[Watershed name]
Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report
[Date of report]
[Insert watershed-specific photo or graphic]
Watershed Partners
[Insert logos of other
organizations that have
participated in this
process or list on next
page if multiple.]
wq-ws4-03 Note: Change the template document number to the assigned WRAPS Report document number.
Project Partners
[List all project partners]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
2
Table of Contents
Project Partners......................................................................................................................................... 2
Key Terms .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5
What is the WRAPS Report?...................................................................................................................... 6
1.
Watershed Background & Description............................................................................. 7
2.
Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................... 8
3.
2.1
Condition Status ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2
Water Quality Trends .................................................................................................................. 10
2.3
Stressors and Sources .................................................................................................................. 11
2.4
TMDL Summary ........................................................................................................................... 14
2.5
Protection Considerations ........................................................................................................... 15
Prioritizing and Implementing Restoration and Protection ............................................ 16
3.1
Targeting of Geographic Areas ................................................................................................... 16
3.2
Civic Engagement ........................................................................................................................ 20
3.3
Restoration & Protection Strategies ........................................................................................... 21
4.
Monitoring Plan............................................................................................................ 33
5.
References and Further Information ............................................................................. 34
Appendix............................................................................................................................. 35
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
3
Key Terms
Assessment Unit Identifier (AUID): The unique water body identifier for each river reach comprised of
the USGS eight-digit HUC plus a three-character code unique within each HUC.
Aquatic life impairment: The presence and vitality of aquatic life is indicative of the overall water quality
of a stream. A stream is considered impaired for impacts to aquatic life if the fish Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI), macroinvertebrate IBI, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, or certain chemical standards are not met.
Aquatic recreation impairment: Streams are considered impaired for impacts to aquatic recreation if
fecal bacteria standards are not met. Lakes are considered impaired for impacts to aquatic recreation if
total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, or Secchi disc depth standards are not met.
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): A Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is assigned by the USGS for each watershed.
HUCs are organized in a nested hierarchy by size. For example, the Minnesota River Basin is assigned a
HUC-4 of 0702 and the Pomme de Terre River Watershed is assigned a HUC-8 of 07020002.
Impairment: Water bodies are listed as impaired if water quality standards are not met for designated
uses including aquatic life, aquatic recreation, and aquatic consumption.
Index of Biotic integrity (IBI): A method for describing water quality using characteristics of aquatic
communities, such as the types of fish and invertebrates found in the waterbody. It is expressed as a
numerical value between 0 (lowest quality) to 100 (highest quality).
Protection: This term is used to characterize actions taken in watersheds of waters not known to be
impaired to maintain conditions and beneficial uses of the waterbodies.
Restoration: This term is used to characterize actions taken in watersheds of impaired waters to
improve conditions, eventually to meet water quality standards and achieve beneficial uses of the
waterbodies.
Source (or Pollutant Source): This term is distinguished from ‘stressor’ to mean only those actions,
places or entities that deliver/discharge pollutants (e.g., sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens).
Stressor (or Biological Stressor): This is a broad term that includes both pollutant sources and nonpollutant sources or factors (e.g., altered hydrology, dams preventing fish passage) that adversely
impact aquatic life.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be
introduced into a surface water and still ensure that applicable water quality standards for that water
are met. A TMDL is the sum of the wasteload allocation for point sources, a load allocation for nonpoint
sources and natural background, an allocation for future growth (i.e., reserve capacity), and a margin of
safety as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
4
Executive Summary
[High-level overview; ~one page]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
5
What is the WRAPS
Report?
The State of Minnesota has adopted
a “watershed approach” to address
the state’s 80 “major” watersheds
(denoted by 8-digit hydrologic unit
code or HUC). This watershed
approach incorporates water quality
assessment, watershed analysis,
civic engagement, planning,
implementation, and measurement
of results into a 10-year cycle that
addresses both restoration and
protection.
As part of the watershed approach,
waters not meeting state standards
are still listed as impaired and Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are performed, as they have been in the past, but in addition the
watershed approach process facilitates a more cost-effective and comprehensive characterization of
multiple water bodies and overall watershed health. A key aspect of this effort is to develop and utilize
watershed-scale models and other tools to identify strategies and actions for point and nonpoint source
pollution that will cumulatively achieve water quality targets. For nonpoint source pollution, this report
informs local planning efforts, but ultimately the local partners decide what work will be included in
their local plans. This report also serves as a watershed plan addressing EPA’s Nine Minimum Elements
to qualify applicants for eligibility for section 319 implementation funds. [Report authors: see guidance
attached to this template.]
Purpose
Scope
Audience
•Support local working groups and jointly develop scientifically-supported
restoration and protection strategies to be used for subsequent implementation
planning
•Summarize Watershed Approach work done to date including the following
reports:
•[Name] Watershed Monitoring and Assessment
•[Name] Watershed Biotic Stressor Identification
•[Name] Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load
•Impacts to aquatic recreation and impacts to aquatic life in streams
•Impacts to aquatic recreation in lakes
•Local working groups (local governments, SWCDs, watershed management
groups, etc.)
•State agencies (MPCA, DNR, BWSR, etc.)
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
6
1.
Watershed Background & Description
[Provide brief overview of the
watershed: size, basin,
ecoregion(s), overview of
land use, major cities. Refer
reader to a webpage or other
documents for additional
information.
A map showing land use or
some other basic landscape
features should be added
here.
[Insert Watershed Map (e.g., land cover map)]
This could be a place to
identify and briefly
summarize past studies in the
watershed.]
Additional [Watershed Name] Watershed Resources
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Rapid Watershed Assessment for the [Name]
Watershed: [include link to watershed found at:
http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/rwa/Assessments/index.html]
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Watershed Assessment Mapbook for the [Name]
Watershed: [include link to watershed found at:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed_tool/promo.html]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
7
2.
Watershed Conditions
[This section is intended to
satisfy several required WRAPS
elements provided in Mn. Stat.
114D (Clean Water Legacy Act):
identification of impaired waters,
waters needing protection, point
sources, nonpoint sources,
allocations, current loading, and
needed reductions.
