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

identify municipal infrastructure assets and activities that can
adversely affect the surrounding watershed (reducing asset
values) and

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:

A description of the designated uses for the municipality’s
waterbodies and associated impairments

A baseline of municipal land-use categories and activities that
can contribute to the waterbody impairments or adversely affect
general watershed health

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

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)

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
1-3 WHY 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 OTHER WATERSHED 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
5-4 WHAT TO DO IF MULTIPLE MITIGATION EFFORTS ARE POSSIBLE ......... 5-7

Chapter 6. Develop Project Partnerships............................ 6-1
6-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 6-1
6-2 WHY FORM PARTNERSHIPS?............................................................ 6-1
6-3 WHAT 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
6-4 WORKING WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ............................................ 6-5
6-5 WORKING 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 OF WORK, 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 YOUR WATERSHED 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 EXAMPLE WATERSHED .................................................................. 1-12
1-6 FEDERAL LAWS, POLICIES, AND PLANS RELATED TO WATERSHED
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 TMDL WEBSITE ....................................................... 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

39 percent of rivers and streams (miles),

46 percent of lakes (acres),

51 percent of estuaries (square miles), and

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 11
Chapter
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?
create safe and livable communities,
Long-lived,
normally fuel economic growth,
stationary capital
assets—such as build cohesive communities,
roads, bridges,
tunnels, drainage support human growth and development,
systems, water
develop public infrastructure systems that adequately and efficiently
and sewer serve communities, and
systems, dams,
and lighting enhance and protect the environment.
systems—
preserved for Achieving these goals requires that municipalities simultaneously
significantly more optimize three independent asset dimensions: condition, functionality,
years than most and environmental impact. Few would argue that current management
capital assets. approaches attempt to optimize asset condition and functionality. In fact,
most infrastructure investments are made using a purely financial asset
Buildings, which management approach. Most current asset management techniques,
have a shorter however, fail to integrate municipal strategic goals, including
service life, are environmental conditions, in the decision-making process.
not considered
infrastructure, Integrating watershed management into strategic asset management
except those that enables municipalities to simultaneously optimize condition,
are an ancillary functionality, and environmental impact; as a result, they can
part of an concurrently optimize financial, environmental, health, community, and
infrastructure service aspects of infrastructure investments. However, before we can
facility (such as a show how the watershed assessment approach can be integrated into a
wastewater strategic asset management approach, we need to review both
treatment traditional asset management and strategic asset management
building). 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 What is asset
and competing municipal asset goals and objectives,”1 from its review of management?
various asset management methods. The APWA further defines asset
management to include the following: The APWA’s
definition of asset
Efficiently allocate funds: The allocation of funds must be management is to
efficient within a particular class of assets (like roads or efficiently and
bridges), and within the entire reservoir of assets being equitably allocate
managed (roads versus water networks versus buildings resources
versus parks versus…). The latest engineering and economic
amongst valid and
principles, like value engineering and life cycle cost analysis
competing
or similar concepts are part and parcel of the asset
management policy. municipal asset
goals and
Equitably allocate funds: The allocation of funds must be objectives.
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

1-2.3 GASB 34 and Municipal Asset Management Systems Depreciation
approach
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 Reduces asset value
of the presence of a sewer system or road. over the estimated
useful life.
In June 1999, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
established GASB Statement 34 (GASB 34) to assist in this effort. The Does not value assets
rule requires municipalities to account for the value of major capital based on condition.
assets (including bridges, roads, water systems, and dams) in their
financial statements. GASB 34 serves as the basis for today’s municipal Focuses on
asset management systems. addressing
infrastructure needs
GASB 34 provides two methods for reporting infrastructure assets, through new
depreciation and the modified approach: infrastructure
development.
Depreciation involves completing an extensive inventory of
assets, including their costs and the dates when they were Often fails to address
created or purchased. Each asset’s value is then calculated on life-cycle costs of
the basis of depreciation over the estimated useful life. The maintaining,
method does not value assets on the basis of condition. operating, and
renewing assets.


The modified approach incorporates condition assessments of
infrastructure assets and includes the following requirements:

Maintain an up-to-date inventory of eligible infrastructure
assets.

Assess the condition of the eligible infrastructure assets
every 3 years and summarize the results using a
measurement scale.

