the lake and surrounding
property.  The resource planning committee, comprising members from
the agricultural community such as farmers and agribusiness leaders,
provides local input to define resource concerns and leadership
during the development and implementation of the watershed plan.  The
technical advisory committee, comprising representatives from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Conservation,
and Department of Agriculture as well as the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture, advises the planning committee throughout the project. 


--------------------
\7 In Illinois, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are
county-level entities responsible for guiding and implementing a
local conservation program and are supported by grants from the
Illinois Department of Agriculture. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

With guidance from the technical advisory committee, the planning
committee decided to pursue funding to implement sediment control
measures, recognizing that some of those measures could also be used
for atrazine control.  However, in August 1993 the Illinois EPA
placed Otter Lake on its restricted status list for atrazine.  This
designation generally prohibits further development and requires
compliance within a period of time that varies with the compliance
strategy chosen.  Otter Lake may choose from among the following
compliance strategies:  (1) apply water treatment technologies (e.g.,
activated charcoal treatment), (2) locate a new source of drinking
water, (3) blend water from the current source with water from
alternative sources, and (4) implement watershed management measures. 

The atrazine finding encouraged the planning committee to shift from
single-issue planning to broader watershed planning and, eventually,
to comprehensive "ecosystem" planning.  In ecosystem planning, an
inventory of regional concerns is developed in addition to an
inventory of local community concerns.  Best management practices
recommended for one resource area must be evaluated to confirm that
they do not impair others.  Although a final ecosystem plan has not
yet been approved, the project aims to encourage (1) management
changes on 75 to 80 percent of all acres in the watershed and (2)
widespread installation of structural measures, such as sediment
control basins and artificial wetlands. 

Otter Lake has received most of its project funding to date from
USDA, as shown in table III.1. 



                         Table III.1
           
                 Otter Lake Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
USDA                                                $201,000
EPA                                                   54,000
Landowners                                            25,000
Local contributions                                   12,000
============================================================
Total                                               $292,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

Otter Lake has used federal financial and technical assistance to
help farmers design, demonstrate, and implement various structural
and management practices aimed at reducing nonpoint-source pollution
in the watershed.  For example, the project funded the implementation
of certain management practices, such as integrated crop management,
a practice designed to minimize pesticide use; the planting of
pasture and hay land to reduce erosion; and animal waste management
to control nutrients.  Furthermore, with the help of state and
federal staff, a demonstration project to construct 14 water and
sediment control basins and 2 permanent wetlands structures was
designed to show how such containment structures, combined with
plantings, can remove atrazine and other pollutants from the water
system.  According to project staff, some farmers have expressed
interest in implementing similar structures, but it is uncertain how
funding will be secured to meet this demand.  According to EPA
officials, funding for the additional demonstration projects
requested by the farmers is unlikely because such structures would
duplicate those already in place in the Otter Lake project area. 

In addition to financial assistance, flexibility is also important
for monitoring a project's results.  A USDA official said that some
water quality monitoring is needed if a watershed project has
numerical goals (e.g., 3 parts per billion for atrazine in Otter
Lake), but it does not have to be extensive.  The official said that
information about water quality helps to educate and motivate
farmers.  In addition, the official believes that water quality is a
good indicator of overall health of the watershed.  At Otter Lake,
the Illinois EPA and a chemical manufacturer are sampling and
analyzing the lake water, and the water commission is sampling and
analyzing the tap water. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

Monitoring results have shown acceptable atrazine levels in Otter
Lake for the last three quarterly test periods.  According to a USDA
official, the behavior of atrazine in natural systems, including the
reasons for fluctuations in Otter Lake itself, are not well
understood, so these results are inconclusive.  Furthermore, after
obligating its fiscal year 1995 funds, the project is expected to
reach its acreage goal for implementation of management practices. 


BIG SPRING BASIN WATERSHED
========================================================== Appendix IV

The major lessons of the Big Spring Basin watershed project are that
(1) education is key to a project's success and (2) the relationship
between changes in land use and chemical improvements in water
quality may be difficult to demonstrate. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Big Spring Basin covers about 66,000 acres of northeastern Iowa's
Clayton County, as shown in figure IV.1.  The area is heavily
agricultural, primarily cropland planted in corn and alfalfa and
livestock operations.  About 220 farmers live in the watershed. 

   Figure IV.1:  Location of the
   Big Spring Basin Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In Big Spring Basin, groundwater aquifers (natural underground
reservoirs) that supply drinking water are close to the land surface
and are thus vulnerable to contamination from surface activities,
particularly agricultural operations.  The primary concern about
water quality is nitrate contamination of the groundwater, which can
occur through downward percolation of nitrogen from manure or
chemical fertilizers applied to cropland or from surface runoff that
enters the groundwater system through sinkholes or other passageways. 
Some herbicides and insecticides also have been detected in the Big
Spring Basin's groundwater. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

In Big Spring Basin, data on water quality dating back to 1961 showed
strong correlations between the use of nitrogen fertilizers and the
concentration of nitrates in the groundwater.  During the next 2
decades, the use of nitrogen fertilizer in the watershed more than
doubled, while nitrate concentrations in Big Spring tripled.  In
1981, the Iowa Geological Survey began extensive, continuous water
quality monitoring in Big Spring; by 1983, the survey had documented
a steady decline in the quality of the groundwater in the watershed. 
At the same time, numerous meetings were held, educational activities
conducted, and task forces convened to discuss the problem.  In late
1983, the Northeast Iowa Conservancy District and the Iowa
Cooperative Extension Service formed the Ad Hoc Karst Committee,\8
later renamed the Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Groundwater
Quality, to design a multiagency, tiered research and demonstration
project for the Big Spring Basin. 

The Consortium, with representatives from numerous federal and state
agencies, developed the Big Spring Basin watershed proposal, which
provided a broad outline for project activities.  The project's
day-to-day activities were managed by local project coordinators with
the Iowa State University Extension.  Educational, technical, and
financial assistance is provided by various federal, state, and local
agencies, such as USDA and EPA, Iowa's Departments of Natural
Resources and Agriculture, and Iowa State University. 


--------------------
\8 The committee was named after the caverns, sinkholes, and springs,
called karst features, which make up the geology of the Big Spring
Basin. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

The planning process for Big Spring Basin was informal, and
participants did not produce a formal watershed management plan.  The
Consortium targeted key problem areas and developed a nonregulatory
model for the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project.  Its objectives
were to (1) reduce the potential environmental impacts of
agricultural practices and (2) enhance the efficiency and
profitability of farm management.  These objectives would be met
through a 7-year, integrated education, demonstration, research, and
monitoring effort focused primarily on nitrogen management. 
Technical and financial assistance would be provided to participating
farmers. 