[Insert Watershed Map (e.g., impaired waters)]
In this intro portion, it is
appropriate to provide some
high-level overview, e.g., waters
assessed for both aquatic
recreation and aquatic life use,
percent of waters assessed and
impaired in the watershed,
general spatial trends or
patterns. In addition, it may be
worth briefly describing the
major land-water components
that interact to affect aquatic life
in the watershed (land use,
hydrology, biology, in-channel
factors, etc.).
The map should clearly identify
impaired waters by name or ID
as well as subwatersheds (10digit HUC scale appears to be a
reasonable scale).]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
8
2.1
Condition Status
[Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (1) WRAPS shall “identify impaired waters and waters in need of protection.”
This can mostly be done in tabular form covering the full range of conventional parameters used in
assessment. However, in the narrative it is important to introduce the point that the waters that are not
listed as impaired will be subject to protection efforts. More on protection considerations can be
covered in section 2.5.]
[Consider including the following regarding mercury impairments (or similar language if other nonconventional listings.)] Some of the waterbodies in the [Name] Watershed are impaired by mercury;
however, this report does not cover toxic pollutants. For more information on mercury impairments see
the statewide mercury TMDL at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-andprograms/minnesotas-impaired-waters-and-tmdls/tmdl-projects/special-projects/statewide-mercurytmdl-pollutant-reduction-plan.html.
Streams
[Provide narrative to introduce table below.]
Table 1: Assessment status of stream reaches in the Pomme de Terre River Watershed, presented (mostly) from north to
south
Aq
Rec
Bacteria
Dry Wood
Creek
Turbidity/TSS
Middle
Pomme de
Terre River
Dissolved Oxygen
Upper
Pomme de
Terre River
AUID
(Last
3
digits)
Macroinvertebrate
Index of Biotic Integrity
HUC-10
Subwatershed
Fish Index of Biotic
Integrity
Aquatic Life
IF
IF
NA
NA
NA
T130R41W S4, N line to PdT River
Sup
Sup
NA
Sup
IF
Pomme de Terre
River
Pelican Creek to PdT Lake
Sup
Sup
NA
NA
NA
558
Pomme de Terre
River
N PdT Lake to Middle PdT Lake
IF
IF
NA
NA
NA
562
Pomme de Terre
River
Perkins Lake to Muddy Creek
Imp
Sup
IF
Sup
IF
556
Dry Wood Creek
Dry Wood Lake to PdT River
Imp
Imp
Imp
Imp
Imp
Stream
Reach Description
528
Unnamed Creek
Long Lake to Stalker Lake
506
Pelican Creek
504
Sup = found to meet the water quality standard, Imp = does not meet the water quality standard and therefore, is impaired,
IF = the data collected was insufficient to make a finding, NA = not assessed
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
9
Lakes
[Provide narrative to introduce table below. Important to explain parameters used in eutrophication
assessment and that it is an aquatic recreation-based standard.]
Table 2 Assessment status of stream reaches in the Pomme de Terre River Watershed,
presented (mostly) from north to south
HUC-10 Subwatershed
Upper Pomme de Terre
Pelican Creek
Aquatic
Recreation
Lake ID
Lake
56-0379
North Turtle
Imp
56-0377
South Turtle
Sup
56-0639
Indian
IF
56-0651
Larson
IF
56-0781
Swan
Sup
56-0437
Stalker
Sup
56-0390
Long
Sup
56-0252
Middle
56-0253
Eagle
56-0160
Spitzer
IF
56-0408
Sewell
IF
21-0375
Christina
IF
Sup
Imp
Imp = impaired for impacts to aquatic recreation, Sup = fully supporting aquatic recreation,
IF = insufficient data to make an assessment
2.2
Water Quality Trends
[This section can report any observed overall trends in stream and/or lake monitoring, if available.
Indicate time period and discuss significance of these trends. Use caution when evaluating data for
trends—a long-term record is needed. See example table below (for the main stem river only). Refer
reader to other documents for more information on historic water quality results.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
10
Table 3 Water quality trends of the Pomme de Terre River at Appleton (just upstream from the
mouth of the river), green values indicate an improving trend in water quality for that parameter
while red values indicate a degrading trend in water quality for that parameter
Historical Trend
(1971-2009)
Recent Trend
(1995-2009)
no trend
-38%
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
-56%
no trend
Total Phosphorus
-42%
no trend
Nitrite/ Nitrate
+280%
no trend
Chloride
+89%
no trend
Parameter
Total Suspended Solids
2.3
Stressors and Sources
[Insert brief introductory narrative, such as provided below. Be aware of some readers’ confusion over
the terms ‘stressor’ and ‘source’ (in spite of their being defined in the Key Terms section). Also note that
the content below is largely focused on restoration, rather than protection (mainly because it is
summarizing impairment-focused reports), but consideration should be given to protection-related
stressors/sources. Section 2.5 Protection Considerations may be an appropriate place to provide such
information.]
In order to develop appropriate strategies for restoring or protecting waterbodies the stressors and/or
sources impacting or threatening them must be identified and evaluated. Biological stressor
identification is done for streams with either fish or macroinvertebrate biota impairments and
encompasses both evaluation of pollutants and non-pollutant-related factors as potential stressors (e.g.
altered hydrology, fish passage, habitat). Pollutant source assessments are done where a biological
stressor ID process identifies a pollutant as a stressor as well as for the typical pollutant impairment
listings. Section 3 provides further detail on stressors and pollutant sources.
Stressors of Biologically-Impaired Stream Reaches
[Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (2) WRAPS shall “identify biotic stressors causing impairments or threats to
water quality.” Information should come from the stressor ID Report summarizing, at a minimum, the
primary stressors identified. Information should be summarized in a table if possible (see example
below), but should be accompanied with some narrative to, at a minimum, provide further explanation
and discussion for some of the less self-explanatory stressors, like “altered hydrology” or “habitat.”
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
11
Table 4: Primary stressors to aquatic life in biologically-impaired reaches in the Pomme de Terre River Watershed
Lower
Pomme
de Terre
River
Habitat
Dry Wood
Creek
Altered Hydrology
Middle
Pomme
de Terre
River
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Pomme de
Terre River
Barrett Lake to
North PdT Lake
Fish
562
Pomme de
Terre River
Perkins Lake to
Muddy Creek
Fish
556
Dry Wood
Creek
Dry Wood Lake to
PdT River
551
Unnamed
Creek
Unnamed Creek
to Unnamed
Creek
Fish
●
●
501
Pomme de
Terre River
Muddy Creek to
Minnesota River
Fish &
Macroinvert.