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

inventory of
Infrastructure
Assets

Infrastructure
Asset
Valuation

Current Asset List of Potential Current Asset
Condition Functional
Infrastructure Value
Improvements

Forecast Asset Resource Forecast Asset
Condition Allocation Functional
Improvement Value
Model Improvement
Return on Investment
- Net Asset Value Improvement
- Total Infrastructure
Improvement

Infrastructure
Budget



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
Asset management is a financially based approach to infrastructure
management investment. Although effective at managing the economic health of a
municipality, the approach is only loosely linked to serving the
Strategic asset municipality goals, that is, optimizing citizen welfare. Thus, the approach
management cannot achieve strategic goals because municipalities often fail to
augments the evaluate infrastructure investments on the basis of their alignment to
municipal asset municipal strategy. They fail to incorporate in funding decisions the
management ability of the asset to (1) create safe and livable communities, (2) build
approach by cohesive communities, (3) support human growth and development, (4)
adequately and efficiently serve communities, and (5) enhance and
integrating
protect the environment.
municipality
strategic goals into
Strategic asset management augments the municipal asset
the management of
management approach by integrating municipality strategic goals into
its infrastructure the management of its infrastructure asset portfolio. It provides a
asset portfolio. 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

Aligned

Poor Financial Best Performing
Alignment with Strategic Goals

Performance Municipalities

Poor Financial
and Strategic Little Strategic
Performance Direction

Not
Aligned
None Best Practices
Asset Management

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
What is a (air, water, and habitat). Focusing on the natural resource, rather than
watershed? 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
Exhibit 1-5. Example Watershed
across or through
on its way to a
common stream,
river, or lake.

Watersheds can be
any size, from a Watershed
few acres to boundary
thousands of
square miles.

River mouth
Groundwater recharge
(aquifer)



Watershed management is a critical dimension of strategic asset
management. Minimizing environmental impact (i.e., watershed What is
management) and enhancing local environmental conditions are integral watershed
to achieving one of the key municipality strategic goals: enhancing the management?
welfare of future generations by maximizing long-term asset value.
A framework to
1-3.1 Drivers for Watershed Approach and Assessments
assess a
Watershed management approaches are particularly important to waterbody’s
municipal managers. Over the past 10 years, municipalities have faced ability to meet its
increasingly complex regulations as the U.S. Environmental Protection intended use,
Agency (EPA) has revised much of its legislation. Working to better
integrate watershed approaches, the EPA revised the Clean Water Act, determine the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and other regulations concerning water quality, pollutants and
effluent standards, source water protection standards, and stormwater potential
management. These changes, along with the move by regulators to sources of
issue permits by watershed, require municipal managers to reevaluate impairments,
how municipal activities impair water resources and to develop action
plans to prevent or correct the identified impairments. incorporate
assessment
The main compliance drivers behind adopting a watershed approach results into a
and completing watershed assessments to manage water issues are as plan aimed at
follows: achieving water
quality
Clean Water Act. National pollutant discharge elimination system
objectives, and
(NPDES), total maximum daily loads (TMDL), spill prevention
control and countermeasures (SPCC), wetland 404 permits and
foster
mitigation, sludge disposal or reuse, and point and non-point
collaboration
stormwater management programs.
with all
Safe Drinking Water Act. Source water assessment and landowners in
protection program (which includes wellhead protection), and the watershed
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
Federal laws 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)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Policies and EPA’s National Water Program Strategic Plan 2004 -2008, April 2004
plans EPA’s Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting Policy, January 2003
EPA Memo, Committing EPA's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed
Approach, December 2002
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 The CWA’s TMDL and stormwater regulations are the primary
TMDL? regulations directing the development of watershed management
policies. However, in their efforts to restore an impaired waterbody,
A written regulators are increasingly using the broad scope of these regulations,
quantitative among others:
analysis of an
impaired Modifying a municipality’s NPDES, RCRA, or CAA (in the case of
waterbody, which CAA, it would be pollutants found in a waterbody that are directly
is established to related to air deposition) discharge permits to
ensure that the
waterbody’s require monitoring or limits for new pollutants,
designated uses
are attained and reduce discharge limits of existing pollutants, or
maintained in all
seasons. 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 The watershed
asset management assessment approach
techniques fail to addresses
incorporate other environmental
strategic goals in condition as part of
infrastructure Strategic Goal: Strategic Goal: the entire strategic
investment Optimize return Optimize management
decisions on investment environmental approach
(i.e., minimize condition
costs)

Strategic Goal: Strategic Goal:
Support human Create safe and
growth and livable communities
development