When the project officially began in 1986, participants had
difficulty securing funding because federal and state funding sources
were geared toward protecting surface water, not groundwater. 
Because of the limited funding, project leaders targeted the
1,005-acre Bugenhagen Subbasin, a microcosm of the larger basin, for
the project's initial effort.  Like Big Spring Basin, the subbasin
drains to a single outlet--a sinkhole--which provided good conditions
for monitoring. 

Over time, the project received funding from numerous sources, as
shown in table IV.1.  According to project staff, total financial
support for the demonstration project was larger than it was for many
watershed projects because of the scope and intensity of the
education and monitoring conducted. 



                          Table IV.1
           
              Big Spring Basin Watershed Funding

Funding source                                      Amount\a
------------------------------  ----------------------------
Federal--education and                              $394,000
 technical assistance
Federal--monitoring and other                      1,051,000
 studies
State--education and technical                     2,456,000
 assistance
State--monitoring and other                        2,593,000
 studies
Federal and state--special                           625,000
 cost sharing
============================================================
Total                                             $7,119,000
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Figures include only funds specifically earmarked for the
demonstration project for the fiscal years 1982-93. 

Source:  University of Iowa. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

Farmers and project staff alike gave enormous credit to the project's
coordinators for its success.  The coordinators selected for the
project had a long-standing involvement in the area as county staff
providing technical assistance to the agricultural community.  As a
result, they were regarded as credible and trustworthy, which was a
critical factor in encouraging farmers' participation in the project. 
The coordinators drew on their familiarity with farming conditions
and practices in the watershed to identify solutions that would be
compatible with the farmers' needs and abilities. 

Demonstration projects and other educational activities were deemed
important because the project had no regulatory component and
depended on voluntary participation.  In the Bugenhagen Subbasin,
project staff worked one-on-one with farmers to provide more
intensive education and technical assistance.  Demonstration projects
involved nitrogen management, soil erosion, pest management, weed
control, conservation tillage, and energy conservation.  Project
staff provided education and technical assistance to farmers for
specific practices, such as establishing realistic yield goals, soil
sampling, and soil nitrate testing.  Publicity and outreach
activities, ranging from public meetings and field days to
publications in newspapers and newsletters, were used to increase the
community's awareness about the project. 

The project employed an extensive network of over 50 monitoring
stations to generate detailed information on the changes in water
quality that accompanied improved farm management (e.g., water flow,
conductivity, alkalinity, temperature, nitrates, and pesticides). 
Surveys of farmers' practices were conducted both in the subbasin and
throughout the basin. 

Showing a link between overall declines in nitrogen use and chemical
changes in the groundwater is difficult.  According to project staff,
the effects of reducing nitrogen levels over 10 years cannot be
isolated from the effects of other factors, particularly climatic
variations.  For example, the resulting changes in water volume
caused by drought conditions in 1988 and 1989, followed by
exceptionally wet conditions in subsequent years, affected the
nitrate concentrations.  Other factors complicating an analysis of
effects on water quality include changes in application rates and in
land use and cropping patterns.  Project staff acknowledge that
measuring the project's impact is generally difficult because much is
still unknown about the movement and disposition of contaminants in
groundwater systems.  Recognizing the need to improve the
understanding of how changes in land management eventually affect
water quality, USDA is applying a computer modeling program called
AGNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source) to the extensive data collected
in Big Spring Basin so the agency can estimate how reductions in the
rates of pesticide and fertilizer application eventually affect water
quality. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5

Throughout the basin, more than 200 farmers voluntarily decreased
their use of nitrogen as a result of the project.  The average amount
of nitrogen fertilizer used for corn production between 1981 and 1991
decreased by 33 percent, with no loss of yields.  By contrast, the
county and statewide rates of nitrogen use declined by 20 percent
during the same period.  Cumulatively, Big Spring Basin farmers
reduced nitrogen use by nearly 1-1/2 million pounds from 1981 to
1991, for estimated cost savings of about $266,000. 

In the subbasin, 9 of 11 farmers, controlling 98 percent of the total
acreage, entered into 7-year contracts for soil and water
conservation.  From 1987 through 1991, annual soil savings of 64
percent were recorded for about 900 acres of cropland and permanent
pasture.  Some form of best management practices for pesticides and
nutrients were implemented on all acres in the subbasin.  The rates
of nitrogen use in the subbasin were reduced by about 10 percent. 


TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN WATERSHED
=========================================================== Appendix V

The major lessons of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin watershed project
are that (1) flexible and innovative approaches--in this case,
pollutant trading--may offer more cost-effective alternatives for
improving water quality and (2) the consensus process is essential
for maintaining cohesion between stakeholder groups and keeping them
committed to the project's goals. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River Basin watershed, comprising about
3.5 million acres, stretches 180 miles southeast from the state's
hilly north central portion, through the coastal plain region, to
empty into Pamlico Sound, as shown in figure V.1.  The watershed,
which is relatively undeveloped land, encompasses about 365,000
residents, at least nine threatened or endangered freshwater mussel
species, and all or part of three national wildlife refuges. 

   Figure V.1:  Location of the
   Tar-Pamlico River Basin
   Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Water quality problems in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin watershed have
been known for a number of years.  About 22 percent of the
fresh-water streams in the watershed are impaired by sediment,
acidity, and high fecal coliform bacteria counts; several lakes
suffer from excessive nutrients; and more than 50,000 acres near the
mouth of the Pamlico River are periodically stricken with algae
blooms, fish kills, crab and fish diseases, and closed shellfish
waters. 

Both municipal and industrial point sources, as well as nonpoint
sources that include agriculture, contribute nutrients to the Tar and
Pamlico Rivers.  Point sources, such as waste treatment plants and
industrial factories, discharge waste water that contains nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorous.  The primary sources of nutrient
pollution from agricultural nonpoint sources are animal manure and
chemical fertilizers applied to cropland. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

In response to a petition by a local citizens' group--the Pamlico-Tar
River Foundation--and recommendations made by the state's Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina designated the entire
Tar-Pamlico River Basin as "nutrient sensitive waters" in September
1989.  This designation required the development of a comprehensive
strategy to reduce pollution in the watershed.  In developing this
strategy, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
worked with three industry and community groups that represented the
various stakeholders--the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, a
point-source dischargers group; the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund, a nonprofit environmental group; and the Pamlico-Tar
River Foundation. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

The state initially proposed several steps to reduce the nutrients
entering the river system.  To reduce the municipal and industrial
contribution, the state proposed including nutrient limits in the
permits it issues to point-source dischargers.  To reduce the
agricultural contribution, the state planned to rely on North
Carolina's Agriculture Cost Share Program to financially assist
farmers in voluntarily addressing nonpoint nutrient pollution from
cropland and concentrated animal operations. 

