![]() |
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() B. Watershed Protection Management MeasureDevelop a watershed protection program to:
1. ApplicabilityThis management measure is intended to be applied by States to new development or redevelopment including construction of new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges that generate nonpoint source pollutants. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
2. DescriptionThe purpose of this management measure is to reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollutants and to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff and associated pollutants that result from new development or redevelopment, including the construction of new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges. The measure is intended to provide general goals for States and local governments to use in developing comprehensive programs for guiding future development and land use activities in a manner that will prevent and mitigate the effects of nonpoint source pollution.
A watershed is a geographic region where water drains into a particular receiving waterbody. As discussed in the introduction, comprehensive planning is an effective nonstructural tool available to control nonpoint source pollution. Where possible, growth should be directed toward areas where it can be sustained with a minimal impact on the natural environment (Meeks, 1990). Poorly planned growth and development have the potential to degrade and destroy entire natural drainage systems and surface waters (Mantel et al., 1990). Defined land use designations and zoning direct development away from areas where land disturbance activities or pollutant loadings from subsequent development would severely impact surface waters. Defined land use designations and zoning also protect environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, and vegetative buffers that serve as filters and trap sediments, nutrients, and chemical pollutants. Refer to Chapter 7 for a thorough description of the benefits of wetlands and vegetative buffers.
Areas such as streamside buffers and wetlands may also have the added benefit of providing long-term pollutant removal capabilities without the comparatively high costs usually associated with structural controls. Conservation or preservation of these areas is important to water quality protection. Land acquisition programs help to preserve areas critical to maintaining surface water quality. Buffer strips along streambanks provide protection for stream ecosystems and help to stabilize the stream and prevent streambank erosion (Holler, 1989). Buffer strips protect and maintain near-stream vegetation that attenuates the release of sediment into stream channels and prevent excessive loadings. Levels of suspended solids increase at a slower rate in stream channel sections with well-developed riparian vegetation (Holler, 1989).
The availability of infrastructure specifically sewage treatment facilities, is also a factor in watershed planning. If centralized sewage treatment is not available, onsite disposal systems (OSDS) most likely will be used for sewage treatment. Because of potential ground-water and surface water contamination from OSDS, density restrictions may be needed in areas where OSDS will be used for sewage treatment. Section VI of this chapter contains a more detailed discussion of siting densities for OSDS.
3. Management Measure Selection and Effectiveness InformationThis measure was selected for the following reasons:
CASE STUDY 1 - RHODE RIVER ESTUARY, CHESAPEAKE BAY, MARYLANDAn evaluation of the impact of the Maryland Critical Area Act on nonpoint source pollution (nutrients and sediment) in surface runoff was completed by modeling three land use scenarios and determining the relative change in nonpoint loadings from the Rhode River Critical Area. Research findings suggest that the implementation of the Act will reduce nonpoint source nutrient and sediment loading by mandating agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs) and limiting development in forested lands. Figure 4-4 illustrates the predicted nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from various land uses within the watershed under various development scenarios. These predictions are based on the assumption that no structural BMPs are in place.
New development allowed by the Critical Area Act is required to minimize impervious surfaces and reduce nonpoint source pollution through urban BMPs. Results from this study indicate that by limiting the impervious portion of a building site to 15 percent in the Rhode River Estuary, nutrient loadings could be reduced by one-third when compared to similar development without this practice (Houlihan, 1990).
CASE STUDY 2 - ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIAPollutant loading estimates can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of land planning on controlling nonpoint source pollution. For example, Alameda County, California, has estimated seven pollutant loadings for seven parameters by type of land use, as shown in Table 4-9. By leaving larger areas in open space through easements, buffers, clustering, or preserves the potential pollutant loading to San Francisco Bay can be reduced. For example, it is estimated that if 50 percent of a 100-acre parcel designated for residential development is preserved in open space, pollutant loadings for zinc and total suspended solids can be reduced by 50.24 percent and 49.76 percent, respectively, when compared to residential development of the entire 100-acre parcel.
Considerable uncertainty is associated with the ability to quantify load reductions from various nonstructural practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution (USEPA, 1990). Table 4-10 illustrates the general effectiveness of various planning and site design practices. Many are described in the practices section of this management measure and the Site Development Management Measure.
4. Watershed Protection Practices and Cost InformationAs discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the management measure described above.
