Apfelbeck, Randy - Montana Watercourse

But before the papers could be served, Colvard left the state for a speakingengagement in Alabama, while Walker and McCarthy drove north, across thestate line to Tennessee.Early the next morning, trainer Dutch Luchsinger and several reserves droveto a private airport in Starkville, Miss. When they saw the path was safe, acall was made for assistant Jerry Simmons and the starters to hurry and jointhem.The plane took off without incident, stopped in Nashville to pick up Walkerand McCarthy and headed to Lansing and a warm reception. Back inMississippi, the Ku Klux Klan and segregationists stewed while many otherscheered their team's stance."When Babe said we were going, it was like God speaking,'' Shows said. "Wedidn't understand the politics. But we were all on pins and needles. Just asour plane took off, the sheriff drove through the gate. He'd driven to thewrong airport. It turns out he wanted us to go.''Loyola guard John Egan, the only white starter on his team, said he didn'tunderstand the implications when Harkness and Mississippi State's RedStroud shook hands at the center jump in Jenison Field House, as hundredsof flashbulbs popped all around them."Jerry is very emotional about this and was crushed when Red just died,''Egan said. "None of us saw it as 'us' against 'them.' The Mississippi Stateplayers were true gentlemen. I guess we showed people the way it couldbe.''Mississippi State wound up with a split for the trip, beating Bowling Greenand star Nate Thurmond in a consolation game."I think Nate had 30 rebounds in that game,'' Shows said with a laugh. "Butwhen we got back to Starkville, the cars were lined up for 20 miles withthousands and thousands of kids there to see us. The KKK boys were a nasty,ugly minority. Most people weren't like that. And even though we lost, wecame home as winners. All of us did.''2

National Academy of Public AdministrationReview of State Water Quality ProgramsThe National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, non­partisanorganization chartered by Congress to assist federal, state, and local governmentsin improving their effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.Findings• A lack of information about environmental “condition” –including information about water quality and sources ofpollution – has been a major obstacle to improving theeffectiveness of State water quality programs.• Investment in better environmental information, eventhough difficult given state’s current financial conditions canproduce future benefits by helping states make moreeffective use of their limited resources.

EPA 2003­2008 Strategic Plan• Water quality monitoring and assessment programs – theessential underpinning of all aspects of the watershedapproach – must be strengthened and upgraded acrossthe country.• EPA will assist states and tribes in significantlyimproving information concerning the condition of thenation’s rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands.• EPA will promote the use of ecological evaluations tosupport assessment of water conditions on a watershedscale

Elements of a State Water Quality MonitoringProgram• EPA expects states to develop a comprehensive monitoringprogram strategy for all State waters, including wetlands, thatmeet CWA objectives by answering the following questions:– What is the overall quality of the State’s waters (region)?– To what extent is water quality changing over time?– What are the problem areas and areas needing protection?– What level of protection is needed?– How effective are restoration programs?• EPA encourages inclusion of wetland information into a state’sbroader water quality monitoring strategy as a way of fosteringcoordination…….. (Draft Elements of a State and TribalWetland Water Quality Monitoring Program) .

Wetland Program Development GrantGuidance• The following is a high priority that should begiven special consideration:– The development of a wetland monitoring andassessment program that builds the capacity todetermine causes, effects and extent of pollution– Demonstrate the use of wetland monitoring surveys toevaluate wetland area and condition for specificwatersheds or local planning areas.

Why Develop Rapid Assessment Protocols?

Elements of a State and Tribal WetlandWater Quality Monitoring Program (Draft)• The development of wetland assessmentmethods, and in particular a rapidassessment method, is a prerequisite to theaccomplishment of many programobjectives.– Cost effective– Ability to assess a large number of wetlandsquickly

Rapid Assessment Core Indicators• Impacts– Hydrogeomorphology Condition• e.g., Disruption of flow patterns, dredge and fill…– Vegetation Condition• e.g., Percent noxious weeds, utilization of trees and shrubs ….– Water Quality Condition• e.g., excessive algae growth, saline seeps,…• Probable Stressors– Buffer Condition (Human­caused activities surroundingthe wetland)• e.g., grazing intensity, row crops, distance to roads……• Restorability

Wetland Types targeted:• State Waters– The definition of “statewaters” in Montana’s WaterQuality Act do notspecifically include wetlands,but broadly covers “bodies ofwater”.– Montana only considers awetland to be a “state water”if there is water.• Waters of the U.S.– Includes wetlands that areadjacent to navigable watersand their tributaries,including tributaries withintermittent flow.Lentic WetlandsHeadwater Riverine Wetlands

Where Rivers are Born:The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and WetlandsPublication sponsored by American Rivers, Sierra Club and Turner Foundation• Headwater systems make up at least 80% of the nation’s streamnetwork (are often overlooked by stream monitoring programs).• Headwater wetlands provide important services including floodcontrol, filtering sediments and pollution, and creating andmaintaining biological diversity.• Headwater riparian areas provide the greatest connectionbetween water and land and are easily influenced by activities inthe watershed.• Among the earliest and most visible indicators of degradation isthe loss of plant diversity in headwater wetland­riparian zones.

What approach has Montana used todevelop and implement wetland rapidassessments and how can this informationbe used for watershed planning?

