Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

About This Guide
Purpose
This guide is for state and local public works managers who are
interested in integrating watershed management into their strategic
municipal asset management process.1 Using this guide, these
managers can
ƒ identify municipal infrastructure assets and activities that can
adversely affect the surrounding watershed (reducing asset
values) and
ƒ mitigate these potential effects.
Using the guide’s step-by-step approach, municipal managers can
integrate watershed management into strategic asset management,
using current asset management techniques to achieve municipal
strategic goals.
The guide addresses the key environmental conditions within a
municipality’s watershed that influence strategic asset management
decisions. The guidance consists of a series of self-assessment forms,
which, when completed, create a municipal watershed impact
assessment and action plan. This plan, which should be incorporated
into the strategic municipal asset management process, includes the
following:
ƒ A description of the designated uses for the municipality’s
waterbodies and associated impairments
ƒ A baseline of municipal land-use categories and activities that
can contribute to the waterbody impairments or adversely affect
general watershed health
ƒ A prioritized inventory of discrete municipal activities that can
impact the environment and contribute to known impairments
within the watersheds
1 Property owners interested in assessing their property’s impact on the
watershed will also find this guide useful.
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities iii

ƒ Project-based solutions for cost-effectively mitigating the
environmental burden of each activity—with a focus on low-impact
development, bioengineering, and pollution prevention—
in an easy-to-use format with all the necessary information (such
as justification, benefits, regulatory drivers, appropriate funding
sources, cost estimates, schedules, and potential project
partners)
ƒ A baseline from which to monitor progress over time.
Note: Watershed assessment approaches vary. Municipal managers
can integrate the results of other watershed assessment approaches
into their asset management approach as long as the assessment
results in a prioritized list of activities and projects derived from a
quantitative scoring method.
Organization
Chapter 1 explains how to integrate watershed management into
strategic asset management. It begins with an overview of typical
municipal asset management issues and their impacts on watersheds.
It then examines the strategic asset management approach, explains
why watershed management is a critical dimension, and describes how
to integrate watershed management into the strategic process.
Chapters 2 through 6 contain a series of self-assessment forms and
technical information, which give municipal managers the tools
necessary to develop a municipal watershed impact assessment and
action plan that can be incorporated into their strategic municipal asset
management process. Text in sidebars emphasizes action items, tips,
and useful tools.
Chapter 7 tells how to implement the action plan, track its progress, and
update watershed projects as required.
iv Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

WATERSHED IMPACT
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
FOR PUBLIC LANDS
AND FACILITIES
An Approach for Municipal Managers
to Integrate Watershed Management
and Asset Management Strategies
April 2005

Contents
Preface…...............................................................................xi
Acknowledgments…. ........................................................... xiii
Chapter 1. Integration of Watershed Management and
Strategic Asset Management.....................................1-1
1-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................1-1
1-2 OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AND STRATEGIC
ASSET MANAGEMENT..................................................................1-2
1-2.1 Municipal Asset Management .............................................1-2
1-2.1.1 HOW MUNICIPAL ASSET MANAGEMENT RELATES TO
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT...................................................1-3
1-2.1.2 GASB 34 AND MUNICIPAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS..........................................................................1-5
1-2.1.3 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ..............................................1-9
1-2.2 Strategic Asset Management .............................................1-10
1-2.2.1 STEPS OF STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT ....................1-11
1-2.2.2 IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT IN
MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT ................................................1-11
1-3WHY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO
STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT ..............................................1-12
1-3.1 Drivers for Watershed Approach and Assessments ...........1-13
1-3.2 Impact of Watershed Regulatory Approaches on
Municipal Activities............................................................1-14
1-3.3 Incorporating Watershed Management into Strategic
Assessment Management ................................................1-15
1-3.4 Evaluating Watershed Improvement Projects in
Strategic Asset Management............................................1-17
Chapter 2. Steps to Integrate Watershed Management
and Strategic Asset Management..............................2-1
2-1 OVERVIEW OF THE MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PROCESS...................................................................................2-1
2-2 OTHERWATERSHED ASSESSMENT PROCESSES ................................2-3
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities v

2-3 LIMITED INTEGRATION WITH STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT ............2-4
2-4 FUTURE RESEARCH TO FURTHER INTEGRATE WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT WITH STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT ..................2-4
Chapter 3. Identify Your Watershed and Assess Its
Current Condition.......................................................3-1
3-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................3-1
3-1.1 Using Your Existing Information ...........................................3-1
3-1.2 Using the Municipal Watershed Impact Assessment
Process...............................................................................3-2
3-2 IDENTIFY MUNICIPALITY’S WATERSHED AND ITS KEY
CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................3-2
3-2.1 Form 1—Identify the Watershed Name and
Hydrological Unit Code (HUC)............................................3-3
3-2.2 Form 2—Calculate WPS for Each Waterbody Listed on
Form 1 ................................................................................3-8
3-3 CREATE WATERSHED MAP.............................................................3-11
3-4 SELECT GOALS AND PERFORMANCE METRICS .................................3-13
3-5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................3-14
Chapter 4. Assess Potential Impact of Municipal Land
Use and Activities ......................................................4-1
4-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................4-1
4-2 FORM 3—DEVELOP AN INITIAL LIST OF ACTIVITIES .............................4-2
4-3 FORM 4—DEVELOP A SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL LAND USE
CATEGORIES (COMPARED WITH WATERSHED AVERAGES OR
TARGET VALUES) .......................................................................4-2
4-4 FORM 5—IDENTIFY KEY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
ACTIVITIES .................................................................................4-5
4-5 FORM 6—MUNICIPAL ACTIVITY DATA SHEET .....................................4-8
4-5.1 Form 6, Part 1—Describe the Activity, Its Potential
Impacts, and Identify the Watershed or Waterbody ............4-8
4-5.2 Form 6, Part 2—Quantify the Activity’s Impact and
Determine the Total Activity Burden Score .........................4-9
4-5.3 Form 6, Part 3—Assess Potential for Pollution
Prevention Opportunities ..................................................4-15
vi Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Contents
Chapter 5. Select Migration Projects for High Priority
Activities ....................................................................5-1
5-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................5-1
5-2 IDENTIFYING BEST MITIGATION EFFORTS OR BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES ................................................................................5-1
5-2.1 Form 6, Part 4—Determine Project Objectives.....................5-2
5-2.2 Factors in Developing Project Objectives .............................5-4
5-3 SELECTING THE BEST SOLUTION ......................................................5-5
5-4WHAT TO DO IF MULTIPLE MITIGATION EFFORTS ARE POSSIBLE .........5-7
Chapter 6. Develop Project Partnerships............................6-1
6-1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................6-1
6-2WHY FORM PARTNERSHIPS?............................................................6-1
6-3WHAT ARE THE STEPS?...................................................................6-2
6-3.1 Identify Opportunities ...........................................................6-3
6-3.2 Identify Potential Partners ....................................................6-3
6-3.3 Develop Partnerships ...........................................................6-5
6-3.4 Collaborate to Implement Projects .......................................6-5
6-3.5 Share Success and Praise with Outside Stakeholders.........6-5
6-4WORKING WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ............................................6-5
6-5WORKING WITH REGULATORS ..........................................................6-5
6-5.1 Working with Regulators During TMDL Determinations .......6-5
6-5.2 Working with Regulators to Establish Effluent Trading .........6-6
Chapter 7. Implement Solutions and Track Progress .........7-1
7-1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING FOR HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS................7-1
7-1.1 Estimating and Projecting Project Costs...............................7-1
7-1.2 Integrate Project in Municipal Budget...................................7-1
7-1.3 Identify Available Funding Sources ......................................7-2
7-1.4 Update Zoning and Ordnance Requirements.......................7-2
7-2 SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR IDENTIFIED PROJECTS................................7-2
7-3 OBLIGATING FUNDS, DEVELOPING SCOPES OFWORK, AND
LETTING CONTRACTS..................................................................7-3
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities vii

