v>EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office Of Water
           (4203)
EPA 833-R-96-003
March 1994
Regional Guidance For
Development Of State-By-State
Watershed Protection
Assessments And Action Plans

-------

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                               MAY  I 2 1994
                                                           OFFICE OF
                                                            WATCH
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:



FROM:



TO!
Regional Guidance for Development of State-by-State
Assessments and Action P1#ns  .   /] '

Michael B. Cook, DirectoJyUM  ffjh   „,,„„_
Office of Wastewater Enfdrdettent and^ompliance

Water Management Division  Directors  (Regions I-X)
          purpose of this memorandum is to distribute the Regional
                                                               - ••
 actions plans by the Regions is among the critical first steps
           to implement the NPDES Watershed strategy in FY 1995
       The attached guidance provides assistance to the EPA
 Regions in preparing State-by-state assessments and action plans.
 Through an assessment of the watershed protection efforts of
 t£e!r9individual State, the Region will^ain an understanding of
 the watershed protection efforts in each of their States,
 including participating programs, short ^ l^I'IlSe90    '
 needs  and impediments.  More importantly, these State
 SsSelsmSts will lead to the development of Regional action plans
 which will identify specific action items and milestones for
 ReSonal support and facilitation of each State's movement toward
 ?h2 Wa?erSrirotection Approach.  W^vl tlL^'S? n~
 document, outlines a range of suggested activities  for the
 Regions to consider in developing their action plans.  A final
 Region 10 assessment of watershed activities  in the State of
 Idaho is included in Appendix B.  This assessment^ be used a.
 a model to assist other Regions when conducting their State
 assessments.

      If you have any questions  or need  further information  on
 this guidance,  please  do  not hesitate to  contact  me or  Jeff Lap«.
 Jeff can be reached 202-260-5230.

 Attachment
                                        rY <\
                                        \fX_7
                                                       comain* *!••«»*«

-------

-------
          WATERSHED
          PROTECTION
                 NPDLS
                 WATERSHED
                 STRATEGY
      REGIONAL GUIDANCE FOR
   DEVELOPMENT OF STATE-BY-STATE
WATERSHED PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS
         AND ACTION PLANS
     Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance

-------
   REGIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT  OF STATE-BY-
STATE WATERSHED  PROTECTION  ASSESSMENTS AND ACTION
                                     PLANS
                              Executive  Summary                     	

EPA's Office of Water (OW) recently issued the NPDES Watershed  Strategy to ensure that
the NPDES program is fully integrated into the Watershed Protection Approach.  The
NPDES strategy was developed with the detailed input and participation of Regions,  States
and Office of Water program offices, and was signed by the Assistant Administrator  for
Water on March 21, 1994. The purpose of the Strategy  is to outline  national objectives and
implementation activities for the NPDES program to (1) integrate program functions  into
the broader Watershed Protection Approach and (2) support development of State-wide
basin management approaches (BMA)1.  Basin management is a State-wide approach
designed to meet the objectives of the broader Watershed Protection  Approach.
                               «-
Regional assessments of existing watershed protection efforts in each State and Regional
action plans to support State's in this area are among the important  first steps to ensuring
that the Strategy purpose is achieved.  Through these Regional  assessments, EPA Regions
will  gain information about the watershed protection efforts in each of their States,
including participating programs, short-and long-term goals, needs, and impediments.  The
goal of the assessment process is to provide EPA Regions with a detailed range of
watershed protection needs and existing or potential impediments to  be addressed through
the Regional action plans.
             For the purposes of this document, the terms State-wide basin management
             approach (BMA) and State-wide  Watershed Protection Approach  (WPA) are
             intended to refer to the same concept which is a comprehensive state-wide
             approach to managing water resources on a geographic  basis.

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Action plans should describe  specific actions that the Region will take to support and
facilitate watershed protection in each State.  The choice of action items will be unique to
each Region and State.  In States that are currently  developing  or implementing basin
management approaches (BMAs), Regional action plans may focus on opportunities for the
Region to provide assistance and guidance in areas;  such as monitoring and NPDES
permitting  strategies, development of environmental  indicators,  and pollutant trading.
Where States are not developing or implementing BMAs,  Regional action plans may focus
on conducting educational workshops, assisting States in basin .delineation and  sequencing,
and working with States to identify  the potential benefits of basin management. In either
case, each  action plan should include methods by which the action items will be
implemented and evaluated, and a timeline with quarterly  milestones for fiscal  year  1995.

EPA Regions have been asked to complete these  State-by-state assessments and FY 95
watershed action plans by September 1, 1994.  These documents should be submitted to
Mike Cook, Director of the Office of Wastewater Enforcement  and Compliance, at EPA
Headquarters, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

This document provides guidance to EPA Regions in preparing State-by-state assessments
and action  plans.  Section 1 offers suggestions on key areas to address in preparing a
Regional assessment of State  watershed protection efforts.  It also  includes model  questions
to help Regional staff identify important  information for assessing  the status of watershed
protection activities  in each State.  Section 2 discusses how these assessments can be used
to prepare Regional  action  plans to  support watershed protection efforts.  Finally, Appendix
A contains detailed suggestions for  potential action  items that Regions can include in their
action plans.  Finally,  Appendix B is a final Region  10 assessment of watershed activities in
the State of Idaho, which may be used  as a model to assist other Regions when conducting
their State  assessments.
1.0    Completing State-by-state  Assessments

1.1    Objectives

Each Region should assess existing watershed  protection activities for each State within its
jurisdiction to obtain sufficient information for developing Regional action plans that
effectively support and facilitate State efforts to establish a basin management approach
(BMA).  An assessment of current State  water quality program organization,  procedures and
capabilities will provide sufficient information to identify the needs, opportunities and
existing or potential impediments, developing comprehensive State-wide approaches.
Regional assessments are not intended to be compliance audits, rather they are careful and
thoughtful reviews of current state watershed/basin management activities and needs—upon
which to base Regional support activities.
                                                                           May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regions are encouraged to perform comprehensive  assessments that will provide both a
strong basis for action plan development and a baseline against which to measure progress.
A few States have already begun implementing State-wide basin management effort and
several others are currently developing management frameworks for implementing BMAs.
Regional assessments of these States will lead to Regional action plans  that focus on
activities which the Region can take to assist and further State-wide efforts.  Where a State
assessment indicates that a comprehensive  DMA  is not being developed or implemented,
action plans may focus on conducting  educational workshops at the State level, and
working with the State to identify potential benefits of a state-wide approach.


1.2    Assessment Methodology

The following sub-sections provide a step-by-step guide for collecting information about a
State's watershed protection activities  and  needs.  Sub-sections 1.3-1.8 cover each of the
specific components of the NPDES Watershed  Strategy.  At the beginning of each  of these
sub-sections, a brief explanation is provided on the relationship of that component to a
BMA, and the particular areas in which the Region should focus  the assessment.  A final
sub-section suggests how to compile the individual component assessments  into an overall
assessment for each State and identify items for consideration in  Regional action plan
development.

Internal coordination at the Regional level is essential to assessing watershed protection
activities and needs  within each State. Availability of information for assessments  may
vary greatly from Region to Region and State to State. Some information on current State
watershed  protection efforts has been compiled at OW Headquarters and has been provided
to each Region for review.  The Office of Wetlands, Oceans,  and Watersheds (OWOW) has
also produced  fact sheets for specific State watershed protection projects which have been
sent to the Regions, as well.  Additionally, a few  States have developed  BMA framework
documents that describe  in detail how water quality management programs  can operate  in
an integrated  and coordinated manner.  Regions are encouraged to use all these resources in
preparing their assessments, in addition to analyzing any relevant  information that may
already have been collected in connection  with § 303(d) or 305(b) reports on programs such
as 303(e),  NPDES, Nonpoint Source, Clean Lakes  or National Estuary Programs.
1.3    State-Wide Coordination

Successful watershed management efforts depend on coordination of resources among
different levels of government and stakeholders.  Each Region should know if and how
watershed  protection efforts are coordinated in their individual States. A key step to
building a BMA is development of a basin management framework.  Two of the  critical
                                                                          May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments 'and Regional Action Plan Guidance
elements under a basin management framework are basin/watershed delineation and
establishment  of a schedule for periodically evaluating the environmental condition of each
basin to determine which management activities will occur in the basin.

Delineation of management units (basins/watersheds) across an entire State provides a
geographic basis for focusing and coordinating watershed protection efforts and activities.
Establishing a common set of basins that all participants agree to use  is a critical step for
development of a BMA.  Some States have established a "nested" hierarchy of management
units that provide various levels of resolution that are fully compatible with one another.
For example,  SCS 14-digit watersheds nest wiiliin USGS hydrologic  units, which nest
within State river basin units.  This nested approach, facilitates information exchange across
all levels  of government,  particularly where data are maintained in a geographic  information
system (GIS)  format.

A basin management framework provides the context  for coordinating management
activities over time.  It identifies roles/responsibilities  of participating programs,  divides an
entire State into basins to coordinate management activities, and establishes  a schedule for
evaluating the environmental condition of each basin.   The schedule for review of basins is
State-specific, but most States  are using a 5-year cycle to coincide with NPDES  permitting
requirements.  Establishing a schedule for regular evaluations of each basin allows the
States to reassess needs and  balance workloads across programs and over time.

Regions should  look for the  presence of or potential for these coordinating  mechanisms in
their assessments for this component.  The  following informational format is offered to
guide review  of State-wide coordination efforts for  each State:
       A.     Identify all departments within the State that oversee components  of the water
              program and the components for which they are responsible.

       B.     Is the State implementing, developing, or considering a BMA?

              1.      If yes, then:

                     a.     Describe what programs and stakeholders are involved and the
                           status of the effort, including when it began, its progress to
                           date, and when the BMA is expected  to be completely
                           implemented.

                     b.     How has the State defined  "watershed protection" and how is
                           this effort coordinated among programs (i.e., determine  whether
                           the State's approach includes State-wide coordination of
                                                                           May 10, 1994

-------
State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
                  c.
baseline  water management activities or \vhether efforts are
confined to a limited number of "targeted"  watersheds)?

Describe any methods that the State uses to prioritize watershed
management efforts?
                  d.     What potential or existing benefits/incentives have been
                         identified for moving to a BMA?

                  e.     What impediments or gaps have been identified that impede or
                         affect, or have the potential to impede or affect, a BMA effort?

           2.     If no, then:

                  a.     Does the State use a targeted watershed approach?

                  b.     What indications are there  that the State is aware of and
                         understands the BMA?

                  c.     What, if any, potential  barriers have been identified for moving
                         to a BMA?

    C.     Describe any Region/State  watershed protection partnership that has already
           been established.  Be sure to address  the  following:

           1.     Scope of the partnership (e.g., EPA/State roles, program components,
                  purpose, agenda, etc.).

           2.     Type and breadth of watershed protection training that has been
                  provided to Regional  and State staff.

           3.     Mechanisms that are used for  coordination (e.g., MOUs, MO As,  §106
                  work plans,  etc.).

           4.     Progress and status  of any watershed protection efforts.

           5.     Program gaps or needs  that have been identified and whether  they are
                  being  addressed.

    D.    If no Region/State watershed protection partnership currently exists, list any
           indications of interest or disinterest by the  State in a Region/State.
                                                                          May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
       E      List ways that the State water program is working with other State and
              Federal authorities (e.g., BLM, USFS, NEPs, SCS, USGS) regarding
              watershed protection.

