LESSONS LEARNED from COMMUNITY-BASED WATER …The North Carolina Arboretum, setting for the workshop on Lessons Learned ... The Network hosted a workshop at the North Carolina Arboretum

LESSONS LEARNEDfrom COMMUNITY-BASEDWATER QUALITY ASSISTANCEAn overview of the Community Assistance workprovided by the Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assistance Network (SERWQAN)

SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSISTANCE NETWORKwww.serwqan.org


Nearly 40 community leaders, watershed coordinators, and state and federal agency personnel joined the SERWQAN Partners at a workshop at the North Carolina Arbore-tum in April, 2010, titled; Lessons Learned from Community-Based Water QualityAssistance. Attendees represented 11 communities out of the 12 communities fromfour southeastern states that received technical assistance over a two-year period fromthe Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assistance Network (SERWQAN). SERWQANis a network of southeastern organizations that are committed to strengthening thecapacity of communities to develop and successfully implement watershed protectionefforts. It is composed of the University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Cen-ter, North Carolina State University, Auburn University - Alabama Cooperative Exten-sion and the Southeast Watershed Forum.

Lead SERWQAN Team Members:Jeff Hughes, University of North Carolina - Environmental Finance CenterStacey Isaac Berahzer, University of North Carolina - Environmental Finance CenterDr. Greg Jennings, North Carolina State UniversityDr. Eve Brantley, Auburn University - Alabama Cooperative ExtensionChristine Olsenius & Jane Fowler, Southeast Watershed Forum

Report prepared by Southeast Watershed Forum, August-2010This program was funded by an EPA Targeted Watershed Grant # WS-96493108

Background

Communities throughout the Southeastern United States are experiencing water quality and water supply challenges asthe region undergoes fast paced growth, dramatic changes in land use and continuing regional competition for watersupplies. Growth and development and changing land use practices are affecting the hydrology of the region’s water-sheds, contributing to increased stormwater flooding, nonpoint pollution and decreased water quality. But there areways to shape growth to enhance, not detract from water quality, water supplies and local quality of life. There are lowimpact development and watershed-friendly development strategies thathelp communities better preservewater quality, meet regulatory re-quirements and address long term fi-nancing of both water supplyinfrastructure and best managementpractices. And there are watershedrestoration practices available tocommunities who want to restore hy-drologic functions to currently-de-graded rivers and streams.

The Southeastern Regional WaterQuality Network (SERWQAN) was de-veloped to provide a suite of technicaland educational services to help com-munities and watershed associationsachieve greater watershed protection.Composed of staff from the University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center, North Carolina State University,Auburn University and the Southeast Watershed Forum, SERWQAN was funded by an EPA Targeted Watershed Grantand brought a suite of services to communities that had requested technical assistance through a competitive applicationprocess. Services included stream restoration, watershed finance planning, stormwater management, GIS mapping,quality growth planning, and public education to name a few. The Network sent out a request for assistance and nearly25 communities responded. The following twelve communities were chosen to receive assistance over the past two years.

In the process of providing these services, many partnerships were formed, lessons were learned, milestones weremeasured, and barriers were overcome. This report highlights some of the valuable feedback that was received fromboth the SERWQAN Network and the community partners they served and provides insight into future ways to designeffective third-party, community-based, technical assistance initiatives for watershed protection.

Lessons Learned from Community-Based Water Quality Assistance 1

LESSONS LEARNED fromCOMMUNITY-BASED WATER QUALITY ASSISTANCEAn overview of the Community Assistance work provided by the Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assistance Network

I. Soque River Watershed Partnership, Cornelia, GA

II. City of Clayton, GAIII. Morristown-Hamblen County, TNIV. Mills River, NC

V. Jasper, ALVI. City of Lenoir, NCVII. Little River Watershed/

Upper Coosa Basin Watershed, ALVIII. Gadsden, AL

IX. Bartow County, GA X. Bolin Creek, NCXI. Auburn, AL XII Athens, GA

The North Carolina Arboretum, setting for the workshop on Lessons Learnedfrom Community-Based Water Quality Assistance.

April, 2010 Community Workshop

If you want to know what enhances local watershed protection efforts, ask a local community official.