7-4 PRODUCE SUMMARY REPORTS TO TRACK PROJECTS.........................7-4
7-5 MAINTAINING AND UPDATING YOURWATERSHED RESTORATION
PROJECTS .................................................................................7-5
Appendix A Abbreviations
Appendix B Laws Affecting Watershed Management
Appendix C List of Typical Municipal Activities
Appendix D Data Entry Form for Typical Municipal
Activities
Appendix E References for Best Management
Practices
Appendix F Sample Forms
Appendix G Sample Project Sheet Format
Forms
FORM 1. SUMMARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY’S RECEIVING WATERSHEDS
AND ASSOCIATED WATERBODIES .................................................3-4
FORM 2.WATERSHED PRIORITY SCORE (WPS): A SENSITIVITY
SCORING AND DATA COLLECTION FORM FOR
WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS......................................................3-9
FORM 3. SUMMARY LIST OF MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES THAT POTENTIALLY
AFFECT THE WATERSHED............................................................4-3
FORM 4. SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL LAND USE CATEGORIES ......................4-4
FORM 5. SUMMARY QUESTIONS TO IDENTIFY KEY PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND ACTIVITIES THAT MAY POTENTIALLY
IMPACT THE WATERSHED ............................................................4-6
FORM 6. MUNICIPAL ACTIVITY DATA ENTRY SHEET ................................4-17
Exhibits
1-1 ASSET PERFORMANCE CURVE AND BENEFITS OF PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE............................................................................1-5
1-2 BASIC FLOW OF AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.............................1-8
viii Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Contents
1-3 ASSESSING BUDGETING ATTRACTIVENESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENTS.............................................................................1-9
1-4 ALIGNING STRATEGIC GOALS AND MUNICIPAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................1-11
1-5 EXAMPLEWATERSHED ..................................................................1-12
1-6 FEDERAL LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS RELATED TOWATERSHED
MANAGEMENT AND NON-POINT SOURCE REGULATIONS...............1-14
1-7 HOW WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IS PART OF STRATEGIC ASSET
MANAGEMENT APPROACH.........................................................1-15
1-8 INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN INTO ASSET
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ...........................................................1-17
1-9 BUDGET ATTRACTIVENESS OF WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS ...............................................................................1-18
3-1 SAMPLE HYDROLOGICAL UNIT CODES...............................................3-3
3-2 EXAMPLE EPA SURF YOUR WATERSHED LOCATOR ...........................3-5
3-3 EXAMPLE OF EPA WATERS MAP....................................................3-7
3-4 EXAMPLE EPA TMDLWEBSITE ....................................................... 3-7
4-1 DEFINITIONS OF LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE OR FREQUENCY OF
EVENT CATEGORIES .................................................................4-10
4-2 DEFINITIONS OF SEVERITY CATEGORIES FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS
TO SURFACE WATER QUALITY ...................................................4-11
TO GROUNDWATER QUALITY......................................................4-12
TO AIR QUALITY........................................................................4-13
4-5 DEFINTIONS OF SEVERITY CATEGORIES FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS
TO QUESTIONS 17–19 ..............................................................4-13
TO MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE BURDEN .........................................4-14
4-7 DEFINITIONS OF IMPACT SCORES IN FORM 6....................................4-14
5-1 TYPICAL BMPS AND MITIGATION EFFORTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY
ACTIVITIES .................................................................................5-7
6-1 REGIONAL PARTNERING TEMPLATE...................................................6-4
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities ix

THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
x Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Preface
Over the 30 years since the enactment of the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Acts, federal, state and local government agencies,
citizens, and the private sector have worked together to make dramatic
progress in improving the quality of U.S. surface waters and drinking
water. Before these regulations, roughly two-thirds of the surface waters
assessed by states were not attaining basic water quality goals and
were considered polluted. Some of the Nation’s waters were acting as
open sewers, posing health risks; many water bodies were so polluted
that traditional uses, such as swimming, fishing, and recreation, were
impossible.
Through a massive investment of federal, state, and local funds, a new
generation of sewage treatment facilities provides “secondary” treatment
or better. In addition, sustained federal and state efforts to implement
“best management practices” have helped reduce runoff of pollutants
from diffuse, or “nonpoint,” sources. Much of the dramatic progress in
improving water quality is directly attributable to investment in municipal
infrastructure—the land, pipes, and facilities that treat sewage, convey
stormwater and sustain healthy habitat.
This job, however, is far from over. In 2000, the EPA reported that one
or more designated uses are impaired in
ƒ 39 percent of rivers and streams (miles),
ƒ 46 percent of lakes (acres),
ƒ 51 percent of estuaries (square miles), and
ƒ 78 percent of the Great Lakes (shoreline miles).
Furthermore, 14 percent of rivers and 16 percent of lakes did not
support their drinking water use designation.
Addressing these challenges over the next decade requires more than
technologies and regulations—it requires municipal managers to
integrate an environmental ethic into all municipal asset management
activities. Municipalities face the challenge of improving watershed
conditions with limited fiscal resources—funds that are also required to
plan, replace aging infrastructure, meet growing infrastructure demands
fueled by population growth, rehabilitate urban habitat, and secure their
infrastructure against threats.
This report presents a framework for municipal managers to integrate
environmental stewardship (using a watershed management approach)
into its strategic municipal asset management process. Municipal asset
management is primarily a financial approach to managing municipal
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities xi

infrastructure. Strategic asset management augments the municipal
asset management approach by integrating municipality strategic goals,
such as environmental stewardship, into the management of its
infrastructure asset portfolio. The approach provides a mechanism for
municipalities to integrate strategic environmental planning with capital
budgeting and infrastructure management.
The focus of strategic asset management is to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of infrastructure investments. Why focus on cost
effectiveness? Optimally, municipalities would have access to unlimited
funds to construct or improve any infrastructure asset that would
increase public benefit. However, the reality is that municipalities have
limited resources for infrastructure investment. The challenge will be to
invest these limited resources to generate the greatest net public benefit
(that is, to focus on cost effectiveness).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made this document
possible via a grant. We acknowledge the efforts of the many people
who participated in the development and completion of this guidance. In
particular, we are grateful to the staffs of the American Public Works
Association, the Low Impact Development Center, and EPA’s Office of
Water.
xii Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Acknowledgments
LMI prepared this document under a grant (83050601-0) from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water. Research staff from
our Facilities and Asset Management Group led this effort. The team was
comprised of Emil Dzuray, Julian Bentley, Erica Rohr, Heather Cisar,
Lisa Powell, Emily Estes, and Diana Lanunziata. We acknowledge the efforts
of the many other people who participated in the development and completion
of this document. In particular, we are grateful to Ms. Ann Daniels from the
American Public Works Association, Mr. Neil Weinstein from the Low Impact
Development Center, and Mr. Robert Goo from the EPA Office of Water.
The views, opinions, and findings contained in this document are those of LMI
and should not be construed as an official agency position, policy, or decision,
unless so designated by other official documentation. Furthermore, LMI makes
no warranty, expressed or implied, with the respect to the use of any
information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this document or
assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from
the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this
document.
LMI is a not-for-profit government consulting firm, dedicated exclusively to
advancing the management of the government. We help managers in public
agencies make decisions that enable immediate action, achieve desired
outcomes, and deliver enduring value. We provide a broad range of services
across six mission areas: acquisition, logistics, facilities and asset
management, financial management, information and technology, and
organizations and human capital. (For more information about LMI, visit
www.lmi.org.)
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities xiii

THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xiv Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Integration of Watershed
Management and
Strategic Asset
Management
1-1 Introduction
Municipal managers constantly struggle to balance the conflicting goals
of investing in municipality improvements and maximizing future asset
value under the restrictions of limited budgets. How can municipal
managers successfully budget to enhance current municipality welfare
and increase long-term asset value? An approach that integrates
watershed management with strategic asset management solves the
dilemma of concurrently improving public services, enhancing local
environmental conditions, and investing in the long-term value of the
municipality assets.
Furthermore, municipal managers must achieve these objectives while
cost-effectively complying with numerous federal, state, and local
environmental laws and regulations. This management role has become
increasingly difficult because requirements of major environmental laws
have increased exponentially over the past few decades while municipal
environmental budgets have remained flat. Specific revisions to the
rules promulgating the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) have the potential to not only result in more stringent limits
for existing environmental permits, but to impose operational limits on
currently unregulated activities that adversely affect the quality of
surface water, groundwater, habitat, or air.
This guide provides a consistent, cost-effective decision-making
approach that state and local managers can use to integrate watershed
management into their strategic municipal asset management process.
It enables them to identify municipal infrastructure assets and activities
that can adversely affect the surrounding watershed (reducing asset
values) and to find ways to mitigate the effects.
Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities 1-1

1-2 Overview of Municipal Asset Management
and Strategic Asset Management
Municipalities share a similar mission: to proactively enhance the health,
safety, and welfare of current and future generations through
responsible stewardship of municipality infrastructure, development, and
What is maintenance functions. Municipalities endeavor to
infrastructure?
Long-lived,
normally
stationary capital
assets—such as
roads, bridges,
tunnels, drainage
systems, water
and sewer
systems, dams,
and lighting
systems—
preserved for
significantly more
years than most
capital assets.
Buildings, which
have a shorter
service life, are
not considered
infrastructure,
except those that
are an ancillary
part of an
infrastructure
facility (such as a
wastewater
treatment
building).
„ create safe and livable communities,
„ fuel economic growth,
„ build cohesive communities,
„ support human growth and development,
„ develop public infrastructure systems that adequately and efficiently
serve communities, and
„ enhance and protect the environment.
Achieving these goals requires that municipalities simultaneously
optimize three independent asset dimensions: condition, functionality,
and environmental impact. Few would argue that current management
approaches attempt to optimize asset condition and functionality. In fact,
most infrastructure investments are made using a purely financial asset
management approach. Most current asset management techniques,
however, fail to integrate municipal strategic goals, including
environmental conditions, in the decision-making process.
Integrating watershed management into strategic asset management
enables municipalities to simultaneously optimize condition,
functionality, and environmental impact; as a result, they can
concurrently optimize financial, environmental, health, community, and
service aspects of infrastructure investments. However, before we can
show how the watershed assessment approach can be integrated into a
strategic asset management approach, we need to review both
traditional asset management and strategic asset management
approaches.
1-2.1 Municipal Asset Management
Municipalities rely on an extensive infrastructure, consisting of
transportation networks, power supply, water supply, drainage,
sewerage, solid waste management services, and other assets. These
assets represent an immense investment built over many generations,
made to fulfill anticipated benefits such as increased productivity and
enhanced citizen welfare. Municipalities face the constant challenge of
maximizing net public benefit with a limited amount of resources.
1-2 Watershed Impact Assessment Guidance for Public Lands and Facilities