       F.     Describe the level of coordination that occurs with local planning  authorities
              regarding watershed protection, and include descriptions of mandates  or State
              regulations that make coordination possible.

       G.     Describe any efforts in response to environmental  assessments that are made
              to prioritize management needs and resource allocations across multiple
              programs or agencies.

       H.     Describe the current level of coordination regarding  grants administration
          .L-j/activities for State programs operating under Federal grants.  Include  a
           \  discussion of any State interest in coordinating  grants application and
              reporting.
 1.4    NPDES Permits

 A State-wide basin management approach provides the mechanism for issuing NPDES
 permits on a watershed basis.  The NPDES  Watershed Strategy outlines two methods for
 issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis. These methods are 1) development of a
 basin management plan and synchronization of permit issuance within basins or 2)
 development of a basin management plan and assuring that permits are issued in accordance
 with it.

 For many States,  synchronizing permit issuance  within basins will be the first step taken by
 them to implement their permit programs under  a BMA.  For States such as North Carolina
 or Michigan, this entails adjusting permit expiration dates so that facilities  hi the same
 general basin or watershed will be re-issued at the same time. The re-issuance date is often
 strategically set for a few months  after a basin management plan has been  adopted so that
 permit conditions can reflect the goals,  priorities, and management strategies (e.g. TMDLs)
. set  forth in the plan.  In addition,  issuing permits in the  same geographic area at the  same
 time allows for certain efficiencies such as consolidated  public notices and public meetings.


 The Regional assessment  effort should also evaluate how NPDES permit program resources
 and level of effort are tied to environmental  priorities.  For non-authorized States,
 assessment efforts should focus on existing State^EPA roles and needs or problems that
 could be addressed through joint WPA efforts.  The following informational  format  is
 offered to guide review of NPDES permitting activities for each  State:
                                                                           May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regions  should understand and document the following activities with respect to NPDES
permit development:

       A.     Identify the agency that oversees permitting activities.

       B.     Explain the organization and operation of the State permitting program
              (NPDES permitting program).  Be sure to address the following

              1.     Central office versus Regional office responsibilities.

              2.     Methods  for conveying receiving  water quality information between
                     monitoring and assessment programs and permit writers.

       C.     Describe any efforts the State has made  to operate its NPDES permit program
              as part of a watershed  protection approach (e.g., synchronizing permits,
              issuing permits based on basin plans). Also, indicate the type and status of
              any watershed protection efforts (e.g., State-wide or targeted; implementing,
              developing, or none) and describe program goals and components.

       D.     Is permit reissuance coordinated on a geographic unit basis (i.e., are permits
              within the  same watershed or subbasin handled at the same time)?  If yes,
              then describe the following:

              1.     Delineation of geographic units.

              2.     Efforts to consolidate public notices by geographic unit.

              3.     Efforts to consolidate public meetings/hearings on permits within the
                     same geographic  unit.

       E.     Explain any efforts to  issue permit issuance on a watershed  basis other than
              through synchronization of permits.

       F.     Regions should  assess the  existing program to determine potential areas of
              improvement or further development.  Such an assessment may include the
              following questions:

               1.     Does the State  know the percentage of discharges to impaired or
                     threatened waters that receive water quality-based limits?  If so, what
                     are they?
                                                                           May 10, 1994

-------
  State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
             2.     What is the scope of \vasteload  allocation analyses—which parameters
                    of concern is the State able to cover?

             3.     Describe the basis for water quality-based  limitations (e.g., does the
                    State use full TMDLs or partial TMDLs, do they mostly rely on
                    desktop/default assumption  methods, etc.?).

             4.     How does the State use the general  permit mechanism  to reduce
                    workload?   (If the State is developing  or implementing watershed
                    protection activities, describe any efforts regarding basin-wide or
                    watershed general permits.)

             5.     Determine  whether the State assigns priorities for permit issuance  and,
                    if so, describe the prioritization criteria.

       G.    Examine program operations for potential productivity improvements that
             could occur through a watershed approach  to permitting.

             1.     What is the current level of permit  (majors and minors) backlog for
                    the State?  Is there a trend? (i.e., is the backlog increasing  or
                    decreasing?)

             2.     How automated is the State permitting program (e.g., use of electronic
                    expert systems and relational database software)?  Are permits stored
                    in a computer database that allows  for quick editing and permit
                    template development?  How is information conveyed  between field
                    and central offices.
1.5    Monitoring and Assessment

The monitoring and assessment elements of a BMA help to drive the management  process
by providing the basis for identifying and prioritizing water quality concerns,  and
evaluating the  success of implemented  management strategies.  Monitoring may cover a
number of activities from obtaining water quality-related field data to analyzing samples
and placing data into a database (e.g. STORET,  local database, etc.). Environmental
assessment is the process of determining levels of water quality and ecosystem quality, and
includes "use support" determinations,  identifying  sources and causes of impairment,
identifying existing or emerging problems, and preparing reports or lists required by the
CWA or  other laws and regulations.
                                                                           May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
The DMA framework provides the mechanism  for bringing active management participants
together to coordinate instruments such as State-wide strategic monitoring plans and
procedures for prioritizing management concerns identified through environmental
assessments.   Regional assessments  should focus on these  and other related features.  The
following informational format is offered to guide review of monitoring and assessment
activities  for each State:
       A.     Explain the State's monitoring coordination and collaboration.

              1.     Identify the State agencies that oversee water quality and aquatic
                     habitat monitoring and assessment.  Indicate which of the agencies
                     have biological monitoring programs.  What federal agency
                     information does the State use.

              2.     Describe the responsibilities of the agencies and programs  involved in
                     monitoring and assessment (be sure to distinguish between central
                     office and Regional office roles).

       B.     Identify the State's monitoring objectives.

              1.     Describe any efforts to establish a State-wide monitoring strategy.
                     Determine  if the strategy  addresses the following:

                     a.      status and trends,

                     b.      existing and emerging  problem identification,

                     c.      design of management and regulatory programs (e.g., 305(b)
                            reports, 303id) lists, TMDLs, NPDES programs),

                     d.      evaluation of program effectiveness,  and

                     e.      emergency response.

              2.     What is the level of effort being devoted to monitoring and assessment
                     activities by the various State agencies (FTEs, funding, other).  What
                     is the level of effort specifically identified  for biological monitoring?
                                                                            May 10, 1994

-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
    C.     Review the State monitoring design program

           1.     Explain whether monitoring is coordinated around a watershed
                  approach (e.g., sequenced by basin, targeted in selected priority
                  watersheds).

           2.     Is there coordination/integration of monitoring data from  various
                  permittees in a watershed?

           3.     Is there coordination of application requirements from various
                  permittees in a watershed?

           4.     Explain how data are collected (e.g.,  fixed stations, specific sites that
                  change with needs, combinations).

                  a.      How are sample sites picked?

                  b.      How frequently is the sampling plan updated to reflect
                         changing needs and priorities?

           5.     Identify and describe the data components of the State ambient and
                  compliance monitoring program (e.g. physical and chemical,
                  biological, habitat); also, identify the program responsible for the data
                  (e.g. point source effluent, nonpoint source,  storm water, etc).

           6.     Do the various State monitoring programs have consistent quality
                  assurance requirements?   If they differ, provide examples of how they
                  differ.

           7.     Is  there coordination/integration of ambient monitoring data from
                  various permittees in a watershed?

           8.     Describe the coverage of the State agency monitoring programs, in
                  terms of the percentages of State waters that are monitored each year,
                  the scope of parameter coverage, and the frequency of sampling  (e.g.
                  the State is able to monitor 25% of its surface waters for standard
                  physical/chemical  parameters  on a quarterly basis; heavy metals are
                  sampled in 15% of State waters and  5% of sediments annually).

           9.     How is monitoring data  from the various State  programs integrated
                  into the Water Quality Standards process?
                                         10
May JO, 1994

-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
    D.     Describe monitoring program implementation.

           1.      In each agency,  who actually performs  the monitoring ( e.g. staff
                  personnel, other State and Federal agencies, volunteer groups, NPDES
                  dischargers,  contractors,  consortia)?

           2.      Does the State have its own laboratory?

           3.      To what extent do State  agencies use comparable  monitoring
                  protocols?  If not, how <^o they differ?

           4.      Describe State biological monitoring programs.  Include information
                  on:

                  a.      the biological data components that are collected;

                  b.      how the State assesses physical  habitat;

                  c.      the kinds of metrics the State uses;

                  d.      whether ecoregions  are a part of the State  biological  monitoring
                         programs;

                  e.      if NPDES dischargers collect biological data; and

                  f.      the status of the biocriteria/biological  water quality standards
                         development program.

    E.     Identify and describe types of assessment tools and techniques used by the
           State (e.g., statistical techniques, models, GIS).

    F.     Discuss the evaluation of monitoring programs.

           1.      Does the State evaluate its monitoring program periodically  and
                  change it if necessary?  When was it last evaluated?

           2.      How is data on monitoring integrated into the States water quality
                  standards process?

           3.      Will the NPDES Watershed Strategy  cause a change in monitoring?
                                         11
May 10, 1994

-------
  State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments: and Regional Action Plan Guidance
      G.     Describe monitoring program reports and communication efforts.

             1.     Describe the current State monitoring reports, their scales (e.g.
                    watershed, ecoregion, basin, Slate) and their target audiences (e.g.
                    public, managers,  legislature).

             2.     What is the status of State information  management capabilities to
                    support comprehensive  assessments?

                    a.     Does the State have its own database and/or does it use Federal
                           databases?   If Federal databases are used, please list them.

                    b.     Does the State use GIS for water assessments?

             3.     Identify documents that describe State monitoring strategies.

             4.     Identify documents that describe State agency  biological monitoring
                    strategies.
1.6    Programmatic Measures and Environmental Indicators

Progress in watershed protection requires the use of measures that indicate if program
efforts have been successful.  Programmatic measures reflect administrative performance
(e.g.. number of permits issued  in accordance with a basin management plan, percentage of
impaired waters covered by TMDLs), whereas environmental indicators reflect performance
in the ecosystem  (e.g., change in chemical concentrations in sediments and water column;
percent aquatic habitat area restored). A balance between the use of both types of
performance measures is recommended.
Measures and indicators need to reflect Npecific criteria for success (e.g., a 40 percent
reduction in phosphorus loading) and should be defined prior to implementation of
management plans to ensure a performance evaluation  capability.  Measures of success
provide important feedback to the public  and stakeholders on progress made within a
basin/watershed,  which may be needed to justify expenditure of public resources and/or to
shape future efforts.

The following  informational format is offered  to guide review of programmatic measures
and environmental indicators for each State.
                                            12
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
       A.    Identify the agency(ies) responsible  for measuring water program
             implementation and success and distinguish between their areas of
             responsibility.

       B.    How is the State currently measuring program implementation and success?

             1.     What specific measures are used (e.g., percentage  of impaired or
                    threatened waters, net wetlands/habitat gain or loss, biological indices,
                    pollutant loading changes, percentage of impaired  waters  covered by
                    TMDLs, permit backlog)?