The Tar-Pamlico Basin Association estimated it would cost point-
source dischargers $50 million in plant and equipment upgrades to
comply with the state's proposed discharge limits.  Instead, the
environmental, citizens', and point source groups proposed an
alternative that had two major phases.  First, association members
(i.e., point-source dischargers) would have engineering studies
performed on their facilities and would make the operational changes
and minor investments found necessary to optimize the removal of
nutrients from their discharges.  In connection with this aspect of
the agreement, the members as a group would reduce the nutrient
content of their discharges by at least 25,000 kilograms each year to
reach a group limit of 425,000 kilograms per year by the end of 1994. 
Second, rather than requiring expensive plant and equipment upgrades
in order to achieve their nutrient limits, the North Carolina
Environmental Defense Fund proposed that point source association
members be allowed to instead contribute to an innovative nutrient
credit "trading" fund.  The fund would be used to finance more
cost-effective actions to reduce nutrient pollution from agricultural
nonpoint sources.  Association members agreed to contribute $56 to
the fund for every kilogram of nutrients discharged in excess of
their group's limits. 

In December 1989, the state approved and adopted the plan, which is
now known as the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters Implementation
Strategy.  The major stakeholders agreed that the details of the
two-phase plan would be spelled out in an agreement that would
periodically be reviewed and updated.  Successful consensus building
led to smooth implementation of phase one, resulting in goals for
reducing nutrients that were accepted by all parties and an updated
phase-one agreement that was signed by all three participating
organizations in February 1992. 

The funding for phase one, which ended in December 1994, is shown in
table V.1.  The Tar-Pamlico Association's contribution includes a
$750,000 grant obtained from EPA under the Clean Water Act. 



                          Table V.1
           
              Tar-Pamlico River Basin Watershed
                           Funding

Funding source                                      Amount\a
------------------------------  ----------------------------
EPA                                               $1,409,000
USDA                                               3,711,000
State                                              5,590,000
Tar-Pamlico Basin Association                      1,400,000
Voluntary participants                             2,047,000
 (farmers)
============================================================
Total\b                                          $14,157,000
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Amounts shown are for funding through September 30, 1994. 

\b Totals are approximate and may not include the value of farmers'
in-kind labor, funds raised by local watershed groups, or the cost of
activities provided by various federal and state agencies under other
programs. 

Source:  The Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan and Implementation Strategy and personnel from the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 

However, problems that emerged during the planning of phase two
portend future difficulties for the program.  The consensus began to
break down during phase two, which began in January 1995 and is
scheduled to end in December 2004.  A study performed in phase one
indicated the need for a goal of a 45-percent reduction in nitrogen
levels in phase two.  However, because of uncertainties about the
accuracy of the model used in the study, the state decided to
institute an interim reduction goal for nitrogen of 30 percent (a
reduction of 583,000 kilograms per year) and maintain the current
discharge limits for phosphorous.  Most of the 30-percent reduction
goal for nitrogen was allocated to nonpoint sources.  Half of the
nonpoint allocation is to come from agricultural sources.  Also,
under phase two, the nutrient credit trading rate that association
members would be required to pay was reduced from $56 to $29 for
every kilogram over the limit on the basis of the results of a study. 
The state also agreed to credit the association for the amount of its
contribution that had not been spent in phase one.  About $450,000 of
the association's contribution to the nutrient credit trading fund
had not been spent by the end of phase one, so state officials
recomputed the amount of the remaining nutrient credit this figure
represented on the basis of the new $29 rate.  Thus, the association
started phase two of the project with a nitrogen credit of over
22,000 kilograms. 

The major stakeholders could not reach a consensus on the overall
phase-two reduction goals and the allocation of reductions between
the point and nonpoint sources.  State officials nevertheless
approved phase two because they felt it was a good compromise between
the positions of the point sources and of the environmental and
citizens' groups.  In addition, state officials said phase two had to
be coordinated with the state's 5-year cycle for reviewing its
basinwide watershed management plans and the concurrent basinwide
approval of all point-source discharge permits. 

Although the state's action may have been expedient, it could have a
significant impact on the project's future.  The North Carolina
Environmental Defense Fund and the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
refused to sign the phase-two agreement.  These two organizations
believed that the concessions made to the point-source dischargers
undermine the effectiveness of nutrient credit trading and shift too
much of the financial burden for reducing pollution to the nonpoint
sources.  An official from the North Carolina Environmental Defense
Fund said that the Fund may file a lawsuit against the state unless
the state develops a workable plan for achieving the large reductions
in nutrients that are to come from nonpoint sources. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

The project's participants recognized that success depended on
including local citizens and officials in the planning process. 
During phase one, the state and the North Carolina League of
Municipalities sponsored two public workshops in 1994 to familiarize
the public with the plan, solicit comments, and broaden stakeholders'
education and participation.  Priorities compiled from these meetings
included the need to increase public education and stakeholders'
participation, improve the control of nonpoint- source pollution,
identify and target problem areas and resources in the river basin,
consider land use planning and property rights, improve data on water
quality, improve funding and regulatory enforcement, and consider
cost-benefit relationships. 

The project's participants said these meetings also helped break down
barriers and misperceptions between various competing groups.  People
began to acknowledge that they all contributed to water quality
problems in one way or another and that protecting the watershed was
in everyone's best interests. 

Also during phase one, the state began a demonstration project in the
Chicod Creek Subbasin to reduce agricultural discharges.  Farmers in
that area were encouraged to participate in a voluntary program to
implement various agricultural best management practices in order to
reduce nutrient runoff.  State officials said that demonstration
projects greatly increase voluntary participation in watershed
projects because farmers generally stay with practices that are
"tried and true.ï¿½ They tend to wait to see what experience their
peers have with a new practice before they adopt it, even if the
practice is said to be financially beneficial. 

