We have a watershed. Now what? Matt Berg Water Quality Program Specialist Texas AgriLife Extension Service

Transcription

1 We have a watershed. Now what? Matt Berg Water Quality Program Specialist Texas AgriLife Extension Service

2 400 square miles in Caldwell and Hays Counties 2005 Selected by TSSWCB Watershed Coordination Steering Committee 2006 Initial public meetings 2008 Completed watershed plan development 2008 Initiated plan implementation efforts

3 Steering Committee Watershed Stakeholders Technical Advisory Group Work Groups

4 Dozens of calls to watershed groups and projects Representation from each time zone in the United States Included two of EPA s Top 6 Plans in the Nation Search for watershed group trends How did efforts in your watershed originate? Who currently coordinates efforts in your watershed? How are efforts in your watershed funded? What factors have caused successes/failures in your watershed?

5 relatively large watershed area (approximately 40 square miles) Significant navigation and fishery use Significant city leadership from early stages Nutrient TMDLs approved in 2000 Completed watershed plan in 2004 Selected for implementation of governor s initiative in 2005 Approximately $800,000 through 319(h) grant Nearly $20 million total project cost

6 Continues to be coordinated by MD Department of Natural Resources 319(h) funds support city position for stormwater retrofits Plan to transition to city funds 319(h) funds support SWCD position for cover crop installation Implementation goals mostly unmet Organization structure decentralized includes city, county, SWCD, state, industry, and local non profit representatives Implementing some activities, but slow in meeting milestones overall Water quality showing little overall improvement to date

7 Small urban watershed (approximately 2.4 square miles) Industry (Pfizer, Inc.) served as initial driving force University of Michigan significant local landowner Concerns regarding loss of land use through erosion Multiple local TMDLs completed, first in 1995 Completed watershed plan in 2004 Significant early funding from Pfizer, Inc.

8 Pfizer, Inc. closed operations in 2008, withdrawing major funding Project funding and coordination through Huron River Watershed Council Focus on education efforts Involvement in 3 locals schools Primary emphasis on adult ownership of stream Many implementation milestones unmet Water quality showing little overall improvement to date

9 Large watershed in semi arid agricultural area Utilized Bureau of Land Management seed money to form nonprofit organization Strong local leadership by individual with marketing background Group floundered without consistent funding Able to secure additional grants Soft funding led executive director to lean toward resigning and pursuing outside employment Demonstrated 30 fold return on every dollar invested

10 Counties, cities realized economic benefit of strong watershed group leadership and contributed to pay base salary of watershed coordinator Continue to produce cost benefit report each year Current focus on education programs Multiple additional programs peripheral to water quality Arizona NEMO (Extension) cooperating to conduct analyses and develop watershed plan

11 Avoid wading birds/herons/egrets in watershed group logos! One size does NOT fit all when it comes to organization structure, coordination, or funding Continued reliance upon 319(h) funds common River councils/authorities Non profit/501(c)(3) organizations Agreements with cities/counties Councils of government (COGs) Cooperative Extension programs (AgriLife) Local presence required for long term stability Unique personality required, particularly in the case of non profit groups

12 Groups may organize and fold cyclically based on watershed needs, accomplishment of goals Groups may organize before or after watershed plan development Significant nexus required for long term sustainability Tremendous local interest and voice Threat of loss of opportunity Recreation Direct loss of land use Economic benefit/commerce Threat of regulation Difficult to manufacture 303(d) list may not be enough Implications for agency watershed selection, ideal structure, expectations

13 Opportunity for creativity (and some difficult questions)! Matt Berg (979)