             2.     Determine which efforts are  coordinated within a State's  watershed
                    protection activities.

             3.     How are performance measurement data managed (e.g., computerized
                    database, published reports, internal memos)?

       C.    What level of effort is devoted to measuring program implementation and
             success (e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?
1.7    Public Participation

Active public participation is an important aspect of basin management.  The BMA can be
used to raise public awareness  of water quality management issues and establish a basis for
public support.  Public "buy-in" to basin or watershed management strategies often depends
on whether the public understands  and supports the goals of the BMA and the methods
used to implement it. Providing  opportunities for the public to participate in goal
development,  priority setting, strategy development, implementation, and performance
measurement  can be the key to maintaining long-term public support for the BMA.

Traditional public participation in the NPDES program has involved public review and
comment on point source permitting  decisions.  Basin management offers opportunities to
expand on this tradition  by utilizing it in the context of basin or watershed plans.  For
example,  meetings could be held in strategic locations to discuss NPDES permit
requirements for a particular watershed in the context of basin water quality assessments,
priorities, and management plans.  In addition to basin meetings, some States are looking  to
form citizen  or stakeholder watershed advisory groups that will help the State set water
quality goals and priorities for management activities in a given basin or watershed-
Volunteer monitoring programs are another way that the public can become  involved, and
the BMA often provides the State  with a better mechanism for advising and coordinating
with such efforts.
                                           13
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regions  should assess whether each State has an" approach to promote public awareness of
watershed protection related issues and what opportunities  are provided for public
participation.  The following  informational format is offered to guide review of public
participation mechanisms for each State:

       A.     Identify the agency(ies) responsible for existing public participation activities
              in the water program, and describe their respective roles(i.e  NPDES program,
              WQ standards program, TMDLs program, Nonpoint  Source program).

       B.     What unique opportunities, are made available by the State for public
              participation in the permitting and  watershed management process (e.g.,
              special meetings, hearings, festivals, seminars, workshops, citizen advisory
              committees, citizen monitoring)?  Explain how these methods promote public
              involvement.

       C.     Determine whether any public participation  activities are coordinated based
              on watershed protection efforts? If yes, how are the activities coordinated?

       D.     Describe  whether  State rules or administrative codes regulate, impact, or
              facilitate the public participation process and how they do so.

       E.     What level of effort is devoted to providing public participation opportunities
              (e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?
 1.8     Enforcement

 Watershed  management efforts attempt to address all significant sources  and^ causes  of
 problems regardless of administrative designations  (e.g., "major" and "minor" NPDES
 permit distinctions).  Enforcement activities can be tied to watershed management by using
 CWA §308 authorities, compliance inspections, and other means to support watershed
 assessment, planning, restoration, and pollution prevention activities.  Use of the national
 Permit Compliance System (PCS) can provide critical information on historical pollutant
 loading rates as well as compliance for tracked facilities  in priority waterbodies.  In
 addition, inspections done on a watershed basis cam be coordinated to identify key sources
 for  follow-up enforcement (e.g., POTWs, industries, animal  operations, forestry operations).

 Regions should assess a State's capabilities to identify certain compliance and enforcement
 activities according to watershed priorities. For non-authorized States, assessment efforts
 should focus on existing  State/EPA roles and needs that  could be addressed through joint
 watershed  protection efforts.  The following informational format  is offered to guide review
 of watershed-related enforcement  mechanisms for each State:
                                             14
May JO, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
       A.     Identify the agcncy(ies) responsible for compliance  and enforcement
              activities.

       B.     Describe program roles and organization.  Distinguish between central office
              and field or district office responsibilities, if appropriate.

       C.     Provide an explanation of any enforcement activities that are coordinated with
              watershed protection efforts.  Be sure to address the following:

              1.      How §308 authorities are used to support watershed assessment,
                     planning, restoration, and pollution prevention activities.

              2.      Whether minor discharges  in priority watersheds are targeted for
                     enforcement.

              3.      Methods for prioritizing compliance inspection activities according to
                     watershed management priorities.
1.9    Assessment of Individual Components

Based  on the information gathered above for each component, describe the current approach
for that component;  identify specific activities that could be enhanced  for future efforts;
identify State needs  for the individual  component; identify existing and potential
impediments to basin management development,  implementation, or enhancement for each
individual component.
1.10   Miscellaneous  Information on State WPA Activities

       Note any additional observations that may fall outside of listed components.

1.11   Identified Needs, Issues, and  Impediments

After completing the assessment of watershed protection activities in each of their States,
the Region will need to  focus on next steps for supporting and facilitating movement of
their States toward  development and implementation of a basin  management approach.
Before a Regional action plan can be developed from information in the State assessment,
there  are some initial steps the Region must take.  The Region should compile a list of
watershed protection needs, issues and impediments for the individual components into an
overall description  for that State.  Items in this overall description should then be analyzed
                                           15
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-bv-State  Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
to determine  the order in which they will be addressed in the Regional Action plan.
Example criteria for assigning the order for action items include:

       •      Timing:  Issues which must be resolved before a BMA can be developed or
              implemented should be given higher priority.  In some cases, it will be clear
              that one issue must be resolved before another can be addressed (e.g., basins
              must be delineated before they can become part of a basin management
              schedule).

       •      Level of Importance:  Some issues will need to be addressed (in Regional
              action plan) to build fundamental components of a BMA.  Also, areas where
              efforts will address significant problems or needs under current management
              methods may be viewed  as priorities.;

       •      Resource Availability: Opportunities  may be available  to utilize specific
              resources for specific projects related to BMA development, and the Region
              may want to take advantage of those  opportunities.

The identified description of needs, issues, and impediments  will form the basis for action
plan development,  which is covered in Section 2 of'this guidance.
2.0   Developing Regional Action  Plans

2.1    Objectives

Each Region is responsible for preparing action pliins that identify anticipated Regional
activities to  support and facilitate each State in moving toward basin management.  A
separate plan should be developed for each State  and tailored to that State's unique needs,
institutional  infrastructure, and current program status.

An action plan should  generally contain the following components:

        •      A summary of the State program asisessment, which indicates the basis for
               the selection of specific action items.

        «      A description of the specific actions to be taken by the Region to support and
               facilitate the State's basin management efforts, including the methods by
               which the actions will be implemented and evaluated.
                                            16
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
       •      A timeline for implementation of action items, including quarterly milestones
              for FY95 together with objectives for FY96 and beyond, if possible.

       •      A description of how the Regional State-specific action plan fits within the
              internal Regional watershed protection strategy.

2.2    Methodology

2.2.1          Using State Program Assessments to Get Started

Development  of Regional action plans can begin with a review of key findings  from the
assessment of each State's current watershed protection activities (described  in Section 1).
The State assessments should provide an accurate understanding of the status of the State's
watershed protection efforts, the State's  needs, and any potential impediments to a basin
management approach. This section provides guidance on how to translate State
assessments into State-specific Regional action plans.

The guidance is based upon classifying each State into one of the following  three
categories: States currently  without a BMA, States developing  a BMA, and States
implementing a BMA.  These categories  are not meant to "pigeon-hole" each State; they are
merely  a device to  help Regions begin development of action plans.

States currently without a BMA are those States that have not  developed or implemented a
BMA.   This category also  includes States which may target or implement partial watershed
protection efforts, which focuses  on a few priority watersheds/basins.

States developing a BMA are States that have initiated the development of a BMA
framework.   Under a State-wide management framework, for example, the State has begun
to: identify the roles and responsibilities of participating programs; identify long-term
programmatic and environmental goals  as well as key interim milestones; divide the entire
state into basins; and establish a methodology for issuing NPDES permits in each basin.

States implementing a BMA have developed a management framework, and  have begun to
operate under that structure. For example, the State may be implementing certain program
activities in individual basins such  as development of a monitoring strategy, development of
phased  TMDLs, issuing permits and developing nonpoint source controls.
2.2.2
Choosing Action Items  for Specific States
The State program assessment summary can be used in conjunction with the
recommendations  in Appendix A (Suggested Regional  Action Items) to help guide the
                                           17
                                                             May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessment's  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
selection of action items for each State.  This is demonstrated below through examples
categorized  by a State's watershed protection status.

       States  Currently Without a BMA

If the assessment results indicate that a State does not currently have a BMA but is very
interested in learning more about the approach and its potential benefits, the Region might
first choose to focus on some of the educational and trouble-shooting actions listed in
Appendix A under the  States Currently Without a BMA category for the various watershed
protection components.  Potential actions might include:

       •      Conducting  educational workshops and providing for transfer of information
              on watershed protection for State program staff as well as other interested
              stakeholders.

       •      Working with the State to identify and describe  areas in which program
              coordination could enhance water quality management.

       •      Helping  the State formulate goals and a strategy for moving toward basin
              management.

       «      Assisting the State in identifying  and resolving potential  impediments to
              developing  and implementing basin management.

Additional actions could include addressing barriers that might affect start-up and progress.
Examples include:                                                             •

       «      Reduction in the "overhead" burden for grants administration by helping
              coordinate and streamline State grant application and  reporting requirements.

       •      Assistance in pursuing additional financial or. technical support.

Furthermore,  for States that are able to quickly pursue development of a BMA, first year
Regional actions could include:

       «      Technical assistance  for the development of a BMA framework document
              that describes the approach and provides a long-term  reference for all
              participating programs, agencies, and the general public.

       *      Assistance to the State in the delineation of geographic management units.
                                            18
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
       •      Assistance developing a methodology for issuing NPDES permits that are
              consistent with a basin management plan; options include 1) synchronizing
              permit issuance within an overall basin management activity, or 2)  assure that
              permits are issued  in accordance with a basin management plan.

On the other hand, for States where impediments are preventing action, the Region may
choose to place more emphasis on other tasks.  For example,  the Region could focus on
identifying impediments, communicating the potential benefits of watershed protection
(particularly where it appears that State program needs can be addressed through  watershed
protection efforts), providing general education  on the watershed protection to a broad
spectrum of State staff and stakeholders, and providing technical assistance. These
activities would increase the knowledge of stakeholders and may stimulate movement
toward basin management.

       States  Developing a BMA

If a State is already developing a BMA, the Region should review the State assessment to
determine whether the direction of the State's approach addresses CWA goals and the
individual needs of the State.  If the State's  approach appears to be overlooking important
needs, or if progress  appears to be slow, the Region might consider variations of the actions
listed'above for States Currently Without a BMA.  For example,  the Region could offer
educational workshops  to review the full range  of benefits of watershed protection.  In
addition, the Region  could explore any impediments  that could be removed to expedite the
process.  A strategy could be developed to address those gaps and needs within the  State's
BMA development effort.

If the BMA is progressing well in the State, the Region could provide support to
compliment the State's efforts.  For example:

       •      Provide a forum for the State  to share  information on the development and
              implementation of basin  management (e.g., newsletter, conference  calls,
              conferences).

       •      Assist the State with the identification and recruitment of other Federal and
              State agencies to serve as partners for the BMA.

       •      Assist the State with  the development  of agreements/memoranda of
              understandings with other Federal and State agencies for the purpose  of
              supporting the State's BMA.