However, some participants in the project thought that most farmers
want to be good stewards of the land and would make the needed
changes if they had the funds and expertise.  Thus, the availability
of financial and technical assistance is important to the farmer. 
Participants noted that supplemental funding sources, such as the
state cost-sharing program, are important to watershed projects
because sufficient federal funding may be hard to obtain.  They said
that USDA's funding for improvements in water quality at individual
farms is severely constrained because actions to improve water
quality are considered just one of several competing practices
subject to an overall annual cap of $3,500 per farmer for projects
funded under the Agricultural Conservation Program.  State officials
believe that the targeted 50-percent reduction in nitrogen pollution
from agricultural sources in the watershed will cost about $8.5
million and have recommended that funding for the state Agriculture
Cost Share Program be increased. 

State officials also said that watershed projects would benefit
greatly from increased communication, coordination, and cooperation
between the states and all the federal agencies.  For instance, USDA
staff encourage farmers to plant grasses at the edge of cultivated
fields that serve as buffer zones for runoff.  However, better
coordination between USDA and the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service
would ensure that grasses planted also provide good wildlife habitat. 

State officials said that accomplishments have not yet been reflected
in the results of water quality monitoring for the estuary and may
not be measurable for many years.  They believed that other
indicators, such as a growth in fish populations, may be better
short-term indicators of success.  These officials feared that if
federal agencies measure success on the basis of short-term water
quality monitoring data alone, future funding could be in jeopardy. 

Agency officials and participants both preferred voluntary programs
to control nonpoint agricultural discharges over regulation.  They
believed that people would continue to take the day-to-day actions
necessary to improve water quality only if they are truly committed
to them.  However, some state officials, as well as one farmer we
spoke to, believed that there must also be a regulatory enforcement
component to encourage early action and to take care of polluters who
do not comply. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5

As a result of engineering studies performed early in phase one,
point-source dischargers in the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association reduced
their nutrient discharges below the state limits through relatively
inexpensive equipment upgrades and operational changes.  In fact,
point-source nutrient discharge levels have been below the state's
limits for nitrogen and phosphorous for every year since the
phase-one agreement was signed. 

By April 1993, the end of the sign-up period for the Chicod Creek
demonstration project, 27 of the 32 confined animal operations
located in the subbasin had agreed to implement management practices
to reduce nonpoint-source pollution.  Waste management plans had been
written for 6 of the 12 highest-priority operations, and construction
of the various containment structures required had begun at 2 of
these sites. 


BIG DARBY CREEK WATERSHED
========================================================== Appendix VI

The major lessons of the Big Darby Creek watershed project are that
(1) in the absence of an immediate water quality crisis, financial
incentives can be useful in stimulating participation in a project
and (2) the link between changes in land use and improvements in
water quality may be difficult to demonstrate in a large watershed. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

The Big Darby Creek watershed covers about 371,000 acres of Ohio's
central lowlands on the eastern edge of the Corn Belt, as shown in
table VI.1.  The terrain is generally flat land and gently rolling
hills.  About 1,170 farms are located in the watershed, with the
steeper upper portion containing small farms of about 60 acres and
the flatter lower portion containing larger farms of about 300 acres. 
More than 80 percent of the land in the watershed is devoted to
crops, and there is some livestock pasturing. 

   Figure VI.1:  Location of the
   Big Darby Creek Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The two major threats to water quality in the Big Darby Creek
watershed are agricultural and urban nonpoint-source pollution.  The
major agricultural pollutant is sedimentation, caused by the
widespread use of conventional tilling practices and stream bank
erosion.  Increased sediment has impaired stream habitat and the
feeding and spawning activities of fish and other aquatic life. 
Agriculture also has created limited nutrient and pesticide problems
in the creek.  Experts estimate that although the watershed is now
one of the healthiest in the Midwest, up to 25 percent of Big Darby's
aquatic species may be lost in the near future if land management
practices are not changed. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

The Big Darby project was conceived jointly by the Ohio chapter of
the Nature Conservancy and USDA.\9 Before the project began, the
Conservancy spearheaded the creation of the Darby Partners, an
association designed to facilitate closer communication and
coordination among all the stakeholders in the watershed.  The
Partners now comprise more than 40 public and private organizations
committed to working together to protect the creek.  The Darby
Partners review and assist in the implementation of the Big Darby
project.  For example, the Partners identify practices and funding
sources appropriate for farmers, serve as a clearinghouse for funding
applications, and use committees and subcommittees to coordinate
individual farmers' projects. 


--------------------
\9 The Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit membership
organization committed to the preservation of biological diversity. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

In 1990, USDA approved a proposal to include Big Darby Creek in its
Hydrologic Unit Area program, which targets areas facing significant
threats to water quality from agricultural nonpoint sources.  The
program provides technical and financial assistance to encourage
landowners to voluntarily adopt best management practices. 

Under this program, the objective is to maintain or improve the
unique, high-quality stream and its watershed by using innovative
approaches to reduce sedimentation and levels of nutrients and
pesticides while maintaining a viable agricultural economy.  The
specific goals of the project are to (1) reduce sediment in the creek
by 40 percent, (2) protect 3,200 acres of riparian corridor, (3)
reduce nutrient and pesticide levels, and (4) protect 21 miles of
stream banks.  Following Big Darby's selection as a hydrologic unit
area, the Nature Conservancy designated Big Darby as one of its 12
"Last Great Places," which enabled it to begin funding, conducting,
and coordinating environmental conservation programs there. 

The Partners did not create a formal watershed management plan but
relied instead on three basic documents to guide their work:  (1) the
original hydrologic unit area project proposal, (2) a Forest Service
watershed inventory, and (3) the Nature Conservancy's watershed plan,
which focused more on urban issues.  Project staff we met with
acknowledged the importance of planning but stressed that it must
lead to action, not to documents that sit on a shelf. 

Collectively, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the six
counties in the watershed identified the following problem areas: 
(1) soil erosion and sedimentation from croplands, (2) the widespread
lack of management of nutrients and pesticides, (3) poor management
of animal wastes, and (4) livestock's access to streams.  USDA
identified a general list of best management practices to be
implemented by the project and estimated the level of funding needed
for these practices--about $9 million over 3 years.  Almost half of
Big Darby's funding has come from USDA, as shown in table VI.1. 



                          Table VI.1
           
              Big Darby Creek Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
USDA                                              $2,367,000
EPA                                                  650,000
Department of the Interior                           349,000
State                                                387,000
State-local matching funds                           313,000
Local government                                      85,000
Ohio Nature Conservancy                              716,000
Kellogg Corporation (grant to
 Operation: Future                                   278,000
 Association)
============================================================
Total                                             $5,145,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Ohio Nature Conservancy. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

The Big Darby project provides financial and technical assistance and
educational opportunities to encourage and facilitate farmers'
implementation of best management practices in all six counties in
the watershed.  Since Big Darby is not facing an immediate crisis in
water quality, the project's leaders recognized that some farmers
need incentives to participate in the watershed project.  According
to project staff, financial assistance has helped make
nonpoint-source pollution more of a priority for some people. 