●
●
Biological
Impairment
Fish &
Macroinvert.
Turbidity
563
Reach Description
Phosphorus
Stream
Nitrate
AUID
(Last
3
digits)
Dissolved Oxygen
HUC-10
Subwatershed
Fish Passage (dams)
Primary Stressor
●
●
●
●
●
●
Pollutant sources
[Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (4) and (5) WRAPS shall “identify point sources of pollution for which an NPDES
permit is required” and “identify nonpoint sources of pollution for which an NPDES permit is not
required, with sufficient specificity to prioritize and geographically locate watershed restoration and
protection actions.” The point source table below should meet the requirement of (4) above (possible
permit types to include are listed). Nonpoint documentation will be more of a challenge, particularly the
italicized portion of (5). Some of that detail could be deferred to section 3 (e.g., modeling
output/figures; targeting tool figures and narrative). The nonpoint table below is a potential way to
summarize some source information (though still not to the level of rigor inferred in (5)). If you indicate
relative magnitudes of sources you should explain in the narrative how that was done. Inclusion of the
figure below portraying nonpoint vs. point source is recommended; as it provides important basic
source information and context (information can be derived using HSPF; right-click on pie chart to edit
data).
In partial fulfillment of element ‘a’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed
Plan…” there should be a map “that locates the major causes and sources of impairment.” Such a map
(or maps) may be included in this section or, if more appropriate, section 3.1.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
12
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Sediment (TSS)
10%
20%
40%
60%
80%
90%
Figure X. Overall breakdown of nonpoint source vs. point source pollution in [Name] Watershed.
Table 5: Point Sources in the [Name] Watershed
Point Source
HUC-10
Subwatershed
Name
Permit #
Type
Municipal
wastewater
Pollutant
reduction needed
beyond current
permit
conditions/limits?
Notes
[Yes / No]
Industrial
wastewater
Municipal
stormwater
Industrial
stormwater
Construction
stormwater
CAFO
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
13
Table 6: Nonpoint Sources in the [Name] Watershed. Relative magnitudes of contributing sources are indicated.
Bacteria


Upland soil erosion
Poor riparian vegetation cover

TSS
Pomme de Terre River
(563)
Middle
Pomme de
Terre River

Wildlife
Pollutant
Failing septic systems
Stream/Reach (AUID) or
Lake (ID)
Livestock overgrazing in riparian
HUC-10
Subwatershed
Fertilizer & manure run-off
Pollutant Sources
TP
N
Pomme de Terre River
(562)
Bacteria
Perkins Lake (75-0075)
TP
TSS
TSS
Dry Wood
Creek
Dry Wood Creek (556)
TP
N
Key:  = High  = Moderate  = Low
2.4
TMDL Summary
[The CWLA requires inclusion of TMDL information in the WRAPS report. Specifically, per 114D.26, Subd.
1, (3) and (6), WRAPS shall “summarize watershed modeling outputs and resulting pollution load
allocations, wasteload allocations, and priority areas for targeting actions to improve water quality”
and “describe the current pollution loading and load reduction needed for each source or source
category to meet water quality standards and goals, including wasteload and load allocations from
TMDL's.” It would likely be cleaner to limit the TMDL Summary section of this report to the allocations,
current loading and reductions, and to defer the italicized elements above (modeling outputs and
priority areas) to section 3. The allocations, etc. can be summarized by bringing in specific tables from
the TMDL report. However, given that there may be dozens of impairments with completed TMDLs it
may be best to place a general summary table here (simply listing which waterbodies have a completed
TMDL for example) and put the actual TMDL tables in an appendix to this report. Also, some TMDL
summary tables do not include current loads or reductions, so those elements will need to be addressed
in some alternate way.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
14
2.5
Protection Considerations
[If not already covered elsewhere, this section should further highlight protection needs in the
watershed. This can take on various forms. Possibly highlight waters that are trending toward
impairment, outstanding resource value waters (or other waters the state considers to be of high value),
or highlight particular pressures on waters (e.g., land development issues). Strategies for addressing
these waters can be part of section 3.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
15
3.
Prioritizing and Implementing Restoration and Protection
[Below is some narrative to consider for this intro portion. In addition, there should be narrative
regarding the entities/collaboration/compromises/etc. involved to develop these tools/strategies. This
introduction to Section 3 can be used to reiterate that the intention of the WRAPS is to bring to bear all
technical resources to identify and prioritize strategies and geographies in the watershed in an effort to
inform subsequent local planning efforts.]
The Clean Water Legacy Act (CWLA) requires that WRAPS reports summarize priority areas for targeting
actions to improve water quality, identify point sources and identify nonpoint sources of pollution with
sufficient specificity to prioritize and geographically locate watershed restoration and protection
actions. In addition, the CWLA requires including an implementation table of strategies and actions that
are capable of cumulatively achieving needed pollution load reductions for point and nonpoint sources.
This section of the report provides the results of such prioritization and strategy development. Because
much of the nonpoint source strategies outlined in this section rely on voluntary implementation by
landowners, land users and residents of the watershed, it is imperative to create social capital (trust,
networks and positive relationships) with those who will be needed to voluntarily implement best
management practices. Thus, effective ongoing civic engagement is fully a part of the overall plan for
moving forward.
The implementation strategies, including associated scales of adoption and timelines, provided in this
section are the result of watershed modeling efforts [specify, if desired] and professional judgment
based on what is known at this time and, thus, should be considered approximate. Furthermore, many
strategies are predicated on needed funding being secured. As such, the proposed actions outlined are
subject to adaptive management—an iterative approach of implementation, evaluation and course
correction.
[Element ‘d’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan…” calls for “An
estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the
sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this plan.” MPCA recognizes that a local
plan or project work plan is a more appropriate document for cost estimates. However, it appears that
narrative that focuses on the “sources and authorities that will be relied upon” is adequate for meeting
element ‘d’ and should include a discussion of available funding sources to be sought (e.g., cost share,
grant and loan programs from local, state and federal sources) as well as narrative indicating
organizations that could provide technical assistance.]