That is what the Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assistance Network (SERWQAN) did after two years of provid-ing technical assistance to 12 communities in four states. The Network hosted a workshop at the North Carolina Arboretum in Asheville in April of 2010. The purpose of the workshop was to review accomplishments from the com-munity assistance efforts and in addition:

to allow the communities assisted by SERWQAN to compare notes on measurable outcomes and best practicesused in their local projects, and,

to provide a forum for discussion and dialogue on the lessons learned during development and implementation ofthe community-based, water quality programs assisted by SERWQAN.

Workshop Participants

Approximately 25 representatives from the twelve SERWQAN communities were invited to the April workshop. In ad-dition, another 15 EPA state watershed coordinators and state agency water quality personnel were invited to hear thefeedback from community representatives. It was hoped that feedback from local participants would enhance the de-sign and delivery of future state and federal technical assistance programs.

Workshop Objectives

Local leaders learn from other commu-nities who have tried new approachesto management challenges. Peer topeer learning is the most effective wayto foster replication of best practices,especially approaches to watershedrestoration and protection. The AprilSERWQAN workshop was designed tofoster greater replication of the bestpractices showcased in each of thecommunities that received assistance.It was also designed to create a peer-to-peer support network for local govern-ments to share approaches and bestpractices on water quality and water-shed protection. Per the participantsrequest, a listserv was created as aforum for them to exchange questionsand ideas.

It is also hoped that the community case studies highlighted in this report, the lessons learned and the feedback fromcommunity leaders will help EPA, state agencies and local governments explore creative partnerships and approachesto protecting and preserving their land and water resources.

Lessons Learned from Community-Based Water Quality Assistance2

Many southeastern rivers and streams no longer meet their designated uses and needrestoration as part of a stormwater or watershed management plan.

Workshop Objectives: The goals of the SERWQAN Workshop were:

1. To secure feedback from communities on lessons learned from SERWQAN assistance,2. To identify the best practices being implemented for watershed protection 3. To foster replication of those best practices in other communities4. To foster a peer-to-peer network of community leaders to share best practices5. To identify barriers to implementing greater watershed protection efforts at the local level, and 6. To identify tools and strategies that would additionally improve local land and water protection.

Community Feedback

What Watershed Protection Strategies are Working at the Local Level?

Nearly all community representatives agreed that watershedrestoration and stormwater demonstration projects helped toadvance water quality efforts by showcasing new technologiesthat save the community money and provide tangible results.Demonstration projects, like rain gardens or bio-retentionareas that involved local businesses and suppliers, went a longway to build public trust in and support for these best man-agement practices. The public, as well as local leaders, need atangible/visible project that they can identify with to showcasethat progress with water quality improvements is being madeand that local funds are being well-spent.

SERWQAN projects highlighted strategies to not only addressstormwater issues, but meet other water quality goals, likestream restoration, water supply, quality growth planning,GIS mapping, habitat protection, and water infrastructure financing, as well.

Community participants expressed gratitude for SERWQANtechnical assistance, especially communities with limitedstaff and technical services. Communities liked having a re-gional group that could facilitate cooperation and expertiseacross state lines. In the process of enhancing watershedprotection, SERWQAN assistance once again stressed theneed for communities to work beyond their jurisdictionalborders to ensure that current stream restoration orstormwater improvements would not be undermined by poorland use practices upstream.

Third-party providers can be critical to forging the partnerships that provide the necessary technical assistanceand expertise needed to secure funding and implement watershed restoration efforts and explore sustainable fi-nancing tools and strategies. Financial planning for stormwater management, water quality protection, streamrestoration or long term water delivery is a critical skill not available to most small, under-staffed communities.Securing locally-based, sustainable sources of long term funding for infrastructure is critical to building resilientcommunities and addressing the water quality and supply issues facing so many communities in the Southeast.


Small group sessions were facilitated by SERWQANpartners to discuss what additional tools are neededby local communities to address watershed protection.

What are the Barriers or Hurdles to Implementing Local Water Quality Programs?