One approach to providing financial assistance is Ohio's recently
established low-interest loan program for qualifying individuals and
private organizations that want to implement projects to control
nonpoint-source pollution.  Under this program, an applicant who has
received a certification of qualification from a conservation
district can take the certification to a participating bank.  If the
bank approves the loan, the interest rate will be discounted, usually
by 3 percent, from the normal lending rate. 

Regarding technical assistance, project staff noted that it is
important to understand farmers' needs and find practices that are
compatible with those needs.  Different programs have different
purposes and requirements, and farmers need flexibility to choose
among a program's tools or even expand the toolbox. 

An assortment of educational and outreach activities, such as farm
tours, workshops, canoe trips, expositions, videos, the use of mass
media, and school events, are being directed to the general public
and to landowners to increase their awareness of water quality and
encourage interest in the Big Darby watershed.  Although some farm
demonstration projects have been conducted, project staff prefer to
use funding for farmers' specific projects, estimating that the cost
of 1 demonstration could pay for about 10 farmers' projects. 

Assessments of the biological, physical, and chemical aspects of
water quality are being conducted in Big Darby Creek.  According to
state officials, biological monitoring may be the best method for
assessing problems with nonpoint-source pollution.  They stressed
that such monitoring should be a separate element and in place before
individual watershed projects are begun.  However, a project's
performance can be validly assessed using other indicators, such as
fish counts, best management practices adopted, and farmers'
attitudes, according to project staff. 

Water quality monitoring in Big Darby is not tied directly to
farmers' implementation activities.  According to project staff,
farmers are sometimes frustrated by data limitations and the
project's inability to show results.  They acknowledged that a better
link between monitoring and day-to-day project activities could help
show participants that their activities are having a positive effect. 
They cautioned, however, that current science can demonstrate only a
tenuous link between land use practices and the chemical aspects of
water quality. 

Some sociological data also has been collected.  Focus groups showed
that farmers were generally enthusiastic about collaborating with
agencies to achieve a greater goal and that their primary concerns
were the protection of stream corridors and control of suburban
encroachment. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

During the last 3 years, the biological integrity of the watershed's
streams has remained constant, while sediment, pesticide, and
nutrient levels have fluctuated.  The Big Darby project has reached
57 percent of its goal of reducing sediment by 50,000 tons per year,
and 98 producers have installed one or more structural enhancements
or implemented management practices in 1994 to reduce nonpoint-source
pollution. 


COOS BAY-COQUILLE RIVER WATERSHEDS
========================================================= Appendix VII

The major lesson of the Coos Bay and Coquille River watershed
projects is that involving local stakeholders in planning and
implementing a project can help overcome a community's suspicion of
government-sponsored initiatives and result in a cooperative
partnership of community interests and government agencies. 


   PROJECTS' LOCATION AND PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

Coos Bay and the Coquille River are adjacent watersheds covering
about 2,000 acres along the southern Oregon coast, as shown in figure
VII.1.  The terrain is composed of steep, heavily timbered hills
interspersed with pasture land leading to pastures on drained
wetlands along various rivers and creeks.  The local economy depends
heavily on timber, commercial fishing, and agriculture. 

   Figure VII.1:  Location of the
   Coos Bay- Coquille River
   Watersheds

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Coos Bay-Coquille River area is an important spawning and winter
rearing habitat for salmon and other anadromous fish.\10 The fish
spawn in the gravel-covered stream beds near the headwaters of the
creeks, and the juvenile fish linger in the cool, heavily shaded
areas downstream until they are mature enough to head out to sea. 

The salmon population has severely declined for several reasons,
including the impact that timber and agricultural activities have had
on the spawning and rearing habitat.  Sediment from timber runoff and
eroding banks in pasture land has silted over the gravel spawning
grounds and decreased the amount of dissolved oxygen available to the
fish.  Destruction of habitat--by, for example, straightening
streams--causes juvenile fish to be swept out to sea before they are
mature enough to survive ocean conditions.  Finally, temperatures in
parts of the Coquille River reach 80 degrees, much warmer than the 50
to 60 degree temperature suitable for fish. 


--------------------
\10 Anadromous fish hatch in fresh water, journey downstream to the
ocean to mature, and return to their place of birth to spawn. 
Anadromous species in the Coos Bay-Coquille River watersheds include
coho salmon, fall and spring chinook salmon, winter steelhead trout,
and sea-run cutthroat trout. 


   PROJECTS' GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

The initial effort was a 1991 demonstration project on Larson and
Palouse Creeks, tributaries of Coos Bay, that was funded through
EPA's Near Coastal Waters Program.  The effort was prompted by a
complaint from owners of one of the Coos Bay oyster beds, which had
been closed because of fecal contamination.  In addition, the state
identified these creeks as dangerous for recreation because of the
high fecal coliform count.  The project's goal was to reduce the
coliform count from 16,000 per 100 milliliters to 200 per 100
milliliters. 

The government agencies involved in the project called a community
meeting to elicit citizens' concerns about water quality.  The
potential listing of the coho salmon as an endangered species was a
major concern for landowners along the creeks.  Attendees also
identified drinking water quality, access to creeks in order to water
livestock, land loss due to erosion, and suitability for recreational
use as their primary concerns. 

The community organized two watershed associations, one focusing on
the Coos Bay watershed and the other on the adjacent Coquille River
watershed.  Each association has an executive council that sets the
overall policy and direction for the project.  Watershed members
include timber companies; private landowners; federal land management
agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service; state agencies with water and habitat responsibilities, such
as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; and other
interested parties, such as local seaport operators and environmental
groups. 


   PROJECTS' PLANNING AND FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3

Both associations issued an action plan in 1994 after spending less
than a year planning and developing their overall approach.  The
plans include quantifiable goals and a monitoring strategy.  For
example, the Coquille River watershed plan identified three goals: 
(1) meeting the Clean Water Act's standards, (2) enhancing fish
survival and production, and (3) creating understanding and
acceptance in the community of the need for sustainable economic
activities that are compatible with long-term resource conservation. 
The evaluation strategy includes monitoring a variety of parameters,
such as stream temperature, stream flow, and fish spawning and
juvenile populations.  Both plans emphasize voluntary participation
and community education, and both advocate simple, low-technology
approaches like (1) installing fencing to minimize damage to
streambanks caused by livestock and thus reduce erosion, (2) planting
shade trees along the creeks to reduce the water temperature, and (3)
building small pools, called off-channel ponds, alongside the creek
to provide a rearing habitat for juvenile fish. 