3.1
Targeting of Geographic Areas
[Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (3) and (5) WRAPS shall “summarize … priority areas for targeting actions to
improve water quality” and “identify nonpoint sources of pollution … with sufficient specificity to
prioritize and geographically locate watershed restoration and protection actions.” It is generally
expected that in order to accomplish these objectives some combination of the tools outlined in the
table below will need to be utilized. (Note: this table is not all-inclusive of the possible prioritization
approaches that can be used. Also, the table is not intended to be included in the actual WRAPS report;
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
16
rather, it is provided as guidance for the project team. Elements of the selected tool(s) should be
explained in this section, however.)
The primary purpose of this section, and the statutory language on which it’s based, is to identify
priority or critical areas for implementation. In the context of pollutant loading and water quality
impairment, these are areas identified by a watershed model or similar tool (and ultimately confirmed
by field observation and/or vetted/confirmed by local partners/stakeholders) that show
disproportionately contributing pollutant loads or excess flow to surface waters. For protection
purposes such areas may include areas that if altered would have a high potential for adversely affecting
water quality. This section should describe the selected tools, illustrate overall results/output and
outline how the tools will be used over time. Depending on the tools selected, it is important to point
out that follow-up field reconnaissance will be part of the process to validate the identified areas
potentially needing work. Include maps illustrating priority/critical areas and results of analysis (e.g., top
5% of EBI land areas; pollutant loading by subwatershed using a color-scale, green (low loading) to red
(high loading); HSPF-identified scour/deposition reaches). The results of modeling efforts to simulate the
types and extent of BMPs (i.e., scenarios) can be summarized in this section as well.
Element ‘c’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan…” calls for “A
description of the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the load
reductions under paragraph (b) above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this
watershed-based plan), and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas in which
those measures will be needed to implement this plan.” This section is key for addressing the ‘critical
areas’ component of this element. To better assure meeting this element, it is recommended that the
narrative of this section specifically use the term ‘critical areas’ when describing the results/output.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
17
Tool
Ecological
Ranking Tool
(Environmental
Benefit Index EBI)
Zonation
Restorable
Wetland
Inventory
Description
How can the tool be used?
Notes
These data layers are
available on the BWSR
website.
This dataset consists of three GIS raster
data layers including soil erosion risk,
water quality risk, and habitat quality.
The 30-meter grid cells in each layer
contain scores from 0-100. The sum of all
three scores is the EBI score (max of
300). A higher score indicates a higher
priority for restoration or protection.
The three layers can be used separately, or the sum of
the layers (EBI) can be used to identify priority areas for
restoration or protection projects. The layers can be
weighted or combined with other layers to better reflect
local values.
This tool serves as a framework and
software for large‐scale spatial
conservation prioritization, and a
decision support tool for conservation
planning. The tool incorporates valuesbased priorities to help identify areas
important for protection and
restoration.
Zonation produces a hierarchical prioritization of the
landscape based on the occurrence levels of features in
sites (grid cells). It iteratively removes the least valuable
remaining cell, accounting for connectivity and
generalized complementarity in the process. The output
of Zonation can be imported into GIS software for
further analysis. Zonation can be run on very large data
sets (with up to ~50 million grid cells).
The software allows
balancing of alternative land
uses, landscape condition
and retention, and feature‐
specific connectivity
responses. (Paul Radomski,
DNR, has expertise with this
tool.)
Identifies potential wetland restoration sites with an
emphasis on wildlife habitat, surface and ground water
quality, and reducing flood damage risk.
The GIS data layer is
available for viewing and
download on the Minnesota
‘Restorable Wetland
Prioritization Tool’ web site.
A GIS data layer that shows potential
wetland restoration sites across
Minnesota. Created using a compound
topographic index (CTI) (10-meter
resolution) to identify areas of ponding,
and USDA NRCS SSURGO soils with a soil
drainage class of poorly drained or very
poorly drained.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Link to Information
and data
In addition, a GIS data layer
that shows the five percent
of each 8-digit watershed in
Minnesota with the highest
EBI scores is available for
viewing in the MPCA ‘water
quality targeting’ web map,
and download from MPCA.
BWSR
MPCA Web Map
MPCA download
Software
Examples
Restorable
Wetlands
18
National
Hydrography
Dataset (NHD)
& Watershed
Boundary
Dataset (WBD)
The NHD is a vector GIS layer that
contains features such as lakes, ponds,
streams, rivers, canals, dams and stream
gages, including flow paths. The WBD is a
companion vector GIS layer that contains
watershed delineations.
General mapping and analysis of surface-water systems.
These data have been used for fisheries management,
hydrologic modeling, environmental protection, and
resource management. A specific application of this data
set is to identify riparian buffers around rivers.
The layers are available on
the USGS website.
USGS
Light Detection
and
Ranging (LiDAR)
Elevation data in a digital elevation
model (DEM) GIS layer. Created from
remote sensing technology that uses
laser light to detect and measure surface
features on the earth.
General mapping and analysis of elevation/terrain. These
data have been used for erosion analysis, water storage
and flow analysis, siting and design of BMPs, wetland
mapping, and flood control mapping. A specific
application of the data set is to delineate small
catchments.
The layers are available on
the Minnesota Geospatial
Information Office website.
MGIO
Hydrological
Simulation
Program –
FORTRAN
(HSPF) Model
Simulation of watershed hydrology and
water quality for both conventional and
toxic organic pollutants from pervious
and impervious land. Typically used in
large watersheds (greater than 100
square miles).
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Incorporates watershed-scale and non-point source
models into a basin-scale analysis framework. Addresses
runoff and constituent loading from pervious land
surfaces, runoff and constituent loading from impervious
land surfaces, and flow of water and transport/
transformation of chemical constituents in stream
reaches.
Local or other partners can
work with MPCA HSPF
modelers to evaluate at the
watershed scale: 1) the
efficacy of different kinds or
adoption rates of BMPs, and
2) effects of proposed or
hypothetical land use
changes.
USGS
19
3.2
Civic Engagement
[Below is a brief introduction with a link for more
information regarding Civic Engagement (CE). (Reviewers
of the draft template prefer limited boilerplate content
and have more focus on CE occurring in the watershed.)]