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
Impact of integrating
Component Current system environmental burden
Inventory of List all infrastructure assets and Collect environmental condition (that is,
infrastructure associated data managed by the watershed condition) data as part of
assets municipality, including location, infrastructure inventory management
construction cost, physical system
characteristics, and usage
Infrastructure Conduct condition assessments of all Factor environmental burden into asset
asset valuation infrastructure assets and calculate net condition calculation
present value of asset benefits over
useful life
List of potential List all infrastructure improvements that Add environmental condition
infrastructure have a return on investment greater than improvement projects to list
improvements the cost of capital
Resource Rank the potential infrastructure Incorporate environmental burden as a
allocation improvements on the basis of return on variable in the model to evaluate the
model investment and total cost effects of environmental condition on
investment returns
Infrastructure Select infrastructure investments for Integrate environmental impacts in
budget funding 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

Low
High Priority
Projects

Total Project Cost
Secondary
Priority
Projects

Lower
Priority
High Projects

Low or High
Negative Return on Investment


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

3-1 Introduction Summary
In this chapter, you learn to identify your municipality’s watersheds This chapter walks
and determine their current conditions by completing Forms 1 and 2. It you through the
also presents an approach for developing goals and selecting key completion of
performance metrics to measure progress. The instructions help you Forms 1 and 2.
The information
identify watershed names and hydrological unit codes (HUCs); contained in
Forms 1 and 2
create a map of the watershed and its boundaries; enables you to
identify your
prepare a list of regulatory and local designated uses, watershed and its
impairments of concern, and an overall watershed condition characteristics.
score using available information;

calculate a condition score for each receiving waterbody;

identify key stakeholders active in the watershed; and
I already have
my watershed
identify key goals and performance metrics to guide the information
prioritization of projects and enable the tracking of progress
over time. You may have
already identified
3-1.1 Using Your Existing Information the watersheds and
waterbodies to
In addition to the one this guide describes, other methods and which your
sources are available for determining the conditions of your municipality drains.
watershed: If so, ensure you
have all of the infor-
Environmental office documentation. The municipal mation in Forms 1
environmental office may have already identified the and 2 and that you
watersheds and assessed the conditions of the waterbodies to have quantitatively
which your property drains. scored their
condition.
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.

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
to help you identify the watershed in which your municipality resides watershed
and assess its characteristics. The two most relevant sites are Locate your
municipality and
EPA’s Surf Your Watershed site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/ its watershed
locate/index.cfm and using the locator
function on EPA’s
EPA’s WATERS website at http://www.epa.gov/waters/. The Surf Your
WATERS system is a tool that unites water quality information Watershed Internet
previously available only on individual state agency site at http://
homepages and at several EPA websites. It can also be used cfpub.epa.gov/surf/
to generate summary reports on all waters of a state. locate/index.com, or
contact your state
Both applications provide links to a GIS mapping tool and to related water permitting
water program information, including a list of impaired waters from the program.
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 A HUC is a
watersheds in the United States. The HUC, commonly called a watershed’s
"watershed address," ranges from 2 to 16 digits—the higher the
address
number is, the smaller the watershed. Exhibit 3-1 shows examples of
2- to 12-digit HUCs. The watershed's
HUC is commonly
Exhibit 3-1. Sample Hydrological Unit Codes called its "watershed
address." The U.S.
Description Proper name HUC Digits Geological Survey
provides access to
Region Ohio River 05 2 watershed GIS
Subregion Wabash and White Rivers 0512 4 boundary files on its
Basin Wabash River 051201 6 Internet site at
http://water.usgs.gov/
Subbasin Vermilion River 05120109 8 GIS/huc.html.
Watershed North Fork Vermilion 0512010909 10
Subwatershed Lake Vermilion 051201090905 12


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
HUC, 8- to 16-digit, List of impaired Summary of impairments WPS
Name of waterbody or state identifier designated uses of concern (from Form 2) (from Form 2)

7. List of the Receiving Watersheds or Waterbodies Listed as Impaired by the Federal or State
Regulators

HUC, 8- to 16-digit, List of designated Summary of impairments of WPS
Name of waterbody or state identifier uses concern (from Form 2) (from Form 2)


Identify Your Watershed and Assess Its Current Condition

Complete Form 1 as follows:

Blocks 1 through 3. Enter the municipality’s name, state, and
zip code.

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.


Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Watershed Impact - for Public Lands

Similaire à Watershed Impact - for Public Lands (20)

Plus de Sotirakou964

Plus de Sotirakou964 (20)

Watershed Impact - for Public Lands