EPA staff told us that they could not help fund the planning
activities for the Coos Bay-Coquille River projects because, at that
time, funds received under section 319 of the Clean Water Act could
only be used for implementation, not planning. 

The Coos Bay project is funded almost equally by federal and state
agencies, whereas the Coquille River project is funded primarily by
federal agencies, as shown in tables VII.1 and VII.2. 



                         Table VII.1
           
                  Coos Bay Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
Department of Commerce                              $250,000
Department of the Interior                            33,000
State                                                300,000
============================================================
Total                                               $583,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 



                         Table VII.2
           
               Coquille River Watershed Funding

Funding source                                        Amount
------------------------------  ----------------------------
Department of the Interior                        $1,300,000
Department of Commerce                               250,000
EPA                                                  150,000
State                                                619,000
Landowners' contributions                            100,000
 (estimated)
============================================================
Total                                             $2,419,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:4

The projects' participants emphasized that getting the local
community to agree that a water quality problem existed and needed to
be addressed was critical in making the project viable.  The local
community is suspicious of government regulation and very protective
of private property rights.  The community is particularly resistant
to projects with an environmental slant, because many blame federal
and state efforts to protect the spotted owl and salmon population
for high unemployment in the timber and fishing industries. 
Participants believed that public education and outreach was a major
factor in overcoming this resistance.  Because many in the community
were suspicious of the projects, participants spent a great deal of
time making formal and informal contact with members of the community
to explain the scope and approach of the projects and reassure the
public about the projects' intent.  Members of the Coquille River
Watershed Association are also developing a high school curriculum to
improve students' understanding of the watershed they live in and how
their activities affect water quality. 

Emphasizing stakeholders' involvement capitalized on the fact that
many landowners really wanted to help their neighbors by improving
water quality and revitalizing the salmon population.  Participants
said involving stakeholders helped ensure that all economic interests
were represented and considered when defining the problem and
developing a solution.  Representatives of the timber, fishery, and
agricultural sectors explained their operations and needs, and these
were taken into consideration in developing the projects' strategy. 
Participants emphasized that the projects could not progress until
stakeholders move beyond blaming each other for the current problem
and begin concentrating on the solution. 

Involving stakeholders also helped the government agencies to move
beyond focusing on their own missions to focusing on the overall
condition of the watershed.  Historically, government personnel had
seldom communicated with each other.  For example, one agency
official noted that the state was doing studies and building
in-stream structures, such as inserting logs, old trees, and other
woody debris to slow the stream flow; the U.S.  Army Corps of
Engineers was dredging canals and sloughs to improve drainage; the
Bureau of Land Management was undertaking projects on federal land,
such as reengineering access roads to minimize erosion; and USDA was
working with private landowners to reduce erosion and runoff from
animal wastes.  However, the agencies were not looking at how these
efforts related to each other.  The watershed associations have given
the agencies a forum for sharing information, and coordination among
them has greatly improved. 

Coos Bay and Coquille River project staff, participants, and state
government officials voiced concerns about inflexible federal
processes.  For example, project staff and state government officials
said it took 9 months to obtain a permit to build an off-channel pond
and spread the few cubic yards of earth removed across a pasture.  A
permit had to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers because it
has authority over disposal of dredge and fill materials into U.S. 
waters and wetlands.  Participants in the project said they could not
understand why it would take 9 months to issue a permit for such a
simple project. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:5

The Coos Bay project on Larson Creek has reached its goal of lowering
the fecal coliform count to 200 bacteria per 100 milliliters,
allowing the oyster beds that had been closed for 13 years because of
fecal contamination to be reopened.  In addition, the number of adult
fish returning to spawn in the tributaries of Coos Bay has doubled
over the previous year.  However, project staff noted that factors
other than the project, such as overall ocean conditions, can also
affect the number of fish returning to spawn.  About 20 of the 2,500
landowners along the Coquille River are participating in the program. 
Participants estimate that the Coquille River project has fenced and
replanted about 45 miles of streambanks and built five off-channel
ponds. 


LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN WATERSHED
======================================================== Appendix VIII

The major lessons of the Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project are
that (1) project management must be flexible enough to span multiple
jurisdictions, (2) watershed efforts must be driven by stakeholders'
concerns and supported by local participation, and (3) diversified
funding sources and good communication with state and provincial
legislatures are essential to sustained success. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:1

The Lake Champlain basin spans about 5.3 million acres of mostly
rural land, of which about 56 percent is located in Vermont, 37
percent in New York, and 7 percent in Quï¿½bec, Canada, as shown in
figure VIII.1.  The watershed is home to a population of over 600,000
people.  Lake Champlain and its basin abound with historic and Native
American cultural artifacts and was designated part of a biosphere
reserve by the United Nations in 1989. 

   Figure VIII.1:  Location of the
   Lake Champlain Basin Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Overall, Lake Champlain is considered healthy from the standpoint of
water quality.  However, various sections of the lake are
experiencing problems caused by excessive nutrients, particularly
phosphorous.  Phosphorous acts as a fertilizer, causing algae and
plants to grow more rapidly.  When excessive weeds and algae die and
decompose, they use up the dissolved oxygen in the water required by
fish and other species.  Data indicate that the phosphorous levels in
the lake need to be reduced by 200 metric tons per year to address
the problems associated with accelerated plant growth and that 68
percent of this reduction should come from nonpoint sources of
pollution, such as agricultural land.  Other problems include (1)
annual beach closings in both New York and Vermont because of high
counts of fecal coliform bacteria and the presence of pathogens; (2)
the presence of toxins, such as mercury and PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls); (3) nuisance aquatic plants, such as water chestnuts,
that discourage recreational use; and (4) nonnative species, such as
zebra mussels and sea lamprey, that threaten native mussel and fish
species. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:2

Water quality problems in Lake Champlain were recognized as far back
as 1905 by the U.S.  Geological Survey.  However, attempts to
establish a long-lived institution for the management of Lake
Champlain and its watershed have been unsuccessful.  The most recent
effort, the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, elevated
Lake Champlain to a protection category shared by only a few national
lakes and estuaries.  Under the act, EPA was required to establish a
management conference tasked to develop, within 5 years, a
comprehensive pollution prevention and control and restoration plan
for Lake Champlain and its watershed. 