Integration of Watershed Management and Strategic Asset Management
The concept of asset management is in its infancy, with varying
definitions. The American Public Works Association’s (APWA’s) asset
management task force created a common asset management
definition, “to efficiently and equitably allocate resources amongst valid
and competing municipal asset goals and objectives,”1 from its review of
various asset management methods. The APWA further defines asset
management to include the following:
What is asset
management?
The APWA’s
definition of asset
management is to
efficiently and
equitably allocate
resources
amongst valid and
competing
municipal asset
goals and
objectives.
„ Efficiently allocate funds: The allocation of funds must be
efficient within a particular class of assets (like roads or
bridges), and within the entire reservoir of assets being
managed (roads versus water networks versus buildings
versus parks versus…). The latest engineering and economic
principles, like value engineering and life cycle cost analysis
or similar concepts are part and parcel of the asset
management policy.
„ Equitably allocate funds: The allocation of funds must be
equitable as well as efficient. In this context, equitability refers
mostly to constraints, limitations, or orientations that an
administration needs to impose on the process in order to
avoid being faced with solutions that fail to take in all factors,
that are beyond its means, or that are unrealistic or
unacceptable. In this context also, equitability allows for the
consideration of expressed user needs and of any particular
overriding one-time need.
„ Valid and competing needs: This refers to all the needs of a
community. Needs are valid if they are determined by
individual management systems or if they are expressed to
and accepted by the managers through any recognized
approval process. The needs can be past unsatisfied needs
(deferred maintenance), current maintenance needs, current
capital improvement needs validated by a value engineering
analysis, or future maintenance needs as determined in life
cycle cost analyses. They are linked directly to the service
levels demanded by the community. The needs are
competing against one another in each class of assets as well
as competing between different classes of assets. Even when
funding is not an issue, competition must still exist to ensure
that the extra dollars are spent in the most efficient way
possible.2
1-2.2 How Municipal Asset Management Relates
to Financial Management
Asset management focuses on the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
of infrastructure investments. Optimally, municipalities would have
1 N. Danylo and Andrew Lemer, Asset Management for the Public Works Manager:
Challenges and Strategies: Findings of the APWA Task Force on Asset Management,
August 31, 1998. Available from www.apwa.net/documents/resourcecenter/ampaper.rtf.
2 See note 1.

access to unlimited funds to construct or improve any infrastructure
asset that would increase public benefit. However, the reality is that
municipalities have limited resources. The challenge is to invest the
limited resources to generate the greatest net public benefit (that is,
focus on cost-effectiveness).
The optimization of net public benefit is commonly measured by asset
valuation expressed in two ways, functionality and condition:
„ Functionality is the net benefit to the public of the asset’s
function. Functionality measures the asset’s maximum potential
value and depends on the public use of the asset. Not all assets
within the same class have similar functional value. For example,
a critical thoroughfare road has a higher functional value than a
rarely used rural road.
„ Condition is the ability of the asset to provide function over time.
Condition measures the percentage of the maximum functional
value provided during the asset’s life. It can depend on the level
of preventive maintenance. The asset performance curve, shown
in Exhibit 1-1, graphs the relationship between asset
performance, condition, and preventive maintenance, as well as
the benefits of preventive maintenance. As the asset ages, its
condition deteriorates from requiring preventive maintenance to
more costly maintenance and rehabilitation. Once the condition
reaches a minimum level, the asset is unusable and requires
costly reconstruction. However, if the asset receives preventive
maintenance, the rate of deterioration decreases, thereby
extending its life.

Exhibit 1-1. Asset Performance Curve and Benefits of
Preventive Maintenance
Source: Federation of Canadian Municipalities and National Research Council Canada, National Guide to
Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure: Innovations and Best Practices
Depreciation
approach
1-2.3 GASB 34 and Municipal Asset Management Systems
Accurately quantifying the public benefit of infrastructure is a complex
task, one of the greatest challenges in asset management. For example,
there is no simple financial analysis for placing a value on the net benefit
of the presence of a sewer system or road.
ƒ Reduces asset value
over the estimated
useful life.
ƒ Does not value assets
based on condition.
ƒ Focuses on
addressing
infrastructure needs
through new
infrastructure
development.
ƒ Often fails to address
life-cycle costs of
maintaining,
operating, and
renewing assets.
In June 1999, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
established GASB Statement 34 (GASB 34) to assist in this effort. The
rule requires municipalities to account for the value of major capital
assets (including bridges, roads, water systems, and dams) in their
financial statements. GASB 34 serves as the basis for today’s municipal
asset management systems.
GASB 34 provides two methods for reporting infrastructure assets,
depreciation and the modified approach:
„ Depreciation involves completing an extensive inventory of
assets, including their costs and the dates when they were
created or purchased. Each asset’s value is then calculated on
the basis of depreciation over the estimated useful life. The
method does not value assets on the basis of condition.

„ The modified approach incorporates condition assessments of
infrastructure assets and includes the following requirements:
¾ Maintain an up-to-date inventory of eligible infrastructure
assets.
¾ Assess the condition of the eligible infrastructure assets
every 3 years and summarize the results using a
measurement scale.
¾ Annually estimate the costs to maintain and preserve the
eligible infrastructure assets at the condition level established
and disclosed by the government entity.
Under the modified approach, the municipality reports the actual costs of
maintaining and preserving infrastructure assets at a determined
condition level instead of calculating depreciation charges. The
depreciation method, the easier of the two approaches to implement,
instead focuses on replacing or developing new infrastructure to
address infrastructure needs rather than addressing the life-cycle costs
of maintaining, operating, and renewing these infrastructure assets. The
APWA endorses the modified approach since it enables municipalities to
incorporate the benefits of maintenance into municipal asset valuation.3
Exhibit 1-2 outlines the basic flow and components of an asset
management system, which are as follows:
1. Inventory of Infrastructure Assets. The first stage is to
conduct an inventory of infrastructure assets. Data collected
include location, construction cost, physical characteristics,
usage information, accident history, and maintenance
performed.
2. Infrastructure Asset Valuation. Next, a municipality must
place a value on the asset. Valuation begins by assessing
the condition of all infrastructure assets. GASB 34 requires
municipalities to do so using a replicable measurement
method every 3 years.
The municipality also must estimate the useful asset life. For
each year of the infrastructure’s life, the net public benefit of
the asset is determined from the current predicted condition
levels and planned maintenance. Asset value is then
calculated as the sum of these annual benefits discounted at
the cost of capital.
Asset values are calculated based on functional value and
condition. The modified approach uses a productivity-realized
asset valuation method in which the asset value is
calculated as the “net present value of the benefit stream for
3 American Public Works Association, APWA Policy Statement—GASB 34,
November 2000.

the remaining service life.”4 The net present value captures
the functional value over the lifetime of the asset as well as
the benefits of maintenance on improving the function of the
asset and extending its life (reflected in condition).
3. List of Potential Infrastructure Improvements. At the top of
any municipality’s wish list is having the resources to
complete an infrastructure improvement that has a “return on
investment” greater than the capital cost.
However, municipalities, faced with limited resources, must
develop a list of potential infrastructure improvements that
best allocates their limited funds. The list includes all
potential new infrastructure investments as well as asset
maintenance, retrofitting, or modifications not currently
planned or funded.
4. Resource Allocation Model. Employing a resource allocation
model enables municipalities to rank potential infrastructure
investments and establish funding requirements. The
resource allocation model serves as the heart of municipal
asset management and incorporates the municipality’s key
asset management decision-making method. The primary
inputs to the model are infrastructure improvement cost
estimates, current and future asset condition estimates, and
current and future functional value estimates. The model
calculates a net present value of each infrastructure
improvement using (1) the annual cost expenses for the
improvement, (2) the estimated annual benefits (calculated
using the difference of the current and future asset values),
and (3) the predicted current and future asset life. The most
important output is a ranking of the potential infrastructure
improvements based on return on investment and total cost.
These variables are the primary input to the infrastructure
budgeting process.
5. Infrastructure Budget. Though decision-making logic is
incorporated in the research allocation model, decisions are
ultimately made through infrastructure budgeting. Selecting
infrastructure investments for funding is largely a subjective
process. Though return on investment and total cost provide
decision-making criteria, there is no exact science to
developing an infrastructure budget. On the basis of these
criteria, we have developed nine primary categories of
infrastructure investments. Exhibit 1-3 shows the
attractiveness to municipalities for funding infrastructure
investments within these categories.
4 Sue McNeil, “Asset Management and Asset Valuation: The Implications of the
GASB Standards for Reporting Capital Assets,” Proceedings of the Mid-Continent
Transportation Symposium, 2000.