There is a general lack of understanding by local elected officials, land owners, developers, and the general publicof water quality and supply issues, the cost of not addressing them, and specific workable strategies for improve-ment. People do not understand that rapid increases in population, development patterns and lifestyle changeshave increased pollution, and that it cannot be handled centrally, but must be addressed by everyone. There is a

sense that only large, concentrated actions make a differ-ence, and that what is done by individual property ownershas such a negligible impact that it is not worth addressing.

There is a lack of understanding of the regional nature ofwater quality and supply issues and a fundamental discon-nect between the impacts of non-source point pollutionand treating stormwater. The negative consequences are sofar downstream that those who impact the stream don’t seethe result of their actions. It is also an economic issue forsociety because if we are not directly feeling the pain wecause, then we don’t really care about it and others wind upbearing the cost.

Existing education programs are not as effective as theyneed to be to stimulate change. Typically, they are too gen-eral in nature and do not address the needs/interests of spe-cific stakeholder groups. In particular, more effectiveprograms for developers are needed in low impacterosion/sediment control to break the habit of doing thingsthe way they have always been done. Communities need in-struction about both the technical aspects of design and con-struction and the economic benefits of using thosetechniques. Public officials are a key target group.

The economic benefits of watershed protection are notwell understood, nor readily available. Grassroots watershedorganizations feel the need to identify or create an economicmodel to quantify the costs and benefits of watershed protec-tion projects—and to give concrete projections of cost-savings to local officials.

There is a lack of political will to do what needs to bedone. Developers want to develop where and how theychoose and resist what they think will be more expensive,lower impact development practices. Property owners thinkthat individual property rights are unlimited and do not

want to have restrictions on how they practice agriculture, develop their property, maintain their yards and con-trol their waste. They especially don’t like requirements for maintaining buffers and wetlands and reforestation,because those practices may block their views and bring snakes. These and other stakeholders pressure localelected officials to maintain the status quo for development regulations and practices. Local officials think inshort-terms, election cycle to election cycle, and need to think longer term. This implies a need for cost-benefitanalyses of projects for both the short and long term to help build political will.


Top: Nearly 40 community leader and watershed coordinators dis-cussed their watershed projects with state and federal agency represen-tatives at the April workshop. Bottom: Jeff Hughes, director of theUniversity of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center (EFC) discusses his work in the town of Mills River.

There is a lack of consistent regulatory tools and technical expertise to enforce them. Typically, the states en-force the minimum EPA regulations, but it is possible for local governments to fulfill the basic requirements(Phase II) without actually doing projects. In addition, because responsibility for environmental complianceunder the Clean Water Act is shared by the federal, state, and local governments, it is often not clear who is ul-timately responsible.

Each jurisdiction is responsible for developing and implementing its own regulations, so there may be many ju-risdictions impacting the same watershed. There is a great deal of inconsistency between regulations at the localand state level. If BMPs are installed, there is often no provision for, or enforcement of, maintenance. Because oflimited local funds and lack of training programs, local governments often do not have the staff expertise to re-view plans and enforce compliance with regulations. This is not only a problem for the implementation of BMPs,but also for the assessment of what works and how effective it is. The problem is exacerbated by the high turnoverof staff and public officials.

What Additional Tools and Technical Assistance is Needed at the Local Level?

Comprehensive education programs with a consistent message – A consistent message should be developed atthe federal/state levels to educate community leaders on best practices for growth and watershed protection, thereasons for using them, and do-able implementation strategies. Cost-benefit analyses, case studies, and on theground demonstration projects to showcase success would be particularly helpful to help change public attitudesand build political will.Current ad hoc educa-tion programs by localjurisdictions createconfusion and are noteffective in overcomingattitudes and promot-ing change. They lackan overall consistentmessage from a"higher" authority.

Flexible funding pro-grams – Current fund-ing programs tend tobe project-specific andhave many criteriawhich must be met.Even if the communityhas a good projectwhich will meet theprogram requirements,they do not have thestaff time to apply andmonitor the project forcompliance. Blockgrants would be great,as would projects withmore flexible criteria


Generating local funding for watershed protection is one of the biggest challenges for localcommunities. The EFC provides training and assistance in developing local financing toolsand strategies.

and less onerous monitoring requirements. Communities need consistent funding and need to know how to col-laborate and leverage resources.

