Introduction

Background and Purpose - Methodology & Analysis - Summary of Survey Highlights - Organization Age
Organization Status - Organization Budget - Sources of Funding - Data Needs
Public Outreach & Communications - Watershed Protection and Restoration - Planning & Development
Issues of Concern - Limitations & Future Direction - Conclusions - The Importance of Partnerships

"The quality of our nation's waters is fundamentally determined by how well we manage our watershed. Research continually reminds us that we cannot adequately protect the quality of our streams, lakes and estuaries unless we are good stewards of the land that drains to them. Ensuring the quality of our drinking water and groundwater also requires effective watershed protection. Indeed, watersheds are the best geographic context in which to manage our watershed resources."

Background and Purpose

Southeast Watershed Organizations Map

Click to Enlarge

The Southeast Watershed Forum is a partnership of agencies, organizations and industries interested in enhancing watershed initiatives in the Southeast. It serves as a clearinghouse for watershed information and training through its newsletter, conferences and workshops. The Forum works to foster greater dialogue and partnerships between the public and private sector through the annual Southeast Watershed Forum Roundtable.

In its interest to better identify locally based watershed initiatives, the Southeast Watershed Forum conducted a survey of organizations and their activities in 10 southeastern states. It wanted to know who was doing what kind of watershed projects and where they were being done.

The purpose of the Southeast Watershed Activity Survey is to document the level of local watershed restoration and protection activity in the region. Watershed work is largely a local effort, yet the Southeast has no "directory" of watershed projects identifying for each state, who is working in which watershed and on what project. It seemed that a survey to identify such activity would provide three things:

1. a baseline to measure future progress on local watershed protection efforts,
2. a directory of potential partners to work with state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations and industries on watershed restoration and protection strategies and the implementation of TMDLs (total maximum daily loads- The maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.) and,
3. a gap analysis of watersheds not currently being served by local groups.

It is hoped that this will be the first in a series of surveys, which will document local watershed activity through the years. We realized that we do not have all watershed groups represented in this survey. We have just begun to tap this tremendous resource. No one knows for sure exactly how many local river, lake and watershed organizations exist. While some directories of environmental organizations exist, they are not comprehensive in covering local, watershed-related groups or Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Resource Conservation and Development Councils working on watershed projects.

Methodology & Analysis

Survey Development
Working in partnership with state lake, river and watershed organizations and agencies, NRCS offices and Soil and Water conservation Commissions, The Forum mailed nearly 900 surveys to organizations in 10 states from November, 1999 until February, 2000. While not every one of the 900 groups was a clearly defined watershed organization, we used the lists available to us and hoped that the survey questions would elicit a response from the most likely organizations. To encourage responses, the state director of each organization or agency wrote a cover letter to accompany the survey, encouraging each group's participation. In addition, The Forum offered a free report toe ach organization which filled out the survey.

From March through June, survey responses were entered into a database with subsequent statistical data analyses conducted. Results were compiled into the present report during the summer and the state map composites were finalized in mid-September.

Survey content focuses on specific activities in three areas of watershed work: public outreach and communications; watershed protection and restoration, and organizational planning and development. The watershed protection and restoration questions were considered the heart of the survey, as those activities had direct impact on improving water quality. Additionally, respondents were provided the opportunity to indicate areas in which assistance is needed. There were several questions concerning the organization demographics (e.g., size, age, budget) because the Forum wanted link attributes of an organization with the types of watershed activity being conducted. The information provided a helpful directory of participating organizations as well.

The survey documents the need for data on a variety of topics, including physical and chemical water quality, groundwater quality, living resources and land use. Respondents were asked to list the scale of data needed (e.g., catchment, subwatershed, etc.) and to indicate the types of data they currently use. A final question asked respondents to indicate resource issues of most concern to local watershed organizations and communities.

Descriptive statistics are presented for watershed activities in the following report chapters. In addition, organizational characteristics are linked by specific types of watershed protection/restoration activity.

Survey Respondents
Approximately 399 organizations responded to the survey, and of those, 354 are engaged in specific restoration/protection activities, 15 are involved in managing flood control structures only, and 30 are involved in some level of public outreach, but not restoration/protection. Respondents represented lake and watershed organizations from 10 states- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Eight of these states comprise EPA Region 4. WE included Virginia, since the southwestern part of the state in the Tennessee Valley watershed. In addition, the Forum was asked by the Office of Surface Mining to include West Virginia in the survey.

In this first survey, the Forum does not put a great deal of emphasis on which state had the highest number of respondents. We know that it is difficult to reach every watershed organization on the first attempt and that some groups may have missed the opportunity or declined the opportunity to participate. But it will be of interest to each state to know that number of organizations working in their backyard, how many new ones are developing, the range of their activities and resources, staff and expertise they have to further local watershed protection and restoration initiatives.