Exhibit 1-2. Basic Flow of an Asset Management System
Current Asset
Condition
Current Asset
Functional
Value
Infrastructure
Asset
Valuation
List of Potential
Infrastructure
Improvements
Resource
Allocation
Model
Infrastructure
Budget
Forecast Asset
Condition
Improvement
Forecast Asset
Functional
Value
Improvement
inventory of
Infrastructure
Assets
Return on Investment
- Net Asset Value Improvement
- Total Infrastructure
Improvement

Exhibit 1-3. Assessing Budgeting Attractiveness of Infrastructure Investments
Return on
investment Total cost Budgeting attractiveness
1 High Low High: Almost always funded; very cost-effective
2 High Medium High: Generally funded, except when budgets are very tight
3 High High Medium/Low: Although these investments have high returns, limited
resources mean only a handful can be funded
4 Medium Low High: Generally funded, except when budgets are very tight
5 Medium Medium Medium: Most subjective of budgeting decisions; depends on
attractiveness of other investments
6 Medium High Low: High cost, high return investments are likely funded instead of
these
7 Low Low Medium/Low: Projects with higher returns are funded
8 Low Medium Low: Projects with higher returns are funded
9 Low High Low: Projects with higher returns are funded
1-2.4 Preventive Maintenance
Much of the municipal core infrastructure is aging, overused, and lacking
investment in maintenance (repair, rehabilitation, and replacement)—all
of which severely strain the assets. To add to the problem, citizens
demand additional new infrastructure to address growth. Although
municipalities attempt to maximize the returns on their infrastructure
investments, their asset management practices often hinder meeting
these objectives. The primary impediment is budgeting. Few
municipalities can split their capital budgets between new projects and
renewal/maintenance. As a result, they fuel inefficiency, investing in
costly new infrastructure while failing to address asset deterioration.
A solution to the problem, in lieu of additional resources, is to perform
preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is a best management
practice that optimizes the public’s benefit from infrastructure
investment.
Preventive maintenance is the most cost-effective approach to
increasing asset values. It reduces the rate of asset condition
deterioration over time, extends the asset life, and increases functional
value. Municipal asset management must shift from a “dire need”
maintenance approach to a preventive system of maintenance and
renewal.5 Preventive maintenance focuses on providing sustained value
to citizens at the lowest cost over the asset life cycle.
5 CartêGraph Systems, Inc., Getting Started in Public Works Asset Management,
2004. Available from www.cartegraph.com.

Other asset management best practices include
„ understanding the requirements of the citizens,
„ understanding the cost of sustaining the value of assets for at
least 15 years,
„ understanding demand for new assets and services,
„ constructing new assets and services only with appropriate
allocations of real operating costs, and
„ selecting an optimal strategy for the municipality, ratepayers, and
social community.
1-2.5 Strategic Asset Management
Strategic asset
management Asset management is a financially based approach to infrastructure
investment. Although effective at managing the economic health of a
municipality, the approach is only loosely linked to serving the
municipality goals, that is, optimizing citizen welfare. Thus, the approach
cannot achieve strategic goals because municipalities often fail to
evaluate infrastructure investments on the basis of their alignment to
municipal strategy. They fail to incorporate in funding decisions the
ability of the asset to (1) create safe and livable communities, (2) build
cohesive communities, (3) support human growth and development, (4)
adequately and efficiently serve communities, and (5) enhance and
protect the environment.
Strategic asset
management
augments the
municipal asset
management
approach by
integrating
municipality
strategic goals into
the management of
its infrastructure
asset portfolio.
Strategic asset management augments the municipal asset
management approach by integrating municipality strategic goals into
the management of its infrastructure asset portfolio. It provides a
mechanism for municipalities to integrate long-term strategic planning
with capital budgeting and infrastructure management. The focus is on
the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of infrastructure investments.
Exhibit 1-4 presents an evaluation of the financial and strategic
performance of municipalities based on different management
approaches. Municipalities that focus on achieving strategic goals
through a poor or non-existent asset management approach fail to
optimize the financial performance of asset investments. Similarly,
municipalities that make infrastructure investment decisions solely on
the basis of financial returns fail to realize their strategic goals. Only the
best performing municipalities employ a strategic asset management
approach to align infrastructure management and investment with
municipal strategic goals.

Exhibit 1-4. Aligning Strategic Goals and Municipal
Asset Management
Poor Financial
Performance
Poor Financial
and Strategic
Performance
Best Performing
Municipalities
None Best Practices
Asset Management
Little Strategic
Direction
Aligned
Alignment with Strategic Goals
Not
Aligned
1-2.6 Steps of Strategic Asset Management
Strategic asset management consists of the following four steps:
1. Evaluate projects. The municipality evaluates how the project
results align with the municipal goals (mission need).
2. Perform a cost analysis. The municipality analyzes the cost
of the projects, evaluating the design, implementation, and
operating and maintenance costs.
3. Quantify and qualify the project benefits. It quantifies and
qualifies the benefits of the project in improving municipality
asset value (the difference between value before and after
the implementation of the project).
4. Select projects. The municipality selects projects on the basis
of the greatest net financial benefit and associated mission.
1-2.7 Implementing Strategic Asset Management
in Municipal Management
Critical to the implementation of strategic asset management is an asset
management system that integrates strategic goals into final decisions.
Current asset management systems focus on optimizing asset condition
and functionality. The goal is to maximize the net present value of the
benefit streams from infrastructure investments, rather than to achieve
strategic goals.

Municipalities can concurrently manage the financial viability of
infrastructure investments and strive to achieve strategic goals. The
implementation of strategic asset management requires them to
integrate variables that measure the realization of strategic goals into
asset management decisions. They can do so by modifying current
asset management systems to include additional variables in their
evaluation of infrastructure investments. For example, when evaluating
the investment in constructing a bridge, the asset management system
should provide the project’s net economic benefit as well as different
measures of its alignment with a number of strategic goals. The
manager weighs both variables in making an investment decision.
1-3 Why Watershed Management Should Be
Integrated into Strategic Asset Management
Watershed management is the most comprehensive approach to
environmental stewardship. A watershed is simply the land that water
flows across or through on its way to a common stream, river, or lake, as
shown in Exhibit 1-5. A watershed can be very large (thousands of
square miles that drain to a major river, lake, or ocean) or very small (20
acres that drain to a pond). A small watershed that nests inside of a
larger watershed is referred to as a subwatershed. Watersheds,
geographical areas defined by natural hydrology, are the most logical
basis for managing the impacts of human activity on the environment
(air, water, and habitat). Focusing on the natural resource, rather than
the specific sources of pollution, enables municipalities to evaluate the
overall conditions in a geographic area and manage the stressors that
A watershed is affect those conditions.
simply the land
that water flows
across or through
on its way to a
common stream,
river, or lake.
Watersheds can be
any size, from a
few acres to
thousands of
square miles.
River mouth
Watershed
boundary
Groundwater recharge
(aquifer)
What is a
watershed?
Exhibit 1-5. Example Watershed

Watershed management is a critical dimension of strategic asset
management. Minimizing environmental impact (i.e., watershed
management) and enhancing local environmental conditions are integral
to achieving one of the key municipality strategic goals: enhancing the
welfare of future generations by maximizing long-term asset value.
What is
watershed
management?
A framework to
ƒ assess a
waterbody’s
ability to meet its
intended use,
ƒ determine the
pollutants and
potential
sources of
impairments,
ƒ incorporate
assessment
results into a
plan aimed at
achieving water
quality
objectives, and
ƒ foster
collaboration
with all
landowners in
the watershed
1-3.1 Drivers for Watershed Approach and Assessments
Watershed management approaches are particularly important to
municipal managers. Over the past 10 years, municipalities have faced
increasingly complex regulations as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has revised much of its legislation. Working to better
integrate watershed approaches, the EPA revised the Clean Water Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, and other regulations concerning water quality,
effluent standards, source water protection standards, and stormwater
management. These changes, along with the move by regulators to
issue permits by watershed, require municipal managers to reevaluate
how municipal activities impair water resources and to develop action
plans to prevent or correct the identified impairments.
The main compliance drivers behind adopting a watershed approach
and completing watershed assessments to manage water issues are as
follows:
„ Clean Water Act. National pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPDES), total maximum daily loads (TMDL), spill prevention
control and countermeasures (SPCC), wetland 404 permits and
mitigation, sludge disposal or reuse, and point and non-point
stormwater management programs.
„ Safe Drinking Water Act. Source water assessment and
protection program (which includes wellhead protection), and
underground injection control (UIC) program.
„ Coastal Zone Management Act. Required the 29 states with
federally approved Coastal Zone Management Act programs to
develop coastal NPS programs.
Exhibit 1-6 shows the relevant federal laws, policies, and plans related
to watershed management. Appendix B summarizes the key federal
laws and policies governing water resources that provide the basis for
watershed protection activities.