National Academy of Public AdministrationReview of State Water Quality ProgramsMade recommendations that states should consider to moreefficiently and effectively implement the CWA:– Focus management of water quality problems on a watershed­bywatershedbasis– Develop partnerships in research, monitoring and developing asingle resource protection plan covering all activities affectingwater quality within a region or watershed– develop a comprehensive management plan for each watershedthat integrates and coordinates water quality programs.– Use volunteers from nearby communities to collect water qualitydata, recommend priorities and help disseminate information

1 st Recommendation: Focus management of waterquality problems on a watershed­by­watershed basisCommunity­Based Watershed Management(Lessons Learned from the National Estuary Program)• Tasks required for Identifying problems and solutions– Identify and describe the resource and uses– Determine the condition of the resource– Identify the priority problems and areas that exist within thestudy area– Identify the likely causes of the priority problems– Provide input to local management plansNote: Rapid assessments can be used to help perform all of the tasks

Watershed Assessment StrategyLandscape Assessments(Level 1)Rapid Assessments(Level 2)e.g, Amphibian Surveys(Level 3)

Montana Amphibian Inventory Sampling SchemeRandom and Targeted Watersheds – By Dominant OwnershipMontana Natural Heritage Program30% of Watersheds Dominated by Public Land30% of Watersheds Dominated by Tribal Land10% of Watersheds Dominated by Private Land

Montana Amphibian Inventory Sampling SchemeSurvey Status as of Fall 2005Montana Natural Heritage Program

Conduct a Census within each WatershedMontana Natural Heritage Program Amphibian Survey Design6 th Level HUCLentic Wetlands

Collaborative MonitoringStrategy• Montana Natural Heritage Program has beencollecting visual­based data to assesspotential impacts to amphibians communities• Our strategy was to collaborate with theMNHP to broaden their assessment to includethe rapid assessment of wetland condition

Regional Fish Stocking and Impacts on FishLong­ToedSalamandersPresentLong­ToedSalamandersAbsentFishDetected897Fish NotDetected92350Black Outline =Dry Watershedor All Private

Percent of Lentic Sites Capable ofSupporting Amphibian ReproductionHeavily Impacted by CattleBlack Outline =Dry Watershedor All Private

Percent of Lentic Sites Capable ofSupporting Amphibian Reproductionwith Water Dammed or DivertedBlack Outline =Dry Watershedor All Private

Examples of Positive Management EnvironmentalOutcomes• Fencing off rare upland wetlands from cattle trampling on theCuster and Beaverhead­Deerlodge Forests• Beaver reintroduction for lentic breeding site creation on Custerand Beaverhead­Deerlodge Forests• Protection of amphibian populations from fish stocking onBitterroot and Gallatin Forests• ID of distribution of amphibian diseases and need todecontaminate equipment• Protection of remaining breeding populations of rare species (e.g.,Western Toad)• Proactive management of lentic wetlands in Forest ManagementPlans• Heightened awareness of needs of amphibians and lentic wetlandsby USFS and BLM personnel

2 nd Recommendation: Develop Partnerships• Worked with Carroll College to develop internships• Partnered with the Montana Watercourse to work withvolunteers to test our rapid assessment protocols• Partnered with University of Montana and the MontanaNatural Heritage Program to help calibrate our rapidassessment protocols.• Used existing Forest Service and BLM Proper FunctionCondition assessments to test our rapid assessment protocols• Partnered with the Montana Natural Heritage ProgramAmphibian program to conduct wetland rapid assessments– shared funding from multiple agencies to meet multiple objectives.

3 rd Recommendation: Develop a comprehensivemanagement plan for each watershed thatintegrates and coordinates water quality andconservation programs.Ambient monitoringTMDLPoint Source controlGroundwaterWetland ProtectionPublic water supplyNonpoint Source ControlClean LakesWater quality standards

Example: Kansas Water Plans• Integrates Wetland and TMDL programs– Basin plans focus on the protection and restoration ofwetland and riparian areas in high priority TMDLwatersheds to improve water quality and in areas ofbiological importance.– Conservation Districts develop wetland and riparianprotection plans (local watershed planning)

Strategy: Comprehensive Watershed Assessments –Cumulative ImpactsLandscapeStreamLakesWetland(e.g., Headwater Riverine Wetlands)

Strategy: Probabilistic or Targeted Watershed AssessmentsRotating Basin

Integrating Programs• Montana DEQ is seriously consideringmoving towards using watersheds asassessment units instead of water bodies/segments.• This should help encourage integration ofwater quality monitoring and planningprograms.

4 th Recommendation: Use Volunteers• Collaborated with the Montana Watercourseto use volunteers to help test rapidassessment protocols• Strategy included the use of volunteers tohelp disseminate information and to assesslong term trends.

Conclusion• It is most efficient to focus management of water quality problemson a watershed­by­watershed basis (National Academy of PublicAdministration Recommendation)• Progress toward water quality improvements will largely depend onsuccess in integrating programs on a watershed basis (EPA 2003­2008 Strategy)• A lack of information about environmental “condition” – includinginformation about water quality and sources of pollution – has beena major obstacle to improving the effectiveness of State waterquality programs (National Academy of Public Administration).• Rapid assessments that are combined with landscape assessmentsprovide an efficient and cost­effective tool for assessing wetlandsthat can provide useful information for comprehensive watershedplanning.• Collaboration with partners is critical for the development andimplementation of a successful program

AcknowledgementsThanks to Bryce Maxell, Marc Jones, Matt Gates, Greg Kudray,Anna Noson, Robert Lishman, Erin Fehringer, Erin Farris, Debbie Zarntand Karen Filipovich for their collaboration on the development,testing and implementation of wetland rapid assessments.