Summary of Survey Highlights

Less Means More
The most active groups in all watershed outreach, planning and restoration and protection activities are organizations over five years in age (77%), with budgets less than $10,000 (44%). More than half of these organizations (59%) have strategic plans guiding their efforts. These local organizations with the least amount of financial resources are responsible for a disproportionately high level of watershed activity. In addition, 20% of the organizations conducting protection/restoration activities are under five years of age, reflecting a tremendous growth in new watershed-based organizations.

Funding Preferences
While most activities show a good mix of local, state, federal and private funding, several activities have specific lead categories of funding:

• Riparian restoration and greenway planning lead with local and state funding.
• Efforts to change zoning ordinances are driven by membership-funded organizations.
• Membership-funded and state-funded organizations lead in advocating public access.
• A balanced mix of local, state and federal funding supports both wetland and habitat restoration.
• Fish stocking activities receive their greatest source of funding from the "other" category-organizations, businesses or corporations (57%).

  Foundation funding averages between 25-35% for most restoration activities, greenway planning, public access and changing zoning ordinances. "Other" funding, including business and corporate support, averages between 25-30%, nearly matching the level of foundation support for watershed work.

*Mississippi was the only state in which all Soil and Water Conservation Districts responded to the survey.

Organization Age

Table 2 below lists the number and percentage of respondents by organization age. The majority of participating watershed organizations (77%) have been in existence for more than 5 years. Five percent of the organizations are less than one year old. Ten organizations did not provide information regarding their age.

Organization Status

Table 3 lists the number and percentage of respondents by organization status. Nearly half (46%) of respondents did not provide any information. Of those that did respond, 27% are incorporated, while 11% have 501(c) (3) status.

Organization Budget

Table 4 lists the number and percentage of respondenents by organization budget. Many respondents (44%) have annual operating budgets less than $10,000, while 68 respondents (17%) have annual budgets greater than $100,000.

Sources of Funding

Table 5 lists the number andpercentage of respondents vy various sources of funding. For example, the majority or respondents (53%) receive local funding, while 34% receive state funding and 24% receive federal funding. Many organizations listed more than one source of funding.

Data Needs

Approximately one-third of all groups in the Southeast have physical and chemical water quality data for use in their work. Approximately 36% say they need more water quality data, mostly at the watershed level. Georgia groups stated the greatest need for data (49%), with 38% wanting data at the watershed level and 43% at the tributary level. For groundwater data, only 17% of organizations have any information, while 39% stated a need for it. Georgia (53%) and Kentucky (49%) organizations stated the highest need for groundwater data.

West Virginia organizations (56%) stated the greatest need for air quality data and land use data (44%). North Carolina groups stated the greatest need for habitat data (38%), and Florida groups stated the greatest need for living resources date 36%.

Public Outreach & Communications

Networking is the most common outreach activity among organizations (71%), while holding public meetings (66%) and convening workshops (60%) were the next most common activities. Half of all organizations surveyed provide fact sheets and brochures.

Watershed Protection and Restoration

• Stream Bank Cleanups – 49%
• Tree/shrub Planting – 44%
• Riparian Restoration – 44%

Virginia has the highest percentage of organizations involved with stream bank cleanups (21%), stream bank fencing (26%), riparian (22%) and habitat restoration (21%), and tree plantings (21%). They, along with Georgia, have the largest number of organizations involved in advocating public access (20% and 19% respectively).

Florida has the highest percentage of organizations engaged in marsh grass planting (25%) and wetland restoration (18%).

Mississippi and Tennessee have the highest number of organizations engaged in fish stocking (20%).

Planning & Development

More than half of the organizations in five Southest states- Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina- areinvolved in community visioning.

More than half of the organizations in four states- Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, West Virginia- are involved in environmental assessements.

North Carolina has the highest number of groups involved in conflict resolution training (34%), more than twice that of any other state.

Over 40% of the respondents in Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina are involved in greenway planning.

Organizations in Florida (48%) and South Carolina (42%) are the most active in changing zoning ordinances.

Issues of Concern

Conserving and restoring rivers, lakes and streams is the highest priority issue of Souteast watershed organizations (71%). Only Florida, Mississippi and south Carolina organizations gave a higher percentage to other issues. Florida rated expanding outdoor recreation as its lead issue (88%). Mississippi rated managing growth and development first (78%), and south Carolina rated protecting drinking water quality as its highest priority (83%).

For all the concern exhibited over growth and development in the Southeast and its impact on water quality and competition for water supplies, only Mississippi rated it as their primary issue and Georgia groups gave it the lowest rating of all issues.

Limitations & Future Direction

Organizational Status
With many surveys, wisdom is a matter of hindsight. So it is with this first attempt. In retrospect, our question on "organizational status" lacked clarity. We offered three choices: "incorporated", "501 (c)(3)" or "other". Less than half of the respondents answered this question. Either they didn't know their status or their status was something else. For example, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are special units of state government. They didn't have an appropriate category except "other".

Funding Sources
In addition, under "funding sources," we did not make a clear distinction between federal funding which is channeled through the states, like Section 319 funds. So we have to speculate that a good portion of organizations who said their funding was from the state, were probably also receiving federal funding. Future surveys will be more specific.