Exhibit 1-6. Federal Laws, Policies, and Plans Related to Watershed
Management and Non-Point Source Regulations
Category Title
Clean Water Act (CWA) and amendments
Part 130 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Water Quality
Planning and Management
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and amendments
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA)
Clean Air Act (CAA) and amendments
Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Federal laws
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
EPA’s National Water Program Strategic Plan 2004 -2008, April 2004
EPA’s Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting Policy, January 2003
EPA Memo, Committing EPA's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed
Approach, December 2002
Policies and
plans
EPA’s Draft Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting Implementation Guidance,
August 2003
1-3.2 Impact of Watershed Regulatory Approaches
on Municipal Activities
What is a
TMDL?
A written
quantitative
analysis of an
impaired
waterbody, which
is established to
ensure that the
waterbody’s
designated uses
are attained and
maintained in all
seasons.
The CWA’s TMDL and stormwater regulations are the primary
regulations directing the development of watershed management
policies. However, in their efforts to restore an impaired waterbody,
regulators are increasingly using the broad scope of these regulations,
among others:
„ Modifying a municipality’s NPDES, RCRA, or CAA (in the case of
CAA, it would be pollutants found in a waterbody that are directly
related to air deposition) discharge permits to
¾ require monitoring or limits for new pollutants,
¾ reduce discharge limits of existing pollutants, or
¾ prohibit discharges of particular pollutants
„ Requiring stormwater control devices that provide flow control,
treatment, or both

„ Requiring a permit for or modification of activities that may be
generating non-point sources of pollution and are not typically
covered under the NPDES program
„ Requiring sites to implement best management practices (BMPs)
for construction, agriculture, timber operations, and other
ground-disturbing activities
„ Implementing land use controls or restrictions on activities
located on properties surrounding waterbodies
„ Requiring development of additional riparian buffer zones,
stream bank stabilization, or additional wetlands
„ Restricting the site use of surface water and groundwater.
1-3.3 Incorporating Watershed Management into Strategic
Assessment Management
Watershed management is a critical dimension of strategic asset
management (Exhibit 1-7); it is integral to achieving one of the key
municipality strategic goals: enhancing the welfare of future generations
by maximizing long-term asset value. Ignoring the environmental impact
of an asset decision may only have a minimal impact on the value of the
municipality assets in the short term. However, in the long term, a
degraded surrounding environment can reduce asset value and impede
an asset’s functional use.
Exhibit 1-7. How Watershed Management Is Part of Strategic Asset
Management Approach
Current municipal
asset management
techniques fail to
incorporate other
strategic goals in
infrastructure
investment
decisions
Strategic Goal:
Create safe and
livable communities
Strategic Goal:
Strategic Goal:
Support human
growth and
development
Strategic Goal:
Optimize
environmental
condition
Optimize return
on investment
(i.e., minimize
costs)
The watershed
assessment approach
addresses
environmental
condition as part of
the entire strategic
management
approach

Environmental impact factors into all four strategic asset management
steps. First, enhancing and protecting the environment is one of the
pillars of the municipality mission. Second, the cost analysis must
include quantifying the financial consequences of environmental
degradation. Finally, projects that improve environmental conditions
improve asset value. Net financial impact would be incomplete without
integrating environmental condition.
Current management approaches attempt to optimize asset condition
and functionality. They do not address minimizing the environmental
impact. Achieving environmental strategic goals requires municipalities
to simultaneously optimize three independent asset dimensions:
condition, functionality, and environmental burden. By concurrently
evaluating the environmental impacts (as measured by environmental
burden) and financial performance (as measured by functional value
and condition), municipalities can manage infrastructure investments to
reach both financial and environmental strategic goals. Environmental
burden measures the impact of an infrastructure investment on the
receiving environment. Infrastructure investments where the main
purpose is not to improve the environment (such as roads and bridges)
have a negative environmental burden, and investments designed to
improve the receiving environment have a positive environmental
burden.
Environmental burden fits nicely within the current asset management
system, integrated as a component of asset condition. This technique
reduces the value of infrastructure investments that have a negative
impact on the receiving environment. This approach also allows
municipalities to evaluate funding for projects designed only to improve
environmental condition compared with other infrastructure investments
(weigh the benefits environmental projects generate from improvements
to condition compared with project costs). Exhibit 1-8 shows the impacts
of integrating environmental burden on each component of the asset
management system.

Exhibit 1-8. Integrating Environmental Burden into Asset Management Systems
Component Current system
Impact of integrating
environmental burden
Inventory of
infrastructure
assets
List all infrastructure assets and
associated data managed by the
municipality, including location,
construction cost, physical
characteristics, and usage
Collect environmental condition (that is,
watershed condition) data as part of
infrastructure inventory management
system
Infrastructure
asset valuation
Conduct condition assessments of all
infrastructure assets and calculate net
present value of asset benefits over
useful life
Factor environmental burden into asset
condition calculation
List of potential
infrastructure
improvements
List all infrastructure improvements that
have a return on investment greater than
the cost of capital
Add environmental condition
improvement projects to list
Resource
allocation
model
Rank the potential infrastructure
improvements on the basis of return on
investment and total cost
Incorporate environmental burden as a
variable in the model to evaluate the
effects of environmental condition on
investment returns
Infrastructure
budget
Select infrastructure investments for
funding
Integrate environmental impacts in
budgeting decisions
1-3.4 Evaluating Watershed Improvement Projects in Strategic
Asset Management
Evaluation of watershed improvement projects begins with a baseline
valuation assessment. Municipal managers calculate baseline asset
value based on optimal functional value discounted by condition, as
measured by both watershed condition (i.e., environmental burden) and
ability of the asset to provide functional use.
Municipal managers then evaluate and rank potential watershed
improvement projects based on two factors, return on investment and
total project cost. Return on investment is calculated using the increase
in future asset value (from improved environmental burden) measured
against the total project cost.
Finally, municipal managers select watershed improvement projects for
funding. Although the process is often subjective, return on investment
and total cost are the primary decision-making criteria. Exhibits 1-3 and
1-9 outline the attractiveness for funding projects based on return on
investment and total cost.

Exhibit 1-9. Budget Attractiveness of Watershed
Improvement Projects
High Priority
Projects
Return on Investment
Low or
Negative
Secondary
Priority
Projects
Lower
Priority
Projects
High
Low
Total Project Cost
High

Chapter 2
Steps to Integrate
Watershed
Management and
Strategic Asset
Management
2-1 Overview of the Municipal Watershed Impact
Assessment Process
The remainder of this guide describes the steps you can take to
integrate watershed management into your strategic asset management
process. These steps, the Municipal Watershed Impact Assessment
Process, are organized in an easy-to-use format. Using this guidance,
you can assess the impact of your municipality on the local waterbodies
and develop a prioritized list of solutions that can be integrated into your
municipality’s strategic asset management goals and process. The six
major steps of the Municipal Watershed Impact Assessment Process are
as follows:
„ Step 1. Establish and refine strategic asset management
goals. Review current municipal goals, laws, and regulations
and any watershed restoration action plans. You will use this
information to establish or refine integrated goals and
associated performance objectives.
„ Step 2. Calculate the watershed condition score for each
watershed using Forms 1 and 2. Assess the condition and
vulnerability of watersheds, subwatersheds, and
waterbodies; determine designated uses; and identify
impairments of concern. You complete Forms 1 and 2 to
identify and prioritize the watersheds, subwatersheds,
waterbodies, and regional watershed partners located on or
along the municipal boundary on the basis of current
conditions, future vulnerability, and compliance requirements.
The guide walks you through the process of documenting the
designated uses and impairments of concern. At the end of

this step, you will have developed a watershed priority score
(WPS) for each significant waterbody on or surrounding your
municipality.
„ Step 3. Calculate the total burden score for each significant
infrastructure asset or municipal activity using Forms 3, 4, 5,
and 6 (Parts 1, 2, and 3). Assess the potential impact of
municipal activities. This part of the process is divided into
three sections:
1. Using the checklist of typical municipal activities found in
Appendix C, identify those in your municipality that may
contribute to the impairments of concern.
2. Complete Form 3 to create a baseline of municipal activities
by land uses. Use Form 4 to compare your municipality’s
land use with that of the watershed. Use Form 5 to
summarize the municipality’s land-use characteristics.
3. For each activity, use Form 6, Parts 1–3, to calculate the
activity’s impact score, and to create a total activity burden
score (TABS). The TABS is a sum of the activity impact
score (AIS) and WPS. The guide pays particular attention to
the amount of impervious surfaces in your municipality.
„ Step 4. Identify cost-effective solutions to mitigate high
priority impacts using Form 6 (Parts 4 and 5). Identify
whether the municipality needs additional projects to mitigate
high priority activities or land-use conditions. Compare the
prioritized list of activities and their associated impairments
with available BMPs. This guide contains references to
sources of cost-effective BMPs and innovative projects that
can help you mitigate an activity’s potential impact on the
watershed. Integrate project criteria into the municipality
strategic asset management framework to rank projects.
Compare improvement in asset condition (and value) and
project costs to select the most cost-effective projects.
Develop a project description, justification, and cost. Track
funding requests and the project through completion.
„ Step 5. Identify partnerships and funding sources using Form
6 (Part 6). Identify and develop partnerships with other
stakeholders to implement the selected BMPs and other
watershed restoration efforts that reduce the municipality’s
impact on the watershed. Form 6 allows you to list partners,
agreements, benefits, addresses, and points of contact for
tracking purposes. This guide provides links to groups active
in watersheds around the country as well as types of groups
that may provide assistance and support. Chapter 6 contains
a partnership template for tracking regional and project
partners.