If the State does not have a written framework document for its approach, the Region may
be  able to support this effort.  Also, the Region may be able to assist in tailoring the State's
                                            19
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-Smte Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan 'Guidance
approach to address the problem areas noted in the assessment.  For example, if a permit
backlog exists, the following potential actions could be reviewed for their appropriateness:

       •      Assist the State with identification of the number and types of dischargers by
              basin or watershed.

       «      Assist the State in sequencing  basins/watersheds to coordinate permit
              reissuance, ensuring that for any given year the permit workload is evenly
              distributed.

       •      Help the State resolve scheduling issues associated  with synchronizing  permit
              reissuance with the basin/watershed sequence schedule.

       •      Assist the State in developing  a strategy to issue permits consistent  with  State
              basin/watershed management plans.

       •      Provide  guidance on modifying individual permits (e.g., short-term permits,
              administrative  extensions,  expedited renewal procedures, basin general
              permits) to make the transition to a basin/watershed permitting schedule.

       •      Provide  technical assistance to the State for evaluating  and assigning
              priorities to permits within a basin/watershed.  These procedures will help
              determine the  appropriate  level of effort and scrutiny that should be devoted
              to each permit.

 There are  many other options listed in Appendix A that address other components and
 issues.  Each Region  should feel free  to choose the combination of actions, including
 alternatives to those listed  in Appendix A. that is best suited to the specific State  and which
 compliments  or facilitates that State's watershed protection efforts.

       States Implementing a BMA

 States that are already implementing  a basin management approach will  be well ahead  of
 those States that have not developed  or  are just initiating basin management efforts.
 However,  there may still be opportunities for EPA. to support the State's  efforts.  The State
 may be quite aware at this point in the process of significant gaps or needs that EPA could
 help address.  The Region should review its assessment for needs that have already been
 identified, and select  actions that will address those needs.
                                             20
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
In addition, the Region could modify its operating procedures  to compliment the State
approach.  The Region could:

       •      Conduct reviews of the State programs in a manner that is consistent with the
              scope and schedule  of the State's programs and basin/watershed plans.

       •      Develop plans to reduce the "overhead" burden  to the State in administering
              grants.

       •      Negotiate a consolidated reporting format for the State to satisfy CWA
              reporting requirements.

       •      Evaluate State basin/watershed plans in a manner that is consistent with the
              State framework while ensuring that the plans support the goals and
              objectives of the CWA.

       •      Develop an assessment approach for Regional oversight  that is geographically
              targeted to measure the success of watershed protection  activities and provide
              information to the decision makers when updating basin plans.

       •      Consider developing a new inspection type which evaluates ambient
              environmental  quality in a given watershed.

Regions  may also be in a position to facilitate enhancement of State program methods and
tools to implement basin management.  For example, the Region could:

       •      Arrange for technical assistance through the Regional Environmental Support
              Division, EPA's Environmental Research  Laboratories  and the Environmental
              Monitoring and Assessment  Program (EMAP) to develop improved
              environmental  indicators and monitoring strategies.

       •      Support the development  of an automated permitting system.

       •      Assist with the development of innovative permits that use the full potential
              of basin management (e.g., pollutant trading, innovative  monitoring
              requirements, basin-wide  general permits).
2.2.3
Timelines for Implementation of Action Items
Each action plan should state the time frame for implementation of each of the Regional
action items.  While FY95 actions should be clearly indicated, Regions can show longer-
term plans, particularly where they compliment long-term BMA development strategies
                                           21
                                                            May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
established by the State.  Showing long-term plans will be helpful where multi-year efforts
are necessary to reach ultimate goals for the State.

Timelines will likely vary from State to State to account for different circumstances such as
watershed protection status, needs, State infrastructure, etc.   Schedules may specify
particular dates or may be dependent on successful completion of previous steps.  For
example, a plan may indicate that step  two is to begin within 60 days of completion of step
one, etc.  At a minimum, however, each action plan should establish quarterly milestones
forFY95.
2.2.4
Implementation  Methods, Tracking, and Evaluation
Each Region should describe the methods by which action items will be implemented.
Descriptions should include  details on how Regional staff and resources  will be deployed,
how implementation will be tracked, and how efforts will be evaluated.  Evaluation
methods should provide for  incorporation  of feedback with action  plan updates as deemed
necessary by the Region.
2.2.5
Action Plans and Internal Regionial WPA Strategies
Reaions are  encouraged to evaluate the relationship between the State-specific action plan
and the overall internal Regional watershed  protection strategy.  For instance, the action
plan could describe whether its implementation will rely on certain Regional operating
procedures.
                                            22
                                                              May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan.Guidance
 Appendix A (Suggested Regional Action Items) to Regional Guidance Document


       Regional action plans for facilitating  State  watershed protection approach (WPA)
development must be based on State program  assessments.  A separate Regional action plan
should be tailored  for each State based on the  State's status and needs to support progress in
each of the six Strategy component areas.

    The recommended action items listed below are specific tasks that can be included in a
Regional plan.  Regions should carefully consider each of these recommendations and choose
those that are most appropriate for a given State or develop others based on the results of their
State assessments.   This State-specific  approach will  lead  to a  more rapid and  effective
implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach.

  '  The  list of recommended Regional action  items  is  organized  according to  NPDES
Watershed Strategy components, with the addition of a Funding Administration  section. Within
each component area, these recommendations are grouped into three categories which describe
the status of State  watershed  programs: (1) States Without a State-wide Watershed Protection
Approach; (2) States Developing a State-wide Watershed Protection Approach; and (3) States
Implementing a State-wide Watershed Protection Approach.  Action items that are listed in an
earlier status category may be appropriate actions for States with more developed  State-wide
WPAs, as well.
State-wide Coordination

    States Without a State-wide WPA:

    •   Conduct educational  workshops for  States as well  as other stakeholders  using
        information from other States that have developed and are implementing  watershed
        protection approaches.

    •   Meet with the State to identify impediments to implementing a WPA.

    •   Identify and  describe the areas in which program coordination will enhance water
        quality management activities (e.g., development of TMDLs, NPDES permit issuance
        efficiency).
                                      App. A - 1
May 10, 1994

-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
 Suites Developing a Siaie-wide  V/FA.

 •   Provide   a  forum  to  States  to  share  information  on  the  development   and
     implementation of a WPA (e.g., newsletter, conference calls, conferences).

 •   Work with States to delineate basin boundaries and establish inter-basin priorities,
     ensuring  that wellhead protection and existing  Comprehensive State Ground Water
     Protection Program (CSGWPPs) priorities are considered  in the decision making
     process.  Where appropriate, utilize existing analysis reflected  in the 319, 303(d),
     303(e), Clean Lakes, NEP,  and NPDES  programs.

 «   Assist States with  the  identification  of stakeholders in basins (NEPs  may be of
     assistance in coastal areas).

 •   Assist States with the development of agreements/memoranda of understandings  with
     other Federal and State  agencies for the purpose of supporting the State's watershed
     protection approach.

 •   Provide technical assistance for the development of a State-wide watershed protection
     approach framework document; such a document includes a program description for
     all participating programs, agencies, and the general public.

 •   Assist States with the identification and recruitment  of other agencies  to serve as
     partners for  the State-wide  basin management framework.

 «   Identify the mechanisms  developed to implement the State WPA (e.g., policies,
     regulations).

 •   Describe  the  process  for  involving  Federal  agencies,  Indian tribes,  and  local
     governments.

 States Implementing a State-wide WPA:

 •   Conduct  reviews of State programs which take into account the scope and schedule
     of State's programs and basin plans to the extent possible.
                                    App. A - 2
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
NPDES  Permits

    States Without a State-wide  WPA:

   •     Work with States to identify the number and types of dischargers  in each basin.

   •     Work with States to sequence basins, ensuring that  the permit workload is evenly
         distributed in any given year.

    •    Work with States on scheduling issues associated with synchronizing permits by basin,
         or on issues associated with permit issuance under the basin management plan.

    •    Provide guidance on mechanisms and approaches  for modifying  individual  permits
         (e.g., short-term permits, administrative extensions,  expedited  renewal procedures,
         basin general permits).

    States Developing a State-wide WPA:

     •    Assist States in developing a strategy that defines the criteria and approach for issuing
         permits consistent with the basin plan.

     •    Provide technical assistance to States for evaluating and assigning priorities to permits
         within a basin.  These procedures will help determine the appropriate level of effort
         and  scrutiny that should be devoted to each permit.

     •   Support  States  in  assuring that Best Management Practices (BMP) established  in
         NPDES  permits are designed to prevent contamination of the State's priority ground
         water.

     States Implementing a  State-wide WPA:

     •    Support the development of automated permitting systems.

     •    Assist with the development  of innovative permits that use the full potential of the
          basin-wide approach (e.g., trading, monitoring, pollution prevention and conservation,
          basin-wide general permits).

     •    Expand public notification to include information on permits in the basin plan.
                                         APD. A - 3
                                                                             May 10.  1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan-Guidance
Monitoring and Assessment

    States  Without a State-wide WPA:

    •   Help to develop a State-wide monitoring strategy involving State resources, discharger
        monitoring  consortiums,  and other Federal  agencies.  Assist with negotiations  for
        shared monitoring resources.

    •   Assist  with the  development  of assessment methods  (consider  biological  and
        ecological criteria)  and  record  keeping  for  targeting  and  ranking water  quality
        problems.  When assessing the status of a watershed, surface  water, ground water,
        coastal  waters, wetlands,  sediments,  and habitat  are  all  factors  that  should  be
        considered.  The assessment of the watershed should  determine if the  waters  are
        meeting their  designated  use,  and  also  provide  information  on critical  areas,
        endangered species  habitats, and areas needing special protection.

    •   Identify how NPDES ambient monitoring  can be incorporated with other monitoring
        efforts.

    States  Developing a State-wide WPA:

    •   Permits will contain ambient monitoring requirements as appropriate to support  the
        basin monitoring plan.

    •   Support upgrades  of  information  management  systems,   especially  the  use  of
        geographic information  analysis  systems which facilitate analysis  and  display  of
        environmental  information in a geographic format.

    •   Help to refine and consolidate the monitoring objectives and reports  of the CWA
        programs requiring monitoring resources (e.g., 305(b), 303 (e), CSGWPPs) to promote
        the targeting and ranking objectives of the watershed approach.

    •   Work with States to develop  a State monitoring strategy that allows  regions to fulfill
        cross program requirements through  a  single integrated monitoring  system (e.g.,
        stormwater,  319, TMDL, drinking water.)

    States Implementing a State-wide WPA:

    •   Provide technical  assistance  to  develop  improved environmental  indicators  and
        monitoring strategies.
                                        App. A - 4
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State  Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan. Guidance
    •   Provide support for the development of a citizen/volunteer monitoring  program

    »   Participate in basin water quality assessments and contribute to targeting and ranking
        of environmental issues.

    •   Design pollution prevention and restoration programs relying, where appropriate, on
        total maximum daily  loads  or permits  to address  impaired ecosystems.   Design
        monitoring programs to gather additional  data to allow program and project design.
Program Measures and Environmental Indicators

    States Without a State-wide WPA:

    •   Identify areas of flexibility with existing program measures.

    States Developing a State-wide WPA:

    •   Negotiate  a consolidated reporting format  for the State  to  satisfy  CWA reporting
        requirements.