A key prerequisite for successful strategy development
and on-the-ground implementation is meaningful civic
engagement. This is distinguished from the broader term
‘public participation’ in that civic engagement
encompasses a higher, more interactive level of
involvement. Specifically, the University of Minnesota
Extension’s definition of civic engagement is “Making
‘resourceFULL’ decisions and taking collective action on
public issues through processes that involve public discussion, reflection, and collaboration.” A
resourceFULL decision is one based on diverse sources of information and supported with buy-in,
resources (including human), and competence. Further information on civic engagement is available at:
http://www1.extension.umn.edu/community/civic-engagement/
Accomplishments and Future Plans
[Format here can vary. Element ‘e’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed
Plan…” calls for “An information/education component…”. Completion of the items below should fulfill
this requirement.
-
Citizen-led groups established
Listing of groups/organizations involved
Summary of all local involvement (CE and others) to date (for all phases of the WRAPS process:
citizen stream/lake monitoring to decision-making for restoration/protection strategies)
Planned CE efforts moving forward
Other ongoing education/outreach/awareness efforts (other than CE) moving forward
Need for resources to build local capacity or other challenges]
Public Notice for Comments
An opportunity for public comment on the draft WRAPS report was provided via a public notice in
the State Register from [XXX] to [XXX].
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
20
3.3
Restoration & Protection Strategies
[This section provides a summary of implementation strategies and actions for both restoration and
protection. While there should be some supporting/explanatory narrative, the bulk of this section must
be in the form of a table. The CWLA is very specific about the components of this table and in order to
meet these requirements and facilitate MPCA tracking and reporting it is required that the format and
headings in the example provided below be used. However, additional information may be added in
separate columns if that is deemed useful. The example content (i.e., the cell “entries”) provided (see
accompanying Excel spreadsheet for Table 7) is meant to demonstrate a range of possibilities that may
correspond to available resources/data and stakeholder processes. It is important to consider the
interplay between the WRAPS table content and subsequent local planning steps; this may vary
somewhat across major watersheds and thus the level of detail provided in the table content may also
vary. In general this section should culminate the discussion of estimating what needs to happen (and
where) to achieve described water quality goals; subsequent local planning steps will then describe
“how to do it.” In the example table in the spreadsheet many (and in some instances all) of the strategy
types for a given “strategy group” have been input, but this need not be the case in typical WRAPS
report completion; use some or all of the strategy types and adoption information as needed.
It is also important to note that the table should include strategies for impairments that are caused by
non-pollutant stressors for which a TMDL was not required (AKA category 4C). An example might be a
fish-biota impairment due to connectivity/passage issues and the strategy being dam removal or culvert
modification.
Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (8) WRAPS shall “contain an implementation table of strategies and actions that
are capable of cumulatively achieving needed pollution load reductions for point and nonpoint
sources, including:
(i) water quality parameters of concern;
(ii) current water quality conditions;
(iii) water quality goals and targets by parameter of concern;
(iv) strategies and actions by parameter of concern and the scale of adoptions needed for each;
(v) a timeline for achievement of water quality targets;
(vi) the governmental units with primary responsibility for implementing each watershed restoration
or protection strategy; and
(vii) a timeline and interim milestones for achievement of watershed restoration or protection
implementation actions within ten years of strategy adoption.
Completion of this table also fulfills or partially fulfills elements a, b, c, f and g of EPA’s “Nine Minimum
Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan…”
Additional explanation of specific columns in table (see accompanying Excel spreadsheet for example
content for the columns):
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
21
Water Quality – Current Conditions: “Current” condition is interpreted as the baseline condition over
some evaluation period for the pollutant or non-pollutant stressor identified in the previous column.
This should be a numeric descriptor and unit of measurement. This can be a current load (from the
TMDL or from the load monitoring program if pursuing a downstream goal and not a local goal), a
pollutant concentration (e.g., E. coli geometric mean) or a score (e.g., IBI or Minnesota Stream Habitat
Assessment (MSHA) score). In the interests of length and readability for unimpaired waters, you will
need to use judgment as to which of the potentially many parameters to show.
Water Quality – Goals / Targets: This should be expressed in the same terms as applied in the previous
column (Current Conditions) and will generally be a load target (could be percent reduction or a load
value) or a water quality concentration target. For some parameters (e.g. phosphorus reduction in a lake
watershed), it may be best to use a load target. For others (e.g., E. coli) a concentration may be easier to
both express (avoiding strings of scientific notation) and understand. For protection, specify a numeric
goal/target if available.
Water Quality – Current Conditions, Goals / Targets pertaining to downstream considerations: The
WRAPS (and subsequent planning work) should be developed to not only address the goal of protecting
and restoring water resources within a given Minnesota major watershed, but to also contribute to
pollutant load reductions needed for downstream waters (in-state and out-of-state, e.g., Mississippi
River, Lake Pepin, Gulf of Mexico). To describe a “current condition” relating to a downstream goal,
consider citing the load monitoring program data (e.g., “current phosphorus load is XXXX kg/year); this
will in most cases be an appropriate resolution and will fit well with a load reduction goal that can be
included in the goals/targets column (e.g., 45% load reduction per Nutrient Reduction Strategy). If the
reductions to address the HUC-8 impairments are sufficient to address downstream goals/targets then
it’s fine to simply state that. Each watershed has a different capacity to make reductions for
downstream waters, and therefore the reduction targets for downstream waters may vary.
Strategies: This column is intended to provide the high-level strategies to be used for both protection
and restoration. Strategies outline the method, approach or combination of approaches that could be
taken to achieve water quality goals. This field is not intended to prescribe specific projects and
practices (therefore, as an example, use the more general strategy of ‘Improve upland/field surface
runoff controls’ rather than ‘Cover Crops’). The strategies should be briefly stated and then further
described in Table 8. In these template materials, Table 8 includes an extensive list of example strategies
(in the ‘Descriptions’ column) with accompanying example BMPs/actions for those strategies. To the
extent possible, it is recommended that you use these strategies as described for completing Table 7 to
accommodate and simplify future entry into a tracking database. However, you may certainly consider
other strategies than what is listed here if appropriate.