Steps to Integrate Watershed Management and Strategic Asset Management
„ Step 6. Implement solutions, track progress, and reassess as
part of strategic asset management. Incorporate the solutions
into your municipality’s strategic asset management
decisions, implement the identified solutions, track their
progress, and update the plan and project requests as
required to adjust management direction as new information
becomes available.
The majority of the information needed to complete the Municipal
Watershed Assessment Process should be readily available from existing
records and federal or state regulatory agencies. In particular, the EPA
has created a database and interactive map site containing a wealth of
information about the nation’s watersheds. The database is available
through the EPA’s Surf Your Watershed website at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
surf/locate/index.cfm. It also has created the Watershed Assessment,
Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS) website, located at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/enviromapper/index.html. WATERS is a tool
that unites water quality information previously available only on individual
state agency homepages and at several EPA websites. It is a web-based
geographic information system (GIS) that shows watershed delineations,
waterbodies, permitted discharges to all media, TMDL status, and water
quality standards. You can quickly identify the status of individual
waterbodies and generate summary reports on all waters that influence
your municipality.
2-2 Other Watershed Assessment Processes
Other watershed assessment processes available for municipal
managers include the following:
„ The Watershed Protection Audit establishes a baseline of
current strategies and practices within a municipality’s
watershed. The audit can be used to determine the
watershed tools currently available in a watershed. The audit
is located at http://www.cwp.org.
„ The Watershed Vulnerability Analysis provides guidance
on delineating subwatersheds, estimating current and future
impervious cover, and identifying factors that would alter the
initial classification of individual subwatersheds. This
guidance outlines a basic eight-step process for creating a
rapid watershed plan for either a large watershed or a
jurisdiction. The Watershed Vulnerability Analysis is located
at http://www.cwp.org.
„ The Retrofit Assessment includes the Eight Steps to
Stormwater Retrofitting, which outlines the eight steps of
performing a retrofit inventory. This involves examining
existing stormwater management practices and pinpointing
locations that might benefit from additional practices. Details

on retrofit implementation are included. The Retrofit
Assessment is located at http://www.cwp.org.
„ The Codes and Ordinances Worksheet is a simple
worksheet used to compare local development rules in a
community with the model development principles outlined in
the Better Site Design. The worksheet is located at
http://www.cwp.org.
2-3 Limited Integration with Strategic
Asset Management
Although this Municipal Watershed Impact Assessment Process is
designed to be integrated into your strategic asset management
process, the integration is not seamless. Municipalities may use the
outputs of the process, environmental burden improvement and project
costs, as inputs to their strategic asset management systems. These
inputs are then used in those systems to evaluate and rank projects
based on “return on investment” (as calculated by increase in long-term
asset value) and total cost (see Exhibit 1-8).
The strategic asset management approach is in its infancy, especially
the use of condition assessments to value assets. The lack of a
standardized asset valuation method that incorporates environmental
(and watershed) burden complicates a seamless integration of the
process with strategic asset management.
Over the next few years, the strategic asset management approach will
mature and standardized systems are expected to be available for
implementation by municipalities. At that time, we suggest updating the
Municipal Watershed Impact Assessment Process to seamlessly
integrate it with your strategic asset management process.
2-4 Future Research to Further Integrate Watershed
Management with Strategic Asset Management
We suggest further research into incorporating environmental burden
into strategic asset management systems. As more municipalities
become familiar with GASB 34 and its modified approach, we expect
techniques for valuing assets on the basis of environmental burden to
improve and become more available. More research is needed to
determine the best method to factor environmental burden into asset
condition (and valuation) calculations.
Once a standardized method is established for valuing assets on the
basis of environmental burden, we suggest revising the Municipal
Watershed Impact Assessment Process to include asset valuation in
evaluating watershed projects. In addition, the process may be updated
for integration with any new standardized strategic asset management
tools that become available to municipalities.

Chapter 3
Identify Your Watershed
and Assess Its Current
Condition
Summary
This chapter walks
you through the
completion of
Forms 1 and 2.
The information
contained in
Forms 1 and 2
enables you to
identify your
watershed and its
characteristics.
3-1 Introduction
In this chapter, you learn to identify your municipality’s watersheds
and determine their current conditions by completing Forms 1 and 2. It
also presents an approach for developing goals and selecting key
performance metrics to measure progress. The instructions help you
ƒ identify watershed names and hydrological unit codes (HUCs);
ƒ create a map of the watershed and its boundaries;
ƒ prepare a list of regulatory and local designated uses,
impairments of concern, and an overall watershed condition
score using available information;
ƒ calculate a condition score for each receiving waterbody;
I already have
my watershed
information
You may have
already identified
the watersheds and
waterbodies to
which your
municipality drains.
If so, ensure you
have all of the infor-mation
in Forms 1
and 2 and that you
have quantitatively
scored their
condition.
ƒ identify key stakeholders active in the watershed; and
ƒ identify key goals and performance metrics to guide the
prioritization of projects and enable the tracking of progress
over time.
3-1.1 Using Your Existing Information
In addition to the one this guide describes, other methods and
sources are available for determining the conditions of your
watershed:
ƒ Environmental office documentation. The municipal
environmental office may have already identified the
watersheds and assessed the conditions of the waterbodies to
which your property drains.
ƒ Watershed vulnerability analysis. This analysis provides
guidance on delineating subwatersheds, estimating current
and future impervious cover, and identifying factors that would

alter the initial classification of individual subwatersheds. The
document outlines a basic eight-step process for creating a
rapid watershed plan for either a large watershed or
jurisdiction. It is available at http://www.cwp.org/Vulnerability
Analysis.pdf.
ƒ Watershed protection audit. This audit establishes a
baseline of current strategies and practices within the
watershed. By understanding the current state of
development, watershed groups can assess strategies,
practices, strengths, and weaknesses and can better plan
future efforts. This document can help watershed
organizations audit the watershed protection tools currently
available in their watershed. It is available at
http://www.cwp.org/Community_Watersheds/Watershed
Protection_Audit2.pdf.
If you already have the watershed background information, you have
already begun the first step of the watershed assessment process.
You need to ensure you have all of the information in Forms 1 and 2
and that you have quantitatively scored the condition of your
municipality’s receiving waterbodies. You can convert your
information into Forms 1 and 2 or leave them in their original format.
3-1.2 Using the Municipal Watershed Impact
Assessment Process
The remainder of this chapter walks you through the steps for
completing Forms 1 and 2. Complete Forms 1 and 2 by relying on
existing information and tools primarily available in municipal
documents and from EPA, state, and local regulators. Form 1 enables
you to create a summary of key watershed information—including the
name of the watershed, its HUC, the significant municipal
waterbodies, and their condition and vulnerability scores—using
existing information related to watershed indicators. Complete a Form
2 for each significant waterbody identified in Form 1, and then use the
results of Form 2 to select key performance metrics to serve as the
baseline for measuring your municipality’s progress.

Identify Your Watershed and Assess Its Current Condition
3-2 Identify Municipality’s Watershed
and Its Key Characteristics
Locate your
EPA, states, and local groups have established extensive online tools watershed
to help you identify the watershed in which your municipality resides
and assess its characteristics. The two most relevant sites are
Locate your
municipality and
its watershed
using the locator
function on EPA’s
Surf Your
Watershed Internet
site at http://
cfpub.epa.gov/surf/
locate/index.com, or
contact your state
water permitting
program.
ƒ EPA’s Surf Your Watershed site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/
locate/index.cfm and
ƒ EPA’s WATERS website at http://www.epa.gov/waters/. The
WATERS system is a tool that unites water quality information
previously available only on individual state agency
homepages and at several EPA websites. It can also be used
to generate summary reports on all waters of a state.
Both applications provide links to a GIS mapping tool and to related
water program information, including a list of impaired waters from the
303(d) list, water quality standards, and designated uses.
The following sections provide instructions on using these sites to
locate and document key characteristics of your watershed and print
out a map.
3-2.1 Form 1—Identify the Watershed Name and Hydrological
Unit Code (HUC)
The first step is to fill in Form 1 about your municipality’s watershed
and its 8-digit HUC using information provided by EPA, your state,
and other resources. A HUC is a numbering system the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) developed, which uniquely identifies all
watersheds in the United States. The HUC, commonly called a
"watershed address," ranges from 2 to 16 digits—the higher the
number is, the smaller the watershed. Exhibit 3-1 shows examples of
2- to 12-digit HUCs.
Exhibit 3-1. Sample Hydrological Unit Codes
Description Proper name HUC Digits
Region Ohio River 05 2
Subregion Wabash and White Rivers 0512 4
Basin Wabash River 051201 6
Subbasin Vermilion River 05120109 8
Watershed North Fork Vermilion 0512010909 10
Subwatershed Lake Vermilion 051201090905 12
A HUC is a
watershed’s
address
The watershed's
HUC is commonly
called its "watershed
address." The U.S.
Geological Survey
provides access to
watershed GIS
boundary files on its
Internet site at
http://water.usgs.gov/
GIS/huc.html.

Form 1. Summary of the Municipality’s Receiving Watersheds and Associated
Waterbodies
Instructions: Complete this form for each 8-digit HUC watershed. Enter watershed priority scores (WPS) from
Form 2. Please attach your watershed map to all Form 3s.
1. Name 2. State and County 3. Zip Code(s)
4. Name of 8-digit HUC watershed(s) 5. 8-digit HUC(s)
6. List of the Receiving Watersheds or Waterbodies Listed as Impaired by the Federal or State
Regulators
Name of waterbody
HUC, 8- to 16-digit,
or state identifier
List of impaired
designated uses
Summary of impairments
of concern (from Form 2)
WPS
(from Form 2)
7. List of the Receiving Watersheds or Waterbodies Listed as Impaired by the Federal or State
Regulators
Name of waterbody
HUC, 8- to 16-digit,
or state identifier
List of designated
uses
Summary of impairments of
concern (from Form 2)
WPS
(from Form 2)

Complete Form 1 as follows:
ƒ Blocks 1 through 3. Enter the municipality’s name, state, and
zip code.
ƒ Blocks 4 and 5. Go to EPA’s Surf Your Watershed site at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm as shown in Exhibit
3-2. Enter your municipality’s zip codes into the “Locate by
geographic unit” box. This provides the “Watershed Profile” (at
the 8-digit HUC) for your municipality. Enter the watershed
name and 8-digit HUC into blocks 4 and 5.
Exhibit 3-2. Example EPA Surf Your Watershed Locator
Enter Zip
Code
You may also use the “search by map” function at the top of
the screen to locate the watershed. If using the mapping
function, select the state your municipality is in, and drill down
to your general location until the “watershed profile” page is
returned.