Technical assistance and training to build local capacity – Communities need qualified contractors to design andconstruct green infrastructure BMPs. Likewise, they need qualified inspectors to be sure that the projects are im-plemented correctly. Targeted, certified training for staff and contractors is critical. So, also is qualified engineer-ing technical assistance for project design and cost estimates.

Effective codes and ordinances and enforcement measures – Communities need to adopt stricter codes and ordi-nances which require BMPs and are supported by effective compliance processes and penalties for violations.Deadlines for compliance, citations and fines can be effective. Consistency in message and practice is critical, andthe development of consistent programs among jurisdictions is important.

Economic Cost-Benefit Measures/Evaluation – While there are many guides for green infrastructure and low im-pact development practices, there is not much information on the proven effectiveness and the cost/benefit com-parisons (both short term and long term) of these practices. Consequently, engineers and others “push back” onimplementing them. In addition, communities need better information on ecosystem services – how much valueis provided by best management practices. The evaluation needs to show the effectiveness of projects and thevalue of functioning streams. Showcasing the multiple benefits of projects is important. Communities would ben-efit from an economic model to help them quantify the costs and benefits of a range of practices, from low cost al-ternatives to higher cost fixes.

Incentives – Communities need to explore creative incentive programs to encourage best practices. These do notnecessarily need to be monetary, but they do need to consider what motivates people. Examples might be certifi-cation and awards programs for property owners and businesses. Establishing a Water Sense Yard program couldgenerate peer pressure for best practices. New certification programs for engineers and construction professionalsmight help as well as stormwater credits for developers implementing best management practices.

SERWQAN Partners Observations

On April 19, 2010 prior to the Community Workshop, members of the Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assis-tance Network met to evaluate their own projects and to conduct their own self-assessment of their project outcomesand to assess how well their process worked. There were some common themes that emerged from the discussion re-garding basic criteria that was critical for a program to be successful and there were lessons learned for future endeav-ors. The following observations were outlined.

Strong local leadership/advocate – The most successful projects were led by individuals with a strong sense ofpurpose, knowledge of the issues, creativity in addressing problems, commitment to the initiative, and ability togain public involvement and support. They were based in an organization or agency with the capacity to managethe project. Experience in writing grants, working with the public and implementing projects was also important.Communities which experienced changes in leadership had greater difficulty in developing consensus on projectdefinition and implementation.

Clearly defined initiative(s) addressing a significant community concern – Clearly defined goals, objectives, andan action strategy which addresses an issue of concern to the community are critical to the success of program.Projects which were well-defined and supported at the beginning were the quickest to implement. Other projectsdeveloped through collaboration of a planning team. Still others were discontinued when a project focus couldnot be found or defined. The economic recession, with resulting reductions of community budgets and decreaseddemands for development, made a number of initiatives less compelling and implementable.


Model projects – On the ground projects demonstrating successful best management practices coupled with strongparticipatory and educational programs were particularly successful. The availability of flexible funding for projectimplementation was critical. SERWQAN provided valuable assistance in project design, grantsmanship, construc-tion, monitoring, maintenance and education but not all communities had the funds to implement an on-the-ground project. For example, those that were able to combine both SERWQAN technical assistance and a319-funded project had the greatest measurable results. In addition, sustaining community interest in an initiativeis greatly strengthened by a visible success. Identifying, implementing and showcasing a small project, such as aninstallation of best management practices, can be important to keeping momentum and local interest going.

Collaboration – A strong collaborative relationship between the community and the technical assistanceprovider(s) was critical. While this worked well in many projects, a Memorandum of Understanding between SER-WQAN and the applicant community or organization might have been helpful to clearly specify roles and respon-sibilities. In addition, establishing the relationship on a face to face basis and maintaining them with ongoingcommunication was important. Likewise, strong collaboration among multiple jurisdictions, organizations, andstakeholders was critical to the successful implementation of projects. This collaboration strengthened commu-nity input and support, enriched the project development, and increased the impact of the project. Where thiscollaboration was lacking, the definition and implementation of a project became much more difficult. The diver-sity of expertise of the SERWQAN partners was important.

Flexible funding – The availability of flexible funding for community projects is very important. But many stateor federal grants are too directive or restrictive and limit a community's program implementation options. Thiscomment was raised in the community feedback sessions, as well as by the SERWQAN partners.