    •   Establish   tracking  measures  to  monitor  implementation  schedule  for  various
        components  of the Watershed Protection  Approach  including:    delineation and
        sequencing of basins, rescheduling of NPDES permits,  development of a State-wide
        framework document.

    •   Establish  key  environmental indicators that will be used by State to measure progress
        toward achievement of both CWA and local goals and  environmental objectives.

    States Implementing a State-wide  WPA:

    •   Evaluate  State basin plans in a manner  that  is consistent with each State's watershed
        framework and also ensure that the  plans  support the goals and objectives of the
        CWA.

    •   Develop a strategy to use basin plans to implement phased TMDLs  in all States.

    •   Develop an assessment  approach for regional oversight that is geographically targeted
        which  measures  the  success  of watershed  protection  activities  and  provides
        information to the decision makers when updating basin plans.

    •   Encourage the development of innovative environmental indicators for each basin.
                                       App. A - 5
May 10, 1994

-------
   State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Public Participation

    States Without a State-wide  WPA:

    •   Identify and develop more efficient means of notifying the public.

    States Developing a State-wide  WPA:

    •   Promote  outreach  to  educate the  public  about  the  NPDES  program  and the
        components  of the WPA.  Provide training on the inter-relationship  between habitat
        protection, ground water contamination,  drinking water source protection, nonpoint
        source impairment,  and  the point  source  program.

    •   Work with the State to establish  a forum in which the public can  help to identify
        water quality problems and establish goals for the preservation of high quality waters.

    States Implementing a State-wide WPA:

    •   Encourage State linkages with local land  use planning authorities to facilitate the use
        of water quality information  in the planning process (e.g. EPA Region IX North Bay
        Initiative).                              \ .

    •   Ensure that basin plans are written as educational documents that can be read by the
        lay public and which promote environmental  stewardship in the basin.

    •   Target water quality standards hearings to watersheds.


Enforcement

    States Without a State-wide  WPA:

    •   To supplement the current information on major facilities, conduct  an  inventory of
        each priority watershed, as necessary, using traditional enforcement  authorities (e.g.
        308 letters or inspections) to identify minor facilities which will be required to have
        a permit.
                                       App. A •• 6
May 10, 1994

-------
  State-by-State, Watershed Protection Assessments  and Regional Action Plan Guidance
    Slates Developing  a Stale-wide V/PA.

    •   Use enforcement to correct  violations at  facilities  which are causing the greatest
        degradation of a basin.

    •   Assist State in developing a State inspection strategy to support WPA.  The Regions
        and States  should develop criteria to evaluate which facilities should be inspected in
        a given year.

    States Implementing a State-wide  WPA:

    •   For majors and minors in priority watersheds, focus attention during report reviews
        and compliance screening on the completeness of  the ambient  quality information
        submitted by the permittee, as required by the permit.

    •   Use PCS to track loadings of pollutants in priority watersheds.
Funding Administration

    States  Without a State-wide WPA:

    •   Conduct  an assessment  of the funding  sources.   Develop plans  to  reduce the
        "overhead"  burden to States in administering grants.

    States  Developing a State-wide WPA:

    •   Utilize flexible authorities to support the WPA.

    States  Implementing a State-wide H'PA:

    •   Determine if basin ranking and priority setting criteria are effectively administered and
        allow for focusing the appropriate level of program resources to remediate the highest
        risk environmental problems.
                                        ADD. A - 7
May 10, 1994

-------
                                 ATTACHMENT  B

    Region 10 Assessment of Watershed  Protection Activities in Idaho

                              Amended April 26, 1994


INTRODUCTION

EPA Region 10 completed an assessment  of existing watershed protection activities in the
State of Idaho.  The purpose of the assessment was to establish a strong foundation for
developing a Region 10 action plan to efficiently and effectively support Idaho's
development and implementation of a State-wide watershed protection approach (WPA).
The Region has entered into a memorandum of understanding  (MOU) with  the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to indicate
their mutual intent to develop a State-wide WPA.  Idaho is a non-authorized State and,
therefore,  cooperation between Region 10 and DEQ is essential for integration of program
components such as NPDES permitting and enforcement.

The Region's decision  to perform the assessment coincided with EPA Office of Water's
distribution of draft guidance supporting implementation  of the NPDES Watershed Strategy.
The Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch of Region 10 was already planning
a workshop to begin addressing a few issues regarding Idaho's proposed WPA.  The
purpose of the workshop was expanded to incorporate a trial application of the draft
guidance on performing State assessments and developing Regional action plans. Use of
the guidance effectively increased the scope of the Region's review and provided a
mechanism  for coordinating  their review and planning process.

A workshop was held on March 21-23. 1994.   A total of sixteen Region 10 staff
participated in one or more aspects of the workshop,  including representatives from the
Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch, Surface Water Branch(SWB)/Water
Quality Section,  SWB/Watershed  Section.  Environmental Sciences Division/Water
Monitoring, Planning and Outreach, and the Ground Water/Drinking Water program.  The
assessment was largely completed on the  afternoon of the first day by dividing the
participants into two groups; one group assessed the NPDES Permitting, Monitoring and
Environmental Assessment, and Enforcement  components, while the other assessed the
State-wide Coordination, Program Measures and Environmental Indicators,  and Public
Participation components. A conference call with representatives from Idaho DEQ was
used to fill information gaps early on the second day of the workshop. The Region had
prioritized the issues and needs revealed through the assessment by the middle of the
second day, and the remainder of that day and the next morning were spent developing  a
preliminary action plan.

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
The following sections document the results of the assessment.  Some areas of the
assessment responses are limited due to the dynamic status of the Idaho WPA initiative
(he., the approach is still being defined), and the short notice prior to the workshop which
limited the number of staff that were able to attend.  The Region did, however,  successfully
use the assessment  to identify issues, needs, and impediments that can be addressed through
a Regional action plan to support WPA development for the State of Idaho.
                                          -2-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
                               Assessment Results
I.      STATE-WIDE COORDINATION.

A.     Identify all departments within the State that oversee components  of the water
       program.

       The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality oversees most aspects of the water
       quality program.  However, there are other agencies with water related programs and
       many  other natural resource agencies participating  in the Idaho  WPA.  The draft
       Watershed Approach Framework Document: (DEQ, March 1994) identifies eighty
       related natural resource agencies at the Federal, State, Interstate/International, and
       local level.

B.     Is the State implementing, developing, or considering a State-wide WPA?

    '   Yes

       1.     If yes, then:

             a.     Describe the status of the effort, including when it began, its
                    progress to date, and when the WPA is expected to be completely
                    implemented.

       Idaho  DEQ has had individual watershed initiatives for  several years.  DEQ has
       been working on a comprehensive WPA for approximately a year.  Idaho DEQ has
       produced a discussion  draft of its Watershed Approach Framework Document.  The
       draft framework is currently being reviewed internally within DEQ and by some of
       the participating agencies. The review comments will be considered and a final
       framework document  should be completed by June 1994.

       A schedule  or sequence for producing watershed/basin plans has not been
       determined.  However, DEQ is do eloping plans for approximately five watersheds.
       These watersheds were selected because DEQ was already conducting watershed
       scale projects at these  locations.  It is  not clear how or whether DEQ Regional
       offices will determine  a sequence  for development of watershed plans.  The DEQ
       Regional offices have  not considered a five-year cycle as a component of their
       watershed approach.   Their current understanding is that the  watershed plans are a
       one time assessment.   The sequencing and basin cycle component of the Idaho WPA
       framework has not been defined in their framework document.  Therefore, is not
       clear that DEQ is proposing a comprehensive  long-term management framework as
       part of its WPA.  Many of the undefined elements of the DEQ  WPA (including
       scheduling and sequencing) will be determined at watershed  convening workshops.
                                        -3-

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
              b.     How has the State defined "WPA" (i.e., discuss whether the
                    State's interpretation includes State-wide coordination of baseline
                    water management activities or whether efforts are confined  to a
                    limited number of "targeted" watersheds)?

       The Idaho DEQ watershed approach is a comprehensive  natural resource
       management program that divides the watershed planning process into  four phases:
       preliminary, planning, implementation, and evaluation.  The State is divided into six
       Regions (roughly along basin lines), and the Regions  will have oversight of
       watershed protection activities for their jurisdictions.  The proposed DEQ WPA
       framework requires close coordination and integration of water quality  program •
       activities through geographic  targeting.  However,  it is unclear how this objective
       will be achieved without a comprehensive schedule for sequencing basins and.
       watersheds.  All basins  and watersheds will be evaluated. However, a  basin cycle
       has not been defined and it is unclear whether the  proposed approach is an iterative
       long-term management  framework.   State and Federal agencies/programs will be
       coordinated through a memorandum of understanding  which defines a general
       commitment to the approach.

              c.     What are the  main goals and program  components of the State's
                    WPA  (e.g., include a description of any methods that are  wised to
                    assign priorities to management efforts)?

       Idaho's main goals are  as follows (from March 1994  draft framework document):

          •    Convert from many specific programs to comprehensive problem solving;

          •    Fully implement an integrated approach to  ground and surface water quality
              assessment and management  through regulation and physical, chemical,
              biological, and habitat monitoring, that provides a sound scientific basis for
              problem solving;

          •    Improve efficiency and effectiveness in use of resources and improve
              consistency in decision-making through coordination of activities with  others;

          •    Encourage local public involvement in identifying and prioritizing
              watersheds, and obtaining input  in the goal  setting and decision-making
              processes to address point and nonpoint source pollution concerns;

          •   Develop comprehensive watershed  management plans that effectively
              communicate to the public and policy makers the rationale, approach and
              long-term  strategies for water quality problem solving, and pollution
              prevention; and
                                           -4-

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26. 1994
         •    Consolidate various State and Federal assessment  and reporting requirements
              into a single watershed management plan to improve efficiency in resource
              utilization.            ,^         &• \

       The baseline  water program components  within DEQ wil! be incorporated into the
       watershed approach.  These components  include:  monitoring, standards, assessment,
       permitting (non-discharge), ground water, drinking water, etc	  However, the
       recruitment of water program components from other agencies has only recently
       been initiated. It is not clear how many  of the program components will be actively
       involved and coordinated.   Those water program and other resource management
       components being recruited include:  fish and wildlife, water resources, agriculture,
       forest practices, mining.  In addition many of the program components within DEQ
       can be complemented  and enhanced.

       Public involvement  and empowerment  is a. key goal of the Idaho WPA initiative.
       DEQ  believes that incorporating the public  into a stewardship  role for the State's
       water resources will create grassroots support for their program.  DEQ's goal is  to
       translate  this public support into an increase in the commitment of resources from
       the legislature for implementation of watershed plans.

       The Citizens  Watershed Taskforces  (CWTFs) will play a significant role in advising
       Regional Administrators for watershed  planning within the Regions.

              d.    What potential benefits/incentives  have been identified for moving
                    to a WPA?

       Idaho wants to create  a single mechanism to bring all affected parties together and
       develop integrated solutions to water quality problems, particularly those  involved in
       nonpoint source pollution  control.  Their rationale for the watershed approach is
       described in terms of the three "E's":   Efficiency  in conducting programs,
       Effectiveness in solving problems, and Empowerment of local interests.

              e.     What impediments or gaps have been identified that might impede
                    or affect WPA efforts?

