United States
            Environmental Protection
             Office Of Water
EPA 833-R-96-006
March 1994
The Statewide Watershed
Management Course




If you have questions regarding course content or would like additional
information, please contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or one of its designated instructors:                .

             i        ,        •               •     .      -
     EPA Contact:  Greg Currey
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Wastewater Management
         '         401 M Street, SW
                  Washington/DC 20460

     Instructors:    J. Trevor Clements, Contractor
                  The Cadmus Group, Inc.
                  Executive Park, Suite 100
                  1920  Highway 54
                  Durham, NC 27713

                  Clayton S. Creager, Contractor
                  The Cadmus Group, Inc.
                  2436  Foothill Boulevard, Suite J
                  Calistoga,CA94515              ,
                  707/942-6907                        -




                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                             .       Page

           Purpose of the Training  ...... . . .... . , .  ...	 . .  ...  l-l
           Course Content	  1-2
           Using Geographic Management Units		"*...;	1-5
           How Do Watershed Management Units Apply to Other Media? .. ...... 1-7
           Watershed Management: Historical Perspective	  1-9
           The Need for a Comprehensive Approach	  1-13
           The Emerging Framework for Protecting Water Resources  . . .  . . . . .". 1-15
           WPA Features	 1-17
           Statewide Watershed Management	 1-19
           Organizing Watersheds at the State Level . .  ...  . . . . . . . . .  ...  . . . 1-20

           Purpose of Module  .  .	  2-1
           Learning Objectives .  .	  2-2
           Common Elements  .........;	.:........  2-3
           Element 1.  Geographic Management Units  ........ .  . ........  2-5
           Element 2.. Stakeholder Involvement	  2-6
           Elements:  A Statewide Basin Management Cycle . . . . :	  2-8
          , Element 4.  Strategic Monitoring	2-10
           Element 5.  Basin Assessment	 2-13
           Element 6.  Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources .  . . .  ... . .  . 2-15
           Element 7.  Capability for Developing Management Strategies	 2-18
           Element 8.  Basin and Watershed Management Plans  .	 2-19
           Element 9.  Plan Implementation . . .	 2-21
           Integrating Key Elements Within a Basin	 2-23
           Potential Benefits of a  Statewide Approach	..;..... 2-24
           Lessons Learned /. .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .  . . . . . .	 2-30
           Roles hi Framework Development and Implementation  ........... 2-34
           Appendix to Module 2: Hypothetical Example Demonstrating
                              Integration of Key Elements
                              for Big River Basin            .

           Purposes of Module	, .	  3-1
           Learning Objectives	  3-2
           Establishing a Common Direction  .'	  3-3
           Managing Framework  Development  ......,...........:.... 3-11
           Identifying Impediments  ..... . . . ... .  . . ... .	 3-14
           Documenting the Approach: Statewide Framework Document ....... 3-16

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
            Purpose of Module	 s ........  4-1
           .Learning Objectives	•	  4-2
            Format for Developing Plans	;......,......  4-3
            Geographic Unit Delineation	: . .  .	 4-10
            Basin Management Cycle Development .	4'16
            Appendix to Module 4:  Basin Management Cycle for the
                                State of Nebraska  ,   '    •  "

         •  Purpose of Module  	•	•	  D-I
            Learning Objectives	  5-2
            Build Capability to Develop Integrated Management Strategies .......  5-3
            Integrating Public Participation into Stakeholder Involvement	 . 5-9
            Refining Prioritization and Targeting Methods	• ••,-• 5-14
            Identifying Basin Assessment Methods	• 5'26
            Developing the Strategic Monitoring Element . . .	 5-30
            Preparing for Plan Implementation	•	• • 5-4°

            Purpose of Module  	:........	
            Learning Objectives	
            Evaluating Refinements to Organization	• •
            Evaluating Refinements to Operational Procedures	
            Refining Planning Procedures .	•	    ~
            Refining Budgeting Procedures	  b';j
            Refining Directing Procedures  .............•••••••••••••  ~
            Refming Technical Procedures	.-•:•
            Refining Procedures for Measuring Success 	
            Refming Information Management Procedures	
            Developing a Transition Plan	•  • •
            Implementing the Framework	.• • • • •	' -