Strategy Type and Estimated Scale of Adoption Needed to Meet Final Water Quality Target: This
column ties to the Strategies column and provides the basic outcome of a modeling scenario (or similar
analysis) that generally describes the collective magnitude of effort (over however many years or
decades) that it will take to achieve the water quality target. This estimate is meant to describe
approximately “what needs to happen” but does not need to detail precisely “how” goal attainment will
be achieved (the latter is left to subsequent planning steps). As such, it is acknowledged that this is an
approximation only and subject to adaptive management. Detail regarding degree of implementation of
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
22
various BMPs may be added per stakeholder design/support, as long as it is recognized that there are
often many permutations of BMP implementation that constitute a goal attainment scenario. This
column can reference example scenarios (e.g., “See NBMP spreadsheet tool scenarios selected by
stakeholders as viable general approaches”).
Interim 10-yr Milestones: This column ties to the Estimated Scale of Adoption column and should
describe progress to be made toward implementing the strategy in the first 10 years from completion of
the WRAPS report. This may be provided in the form of a percentage, amount, or narrative descriptor.
This milestone will generally be more coincident (relative to the estimated year to achieve water quality
targets) with local water planning milestones.
Governmental Units with Primary Responsibility: Identify the governmental unit with primary
responsibility Varying symbology in this field can be used to identify primary/secondary leadership for a
given strategy. It should be noted that identifying a responsible party does not imply any newly
associated or suggested authority or regulation. Symbology can also be used to describe a regulatory
lead for a strategy (e.g. planning and zoning lead on buffer rule) vs a programmatic lead (e.g. cover crop
promotion).
Estimated Year to Achieve Water Quality Targets: This applies to the waterbody, specifically the year it
is reasonably estimated that applicable water quality targets will be achieved. Explanatory information
may be added either as a footnote or in the preceding narrative providing any assumptions or caveats
used in the estimate.
Table Formatting Considerations
For ease of use and readability, it is recommended that the table be broken up by geographic area and
that a map of the geographic area precede the table. This may be done by subwatershed or some other
useful land management-based area. See the Sunrise River WRAPS at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/zihya01.
The table may also include rows (preferably at the top; in white) for watershed-wide strategies,
addressing things like ‘social infrastructure’ (e.g., education/outreach, relationship building,
demonstration projects, etc.) or wastewater permit and construction and industrial stormwater permit
compliance that do not have waterbody-specific targets associated with them.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
23
[include if needed] This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
24
Table 7: Strategies and actions proposed for the [Name] Watershed. [See Excel spreadsheet version for structure and example contents. The spreadsheet
may be used for drafting purposes and then incorporated into a final PDF report]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
25
Table 8: Key for Strategies Column
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Description
Improve upland/field surface runoff
controls: Soil and water conservation
practices that reduce soil erosion and
field runoff, or otherwise minimize
sediment from leaving farmland
Example BMPs/actions
Cover crops
Water and sediment basins, terraces
Rotations including perennials
Conservation cover easements
Grassed waterways
Strategies to reduce flow- some of flow reduction strategies should be targeted to ravine
subwatersheds
Residue management - conservation tillage
Forage and biomass planting
Open tile inlet controls - riser pipes, french drains
Contour farming
Field edge buffers, borders, windbreaks and/or filter strips
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
Stripcropping
Protect/stabilize banks/bluffs: Reduce
collapse of bluffs and erosion of
streambank by reducing peak river flows
and using vegetation to stabilize these
areas.
Stabilize ravines: Reducing erosion of
ravines by dispersing and infiltrating
field runoff and increasing vegetative
cover near ravines. Also may include
earthwork/regrading and revegetation
of ravine.
Strategies for altered hydrology (reducing peak flow)
Streambank stabilization
Riparian forest buffer
Livestock exclusion - controlled stream crossings
Field edge buffers, borders, windbreaks and/or filter strips
Contour farming and contour buffer strips
Diversions
Water and sediment control basin
Terrace
Conservation crop rotation
Cover crop
Residue management - conservation tillage
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
26
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Description
Stream Channel Restoration
Example BMPs/actions
Addressing road crossings (direct erosion) and floodplain cut-offs
Clear water discharge: urban areas, ag tiling etc. – direct energy dissipation
Two-stage ditches
Large-scale restoration – channel dimensions match current hydrology & sediment loads,
connect
the floodplain,
stable
pattern,
(natural
designstep
principals)
Stream channel
restoration
using
vertical
energychannel
dissipation:
pool morphology
Improve forestry management
Proper Water Crossings and road construction
Forest Roads - Cross-Drainage
Maintaining and aligning active Forest Roads
Closure of Inactive Roads & Post-Harvest
Location & Sizing of Landings
Riparian Management Zone Widths and/or filter strips
Improve urban stormwater
management [to reduce sediment and
flow]
Increase fertilizer and manure
efficiency: Adding fertilizer and manure
additions at rates and ways that
maximize crop uptake while minimizing
leaching losses to waters
Nitrogen (TN) or Nitrate
Store and treat tile drainage waters:
Managing tile drainage waters so that
nitrate can be denitrified or so that
water volumes and loads from tile
drains are reduced
See MPCA Stormwater Manual:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs
Nitrogen rates at Maximum Return to Nitrogen (U of MN rec's)
Timing of application closer to crop use (spring or split applications)
Nitrification inhibitors
Manure application based on nutrient testing, calibrated equipment, recommended rates,
etc.
Saturated buffers
Restored or constructed wetlands
Controlled drainage
Woodchip bioreactors
Two-stage ditch
Increase vegetative cover/root duration:
Planting crops and vegetation that
maximize vegetative cover and
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Conservation cover (easements/buffers of native grass & trees, pollinator habitat)
Perennials grown on marginal lands and riparian lands
Cover crops
27
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Phosphorus (TP)
Description
Example BMPs/actions
capturing of soil nitrate by roots during
the spring, summer and fall.
Rotations that include perennials
Improve upland/field surface runoff
controls: Soil and water conservation
practices that reduce soil erosion and
field runoff, or otherwise minimize
sediment from leaving farmland
Reduce bank/bluff/ravine erosion
Strategies to reduce sediment from fields (see above - upland field surface runoff)
Increase vegetative cover/root duration:
Planting crops and vegetation that
maximize vegetative cover and minimize
erosion and soil losses to waters,
especially during the spring and fall.
Preventing feedlot runoff: Using manure
storage, water diversions, reduced lot
sizes and vegetative filter strips to
reduce open lot phosphorus losses
Improve fertilizer and manure
application management: Applying
phosphorus fertilizer and manure onto
soils where it is most needed using
techniques that limit exposure of
phosphorus to rainfall and runoff.