         •    No coordination plan exists for  Region 10 NPDES permitting activities and
              DEQ watershed planning activities.  Without coordination of these activities,
              comprehensive assessment of loadings will be inhibited and coordination  of
              control strategies will be limited.

         •    The Federal grant process including application, accounting,  and reporting
              requirements will need to be revised to be consistent with DEQ's watershed
              management approach.

         •    Federal reporting and listing requirements  may impede use of watershed  plans
              to fulfill Federal mandates.
                                          -5-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
         •   There is no strategic Monitoring Plan to define an ambient network and
             address special, (watershed) study needs that could be addressed through
             coordinated efforts.

         •   It will be difficult to manage or plan for workload requirements without a
             basin management cycle or defined sequence for watersheds.

         •   The lack of a data management  system, including hardware, software, or QA
             procedures  restricts the use of environmental information in conducting   .
             assessments and setting priorities.

         •   The draft Idaho WPA document does not define  a coordination role for
             DEQ's central office  in Boise.  It is not clear how issues of consistency and
             resource allocation across Regions will be handled.

C.     Describe any Region/State  WPA partnership that has already  been established.
       Be sure to address the following:

       1.     Scope of the relationship (e.g., EPA/State roles, program components,
             purpose, agenda, etc.).

       Region 10 is the NPDES permitting authority for Idaho. In addition Region 10 and
       Idaho DEQ have signed a memorandum of understanding (Attachment 1) forming a
       partnership  for development and implementation of a WPA for Idaho. The role of
       Region 10's NPDES permitting team within the Idaho WPA has not been defined.

       2.     Type and  breadth of WPA training that has been provided to Regional
             and State  staff.

       Region 10 has provided contractor assistance to conduct WPA educational
     "  workshops (2 for  DEQ and 2 for Region 10 staff) and facilitation of consensus
       positions between Idaho DEQ and  Region 10.

       3.     Mechanisms that are used to administer coordination efforts  (e.g.,
             explain how MOUs,  MOAs, §106 work plans, or other  mechanisms are
             used).

       A memorandum of understanding was entered into by Idaho DEQ and Region 10
       (see item C.I above).

       4.    Progress and status  of WPA efforts.

       Idaho DEQ has produced a preliminary draft WPA framework document that is
       currently being reviewed within DEQ and EPA Region 10.  Region 10 is currently
       developing the NPDES component of the WPA for inclusion in the Idaho WPA
       framework.  Region 10 and DEQ are working to strengthen the WPA partnership.
                                         -6-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
       Region 10 has established a work group to develop  a grant process that is more
       consistent and supportive of the WPA. Region 10 has appointed staff to coordinate
       the WPA partnership and framework development process (i.e., Paula  vanHaagen).
       Idaho  DEQ has five watershed scale projects that will be the first five in  the
       sequence of watersheds State-wide.

       5.     Program gaps or needs that have been identified and whether  they are
             being  addressed.

       Impediments and gaps were identified in B.l.e. above.  Limited discussion has
       occurred to date between Idaho and Region 10 regarding needs stemming from these
       issues.

E.     List ways that the State water program is working with other State and Federal
       authorities (e.g., BLM, USFS, NEPs, SCS,, USGS) regarding watershed
       protection.

       The draft DEQ WPA framework document lists  several agencies that will have a
       role.  However, DEQ has not contacted these agencies  to define a specific
       commitment or role in the  WPA. DEQ will be contacting Federal agencies and
       tribes  following the internal review of the draft framework document.  In the current
       framework  document any of a number of listed agencies  could take the lead •
       coordinating and planning role in a particular basin.  The lead role will be assigned
       as a function  of the watershed convening  workshops and will be contingent on
       citizen objectives, land ownership, and the problems and concerns identified for the
       watershed.

F.     Describe the level of coordination that occurs with local planning authorities
       regarding watershed protection, and include descriptions of mandates or State
       regulations that make coordination possible.

       Local  planning authorities .will be encouraged to participate on agency planning
       teams  that will support the WAGs.  Agency planning teams will remain in place
       throughout  the planning and  implementation phases to  provide technical assistance
       and to help ensure that watershed plan implementation occurs  on schedule.

G.     Describe any efforts that  are made to assign priorities to management needs
       and resource  allocations across multiple programs  or agencies based  on
       environmental assessments.

       Specific procedures or criteria for assigning priorities have not be clearly established.
       The approach described in the draft framework document seems to rely on citizen
       advisory groups almost exclusively  to set priorities. The framework document does
       not include any specific procedures or criteria for sequencing or priority setting
       criteria.  There are concerns  that the current approach will aggravate resource and
                                         -7-

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
       workload planning problems.  It is not clear how environmental information will be
       used by the CWTF to set priorities.

H.     Describe the current level of coordination  regarding grants administration
       activities for State programs operating under Federal  grants.  Include a
       discussion of any State interest in coordinating grants application and
       reporting.

       Region 10 will be addressing this issue in the near future. Currently the Region has
       a mandate to be  as flexible as possible in issuing grants in a manner that is
       supportive and consistent of State work plans that have a WPA component.

Regional  Assessment for State-wide Coordination Component

       Points to Build-On

         •    Idaho DEQ is actively developing a State-wide framework to coordinate
              water quality management agencies at the Federal, State, and local level.

         •    An MOU exists between Region 10 and Idaho DEQ that lays the foundation
              for a WPA partnership.
              It will be difficult to manage or plan for workload requirements without a
              basin management cycle or defined sequence for watersheds.  Many of the
              benefits associated with State-wide basin management may be lost without a
              stronger coordinating mechanism and schedule.

              The draft Idaho WPA document does not define a coordination  role for
              DEQ's central office in Boise.  It is not clear how issues of consistency and
              resource allocation across  Regions will be handled. Other stakeholders need
              to know what DEQ's role will be to support the WPA process,  and how they
              can coordinate their efforts with DEQ State-wide.

              It is not clear what level of authority watershed plans will carry (i.e., what
              activities they will direct).

              Who will coordinate multi-stakeholder  efforts? The framework document
              indicates that DEQ will potentially relinquish responsibility for overseeing
              water quality management  to other agencies. Clear lines of accountability
              need to be established.

              There is no strategic Monitoring Plan to define an ambient network and
              address special (watershed) study needs that could be addressed through
              coordinated efforts.
                                           -8-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
         •   The lack of a data management system,  including hardware, software, or QA
             procedures restricts the use of environmental information in conducting
             assessments and setting'priorities.

       Areas Requiring  Coordination

         •   The Idaho framework needs to incorporate Region 10 NPDES permitting
             activities.  Without coordination of these activities, comprehensive  assessment
             of loadings will be inhibited and coordination of control strategies will be
             limited.

         •   The Federal grant process including application, accounting, and reporting
             requirements will need to be revised to be consistent  with DEQ's watershed
             management approach.

       Existing or Potential Barriers

         •   Federal reporting and listing requirements may impede  use of watershed plans
             to fulfill Federal mandates.
II.     NPDES PERMITS.

A.     Identify the agency that oversees permitting activities.

       EPA Region 10 oversees the issuance of NPDES permits and the Idaho DEQ
       Regions issue 401 Water Quality certifications.  DEQ is also responsible for non-
       NPDES permitting.

B.  •  Explain the organization  and operation of the State permitting program.  Be
       sure to address  the following:

       1.      Central Office versus Regional Office responsibilities.

       EPA Region 10 Central Office staff in Seattle, WA are responsible  for drafting and
       issuing NPDES permits for Idaho.  The EPA Operations  Office in Boise, ID
       frequently helps  draft the permits.  Each permit writer prepares, in most cases,
       wasteload allocations, permit limitations and conditions, and public  notices.  The
       Region's Environmental Services  Division (ESD) assists  permit writers  by providing
       monitoring data and TMDLs for water quality limited parameters.  TMDLs for
       nutrients are sometimes generated by Idaho DEQ. Regional DEQ offices issue State
       401 certifications, while DEQ central office supplies staff and resources.

       2.      Methods  for conveying receiving water quality information between
              monitoring and assessment programs and permit writers.
                                          -9-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
       EPA permit writers receive information from several sources including the permitted
       facility, USGS, DEQ, -USFWS, NMFS, and other State resource agencies. Data
       collection is performed on an ad hoc basis rather than through a centralized
       information management system.

C.     Describe any efforts the State has made to operate its NPDES permit program
       as part of a State-wide WPA.

       1.    Indicate the status of the WPA (e.g., implementing, developing, or none)
             and describe program goals and components.

       Idaho is in the process of developing a WPA. Permitting is among many
       components that are being considered for the approach.  However, no details for
       integrating NPDES permitting have been worked out with Region  10.  Idaho DEQ
       has not yet determined how non-NPDES  permitting will be handled within the
       WPA.

       2.    If the State is  implementing or developing a watershed permitting
             approach, what is the length of time until the program is fully
             implemented and operational?

       Idaho has not clarified the implementation period for its WPA.  They anticipate that
       it will take a minimum of five years to have plans developed for all watersheds
       across the State.  Their current framework document indicates that permits would be
       issued during the first two years of the management cycle for each basin; however,
       this has not been agreed to by Region  10 and there are logistical problems with the
       State's proposed approach such as permits being issued before watershed plans are
       finalized, permit writing workloads appearing unbalanced from year to year, and
       whether sufficient resources will be available to issue  all the permits  in a particular
       watershed.

 D     Is permit reissuance  coordinated  on a  geographic unit basis (i.e.,  are permits
       within the same watershed or subbasin handled at the same time)?  If yes, then
       describe the following:

       Idaho would like for Region 10 to issue  permits in conjunction with the State's
       WPA.

       1.     Delineation of geographic units.

       Idaho is using a three-tiered strategy (basin, watershed,  and sub-watershed) to
       delineate geographic management units.  Idaho's basins, which coincide with USGS
       subregional  boundaries, were established in 1990 under the Nutrient  Management
       Act.  Watersheds are the second level of delineation and will serve as the primary
       management units.  Each DEQ Regional office is submitting proposed  delineations
       to the central office, with the USGS hydrologic unit code (HUC) designations being
                                         - 10-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
                                                                        April 26, 1994
       the preferred basis for delineation.  Sub-watersheds compose a third level of
       delineation for purposes of site specific situations.  Delineations will be streamlined
       and finalized after feedback is received through public watershed meetings.

       2.     Efforts to consolidate public notices by geographic unit.

       None to date.  However, EPA Region  10 is supportive of this idea  and will work to
       incorporate it within the approach.

       3.     Efforts to consolidate public meetings/hearings on permits within the
             same geographic unit.

       None to date.  However, EPA Region  10 is supportive of this idea  and will work to
       incorporate it within the approach.

       The following program resources information may help  Regions determine the
       adequacy of funding and staff when  assessing program quality:
E.
F.
       1.     What level of effort is devoted to ithe permitting program (e.g., FTEs,
             funding, other)?

       Region 10 Central Office currently employs approximately  16 FTEs within its
       technical  staff (i.e., not including managers and secretarial) to handle Federal facility
       permitting throughout the Region, NPDES permitting of majors in Alaska and Idaho,
       sludge program, pretreatment program, storrnwater program, and watershed planning
       support.   Approximately 4 of those FTEs are assigned to Idaho NPDES permitting.