Summary

It became apparent very early in this program that as the SERWQAN project team moved from the general projectplanning phase to providing direct assistance to communities that long term, capacity-building assistance was goingto take more time than originally envisioned. Local communities could not be rushed, and several communities werein the preliminary phases of watershed protection or restoration projects. SERWQAN partners requested a project ex-tension to allow work to be scheduled in a way that better met the needs and capacities of the targeted communities.While many lessons were learned from each community watershed project, every project had its own unique demo-graphics, politics and personalities. Good partnerships with good technical support are also more likely to securegrant funding for watershed projects. But given the current economic climate, it was difficult to implement more sus-tainable, long term funding mechanisms, as communities felt the time was not right to increase water rates or de-velop stormwater utility fees. This infrastructure and program funding issue will remain a continuing challenge forcommunities, but one that ultimately needs to be addressed locally.

In summary, hands-on technical assistance from a network of universities and regional organizations, as noted inthe community feedback above, provided stimulus, credibility and public support for watershed efforts that wouldnot have otherwise been undertaken. Technical assistance is one of the tools most needed and requested by localcommunities to enhance watershed protection. Improving such assistance programs will go a long way to improvingwater quality in the Southeast in years to come.


List of Workshop Attendees

Auburn, AL Dan Ballard City of AuburnAuburn, AL Ron McCurry City of AuburnAsheville Steve Shoaf Asheville Water ResourcesBolin Creek Patricia D’Arconte Town of Chapel HillCity of Clayton, Cissy Henry City of ClaytonCity of Clayton, Nicole Hayler Chattooga ConservancyCity of Lenoir, NC Lenny Rogers NCSU College of AgricultureCity of Lenoir, NC Warren Depree Stormwater technicianCity of Lenoir, NC Seth Nagy NC Cooperative ExtensionGadsden, AL Sarah Butterworth Middle Coosa Watershed Project CoordinatorHamblen County, TN Alan Hartman City of MorristownJasper, AL Kellie Johnston Black Warrior Clean Water PartnershipJasper, AL Keith Pike City of JasperLittle River Watershed, AL Jeff Pruitt Top of Alabama Regional Planning CommissionSoque River Partnership, GA Justin Ellis Watershed CoordinatorSoque River Partnership, GA Mona Painter Town of CorneliaMills River, NC Bo Ferguson City of HendersonvilleMills River, NC Barbara Volk Mayor - City of HendersonvilleNCDENR Dianne Reid NC Dept of Environment & Natural ResourcesNCDENR Amy Axon NC Dept of Environment & Natural ResourcesNCDENR Paul Clark NC Dept of Environment & Natural ResourcesNCDENR Jay Frick NC Dept of Environment & Natural ResourcesGeorgia EPD Becky Champion GA Environmental Protection DivisionEPA Region 4 MaryJo Bragan Environmental Protection AgencyEPA Region 4 Veronica Fasselt Environmental Protection Agency SERWQAN Carter Cone North Carolina Cooperative ExtensionSERWQAN Katie Werneth Auburn UniversitySERWQAN Dr. Eve Brantley Auburn University - AL Cooperative ExtensionSERWQAN Jessica Roberts Auburn UniversitySERWQAN Dr. Greg Jennings North Carolina State UniversitySERWQAN Dr. Jeff Hughes Director, UNC Environmental Finance Center (EFC)SERWQAN Lauren Patterson UNC Environmental Finance CenterSERWQAN Stacey Berahzer SERWQAN Program Coordinator - UNC EFCSERWQAN Jane Fowler Southeast Watershed ForumSERWQAN Lindsay Gardner Southeast Watershed ForumSERWQAN Christine Olsenius Executive Director, Southeast Watershed ForumUGA Frank Henning University of GeorgiaUGA Mark Risse University of Georgia



Sample application form used by communities request-ing SERWQAN assistance. Approximately 25 communi-ties requested assistance and 12 communities in fourstates were ultimately chosen.


Documents

LESSONS LEARNED from COMMUNITY-BASED WATER …The North Carolina Arboretum, setting for the workshop on Lessons Learned ... The Network hosted a workshop at the North Carolina Arboretum