The most effective way to achieve this management measure is to develop a comprehensive program that incorporates protection of surface waters with programs and plans for guiding growth and development. Planning is an orderly process, and each step builds upon preceding steps. The following practices are part of the process and can be modified to meet the needs of the community. Many of the practices can be incorporated into existing activities being carried out by a local government, such as land planning, zoning, and site plan review. Other activities, such as land acquisition programs, may have to be developed. Where cost and effectiveness information was available, it was included in the discussion of the examples. The general cost and effectiveness of planning programs are described after the practices.
Before a comprehensive program can be developed, define the watershed boundaries, target areas, and pollutants of concern, and conduct resource inventory and information analysis. These activities can be done by using best available information or collecting primary data, depending on funding availability and the quality of available data. Activities pursued under this process include: assessment of ground-water and surface water hydrology; evaluation of soil type and ground cover; identification of areas with water quality impairments; and identification of environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep or erodible uplands, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, drainage ways, and unique geologic formations. Once environmentally sensitive areas are identified, areas that are integral to the protection of surface waters and the prevention of nonpoint source pollution can be protected.
Examples of resource inventory and information analysis programs The resource inventory and information analysis component provides the basis for a watershed management plan. A watershed management plan is a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of a watershed, including land use, urban runoff control practices, pollutant reduction strategies, and pollution prevention techniques.
For a watershed management plan to be effective, it should have measurable goals describing desired outcomes and methods for achieving the goals. Goals, such as reducing pollutant loads to surface water by 25 percent, can be articulated in a watershed management plan. Development and implementation of urban runoff practices, both structural and nonstructural, can be incorporated as methods for achieving the goal. Table 4-11 (17k) describes the general steps for developing a watershed management plan. Development of a watershed management plan may involve establishing general land use designations that define allowable activities on a parcel of land. For example, land designated for low-density residential use would be limited to a density of two houses per acre, provided that all other regulations and requirements are met. All development activities allowed in a use category should be defined. By guiding uses within the planning areas, impacts to surface waters from urban runoff can be controlled. Those areas identified in the resource inventory and information analysis phase as environmentally sensitive and important to maintaining water quality can be preserved through various measures supported by State or local goals, objectives, and policies.
Once critical areas have been identified, land use designations have been defined, and goals have been established to guide activities in the watershed, implementation strategies can be developed. At this point, the requirements of future development are defined. These requirements include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, construction techniques, and protective maintenance measures. Land development regulations may also prescribe natural performance standards; for example, "rates of runoff or soil loss should be no greater than predevelopment conditions" (USEPA, 1977). Listed below are examples of the types of development regulations and other implementation tools that have been successful at controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Cost information was provided for several of the practices discussed in this section. The cost of planning programs depends on a variety of factors, including the level of effort needed to complete and implement a program. As discussed earlier, many of the practices described in this section can be incorporated into ongoing activities of a State or local government.
The Florida legislature funded the development of comprehensive programs and land development regulations required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (1985). Distribution of funds was based on population according to formulas used for determining funding for the plan and land development regulations. A base amount was given to all counties that requested it. The balance of the monies was allocated to each county in an amount proportionate to its share of the total unincorporated population of all the counties. A similar distribution process was used for local governments. A total of $2.1 million was allocated for plan development; however, not all components of the plans address NPS issues.
The effect of planning programs depends on many variables, including implementation of programs and monitoring of conformance with conditions of development approval.
5. Land or Development Rights Acquisition Practices and Cost InformationAs discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the management measure described above.
An effective way to preserve land necessary for protecting the environmental integrity of an area is to acquire it outright or to limit development rights. The following practices can be used to protect beneficial uses. The most direct way to protect land for preservation purposes and associated nonpoint source control functions is fee simple acquisition, through either purchase or donation. Once a suitable area is identified for preservation, the area may be acquired along with the development rights. The more development rights that are associated with a piece of property, the more expensive the property. Many State and local governments and private organizations have programs for purchasing land.