            Purpose of Module  	•	   " •
            Learning  Objectives	   -
            Simultaneous Operation in  Multiple Basins	' j>
            Balancing Operational Needs	• •  • '
             Communicating Basin Plan Goals and Stakeholder Roles	7-5

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
           Example Effects on Program Operations .....'........	  7-9
           Case Study Examples of Statewide Activities  ......... . . . .... . 7-15

           Purpose of the Module	.8-1
           Learning Objectives . . . ...	 . .  ...   8-2
           Delaware	•	/.  . . .   8-3
           Idaho	..;.....	  8-12
           Nebraska  ....... . . ........	•  • • • • •  • • • •	  3-22
           North Carolina ...................••••••••	•  8-32


           RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG STAKEHOLDERS-  ...:...	.....:  E2-1


                             LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1,  Relationship between the Development of Statewide Approach
            and this Course	• • •	•  • • •  1-3
Exhibit 1-2.  EPA Edgewater Consensus  . . .  . -'.	1-14

Exhibit 2-1.  How North Carolina Assessment Activities are Integrated
            Within a Statewide Approach ........................... 2-14
  \            ,..'•.     '      -         ,       .-•-,
Exhibit 2-2.  Assigning Priorities and,Targeting to Allocate Resources for.
.  '          Protection of Waterbody Integrity  ..... .- . .  . .	2-17
Exhibit 2-3. Big River Basin Management Cycle . ....................... 2-36
                                    1    *    '     •        ,'.-''         •
                                                 .  c     '    ;    •
Exhibit 3-1.  Delaware's Multi-Stakeholder Resource Protection Strategy . . . .  : ... .  3-5
Exhibit 3-2.  Mission Statement and Goals for the State of Georgia  ............  3-8
       •       ,"    '.    -  i,  .    ,  _.  •          •      '
Exhibit 3-3.  Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 10 and the
            Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
            Environmental Quality	,  3-9
Exhibit 3-4.  Table of Contents from the State of Nebraska's
            Draft Framework Document ............. t .... ~ ....;.... 3-17

Exhibit 4-1.  The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska	  4-6
Exhibit 4-2.  State of Washington's Water Quality Management Areas  . ... .  . .  . . . 4-12
Exhibit 4-3.  A Basin Management Cycle  ........ ....'•	 4-18
Exhibit 4-4.  Criteria for Establishing a Basin Management Cycle from
            the State of Washington .	  . . . 4-20
Exhibit 4-5.  Steps in Nebraska's Basin Management Cycle	,..:.. 4-24

Exhibit 5-1.  Organizational Structures in Idaho	  5-5
Exhibit 5-2.  Numerical Approach Developed for Oregon  .	• • • •	5'!8
    f  - •            '      •           •                       .
Exhibit 5-3.  Decision Tree Approach Developed for New Mexico	 . : 5-19
Exhibit 5-4.  Overlay Approach Applied in Ohio	 . . 5-21
Exhibit 5-5.  Consensus-Based Ranking System Used hi Washington	 .5-22

                             LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 5-6.  North Carolina NPDES Discharger Basin Monitoring Programs	5-32

Exhibit 5-7.  Two States' Approaches to Monitoring Under a Statewide

            Watershed Framework  .	• • •	•	.; ••••••"

Exhibit 6-1.  Roles and Functions of Organizational  Entities in                      6_4

            Georgia's Statewide Framework  ...........	

Exhibit 6-2.  Synchronizing Permit Re-issuance with a                             ^

            Basin Management Cycle	• •	

Exhibit 6-3.  Targeting Funds to Priority Issues Using a                           6 12
            Consolidated Funding Process	•	.• •  • •
                                                                          f\ 70
Exhibit 6-4.  Example Environmental Indicators ........ • •  • • •	;

Exhibit 6-5.  Phased Statewide Framework Implementation . . .  .	•  • • 6'25

Exhibit 7-1.  Goals and Objectives for Stakeholders in the Anacostia        .