The Lake Champlain Basin Program was established to coordinate the
activities envisioned under the Lake Champlain Special Designation
Act.  The Basin Program, jointly administered by EPA, the states of
New York and Vermont, and the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission, serves as an umbrella for the numerous
cooperating agencies, organizations, and individuals working to
develop the plan.  Altogether, some 227 regional, state, provincial,
or federal entities are involved in the planning effort for Lake
Champlain and its watershed. 

The Lake Champlain Management Conference is the Basin Program's
primary decision-making body.  It is a 31-member board representing a
broad spectrum of stakeholders' interests within the watershed from
both New York and Vermont, including local residents;
environmentalists; farmers; marina owners; fishery specialists;
scientists; industry and business representatives; and local, state,
and federal government officials.  Although it has an independent
function, the Joint New York-Vermont-Quï¿½bec Lake Champlain Steering
Committee also participates in the planning process, which involves
both regional policies and cooperation with Quï¿½bec. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:3

The Management Conference allotted considerable funding to priority
research for the first 2 years.  Other funds were spent on data
management efforts, demonstration projects, education and outreach
efforts, and administration of the Lake Champlain Basin Program. 
Projects were also funded in four major areas:  water quality; living
natural resources, such as threatened and endangered fish and
wildlife; human activities, such as recreation and cultural,
economic, and health concerns; and support studies, such as data
gathering and monitoring.  All projects require a 25-percent minimum
in matching funds from anyone undertaking the work.  The Lake
Champlain Management Conference is scheduled to "sunset" (i.e.,
terminate under its authorizing legislation) in March 1996, upon
completion of the final management plan, which must be approved by
the governors of New York and Vermont and the Administrator of EPA. 

Under the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, the
Congress tied financial support for Lake Champlain to a clear
timetable--up to $5 million per year for 5 years.  As shown in table
VIII.1, funding for Lake Champlain has come from several sources. 



                         Table VIII.1
           
               Lake Champlain Watershed Funding

Funding source                                      Amount\a
------------------------------  ----------------------------
USDA\a                                            $9,936,000
EPA\a                                              8,000,000
Department of the Interior\a                       2,834,000
Department of Commerce\a                             980,000
Voluntary participants                             3,279,000
 (farmers)\a
Contractors and others\b                             750,000
New York\c                                           903,000
Vermont\b                                            275,000
============================================================
Total\d                                          $26,957,000
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Amounts shown are for funding through September 30, 1994. 

\b Amounts shown are through March 31, 1995. 

\c Amount shown is through June 30, 1994. 

\d Totals are approximate and may not include the value of farmers'
in-kind labor, funds raised by local watershed groups, or the cost of
activities provided by various federal and state agencies under other
programs. 

Source:  Lake Champlain Basin Program Annual Reports for 1991-1994;
the Lake Champlain Basin Program draft plan entitled Opportunities
for Action, October 1994; personnel from the Lake Champlain Basin
Program; and personnel from the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:4

Recognizing that a regulatory program would likely polarize
stakeholder groups, the project's participants agreed that the
project should adopt a voluntary approach.  Lake Champlain Basin
Program officials believe that public education, support, and
participation are crucial to getting voluntary action.  In this
regard, public meetings and other forums were used to break down the
barriers between stakeholder groups so that constructive dialogue
could take place.  Basin program officials also believe that building
on existing community organizations results in more effective, less
costly, more creative solutions than would result from an inflexible,
prescriptive approach. 

Because many of the farms in New York and Vermont are marginal,
family-owned dairy operations, the farmers and USDA officials we
spoke to said that financial assistance is essential to the project's
success.  The financial assistance available to farmers has often
been insufficient, and many farmers could not afford the cost share
required of them.  Furthermore, the $3,500 annual cap placed on all
farm practices that fall under the Agricultural Conservation Program
serves to deter farmers from implementing pollution-mitigating
structures and practices. 

While more research is still needed, studies and monitoring efforts
undertaken throughout the watershed have provided valuable
information about water quality issues, such as phosphorous pollution
in the lake, that helped set the framework for the management plan. 
Data from monitoring have not shown a noticeable water quality
improvement, however, and additional information needs to be
developed on how pollutants such as phosphorous are introduced into,
travel through, and dissipate from the lake. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:5

From the agriculture/water quality standpoint, a few of the most
significant accomplishments include the following: 

  The states of New York and Vermont and the province of Quï¿½bec
     signed a water quality agreement in 1993, which endorsed uniform
     interim goals for phosphorous management for Lake Champlain. 

  A Lake Champlain Agricultural Advisory Council was established to
     help address agricultural issues relating to water quality
     throughout the watershed and ensure that farmers' needs for
     information are met. 

  Two demonstration projects dealing with manure management were
     undertaken, and 70 farmers participated in manure management
     workshops designed to reduce the nutrient runoff entering Lake
     Champlain and its tributaries. 

  Finally, more than 500 farmers in the watershed have agreed to
     participate in water quality projects sponsored by USDA. 


BLACK EARTH CREEK WATERSHED
========================================================== Appendix IX

The major lessons of the Black Earth Creek watershed project are that
(1) broad involvement by stakeholders is critical to a project's
success and (2) education is needed to promote long-term stewardship
of a watershed. 


   PROJECT'S LOCATION AND PROBLEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:1

The Black Earth Creek watershed covers about 64,000 acres, primarily
in Dane County, Wisconsin, as shown in figure IX.1.  Black Earth
Creek and its tributaries support one of the state's top recreational
trout fisheries.  Approximately 56 percent of the watershed is
agricultural land, most of whose approximately 380 farmers operate
dairy farms.  Other agricultural businesses in the watershed include
hog and beef cattle operations and farms devoted to cash crops such
as soybeans. 

   Figure IX.1:  Location of the
   Black Earth Creek Watershed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In response to anecdotal evidence of deteriorating stream conditions,
the U.S.  Geological Survey began a study of Black Earth Creek in
1984 to assess the hydrology, aquatic life, and water quality of the
creek and its tributaries.  The Survey collected data from sites
along two of the creek's tributaries and found problems with animal
waste runoff, high sediment levels, and low dissolved oxygen levels. 
The extent of these problems was greater than originally anticipated. 


   PROJECT'S GENESIS AND
   MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:2

On the basis of local support and interest from Dane County and the
local chapter of Trout Unlimited, a national sportsmen's
organization, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
designated Black Earth Creek a priority watershed in 1985.  The Black
Earth Creek project formally began in 1986.  The project is being
implemented under the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program, also known as the Priority Watershed Program.  The
program provides state matching funds to encourage farmers to
implement best management practices to reduce nonpoint- source
pollution.  The program targets critical landowners in each
watershed, and participation is voluntary, although the state retains
some enforcement authority. 