Conservation easements are restrictions put on property that legally restrict the present and future use of the land. For preservation purposes, the easement holder is usually not the owner of the property and is able to control property rights that a landowner could use that might cause adverse impacts to resources on the property. In effect, the property owner gives up development rights within the easement while retaining fee ownership of the property (Mantell et al., 1990; Barrett and Livermore, 1983). The principle of transfer of development rights (TDR) is based on the concept that ownership of real property includes the ownership of a bundle of rights that goes with it. These rights may include densities granted by a certain use designation, environmental permits, zoning approvals, and others. Certain properties have a bigger bundle of rights than others, depending on what approvals have been received by the owner. The TDR system takes all or some of the rights on one piece of property and moves them to another parcel. The purpose of TDRs is to shift future development potential from an area that is determined to be unsuitable for development (sending site) to an area deemed more suitable (receiving site). The development potential can be measured in a variety of ways, including number of dwelling units, square footage, acres, or number of parking spaces. Most TDR systems require a legal restriction for future development on the sending site. TDR programs can be either fixed so that there are only a certain number of sending and receiving sites in an area or flexible so that a sender and receiver can be matched as the situation allows (Mantell et al., 1990; Barrett and Livermore, 1983).
This system is useful for the preservation of those areas thought necessary for maintaining the quality of surface waters in that development rights associated with the environmentally sensitive areas can be transferred to less sensitive areas. There are several examples in the United States where TDRs have been used. Some of the more successful projects involve preservation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens and the Santa Monica Mountains in California. For the TDR concept to work, receiving and sending sites should be identified and evaluated, a program that is simple and flexible should be developed, and the use of the program should be promoted and facilitated (Mantell et al., 1990). In this process, the rights of development are purchased while the remaining rights remain with the fee title holder. Restrictions in the deed make it clear that the land cannot be developed based on the rights that have been purchased (Mantell et al., 1990).
Howard County, Maryland, has the goal of preserving 20,000 acres of farmland. Development rights are acquired in perpetuity with one-fourth of one percent of the local land transfer tax used as funding. There is no cap on the percent of assessed value that may be considered development value, and payment for development rights may be spread over 30 years to ease the capital gains tax burden on the landowner (Jenkins, 1991). Land trusts may be established as publicly or privately sponsored nonprofit organizations with the goal of holding lands or conservation easements for the protection of habitat, water quality, recreation, or scenic value or for agricultural preservation. A land trust may also preacquire properties that are conservation priorities if the land trust enters the development market when government funds are not immediately available by acquiring bank funding with the government as guarantor (Jenkins, 1991). Agricultural or forest districting is an alternative to acquisition of land or development rights. Jurisdictions may choose to allow landowners to apply for designation of land as an Agricultural or Forest District. Tax benefits are received in exchange for a commitment to maintain the land in agriculture, forest, or open space.
Fairfax County, Virginia, taxes land designated as Agricultural or Forest District based on the present use valuation rather than the usual potential use valuation. A commitment to agricultural or forestry activities must be shown, and sound land management practices must be used. The districts are established and renewed for 8-year periods (Jenkins, 1991). The cost associated with land acquisition programs varies, depending on the desired outcome. If land is to be purchased, the cost will vary depending on the value of the land. An additional cost to be considered is the maintenance of the property once it is in public ownership. Easements and development rights are less expensive, and maintenance of the property is retained by the owner. Depending on the size of the local government, implementation of these programs is usually part of the operating budget of the appropriate agency (planning department or parks and recreation department, for example) and additional operational funding for implementation is dependent on the size of the local government.
The effectiveness of a land acquisition program is determined by the size of the parcel and the difference between predevelopment and potential postdevelopment pollutant loading rates. In addition, wetlands and riparian areas have been shown to reduce pollutant loadings. The acquisition and preservation of these areas can be extremely important to water quality protection and decrease the cost of implementing structural BMPs. However, the use of wetlands for urban runoff treatment, in general, should be discouraged. Where no other alternative exists, States and local governments can target upland areas for acquisition to minimize the impacts to wetlands and preserve the function of wetlands. One option for acquiring land is a public/private partnership. Several examples of such partnerships exist throughout the country. Harford County, Maryland, has targeted areas for purchase of conservation easements. The county staff is working jointly with a local land trust to acquire conservation easements and to educate people in environmentally sound land use practices. The estimated cost for the program is $60,000 per year (Jenkins, 1991). To aid in the establishment of two local land trusts, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, provided $350,000 in seed money for capital expenditures such as land and easement procurement. The county also gives staff assistance to volunteers; additional support comes from contributions of money or land, grants, and fundraisers (Jenkins 1991).
Continue to Next Section Return to the Table of Contents
EPA Home | Office of Water | Search | Comments | Contacts https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/.html |