            Watershed Restoration Project	
                                                                           7 \(\
Exhibit 7-2.  Basin Management Cycle	• ;	

                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING
                   • Introduce statewide watershed management

                   • Provide background for applying and refining
                    a statewide approach

                   • Familiarize participants with implications of
                    implementing a statewide approach
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of the Training
The Statewide Watershed Management Course will acquaint participants with key
elements of a framework for integrating natural resource programs into a
comprehensive, watershed management approach. The course draws heavily on the
experience of several states that are developing or implementing a statewide approach,
and is intended for all natural resource agency staff and management who are
responsible for overseeing the restoration and protection of water resources.

The course emphasizes the ability to adapt the scope and details of this approach to the
unique circumstances of each state, tribe/territory, or region. The training will cover
key elements in the design and implementation of a statewide approach as a framework
for integrating a broad range of resource protection programs, rather than focus on
program requirements.                ,                          ,

Considerations for tailoring key elements will be provided, along with examples for
specific states and programs. Additionally, participants will review how statewide
watershed management typically impacts program functions and staff operations.
Examples provided in the course, however, are not all-encompassing; rather, they are
intended to stimulate workshop participants to identify and explore potential
opportunities for and impacts on their programs and responsibilities.

                                                                   MODULE 1
                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     COURSE CONTENT
                    Mod 1 Course Introduction
                    Mod 2 Overview of Statewide Watershed Management

                    Mod3 Getting Started
                    Mod 4 Defining Statewide Coordination Elements

                    Mods Defining Core Activity Elements

                 «  Mod 6 Making the Transition

                 •«  Mod 7 Putting a Statewide Approach into Practice

                 •  Mod 8 Example Statewide Watershed Management Frameworks
Viewgraph 2: Course Content
The course format consists of a combination of slide and video presentations and •
interaction among participants, including role .playing exercises. Information has been
organized into the following eight modules:

  • Module 1:  Course Introduction
  • Module 2:  Overview of Statewide Watershed Management

  • Module 3:  Getting Started
  • Module 4:  Defining Statewide Coordination Elements

  • Module 5:  Defining Core Activity Elements
  • Module 6:  Making the Transition
  • Module 7:  Putting a Statewide Approach into Practice
  • ModuleB: Example Statewide Watershed Management Frameworks

 The course materials are organized to follow the general progression.of actions taken to
 develop and implement a statewide approach to watershed management This
 relationship is .shown in Exhibit 1 -1. The left-hand column of the exhibit lists typical
 framework development and implementation milestones under five linked stages: _
 Stage 1: Developing an Understanding of the WPA; Stage 2: Organizing Statewide _
 Framework Development; Stage 3: Tailoring Statewide Framework Elements; Stage 4:
 Making the Transition; and Stage 5: Operating Under a Statewide Approach.  The right-
 hand column lists the course training components that correspond to each stage and set
 of milestones.

              ~                        .1.2

                                                                         MODULE 1
                                                        COURSE INTRODUCTION
      Exhibit 1-1. Relationship between the Development
      of Statewide Approach and this Course
  Framework Development and Implementation
           Training Component
Developing an Understanding of the WPA
• Gain a general understanding of the
  Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
• Understand how the WPA serves as a
  coordinating framework for water programs,
  tools, and finances  ,
• Learn why Statewide Watershed
  Management is emerging as a leading form of
  the WPA
• Comprehend the nine common elements of a
  statewide approach and how they are
Module 1: Course Introduction
• Describes the evolution of water quality
  programs, needs addressed by the WPA,
  and opportunities created through use of
  the WPA       • '.
• Introduces statewide watershed

Video:  Partnership for Watersheds

Module 2: Overview of Statewide Watershed
• Discusses key elements and benefits of a
  statewide approach, and lessons learned
Organizing Statewide Framework Development
• Determine leadership and recruit partners for
  the framework development process
• Establish a common vision that includes the
  purpose, goals and objectives, and elements
  for statewide watershed management
• Educate partners on statewide framework
  needs and development process
• Establish ground rules for the development
•. Establish method(s) for communication
  among partners
• Identify existing and potential impediments to
  developing and implementing a statewide
• Develop a work plan for framework
Module 3: Getting Started
• Covers important steps that can be taken
  early in the statewide framework
  development process to get efforts off to a,
  good start
• Discusses how to anticipate existing and
  potential barriers to development, and
  identify potential solutions early in the
• Jdentifie's the benefits of documenting the
  statewide framework for participant and
  public reference
•Discusses the importance of a work pjan to
  statewide framework development