ƒ Block 6. To obtain the 303(d) listed waterbodies, use one of
the following sources:
¾ State Water Management Agency. Call your state water
management agency or visit their website, which usually
includes the latest 303(d) report. The 303(d) report lists
the impaired waterbodies. If your waterbody is not listed,
then it is not impaired.
Current
303(d) list
List
States are required
to update their list
of impaired waters
every 2 years.
When identifying
whether your
municipality’s
waterbodies are
impaired, make
sure you are using
the latest 303(d)
list
¾ WATERS Website. Use the WATERS website at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/enviromapper/index.htm.
Select the area on which you would like information, such
as by zip code, and enter the appropriate information.
Then click on the “Zoom to Selected Area” button. A map
of that area will appear. Select the “Update Map” button.
A map of the impaired waterbodies in that area will
appear. Select “identify active feature” and click on the
“Update Map” button. Information on the impaired
waterbodies appears below the map (Exhibit 3-3). You
may need to use the zooming tools to identify the impaired
waterbodies.
¾ TMDL Website. Use the TMDL website at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl (Exhibit 3-4). Click on your
state, then the waters listed by watersheds, and then your
watershed. This will return a list of the 303(d)-listed
waterbodies in the watershed. Click on your waterbody.
For each listed waterbody, the website provides the
following information: name, parameters (pollutants) of
concern, priority for TMDL development, and potential
sources of impairment.
Copy the listed waterbodies, HUC, and parameters of concern
to the appropriate column under block 6. The priority score, or
WPS, you enter in column 4 under block 6, is determined in
Form 2.
ƒ Block 7. Identify and list the waterbodies not listed as impaired
but that are still a priority for your municipality. For each
waterbody listed in block 7, complete a separate Form 2. Form
2 enables you to develop a WPS for each waterbody.
ƒ Block 8. Identify potential regional watershed partners by
referring to http://www.epa.gov/win/contacts.html. List each
potential partner in block 8. You will also be asked to use this
information to complete the Regional Partnering Template
located in Chapter 6.

Exhibit 3-3. Example of EPA WATERS Map
Exhibit 3-4. Example EPA TMDL Website

3-2.2 Form 2—Calculate WPS for Each Waterbody Listed
on Form 1
Complete a separate Form 2 for each waterbody listed in Form 1. Use
the information provided by EPA on its Surf Your Watershed site to
assess the WPS. The WPS is the sum of the watershed indicator
condition and vulnerability scores, plus points applied to the TMDL
and compliance-based questions found in Form 2. Calculating a WPS
enables you to prioritize the sensitivity of your waterbodies and thus
the activities that occur in their drainage basin. The higher the WPS
is, the more sensitive the watershed is to municipal activities.
Use the following instructions to complete Form 2:
ƒ Block 1. Enter the name and HUC for the waterbody listed in
blocks 6 or 7 of Form 1.
ƒ Block 2. For the waterbody listed in block 1, answer questions
2a through 2i, which determine the designated uses of the
waterbody and whether it meets them. Go to the state
regulator or EPA’s state 305b reports to determine the
waterbody’s designated uses. The designated uses are from
EPA’s national use support categories, Guidelines for
Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates. Your
state may have state-specific subcategories, which you can
enter in block 2i. For each designated use, check the degree
to which it meets the use, the impairments, and the causes or
stressors of them. For example, if the waterbody does not fully
support the water use classification of fishing and non-point
source pollution from urban runoff is the cause of the
impairment: check “partially supporting” for 2b and enter non-point
source pollution as the impairment and urban runoff as
the cause. If you do not know the answer for the specific
waterbody, enter the default value for the corresponding 8-digit
HUC.
ƒ Block 3. List the state 303(d)-listed pollutants of concern
(impairment) from block 2. Note whether or not the state has
developed a TMDL for the waterbody. EPA and the states
provide this information for most waterbodies on EPA’s TMDL
tracking site at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/ and the 303(d)
list. If the TMDL is in place, note the effective date.

Form 2. Watershed Priority Score (WPS): A Sensitivity Scoring and Data Collection Form
for Waterbodies/Watersheds
Complete a Form 2 for each waterbody listed Form 1. Record the WPS and pollutants of concern into Form 1 for each waterbody.
1. Name of the Watershed and Corresponding 8- to 16-Digit HUC Code (or State Identifier):
2. Waterbody/Watershed Impairment Score for the watershed listed in Block 1. Go to the State regulator or EPA’s State 305b reports to
determine the waterbody’s designated uses and if they are being met. For each designated use, check the degree it meets the use, the
impairment(s), and the causes/stressors.
Designated Use Impairment Cause/Stressor
Not
Supporting
= 3 pts
Partially
Supporting
= 2pts
Fully
Supporting
= 1pt
Not a
Designated
Use= 0 pts
a. Aquatic life use
b. Fish consumption use
c. Shell fishing use
d. Swimming use
e. Secondary contact use
f. Drinking water use
g. Agriculture use
h. Cultural/ceremonial use
i. State/municipal specific use
_______________________
3. Transfer the State 303(d) listed pollutants of concern (impairments) from TMDL in place?
question 2 and note if the State has developed TMDL. Yes = 3 pt No = 0 pts
Enter TMDL Effective
Date
a. 303(d) Impairment 1:
b. 303(d) Impairment 2:
c. 303(d) Impairment 3:
d. 303(d) Impairment 4:
e. 303(d) Impairment 5:
4. Waterbody/Watershed Vulnerability Score for the watershed listed in Block 1.
Yes
= 1 pt
No
= 0 pts
a. Are the impervious surfaces above 25% of watershed land area (for either current or projected land use)?
b. Is the population growth rate of the watershed above 7%?
c. Does waterbody contain impounded water (e.g., dams and fish barriers)?
d. Is the receiving water listed as a protected estuary?
5. Has EPA, individual service, state, water authority, or local group listed restoration goals for the waterbody in
Block 1? If so, list the specific goals.
Yes
= 1 pt
No
= 0 pts
a. Biodiversity and habitat loss. If yes, list goal:
b. Riparian buffer strip loss. If yes, list goal:
c. Imperviousness/uncontrolled SW runoff. If yes, list goal:
d. Invasive species. If yes, list goal:
e. Wetlands. If yes, list goal:
f. Other: If yes, list goal:
6. Has an enforcement official requested the municipality to monitor/sample the waterbody?
7. Have water withdrawal/use restrictions been imposed for the waterbody?
8. Have potential impacts to human health been identified as a significant concern for the waterbody (e.g., air
deposition of a pollutant to the waterbody, or pollutants in the water are causing a risk to drinking water)?
9. Is this watershed or waterbody designated as a special water resource under the American Heritage River
Program, Great Lakes Program, Scenic Waters Program, or another special program?
10. Watershed Priority Score (WPS) = impairment score (blocks 2 a-i) + TMDLs (blocks 3 a-e) + vulnerability
score (block 4 a-d) + goal score (blocks 5 a-f) + answers on blocks 6 to 9.

ƒ Block 4. For the waterbody listed in block 1, answer “yes” or
“no” to questions 4a through 4d to determine the waterbody’s
vulnerability.
¾ Question 4a. Is the percentage of impervious surfaces
above 25 percent of the watershed land area for either
current or projected land use? This information can be
obtained by contacting your state water program point of
contact or from EPA’s watershed indicators site at
http://www.epa.gov/iwi/.
¾ Question 4b. Is the projected population growth rate of
the watershed above 7 percent? This information can be
obtained from your watershed’s profile page on EPA’s
watershed indicators site at http://www.epa.gov/iwi/.
¾ Question 4c. Does the waterbody contain impounded
waters such as dams or fish barriers? This information can
be obtained from your watershed’s profile page on EPA’s
watershed indicators site at http://www.epa.gov/iwi/.
¾ Question 4d. Is receiving water listed as a protected
estuary? This information can be obtained from EPA’s
National Estuary Program site at http:// www.epa.gov/
owow/estuaries/find.htm.
ƒ Block 5. Has EPA, an individual service, state, water authority,
or local group listed restoration goals for the watershed or
waterbody? If so, list the specific waterbody or watershed
restoration goals associated with each category. These goals
can serve as potential watershed restoration performance
metrics. Information about the active groups in the watershed
can be obtained from your watershed’s profile page on EPA’s
Surf Your Watershed site under the “Environmental Websites”
heading.
ƒ Block 6. Has a federal, state, or local enforcement official
requested that the municipality monitor or sample the
watershed or waterbody? Contact your state water program
point of contact for environmental permits.
ƒ Block 7. Have water withdrawal or use restrictions been
imposed on this waterbody? Contact your state drinking water
point of contact.
ƒ Block 8. Have potential impacts to human health been
identified as a significant concern for the waterbody? Contact
your state drinking water point of contact.