       2.     What is the permit-to-staff ratio?

       There are approximately 18 major NPDES permits for every permit writer.
      3.
             What portion of program funding is currently made up of permit fees?

       EPA does not currently receive permit fees,

       Regions should assess the quality of the existing program to determine potential
       areas of improvement.  Such an assessment  may include the following activities:

       1.     Describe the thoroughness of State reviews  for the necessity of water
             quality-based effluent limitations (e.g., the percentage of discharges to
             impaired or threatened waters that receive  water quality-based limits,
             and  the scope of WLA analyses—which  parameters of concern the State
             is able to cover).
                                        - 11 -

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
      The permits that are being issued by EPA Region 10 have water quality-based limits
      (WQBLs) and human -health-based limits where applicable; however, information
      may not always be available to permit writers to address all parameters of concern.

      2.     Describe the strength  of basis for water quality-based limitations (e.g.,
             does the State use TMDLs that are based on adequate field data, or do
             they mostly rely on desktop/default assumption methods?).

      Most WQBLs are based on desktop modeling analyses.  Occasionally, EPA bases
      limits on field-calibrated models.

      3.     How does  the State use the general permit mechanism to reduce
             workload for de minimis discharges?  (If the State  is developing  or
             implementing a WPA, describe any efforts regarding  basin-wide  or
             watershed general permits.)

      EPA Region  10 uses some general permits (e.g., for concentrated animal feedlot
      operations)  and are supportive of the idea of watershed general  permits.

      4.     Determine whether the State assigns priorities for  permit issuance and, if
             so, describe the prioritization  criteria.

      EPA Region  10 currently prioritizes permit issuance by such factors as:  length of
      time expired;  whether the receiving waterbody is on the 303(d) list; whether the
      application  is for a new source; and known State priorities.


G.    Examine program operations  for productivity improvements that could occur
       through a more coordinated State-wide WPA permitting approach.

       1.     What is the current level of permit backlog for the State? Is there a
             trend? (i.e., is the backlog increasing or decreasing?)

       The backlog  is approximately 25 percent and growing.  Growth in backlog  is
       primarily due to the complexity of permits and prolonged permit negotiations.  In
       addition, the  Regional Permitting  Program has had to handle additional Federal
       mandates (e.g., sludge, stormwater. and watershed  planning) without corresponding
       increases hi staffing.

       2.     How  automated is the State permitting program?  Are permits  stored in
              a computer database that allows for quick editing and permit template
              development?

       EPA Region  10 is developing computerized "shells"  for boiler  plate language using
       the NPDES Tool-Kit software.
                                         - 12-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, [994
       3.      Explain any procedures that are used to prioritize and differentiate
              permit program activities based on environmental priorities (include
              whether levels of effort change according to these priorities).

       The Region does not have a formal system for assigning priorities on a continuous
       basis.  On an annual basis, however, the Region assigns priorities based on best
       professional judgment.  Data are input to a spreadsheet and permits are prioritized
       based on the following criteria:  whether title permit is expired; whether the permit is
       for a new source; whether the facility is located  in a priority watershed; the TMDL
       status (e.g.,  none, developing,  or implementing); whether the permit needs to be
       issued  with  data collection requirements; and miscellaneous factors based on staff
       knowledge of the proposed facility.
Regional Assessment  for NPDES Permits Component

       Points to Build-On

         •   High quality permits are being generated  by the Region that include water
             quality-based  limits.
       Issues
              The manner in which monitoring data and other related background
              information is conveyed to permit writers is not as well organized as it
              should be. The ad hoc manner in v/hich information is relayed reduces
              confidence in the quality of the information.  Development of a State-wide
              strategic monitoring plan and information management system could address
              this problem.

              The Region's permitting program tends to get bogged down in negotiations
              with the permittee.  Improved assessments and the production of watershed
              plans through the WPA  ma>  provide a stronger basis for permit limitations
              and reduce grounds for permittee objections.

              The working relationship between the Region and DEQ's permitting program
              is strained, appearing to be more of an adversarial relationship than a
              partnership.  The WPA offers a framework for greater coordination and
              support.

              Resource limitations affect productivity and will inhibit the Region's capacity
              to permit priority minor facilities in addition to major NPDES facilities in the
              State of Idaho.
                                         - 13 -

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
       Areas Requiring Coordination

         •   A permit issuance schedule that is synchronized with the State's watershed
             sequence needs to be jointly developed.  The current schedule depicted in the
             draft framework document does not consider EPA workloads and  schedules.

         •   Collection and transfer of information to support permit development needs
             to be performed using a quality assured system which addresses the needs  of
             Idaho and Region 10.

         •   Region 10 NPDES permit priorities need to be reconciled with State
             watershed protection priorities.

       Existing or Potential Barriers

         •   Workload demands in certain years may exceed Regional capabilities unless
             the watershed sequence and management cycle are set with workload balance
             in mind.

         •   Overall program resources (i.e., combined State and Federal agency) may not
             be large enough to support the  State's  vision of simultaneous permitting
             activities in all watersheds across the State.

         •   Lawsuits and Federal initiatives have driven priorities for TMDL
             development and NPDES permit  issuance.  This may pose a problem if these
             priorities do not match those that will be produced by the State's  WPA.
III.    MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT.

A.     Identify the  agency(ies) overseeing monitoring and assessment.

       There is not a single agency for overseeing monitoring  and assessment.
       Responsibilities are scattered across several agencies including USGS, USFWS,
       NMFS, USEPA, and Idaho DEQ.

B.     Describe the responsibilities of the agencies and programs involved in
       monitoring and assessment (be sure to distinguish between central office and
       Regional office roles).

       For DEQ, each Region  does their own monitoring. Primary focus has been on
       specific projects such as §319 NFS projects and nutrient management plan projects.
       There currently is not a fixed ambient network  for monitoring the status of the
       State's waters over time.  Regional staff use their monitoring data and that from
                                         - 14-

-------
Region JO Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
       other agencies (e.g., USGS, USFS, NMFS) to make assessments and prepare 305(b)
       reports.

C.     Describe any efforts to establish a State-Wide monitoring strategy.  Be sure to
       address the following:

       1.     The objectives of the strategy (what purposes  does it support, e.g., 305(b)
             reporting, 303(d) waterbody prioriitization and TMDL development,
             problem identification, management program  performance, etc.).

       There is no State-wide strategy, except for the CWA §319 plan. Each Region
       submits  their own §303(d) list and 305(b) reports. However, DEQ indicates that
       they are meeting with representatives, of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
       and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to develop a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
       that will address a strategic monitoring plan.

       2.     Identify and describe components (e.g., physio-chemical, biological,
             habitat, point source effluent, nonpoint source, storm water, etc.).
             Indicate how strong the  State program is for each component (e.g., FTEs,
             types of expertise and capabilities).

       DEQ devotes approximately 12.5 FTEs from its own staff to monitoring activities,
       which largely cover physical/chemical monitoring and assessment needs in  the
       Regions.  Most staff are assigned to specific projects, §319 and some point source.
       DEQ is also using reconnaissance teams to perform rapid bioassessments.  This year
       they will employ 6  three-person (college level of knowledge) teams to perform use
       attainability  studies for many of the State's unclassified streams (estimated  to be
       around 1600 streams).  These teams will also determine current stream water quality
       status and identify problems.^

       3.     Explain whether the strategy is coordinated around a watershed
             approach  (e.g., sequenced  State-wide by basin, targeted in selected
             priority watersheds).

       Current  efforts are coordinated around a watershed approach for specific, targeted
       watersheds.  The proposed  State-wide WPA would expand efforts to the State-wide
       level, but priorities  and coordination will occur  at the Regional level.

       4.     How are data collected (at fixed stations sampled  frequently  over time;
             site-specific stations that change as needed to perform assessments;
             combination of fixed and ad hoc stations—the  answer to this question
             will probably be tied to  objectives and components)?

       DEQ has a limited  number of fixed monitoring  stations.  Current efforts are focused
       on intensive use attainability and stream status studies. "
                                         - 15-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
                                                                      April 26, 1994
             a.
                   How are these decisions made (include descriptions of any
                   priority-based  systems that are used)?
      DEO Regions assign priorities to fill information gaps.

             b.

      Not known.

      5.
                   How frequently is the sampling plan updated to reflect changing
                   needs and priorities?
             Who performs the monitoring (e.g., State program, other State and
             Federal agencies, citizen voluntary groups, NPDES dischargers,
             consortiums)?

      USGS, University of Idaho, Water Resources Institute.

      6.     Identify any  written documents  that describe  the monitoring strategy.

      None currently available. The description of monitoring programs in the draft
      framework document is indeterminate. The DEQ/BLM/USFS MOA which is in
      preparation may include a written description.

D.    How are monitoring data  assessed?

      1.     For what purposes  (e.g., 305(b)  reporting, 303(d) listing, TMDL model
             development, problem identification)?

      Same  as listed in parenthetic examples.

      2.     Identify and  describe types of assessment tools and techniques used by
             the State (e.g., statistical techniques, models, CIS). Address the level of
             the State's capabilities in each of these areas.

      The assessment tools used by the DEQ are very limited.  Models are rarely used,
      and the Water Quality Program has largely been unable to use  the State's GIS
      capability. Region must often fill in gaps.

      3.     Describe the methods  used to document assessments  (e.g., individually by
             program, collectively in reports, basin plans).

      DEQ uses 305(b) reports developed by the Regions to document their assessments.

      4.     What  is the  status of information management  capabilities to  support
             comprehensive assessments?
                                        - 16-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 199-1
       Capabilities are very limited.  They are placing their use attainability information
       obtained from the rapid reconnaissance  teams in a spreadsheet database. DEQ is not
       able to get information into the Waterbody System or STORET.

E.     What is the level of effort being devoted to monitoring and assessment activities
       (FTEs, funding, other)?

       See answer to C.2.

F.     Productivity:  Describe the average annual level of coverage by the State
       programs including percentage of waters covered, scope of parameter coverage,
       and frequency  of sampling.  (For example, the State is able to monitor 25% of
       its surface waters for standard  physical/chemical parameters on a quarterly
       basis; heavy  metals are sampled in  15% of the State's waters and 5% of the
       sediments once per year.)

       Not specifically known since monitoring is performed by Regions and not tracked in
       central information databases. However, the scope of coverage appears very limited.

Regional Assessment for Monitoring and Assessment  Component

       Points to Build-On

         •   The monitoring program  MOA being developed with BLM and USFS could
             be expanded into a State-wide  monitoring  strategy that coordinates all
             monitoring activities.

         •   DEQ has expressed an interest in using the Waterbody System for
             maintenance  of pertinent  monitoring and assessment information.
       Issues
             The scope and coverage of monitoring and assessment activities in Idaho are
             not very comprehensive, which will limit problem identification and priority
             setting capabilities in the WPA.

             Monitoring and assessment protocols and results vary substantially  from
             Region to Region in Idaho, which makes comparison and State-wide
             assessment difficult and places quality assurance in question.

             State expertise is somewhat  diluted by being spread out in the Regions;
             certain staff strengths are needed  State-wide, but are currently restricted to
             the Region in which the staff person resides.