Exercise 1: Forging Partnerships
Tailoring Statewide Framework Elements
• Establish the purpose(s), intended
  audience(s), and general contents of basin
  plans, along with required level of approval
• Delineate geographic management units
• Establish statewide basin management cycle
Module 4: Establishing Statewide
Coordination Elements
• Describes the rationale and example
  methods for establishing three key elements
  that principally define the spatial, temporal,
  and planning units for management focus:
  - Basin management plans,
  - Geographic management units, and
  - Statewide basin management cycle

                 [Continued on next page]

                                                                          MODULE 1
                                                        COURSE INTRODUCTION
     Exhibit 1-1.  Continued
  Framework Development and Implementation
            Training Component
Tailoring Statewide Framework Elements
  Build capability to develop integrated
  management strategies
  Establish desired'level and methods of public
  Develop prioritization and targeting criteria
  and methods
  Select basin assessment methods and
  environmental indicators
  Develop strategic monitoring protocols
  Define key implementation methods and
Module 5: Defining Core Activity Elements
  Provides recommendations and examples
  from several states for tailoring each core
  activity element          •
  Identifies potential forums and
  organizational structures for developing
  integrated management strategies
  Recommends  methods for securing public
  Lists potential impacts on program staff and
  functions for each element
Making the Transition
   Evaluate opportunities to improve
   administrative efficiency and effectiveness
   Establish organizational structure(s) for
   operating under a statewide approach
   Define key administrative procedures for
   operating under a statewide approach
   Synchronize activities with basin
   management cycle
   Define information management needs and
   Establish resource/technical support needs for
   implementation                   .
   Develop plan to facilitate transition
   Use transition plan and framework document
   to implement statewide approach
Module 6: Making the Transition
• Includes considerations and
  recommendations for making a smooth
  transition to the new operating framework
• Describes steps that can be  taken to
  establish or refine administrative structure
  and standard operating procedures to take
  advantage of opportunities provided by
  statewide watershed management
« Provides recommendations for preparing
  and implementing a transition plan to guide
  statewide watershed management

Exercise 2: Integrating Responsibilities
 Operating under a Statewide Approach
 •  Conduct operations according to the
   statewide framework document and related
   work plans and agreements
 •  Perform outreach to increase stakeholder
   awareness of statewide watershed
   management  •
 •  Monitor progress of framework
   implementation and effectiveness  of
   •statewide approach; adapt framework as  •
 Module 7: Putting a Statewide Approach Into
 • Describes types and effects of integrated
   operations for stakeholders and programs
   commonly involved in a statewide approach
 • Identifies considerations for statewide
   partners operating simultaneously in
   multiple basins
 • Provides recommendations for balancing
 • workloads for activities inside and outside
   of the basin management cycle

                                                                   MODULE 1
                                                    COURSE INTRODUCTION
                    (denoted by shading)
                    = Southeastern Plains
                    Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plains
                                                   Small Watershed
                                                    (draining small
                                                   waterbody system)
                                                   Large Watershed
River Basin
Viewgraph 3:  Using Geographic Management Units
This course is based on the premise that water resource restoration and protection are
best addressed through integrated efforts within hydrologically defined, geographic
management units (i.e., watersheds and basins). Because of their readily identifiable
boundaries, watersheds provide a functional spatial unit for coordinating management
efforts. The term watershed, in this context, is broadly defined as the geographic
delineation of an entire waterbody system and the land that it drains above a specific
outlet point. A watershed also may include ground water aquifers that discharge to and
receive recharge from surface waters.
Not every agency or individual involved in watershed management currently uses the
same set of watersheds. Because a watershed can be defined above any given point
along a waterbody, numerous delineations by a wide range of agencies have been used
over time for various purposes. One challenge for integrating programs and agency
efforts, therefore,  is to agree on a common set of watershed management units.
Using a common  set of geographic management units greatly enhances opportunities for
coordinating key management activities such as planning, monitoring, assessment, data
sharing (particularly through CIS), prioritizing, and implementing management
strategies. Not everyone, however, is involved in these activities at the same watershed
scale.  Local agencies are usually concerned with waters within their jurisdiction,
whereas state agency purviews extend beyond local jurisdictions, and federal
jurisdictions cross state boundaries. In this course/the use of geographic management
units is emphasized for integrating water quality .management efforts across local, state,
and federal levels of government.