Address failing septic systems: Fixing
septic systems so that on-site sewage is
not released to surface waters. Includes
straight pipes.
Reduce in-water loading: Minimizing the
internal release of phosphorus within
lakes
Conservation cover (easements/buffers of native grass & trees, pollinator habitat)
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Crop conversion to low nutrient-demanding crops (e.g., hay).
Constructed wetlands
Pasture management
Strategies to reduce TSS from banks/bluffs/ravines (see above for sediment)
Perennials grown on marginal lands and riparian lands
Cover crops
Rotations that include perennials
Open lot runoff management to meet 7020 rules
Manure storage in ways that prevent runoff
Soil P testing and applying nutrients on fields needing phosphorus
Incorporating/injecting nutrients below the soil
Manure application meeting all 7020 rule setback requirements
Sewering around lakes
Eliminating straight pipes, surface seepages
Rough fish management
Curly-leaf pondweed management
Alum treatment
28
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Description
Example BMPs/actions
Lake drawdown
Hypolimnetic withdrawal
Improve forestry management
See forest strategies for sediment control
Reduce Industrial/Municipal
wastewater TP
Municipal and industrial treatment of wastewater P
Treat tile drainage waters: Treating tile
drainage waters to reduce phosphorus
entering water by running water
through a medium which captures
phosphorus
Improve urban stormwater
management
Phosphorus-removing treatment systems, including bioreactors
Reducing livestock bacteria in surface
runoff: Preventing manure from
entering streams by keeping it in
storage or below the soil surface and by
limiting access of animals to waters.
Strategies to reduce field TSS (applied to manured fields, see above)
Improved field manure (nutrient) management
Upgrades/expansion. Address inflow/infiltration.
See MPCA Stormwater Manual:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs
Adhere/increase application setbacks
Improve feedlot runoff control
Animal mortality facility
Manure spreading setbacks and incorporation near wells and sinkholes
E. coli
Rotational grazing and livestock exclusion (pasture management)
Reduce urban bacteria: Limiting
exposure of pet or waterfowl waste to
rainfall
Address failing septic systems: Fixing
septic systems so that on-site sewage is
not released to surface waters. Includes
straight pipes.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Pet waste management
Filter strips and buffers
See MPCA Stormwater Manual:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs
Replace failing septic (SSTS) systems
Maintain septic (SSTS) systems
29
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Dissolved Oxygen
Description
Example BMPs/actions
Reduce Industrial/Municipal
wastewater bacteria
Reduce straight pipe (untreated) residential discharges
Reduce WWTP untreated (emergency) releases
Reduce phosphorus
Increase river flow during low flow years
See strategies above for reducing phosphorus
See strategies above for altered hydrology
In-channel restoration: Actions to
address altered portions of streams.
Goal of channel stability: transporting the water and sediment of a watershed without
aggrading or degrading.
Restore riffle substrate
Road salt management
[Strategies currently under development within Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride
Management Plan]
Increase living cover: Planting crops and
vegetation that maximize vegetative
cover and evapotranspiration especially
during the high flow spring months.
Grassed waterways
Cover crops
Chloride
Conservation cover (easements & buffers of native grass & trees, pollinator habitat)
Rotations including perennials
Altered hydrology; peak
flow and/or low base
flow
(Fish/Macroinvertebrate
IBI)
Improve drainage management:
Managing drainage waters to store tile
drainage waters in fields or at
constructed collection points and
releasing stored waters after peak flow
periods.
Reduce rural runoff by increasing
infiltration: Decrease surface runoff
contributions to peak flow through soil
and water conservation practices.
Improve urban stormwater
management
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Treatment wetlands
Restored wetlands
Conservation tillage (no-till or strip till w/ high residue)
Water and sediment basins, terraces
See MPCA Stormwater Manual:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs
30
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Description
Groundwater pumping reductions and irrigation management
Improve riparian vegetation: Planting
and improving perennial vegetation in
riparian areas to stabilize soil, filter
pollutants and increase biodiversity
50' vegetated buffer on waterways
Poor Habitat
(Fish/Macroinvertebrate
IBI)
Water Temperature
Connectivity (Fish IBI)
Example BMPs/actions
Improve irrigation water management:
Increase groundwater contributions to
surface waters by withdrawing less
water for irrigation or other purposes.
One rod ditch buffers
Lake shoreland buffers
Increase conservation cover: in/near water bodies, to create corridors
Improve/increase natural habitat in riparian, control invasive species
Tree planting to increase shading
Streambank and shoreline protection/stabilization
Wetland restoration
Accurately size bridges and culverts to improve stream stability
Restore/enhance channel: Various
restoration efforts largely aimed at
providing substrate and natural stream
morphology.
Retrofit dams with multi-level intakes
Urban stormwater management
See MPCA Stormwater Manual:
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs
Riparian vegetative buffers
Improve riparian vegetation: Actions
primarily to increase shading, but also
some infiltration of surface runoff.
Remove fish passage barriers: Identify
and address barriers.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Restore riffle substrate
Two-stage ditch
Dam operation to mimic natural conditions
Restore natural meander and complexity
Tree planting to increase shading
Remove impoundments
Properly size and place culverts for flow and fish passage
31
Strategy Key
Parameter (incl. nonpollutant stressors)
Description
Example BMPs/actions
Construct by-pass
All [protection-related]
Implement volume control / limitedimpact development: This is aimed at
development of undeveloped land to
provide no net increase in volume and
pollutants
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
See MPCA Stormwater Manual: http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php
32
4.
Monitoring Plan
[Per 114D.26, Subd. 1, (7) WRAPS shall “contain a plan for ongoing water quality monitoring to fill data
gaps, determine changing conditions, and gauge implementation effectiveness.” In addition to specific
local monitoring efforts this section can outline the MPCA’s major watershed outlet monitoring
program, which will provide a long-term, ongoing data record.