Types of Activity
We thought all activity categories were self-explanatory, but we discovered several people who were unclear as to what "advocating public access" meant. This is a term referring to efforts which allow for greater public access to and use of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. With so much shoreline in private ownership and recreational uses of water on the increase, there is a need for public boat docks, launching sites, walkways, bike paths, fishing piers and other public spaces which allow greater access to water and adjoining shoreline.

Survey Audience
While several forest products industries participated in the survey, it was clearly not designed for corporate large-scale land owners. Likewise, it was not designed to capture large=scale federal watershed projects and agencies which inquired about participation were discouraged from filling out the survey. The survey questions are geared to a local, citizen-based initiative. In future surveys, the Forum will explore the development of a corporate survey, with contacts from the private sector, as well as a survey to reflect large-scale sate and federal initiatives.

Conclusions

The Value of Locally-Led Efforts
The diversity of local river, lake and watershed groups and the range of activities they are conducting is both impressive and inspiring. The fact that approximately 59% of them have strategic plans guiding their efforts, suggests a growing level of professionalism in this movement. Half of the groups in four states are involved in conducting environmental assessments. North Carolina groups lead all other states in conflict resolution training. Florida leads in the number of groups trying to change zoning ordinances, followed by North and South Carolina. These are sophisticated efforts being conducted, in many instances, by volunteers and part-time staff working with very limited resources.

Networking, which is being done by 71% of the groups, continues to be an important vehicle for peer-to-peer learning. More than half of the organizations in eight states produce newsletter as a way to engage local citizens and exchange ideas and information. In addition, one-half to two-thirds of groups in nine states hold public meetings and workshops.

Stream bank cleanups (49%), tree/shrub plantings (44%) and riparian restoration (32%) are the most common watershed activities conducted by local organizations. Cleanups offer an inviting way to engage the public in a special event and let's them experience the human impact on the water's edge. The popularity of tree and shrub plantings and riparian restoration reflects a growing awareness of the value of vegetative buffers in protecting water quality.

Issues and Needs
Yet in spite of their leadership, only one-third of all watershed organizations in the Southeast have the physical and chemical water quality data needed in their work. There is a need for more water quality data, particularly at the watershed and tributary level. And there is also a growing need for data on groundwater, air quality, living resources and land use. Only 17% of organizations have information on groundwater quality, which is a key factor in protecting families served by private wells and communities served by groundwater.

The greatest issue of concern identified by Southeast watershed organizations are: Conserving and restoring rivers, lakes and streams (71%); Public education on water quality (62%); and Protecting and restoring wildlife, fisheries and habitat (61%), closely followed by Protecting drinking water quality (57%).

Financial Challenges to Sustaining Locally-Led Efforts
What is surprising in this survey, is that a disproportionately high percentage of watershed protection and restoration work is being done by seasoned organizations whose financial resources are under $10,000 per year. They are most often dependent on a corps of volunteers and technical assistance provided by county, state and federal agencies.

That is a surprising assessment given state and national programs to enhance watershed restoration and protection, and the importance attributed to restoring and protecting southern lakes, rivers and streams as evidenced in this survey.

The financial and technical support available to these local efforts does not seem to be substantial enough to maintain current water quality protection efforts, much less increase efforts to restore degraded streams, under the continuing pressures of growth and development in the Southeast. In addition, 20% of the watershed organizations participating in this survey are under fiver years in age. These emerging organizations are developing in response to local concerns about growth and development and their impact on water quality and the quality of life in the region. It is a growing movement and an effective movement and the resources needed to fuel it will need to grow.

We can only save our rivers and lakes by protecting our watershed.

The Importance of Partnerships

State agencies involved in watershed planning, assessment, and restoration activities for priority watersheds, may better accomplish their goals by working partnership and supporting local river, lake and watershed organizations. These organizations can be important partners in identifying and implementing solutions. Likewise, federal agencies with funding commitments for watershed work need to continue providing the support and technical assistance so critical to the success of these local initiatives.

Corporate and local business support is an important factor in funding local watershed activities and nearly equals foundation support, which has long been a bulwark of assistance to developing the capacity of nonprofit organizations. Both types of support need to be increased as well, if southeastern communities are to keep pace with the growing pressures on the region's natural resources.

The growth in watershed initiatives in the Southeast appears to parallel growing public concern over the state of Southeast Rivers and declining water quality in an era of unparalleled growth and developments. Now, an ensuing battle over limited water supplies will only intensify and complicate state and regional water management efforts.

To better assist these resource management issues, local river, lake and watershed organizations will need new partners, greater organizational capacity, sustained funding, and continued technical assistance. They have already proven to be an important factor I local watershed restoration and protection efforts. They are also important partners for city, county, state and federal agencies in further protecting water quality in their communities by supporting better management and more environmentally sensitive palling and zoning.

The Southeast Watershed Forum believes that locally-led initiatives will continue to be a critical force in driving watershed-based protection and management in the 21st Century.