             The State lacks an effective  information management system.  Water quality
             data are not being entered into STORET, nor are assessment data being
                                         - 17-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment_
                                                                       April 26,  1994
             electronically stored (i.e., in the Waterbody System or an equivalent
             database).  This makes sharing of information among stakeholders very
             cumbersome and difficult, and places into question the quality and
             representativeness of information that can be obtained.

       Areas Requiring Coordination

         •   The methods by which Idaho assessments related to Federal mandates [e.g.,
             303(d), 305(b), 314, and 319(a)] are performed and reported under the new
             WPA operating framework need to be worked out with EPA Region  10.

         •   Protocols for exchange of monitoring and assessment  information related to
             TMDL development  and NPDES permitting decisions need to be worked out
             between DEQ and Region  10.

       Existing or Potential Barriers

              (None identified - issues appear resolvable)
 IV.   PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL  INDICATORS

 A.    Identify the agency(ies) responsible for measuring  overall water program
       implementation and success.

       Idaho DEQ.

 B.    How is the State currently measuring program implementation and success?

        1      What specific measures are used (e.g., percentage of impaired or
              threatened waters, net wetlands/habitat gain or loss, biological indices,
              pollutant loading changes)?

        With regard to environmental indicators, Idaho  still has many  streams that have
        never been assessed and remain unclassified (see Section III above on Monitoring
        and Environmental Assessment).   DEQ has plans to use reconnaissance 'earns to
        perform use attainability studies and stream assessments focusing on these heretofore
        umLessed streams.  Measures are largely restricted to water chemistry and benfhic
        macro-invertebrate indices.

        2.     Determine if any efforts are coordinated within a WPA.

            program or environmental  measures are discussed in the framework document.
                 and environmental  measures  of success will be defined in individual basin
        plans.
                                          - 18-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
      3.     How are performance measurement data managed (e.g., computerized
             database, published reports, internal memos)?
                          not known
C.    What level of effort is devoted  to measuring program implementation and
      success (e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?    not known

Regional Assessment of Program Measures and Environmental  Indicators Component
       Points to Build-On

         •   The WPA should build on the comprehensive effort by the DEQ to establish
             designated uses throughout the State and the enhanced assessment  methods
             being used in that effort.

       Issues

         •   The framework document does not include any well defined measures or
             indicators  (programmatic or environmental) to assess program success and
             progress.

         •   DEQ's new WPA work paradigm sets a new standard for measuring success
             that exceeds past efforts to define specific goals and criteria for success (e.g.,
             DEQ nutrient Management Plans).  Watershed management plans should
             include specific criteria for success and description of how performance will
             be measured against those criteria.

       Areas Requiring Coordination

         •   Region 10 needs to communicate its expectations to Idaho regarding clearly
             defined performance measures.

       Existing or Potential Barriers

         •   The lack of a clear coordinating role for  DEQ central  office could impede
             State-wide performance evaluations and result in inconsistent measures across
             Regions of the State.
V.     PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

A.     Identify the agency(cies) responsible for public participation activities.

       Idaho DEQ
                                        - 19-

-------
Region JO Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26. 1994
B.     What unique opportunities are made available by the State for public
       participation in the permitting  and watershed management  process (e.g., special
       meetings, hearings,  festivals, seminars, workshops, citizen advisory committees,
       citizen monitoring)? Explain how these methods promote public involvement.

       Idaho's proposed WPA emphasizes community-based problem  solving.  In each of
       Idaho's six Regions, a Regional Citizens Watershed Task Force (CWTF) will play a
       key role throughout the watershed planning process (e.g., setting priorities for
       watershed planning within the Region, resolving conflicts, procuring funding).  The
       CWTF will act as  an advisor to the Regional Administrator.  In addition, each
       watershed will have  a Watershed Advisory  Group (WAG) made up of local citizens
       that will  take the lead in the planning pii
 C.    Explain how any public participation  activities are coordinated within a WPA.

       The Regional Administrator for each DEQ Region will select members for the
    •   CWTF through an application process.  DEQ expects to have one representative per
       delineated watershed, which translates into 6 to 12 individuals depending on the
       Region  The general public will be involved through watershed meetings (i.e., larger
       scale  versions of the basin area meetings that have been used by DEQ over the past
       several years under the Nutrient Management Act). The preliminary phase of
       Idaho's approach is largely directed at raising public awareness and participation,
       and will include:  public notification of the watershed approach; solicitation of other
       agencies to  assist in the watershed management process; gathering of resource
       information; and establishment of WAGs. The WAGs provide a mechanism for
       public participation throughout the remaining three phases:  planning,
       implementation, and evaluation.

 D.    Describe whether and how State rules or administrative  codes regulate or
       impact the public participation process.

       The Idaho Nutrient Management Act helped establish the  foundation for the
       proposed WPA public participation process  by mandating  public involvement in
       resource management decisions.

 E.    What level of effort is devoted to providing public participation opportunities
        (e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?

        A figure is not available, but a considerable  portion of DEQ Regional  staff time will
        be spent coordinating with CWTFs and WAGs.

 Regional Assessment for Public Participation Component

        Points to Build-On
                                          -20-

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
'April 26.  1994
         •   The successful experiences associated with basin area meetings and other
             mechanisms established under the Nutrient Management Act.

       Issues

         •   Does the public participation component  of Idaho's WPA relinquish too
             much responsibility to the public for overseeing water quality management?
             Leadership roles and  accountability are not clear from the framework
             document.

         •   What will happen if the active public (i.e, those participating in WAGs and
             CWTFs) is not representative, since the public will have a very strong
             influence on priorities and resource allocations within the watershed?

         •   What will DEQ do if the public does not support meeting  CWA
             requirements?

       Areas for  Coordination

         •   EPA Region 10's role in the public participation process needs to be
             coordinated with DEQ.

       Potential Impediments

             None identified.
VI.    ENFORCEMENT.

A.     Identify the agency(ies) responsible for compliance and enforcement activities.

       EPA Region 10 is responsible for managing enforcement activities in Idaho related
       to the NPDES program.  DEQ does help perform some inspections for EPA, and
       DEQ is responsible for enforcing  State water quality regulations.

B.     Describe program roles, distinguishing between central office and field or
       district office responsibilities.

       (See response  to question A)

C.     Provide an explanation of any enforcement activities that are coordinated
       within a WPA. Be sure to address the following:

       1.     How §308  authorities are used to support watershed assessment,
              planning, restoration, and pollution prevention activities.
                                         -21 -

-------
             Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
                    308 authorities are not used broadly since the Paperwork Reduction Act will not
                    allow for comprehensive surveying within a watershed.

                    2.     Whether unpermitted discharges in priority watersheds are targeted for
                          enforcement.

                    Region 10 has not yet targeted unpermitted discharges.

                    3.     Methods for prioritizing compliance inspection activities according  to
                          watershed management priorities.

                    Region 10 focuses on top State priorities where EPA is also involved from a TMDL
                    or monitoring basis.  Actions taken in the Mid-Snake  River Basin are a good.
                    example of watershed targeted enforcement, where EPA made a sweeping review of
                    dairies, POTWs, and trout rearing facilities for excessive discharges of nutrients.

             D.     What level of effort is devoted to enforcement and compliance activities (e.g.,
                    FTEs, funding,  other)?

                    Region 10 has approximately 4.5 positions (including the Idaho Operations Office)
                    devoted to enforcement.
             Regional Assessment for Enforcement Component

                    Points to Build-On

                      •   Idaho DEQ has Stated that it is looking to Region 10 for guidance with
                          regard to  how NPDES enforcement can be incorporated within the Idaho
                          WPA.

                      •   Experience gained through the Mid-Snake River Basin nutrient monitoring
                          "blitz" could be useful to establishing protocols for the WPA framework.
                      •    Opportunities for cooperative actions between Idaho DEQ and Region 10
                           have been limited.  Idaho has not communicated any enforcement priorities to
                           the Region.

                      •    Idaho has not clearly defined non-NPDES enforcement programs.

                    Areas Requiring Coordination
                                                      -22-
_

-------
Region 10 Idaho  WPA Assessment
'April 26,  [994
         •   Region 10 and Idaho DEQ need to establish a consistent basis for prioritizing
             enforcement  actions within the State, which also coordinates and balances
             workloads.

         •   Inspections can be used to gather information for other participants in the
             management  process if an effective coordination system is established (e.g.,
             to answer permit writer questions).

       Existing or Potential Barriers

         •   The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act appear to impede the use of
             §308 authorities for use of broad surveys within watersheds.
VII.   MISCELLANEOUS  INFORMATION ON STATE WPA ACTIVITIES

       Note any additional observations that may fall outside  of listed components.
                                         -23-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
April 26, 1994
VIII.  Overall Assessment

Idaho's efforts to establish a framework to coordinate watershed protection actions are
proceeding at a rapid pace.  The assessment of the six components listed above revealed a
number of issues, needs, and impediments that should be addressed by Region 10 and D£Q
to improve the likelihood of success for the approach.  Of the items identified above  in
each of the component  assessments,  the following were prioritized for action:

   •    The need for DEQ central office coordination  in the Idaho WPA.  A stronger role
       for DEQ's central office appears necessary for both internal and external
       coordination.  Region 10 is concerned that, without a strengthening of DEQ's  central
       office role, it will be difficult to achieve consistency in goals, methods, reporting,
       data management, and other related aspects of program management  across the State.
       There are efficiency and coordination issues that require coordination by DEQ's
       central office to ensure success of the WPA.

   •    Clarification of the level of authority that watershed plans will carry under the
       approach.  More detail and coordination is necessary to achieve DEQ's goal to have
       watershed plans fulfill Federal reporting requirements. DEQ should  strive to have
       watershed plans (or preferably basin plans) satisfy applicable Federal reporting and
       TMDL requirements  in lieu of separate reports and lists [e.g., 305(b), 314,  319(a),
       303(d)].

   •    The need for DEQ to establish a fixed sequence for addressing basins or watersheds
       over a fixed management  cycle.  The lack of a fixed sequence and schedule for
       watershed management activities appears  to extensively limit coordination
       capabilities  and long-term framework development.  Continuous activities siich as
       permitting and compliance inspections require a stable framework that balances
       workload from year to year.  DEQ sgiykd adopt a fixed sequence of watersheds with
       a  set  cycle length so that  all stakeholders  can  plan for the integration and
       coordination of their efforts with the WPA.

   •    Clarification of how multi-stakeholder efforts  will be led and coordinated under the
       proposed approach.  The framework document  should indicate that  DEQ will
        maintain lead responsibility for meeting CWA requirements  and ensuring that a
        watershed plan is consistent  with those requirements even where DEQ is not  the
        primary governmental agency.

   •    Clarification of the role of EPA in the public participation process.   Idaho's
        approach heavily relies on the public to establish watershed  management priorities,
        which could cause a conflict where the public does not support meeting CWA
        requirements.  Region 10 wants the framework  to be clear on the Federal
        requirements that must or should be met  by management plans and  actions.
                                           -24-

-------
Region 10 Idaho WPA Assessment
•April 26, 1994
       The need for DEQ to establish methods for evaluating watershed management
       success.  It is not  clear, under the proposed WPA framework, how the success of
       watershed  management  efforts will be measured.  Watershed management plans
       should include specific  criteria lor succ6ss1;and descriptions of how performance will
       be measured against those criteria.
                                        -25-

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------