Element ‘h’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan…” calls for “A set of
criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and
substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards.” EPA’s guidance indicates
using water quality “benchmarks or waypoints to measure against through monitoring (e.g., direct
measures like fecal coliform concentrations or indirect measures like # of beach closings).” This
generally translates to listing the parameter, implementation phases/years, and parameter
concentration to be achieved (e.g., TP: year 10 = 80 µg/L; year 20 = 70 µg/L; etc.). This could get
unwieldy given the many parameters covered and varying starting points for the many waterbodies in a
watershed. Therefore, it may be preferable to use an approach and narrative as indicated below to meet
this element:]
It is the intent of the implementing organizations in this watershed to make steady progress in terms of
pollutant reduction. Accordingly, as a very general guideline, progress benchmarks are established for
this watershed that assume that improvements will occur resulting in a water quality pollutant
concentration decline each year equivalent to approximately [one] percent of the starting (i.e., longterm) pollutant concentration. For example, for a lake with a long-term growing season total
phosphorus concentration of 90 µg/L, by year 10 it would be 90 – (10 * 0.9) = 81 µg/L. [If the pace varies
by parameter then expand this accordingly.]
Again, this is a general guideline. Factors that may mean slower progress include limits in funding or
landowner acceptance, challenging fixes (e.g., unstable bluffs and ravines, invasive species) and
unfavorable climatic factors. Conversely, there may be faster progress for some impaired waters,
especially where high-impact fixes are slated to occur.
[Note: WRAPS authors should consider project modeling/scenario information and also review relevant
statewide efforts, e.g., Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, to align any implementation pacerelated information from these efforts with water quality projections in this section.
Element ‘i’ of EPA’s “Nine Minimum Elements to Be Included in a Watershed Plan…” calls for “A
monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured
against the criteria established under item (h).” Both local and PCA-led monitoring outlined here should
address this element.]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
33
5.
References and Further Information
[Include any references cited in the text such as stressor ID reports, monitoring and assessment reports,
TMDLs, documentation for tools and implementation strategies.]
[Watershed Name] Reports
All [watershed name] reports referenced in this watershed report are available at the [watershed name]
Watershed webpage: [insert link to watershed from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-typesand-programs/watersheds/watershed-overview-map.html ]
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
34
Appendix
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
35
EPA 319 NINE ELEMENTS SUMMARY: GUIDANCE FOR WRAPS TEMPLATE
EPA requires that applications for 319 grants be based on watershed plans that address the nine
elements described below. This is from guidance found on EPA’s website at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/2008_04_18_NPS_watershed_handbook_ch02.pdf (see
section 2.6).
Element
#
A
Element Description
An identification of the causes and
sources or groups of similar sources
that will need to be controlled to
achieve the load reductions estimated
in this watershed-based plan (and to
achieve any other watershed goals
identified in the watershed-based plan),
as discussed in item (b) immediately
below. Sources that need to be
controlled should be identified at the
significant subcategory level with
estimates of the extent to which they
are present in the watershed (e.g., X
numbers of dairy cattle feedlots
needing upgrading, including a rough
estimate of the number of cattle per
facility; Y acres of row crops needing
improved nutrient management or
sediment control; or Z linear miles of
eroded streambank needing
remediation).
Section 2.3 Stressors
and Sources should
provide the general
source ID information
needed. Section 3.3
Restoration &
Protection Strategies
provides more source
specific subcategory
type of information.
An estimate of the load reductions
expected for the management
measures.
Section 3.3
Restoration &
Protection Strategies
should provide
source specific
reduction
information.
A description of the NPS management
measures that will need to be
implemented to achieve the load
reductions under paragraph (b) above
(as well as to achieve other watershed
goals identified in this watershed-based
plan), and an identification (using a
map or a description) of the critical
areas in which those measures will be
needed to implement this plan.
Section 3.3
Restoration &
Protection Strategies
and Section 3.1
Targeting of
Geographic Areas
should provide this
via the strategies
table and supporting
maps/GIS tools
showing critical
areas.
B
C
WRAPS section
where addressed
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Notes
EPA guidance says the plan
should include a map “that
locates the major causes and
sources of impairment.”
Guidance also states, “If a TMDL
exists, this element may be
adequately addressed.”
36
Element
#
D
E
Element Description
An estimate of the amounts of
technical and financial assistance
needed, associated costs, and/or the
sources and authorities that will be
relied upon to implement this plan.
Section 3 Prioritizing
and Implementing
Restoration and
Protection should
address this.
Reference to cost
estimates in TMDLs
should also be cited.
An information/education component
that will be used to enhance public
understanding of the project and
encourage their early and continued
participation in selecting, designing,
and implementing the NPS
management measures that will be
implemented.
Section 3.2 Civic
Engagement
A schedule for implementing the NPS
management measures identified in
this plan that is reasonably expeditious.
Section 3.3
Restoration &
Protection Strategies
Interim 10-year
milestones in
Strategies table likely
address this.
A description of interim, measurable
milestones for determining whether
NPS management measures or other
control actions are being implemented.
Section 3.3
Restoration &
Protection Strategies
Interim 10-year
milestones in
Strategies table likely
address this.
A set of criteria that can be used to
determine whether loading reductions
are being achieved over time and
substantial progress is being made
towards attaining water quality
standards.
Section 4 Monitoring
F
G
WRAPS section
where addressed
H
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
Notes
Based on one recent EPAapproved plan (Bad Axe River,
MI), it appears acceptable to
focus narrative on the available
funding sources and
organizations that could provide
technical assistance.
EPA guidance indicates using
water quality “benchmarks or
waypoints to measure against
through monitoring (e.g., direct
measures like fecal coliform
concentrations or indirect
measures like # of beach
closings).” This generally
translates to listing the
parameter, implementation
phases/years and parameter
concentration to be achieved
(e.g., TP: year 10 = 80 µg/L; year
20 = 70 µg/L; etc.). This could get
unwieldy given the many
parameters covered and varying
37
Element
#
I
Element Description
A monitoring component to evaluate
the effectiveness of the
implementation efforts over time,
measured against the criteria
established under item (h) immediately
above.
[Watershed Name] WRAPS Report
WRAPS section
where addressed
Section 4 Monitoring
Notes
starting points for the many
waterbodies in a watershed.
Therefore, see the alternative
approach/narrative in Section 4.
This element is to be integrated
with element I below.
Per EPA guidance, this is
intended to be watershed-scale
monitoring and not monitoring
for individual BMPs. Both local
and PCA-led monitoring (i.e.,
HUC-8 pour point continuous
monitoring and 10-year IWM
cycle) should be described.
38