ƒ Block 9. Is this watershed or waterbody designated as a
special water resource under the American Heritage River
Program, Great Lakes Program, Scenic Waters Program, or
other special program established to protect the water
resource? Refer to EPA’s Surf Your Watershed site at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm for more information.
ƒ Block 10. Calculate the total WPS for the waterbody by adding
the overall watershed condition score (blocks 2 a-i), TMDL
score (3 points for each yes in blocks 3 a-e), vulnerability
score (1 point for each yes in blocks 4 a-d), watershed goal
score (1 point for each yes in blocks 5 a-f), plus 1 point for
each yes to answers on blocks 6 to 9.
ƒ Remember to complete a separate Form 2 for each waterbody
listed in blocks 6 and 7 of Form 1. After completing each Form
2, record the WPS on Form 1, blocks 6 and 7, as a summary
sheet.
3-3 Create Watershed Map
Aerial and
topographic maps
are available
online
The following
Internet sites
contain various
digital and
topographic maps
that can assist with
watershed efforts:
ƒ USGS provides
digital,
topographic, and
HUC maps.
ƒ WATERS is an
Internet-based
GIS mapping tool.
ƒ Montana State
University
maintains an
extensive online
collection of HUC
maps backed up
with digital maps.
To continue the assessment process, you need to create a map of the
municipality in relation to the watershed and waterbodies. Creating a
map that models hydrologic conditions and land use can identify
watershed areas with the greatest potential impact on source water
quality.
Many state and municipal agencies have in-house GIS capabilities.
Most maintain a GIS map of the municipality that contains various
data layers that will be helpful in creating the watershed map. A GIS is
an effective way to develop a map of the municipality. It presents
selected data layers from the watershed assessment process into an
easily interpreted format.
You should create a municipal map that shows the following data
layers:
ƒ Watershed (e.g., 8 digit HUC) and subwatershed (e.g., 10-16
digit HUC) boundaries
ƒ Municipal boundaries
ƒ Topography
ƒ All major NPDES discharge points
ƒ Vegetative cover
ƒ Waterbodies and points flowing on- and off-site
ƒ Major structures, utility lines, and roads.

You may need to create the watershed boundary layer. Delineating
watersheds is generally a straightforward process, but it may not be
the easiest step, depending on the type and number of sub-watersheds
involved in the municipality. The delineation involves
identifying the drainage area above municipal boundaries on a
topographic map. In some cases, the total watershed area may be
very large, thus prohibiting the investigation of all contributions from
pollutant sources over such a wide area. The watershed drainage
area must still be defined in order to identify the total area contributing
to the water quality in the watersheds affected by the municipality and
to eventually consider all potential contributors to any identified
impairment.
As assessments are completed for other water systems upstream,
that information will be available for review and incorporation into your
assessment and protection plan. The USGS provides detailed
guidance and hard-copy maps on delineating surface watersheds on
their User's Guide for Source Water Assessment and Protection at
http://water.usgs.gov/usaec/tools.html.
A number of federal, state, and local government agencies may
already have topographic data in digital form, including the delineation
of various watersheds and aquifer boundaries. These sources should
be contacted first to reduce duplicate effort. State or regional geologic
agencies should be the first source for hydrogeologic conditions of the
area, and will most likely have studied the conditions in great detail.
State agencies also know the information available in digital or other
format such as reports and studies. A listing of state agencies is
available at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/source/contacts.html.
In addition, digital and topographic maps of 8-digit HUCs are available
from the following sources:
ƒ Web-based watershed mapping tools
► EPA’s WATERS site at http://www.epa.gov/waters/
► The Montana State University website at
http://www.esg.montana.edu/gl/huc/index.html.
ƒ Digital USGS topographic maps. The USGS identifies many
places to get topographic maps and aerial photos. Access the
USGS site at http://mapping.usgs.gov/. It also provides access
to watershed GIS boundary files on its site at
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.

3-4 Select Goals and Performance Metrics
Having systems in place to measure and communicate progress is a
critical part of improving a watershed’s health and ensuring
environmental burden is integrated into asset management.
Therefore, this guide includes a block on Form 1 to identify measures
of progress (often referred to as “performance metrics”) for a specific
watershed. Appropriate measures not only keep watershed issues on
management’s mind, but, as they are met, they allow stakeholders to
share successes and highlight new challenges to the watershed.
Make sure that the appropriate measures of progress are selected
and that information on these measures is shared with relevant
stakeholders.
Measurements of progress should be associated with achieving goals
set for the municipal watershed effort. Work with your municipality’s
environmental office to develop specific watershed restoration goals.
Then determine how they tie into asset management. For example,
you may choose meeting water quality measurements (such as
decreasing the percentage of dissolved oxygen, bacteria levels, or
fecal coliform) or less direct water-quality based results (such as
number of feet of wastewater collection pipes retrofitted, number of
miles protected from erosion, or number of trees planted). To make
sure that progress does indeed occur, the watershed restoration goals
should be incorporated into the asset management plan.
For many watersheds around the country, different stakeholders,
including regulators, have identified specific restoration goals. For
example, the Chesapeake Bay Program has set various goals to
improve the Chesapeake Bay watershed. One such goal is to have ”a
Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of
chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that
result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on living resources that
inhabit the Bay or on human health.” The Puget Sound Water Quality
Action Team has set a variety of goals, including reducing non-point
source pollution and nuisance species. Most of these goals are
voluntary, but the trend is for them to become mandatory. For
example, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 requires federal
agencies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to comply with
previously voluntary Chesapeake Bay agreements. Thus, you should
clarify your goals so that they focus the municipality’s actions on the
impacts they have on the watershed, the resources they control, and
the specific property within municipality boundaries.

3-5 Conclusion
The previous sections provide instructions for completing Forms 1 and
2. At this point, you should have
ƒ identified the watershed name and HUC number,
ƒ created a map of the watershed and its boundaries,
ƒ identified overall watershed conditions and potential
impairments,
ƒ prioritized the condition and vulnerability of municipality’s
watersheds, and
ƒ identified key goals and performance metrics to guide the
prioritization of projects and enable you to track progress over
time.
The next chapter provides you with instructions on how to identify and
prioritize specific municipal land-use conditions and activities that may
be contributing to the watershed impairments listed on Form 1.

Chapter 4
Assess Potential
Impact of Municipal
Land Use and
Activities
4-1 Introduction
Summary
This chapter helps
you complete Forms
3 through 6. In this
chapter, you will
ƒ identify specific
land use;
ƒ assess baseline
land use
conditions and
industrial
activities;
ƒ create a list of
priority municipal
activities with the
potential to
contribute to
watershed
impairments; and
ƒ create a relative
total activity
burden score
(TABS) for each
activity.
The next step in the watershed assessment process is to identify the
municipality’s physical characteristics (such as land uses, soil types,
and structures) and associated activities. This chapter provides
instructions for completing the following forms:
„ Form 3, Summary List of Priority Municipal Activities (see
Appendix C for a checklist of typical activities)
„ Form 4, Summary of Municipal Land Use Categories
„ Form 5, Summary of Questions to Identify Key Municipal
Physical Characteristics and Activities
„ Form 6, Parts 1–3, Municipal Activity Data Entry Sheet.
You should find most, if not all, of the information to complete these
forms in existing sources. When complete, these forms enable you to
do the following:
„ Validate a list of activities occurring across your municipality.
„ Create a list of priority municipal activities that have the
potential to contribute to specific watershed impairments of
concern.
„ Identify baseline land-use conditions that may be contributing
to general watershed impairments.
„ Create a relative TABS for each activity to assist in quantifying
its potential impact relative to the condition of the watersheds
identified in Form 1.

4-2 Form 3—Develop an Initial List of Activities
Appendix C provides an initial inventory of the activities that may
significantly impact the watershed or that may be affecting the state’s
TMDL process. The first step is to refer to the summary checklist of
typical activities in Appendix C. Check each activity on the list that
occurs at your municipality and enter its name and location onto Form
3. Enter the receiving waterbody in Question 4. You will develop a
Form 6 for each activity listed in Form 3, transferring your answers
from Form 6 to questions 5–8 once you have completed it.
4-3 Form 4—Develop a Summary of Municipal
Land Use Categories
Watershed management involves gaining an understanding of the
municipality’s land use and hydrological processes that govern the
flow, quality, and velocity of water running onto and off the lands.
Understanding this process requires, among other things, current data
on the amount and type of land cover. Local watershed groups or
regulators also use these measurements as targets for watershed
restoration goals (for example, the percentage of stream miles
containing adequate riparian buffer zones).
To complete Form 4, which creates a snapshot of your municipality’s
land-use averages, you may have to review the municipal master plan
or land-use plan, GIS layers, zoning maps, and stormwater pollution
prevention plans. Once you complete Form 4, compare the results
with the surrounding watershed. Pay particular attention if the
percentage of impervious areas on your municipality is greater than
the average value in the watershed. This may indicate that you need
to investigate additional storm water control mechanisms. Various
studies have shown that as the amount of impervious areas increases
in a watershed, its quality decreases. Therefore, municipalities should
consider ways to mimic the site’s natural hydrology by further
minimizing impervious areas, which reduces stormwater runoff to
predevelopment.
To complete Form 4, you should also
„ refer to Form 3 to determine the total number of activities in
each land-use category,
„ determine the total acres for each land-use category,
„ calculate pervious and impervious percentages, and
„ obtain land-use goals, municipal sustainability goals, or
watershed goals found in the land-use plan and expressed by
EPA, the state, or public and private watershed groups.

Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Similar to Watershed Impact - for Public Lands (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Watershed Impact - for Public Lands