Watershed-Based Planning in the Rio Puerco; a Community-Driven Process

Meg Hennessey

Watershed Scientist and Project Manager - (505) 827-2867 meg.hennessey@state.nm.us

Watershed Protection Section; Surface Water Quality Bureau; New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)

mailto:meg.hennessey@state.nm.us

Making Watershed- Based Plan (WBP): The Basics

Q: What is a WBP? - A living document that identifies pollutant sources and estimates which Best Management Practices (BMPs) can remove the impairment(s) so a waterbody can meet the TMDL.

- Creates a “laundry list” of projects that could implement BMPs

- Must meet the EPA’s “Nine Elements” in order for the listed projects to be eligible for 319 funding.

A:

Image: NYSDEC

Surface Water Protection in New Mexico

Assessed Waters

Impaired Waters

TMDL developed

Watershed-Based Planning Process

Restoration Implementation

Making Watershed- Based Plan (WBP): The Basics

Q: Why would youcreate a WBP?

- To get Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 (restoration funds).

- 319 projects can improve water quality, riparian health, stormwater runoff, risk of wildfire and post-fire flooding

- The WBP also lays out a long-term, holistic plan to improve water quality. This plan can complement or improve upon existing work.

- It cannot be used to fund the requirements of MS4 permits. However, the WBP can encompass BMPs planned under the MS4

A:

Forest thinning Image: USFS De-channelizing a stream Image: USFWS

Making Watershed- Based Plan (WBP): The Basics

Q: Who usually makes a WBP?

- In New Mexico the standard process has been to hire a local contractor who collects data, facilitates public meetings, and writes the plan.

- Plans can cost between $50k-$100k- The process usually takes 2-3 years from when the contract is awarded

A:

How do you make a WBP?

Usually in New Mexico:

- Request for Proposals from NMED

- 319 funding is awarded to a contractor

- Anywhere from $50k- $200k

- 2-3 years to collect data & draft the WBP

- NMED reviews the draft & submits to EPA

- When completed, the watershed is eligible for On-the-Ground Implementation

Rio Puerco WBP (2018):

- NMED wrote the plan in-house with RPMC

- No funding other than NMED staff time andmatching volunteer hours

- 12 mo. to complete, 3 for EPA review & accepted

- Accepted by EPA in January 2018

- August 2018: an On-the-Ground 319-funded project is moving forward

The Process

- NMED staff identified strong watershed groups in areas with TMDLs

- Staff made scoping trips to assess the severity of impairment and what BMPs could be needed

- Watersheds with Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) were prioritized

- Ultimately the candidate was most influenced by the advice of the local watershed group and the body of previous work in the region

The Process

The Process

The Process

- Known contributors of pollutants (sediment & nutrients) were identified by stakeholders

- EPA-approved models were used to identify additional pollutant loading sources

- BMPs & funding sources were recommended from the WRAS, NMED staff, and stakeholders

- Load reduction estimates were calculated using STEPL

- Monitoring, Milestones, and Education components compiled from stakeholders.

The Process – Factors that Assisted with Success.

- The impairments on this reach- sediment & nutrients- each had easily accessible models that stakeholders could understand (PSIACH & STEPL).

- The historical data in this watershed (including a WRAS) had already identified, validated, and gathered stakeholders approval of many BMPs.

- The management committee has a long history of outreach in the area, and had internal goals for education milestones which were easily included to fulfill Element E.

Pros & Cons

- High levels of stakeholder investment increases support for follow-up projects.

- NMED staff writing the plan in-house means much less time from TMDL to Implementation

- Good feedback was gained for future in-house WBPs and increasing restoration areas.

- Large amount of area became eligible for restoration funds.

- Lack of funds meant pollutant sources were not monitored with real samples. Instead stakeholder input and models were used.

- Models are not perfect; few are adapted to New Mexico’s environment.

- Loading estimates will likely need to be updated when project monitoring provides more accurate data.

Future Strategies

- NMED staff are working on two WBP as TMDL alternatives, as are several states around the country.

- Ground-truthing data will be needed to ensure accuracy while creating the TDML and the WBP together. As well, NMED staff from the two teams will need to coordinate closely.

- Timing and milestones will need to meet the TMDL requirements. This may be a challenge given the normal timeline for creating a WBP in New Mexico.

Questions/Discussions

- Has anyone here written a Watershed-Based Plan as a TMDL alternative?

- What strategies worked well for you? What would you improve?