The project staff is drawn from a number of agencies and
organizations, including Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources,
the University of Wisconsin Extension, the Dane County Land
Conservation Department, and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service.  Another active participant in the project has been the
Black Earth Creek Watershed Association, a citizens' group formed
when the project began to provide a mechanism for local input.  The
watershed association's charter is to "advocate the stewardship and
sound management of land and water resources in the watershed and to
serve as an information clearinghouse" for interested parties. 


   PROJECT'S PLANNING AND FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:3

The watershed plan for Black Earth Creek was prepared jointly by the
Department of Natural Resources; the county conservation department;
and representatives from other federal, state, and local community
organizations.  The project focuses on surface water issues and
covers both rural and urban sources of nonpoint pollution.  On the
rural side, the plan's goals include (1) a 50-percent reduction in
sediment and manure runoff and (2) habitat restoration in selected
stream segments.  To accomplish these goals, cropland management
practices are needed on about 11,500 critical acres, barnyard runoff
controls at 65 of the livestock operations, and intensive stream bank
work on two segments of Black Earth Creek.  On the urban side, the
plan requires that a management plan for storm water be developed for
one portion of the watershed. 

The Black Earth Creek watershed project has received funding from a
variety of state, local, and other sources, as shown in table IX.1,
but no direct federal funding.\11 Farmers have also used other state
and federal funds (i.e., funds not tied specifically to the project)
to implement conservation and other environmental practices in the
watershed. 



                          Table IX.1
           
             Black Earth Creek Watershed Funding

Funding source                                      Amount\a
------------------------------  ----------------------------
State                                             $2,536,000
County                                               404,000
Nonprofit organizations and                          305,000
 others
============================================================
Total                                             $3,245,000
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Amounts shown are as of January 1, 1995. 

Source:  Dane County Land Conservation Department. 


--------------------
\11 The state receives $2.5 million per year from EPA under section
319 of the Clean Water Act, which is used to support state agency
staff, not individual watershed projects.  Black Earth Creek is one
of 65 watershed projects in Wisconsin. 


   KEY APPROACHES AND OBSERVATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:4

According to the project's participants, early involvement by all
watershed stakeholders was very important in facilitating
understanding and consensus.  To this end, the watershed association
played a critical role.  The association provided a forum for
discussion, and its perceived neutrality was key to cutting through
intransigence and bureaucracy and achieving consensus on issues to be
addressed and actions to be taken.  The watershed association also
helped to alleviate farmers' concerns that they were the only ones
being "targeted" in the watershed.  County staff also emphasized the
importance of starting simple and building trust with the local
community.  Despite prior experience working with county staff on
conservation planning, the farmers did not feel comfortable with the
project until after repeated visits from county staff and
word-of-mouth communication. 

The Black Earth Creek project provides financial and technical
assistance to participating farmers who sign long-term agreements to
install and maintain certain practices.  In general, project staff
have emphasized management solutions over structural ones.  Where
structural solutions are necessary, the staff have encouraged simple,
less expensive structures.  For example, a $10,000 to $40,000
barnyard structure that catches solid waste runoff and drains liquids
into a grassy filter strip is preferable to a 100-percent containment
structure that would require more planning and cost tens of thousands
of dollars more. 

Project staff said that education is also an important component of
the Black Earth Creek project and will be critical to its long-term
success.  An early challenge faced by the watershed association and
project staff was to boost community interest in the creek.  A
variety of mechanisms, including audiovisual programs, printed
materials, exhibits, media events, tours, demonstration activities,
signs, workshops, meetings, youth education, recreational clinics,
and fund raisers, have been used to boost the public's awareness and
provide information about the watershed. 

Two farm demonstration projects have been implemented in Black Earth
Creek.  Dane County project staff said that while it takes 2 or 3
years before farmers will implement demonstrated practices in their
own operations, such projects can be good vehicles for generating
cooperation, especially if they are relatively simple and successful. 
One such demonstration project combined techniques to simultaneously
protect fish habitat and stabilize a stream bank.  The project used a
USDA-approved practice, called rip-rap (the positioning of rocks to
stabilize and shape the stream bank), to reduce erosion.  However,
since rip-rap alone would have destroyed the cave-like spaces in
which certain fish hide and spawn, wooden boxes called "lunkers" were
built into the stream bank to imitate the natural habitat.  According
to county staff, this demonstration project catalyzed partnerships
among agencies and between agencies and farmers.  They attributed all
the stream bank work undertaken so far in the watershed to the
success of this one demonstration project. 

Although water quality monitoring in Black Earth Creek has been more
intensive than it has in other watershed projects in the state
because of the state's priorities, Black Earth Creek staff said that
extensive monitoring is not always necessary.  Project staff said
that decisionmakers should adjust their expectations and look to
indicators of success other than chemical changes in water quality
when evaluating watershed projects.  Other measures, such as the
level of farmers' participation, level of community support, and
monitoring of plants and aquatic life forms, are also valid
indicators of a project's success. 

Project staff favor a voluntary approach to watershed management, but
acknowledged that regulation to establish minimum standards for farm
management may be needed to deal with egregious behavior.  The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources retains certain enforcement
authorities that it can use against participants who violate their
cost-sharing agreements, or other uncooperative individuals.  For
example, if landowners violate the terms of their cost-sharing
arrangement, the state may revoke its offer of cost sharing and
substitute a low-interest loan.  For critical sites in a watershed
project, the state can issue compliance orders. 


   ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:5

Preliminary monitoring data (collected up to 1992) show significant
decreases in nitrates and sediment in one subwatershed of Black Earth
Creek.  In addition, the fish population has increased at the stream
bank restoration demonstration site, but Department of Natural
Resources officials could not attribute this improvement solely to
the project's activities.  Thus far, 103 Black Earth Creek landowners
have signed county cost-sharing agreements to implement
environmentally friendly management practices.  County staff said
that only about two dozen farmers have taken no action, and of those,
only a few have serious problems. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix X


   RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix X:1

Michael J.  Rahl, Staff Evaluator


   SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix X:2

Keith W.  Oleson, Assistant Director
Jonda R.  Van Pelt, Project Leader
Linda Chu, Staff Evaluator
Jonathan M.  Silverman, Communications Analyst
William D.  Prentiss, Graphics Adviser