                                                                   MODULE 1
                                                    COURSE iNtnoDucnoN
      *                                        i
Issues of scale can be addressed by-using geographic management units that share
common borders and "nest" within or on top of one another allowing resource issues to
be addressed at several levels at the same time (see viewgraph).  Nesting waterbodies
and watersheds allows individual stakeholders to scale their efforts up or down to
address specific concerns and still maintain consistency with other stakeholders. For
  • 'The term waterbody refers to individually defined units of water (e.g., stream reach,
    pond, aquifer, lake, wetland, river, and estuary); this scale is often appropriate for
    addressing small, site-specific restoration or protection issues.

  • Smaller watersheds can be targeted for specific management strategies and
    activities where implementation relies heavily on participation at the local level.

  • 'Larger watersheds (e.g., sub-basins, river basins) are an aggregation of smaller
    watersheds and can  be used to integrate efforts that cross political jurisdictions. In
    this course, the term basin will be used to indicate large, hydrologically defined,
    geographic management units.        .
  • Ecoregions are generally considered to be regions of relative homogeneity in
    ecological systems or in relationships between organisms and their environments.
    Ecoregional information can be overlaid on watershed and river basin boundaries to
    distinguish unique environmental features of the  management units to be
    considered when establishing management goals, criteria, and implementation

                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     How Do WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
                     UNITS APPLY TO OTHER MEDIA?
                       The WPA provides opportunities for ecosystem
                       '  management within watershed boundaries.
Viewgraph 4: How Do Watershed Management
Units Apply to Other Media?
Geographic management units based on watersheds can be applied to surface water,
ground water, and other media as well. Watersheds are landscape units that integrate
terrestrial, aquatic, geologic, and atmospheric processes. The aquatic portions of
watersheds are intimately coupled to the surface and subsurface terrestrial environment,
ground water, adjacent coastal environments, and the overlying atmosphere. All these
connections between systems are strongly influenced by hydrologic cycles and
interactions with humans.  The integrated nature of watersheds  provides a strong
rationale for supporting integrated resource management. Such an approach can
underpin decisionmaking to balance restoration and long-term protection and promote
wise management of water and watersheds, including their associated aquifers.

While watershed delineations for surface waters may not coincide with the boundaries
of groundwater aquifers and airsheds, they still provide an excellent management unit
for coordinating efforts when different media issues overlap.  For example, according to
the U.S. Geological Survey, approximately 40 percent of the  average annual streamflow
nationwide is from ground water. Hence, ground water contamination often translates
into surface water contamination where the two interface.  Similarly, wet and dry
deposition of air pollutants is readily assessed using watershed management units to
define deposition zones.  Interfaces among media occur within the boundaries of     *
watersheds and can therefore be coordinated using the same management units.

                                                                 MODULE 1
                                                  COURSE INTRODUCTION
Watershed units also provide a useful basis for evaluating the impact of various stressors
on biological resources. Nesting watershed units-(discussed in the previous viewgraph)
allows for consideration of broader issues that may impact the viability of various
populations that extend beyond a single watershed's boundaries.  This course will
examine how watershed management frameworks can provide opportunities for,
ecosystem management within watershed boundaries.

                                                                MODULE 1
                                                  COURSE INTRODUCTION
                           Early years focused on
                        flood control and navigation
Viewgraph 5:  Watershed Management: Historical Perspective
Watershed management is not a new idea. The concept of basin-level water resources
management originated as early as the 1890s in the work of the U.S. Inland Waterways
Commission, with the backing of President Roosevelt. The Commission reported to
Congress in 1908 that each river system from its headwaters in the mountains to its
mouth at the coast is an integrated system and  must be treated as such.  The focus of
water resource management throughout the first half of the century was wise and
efficient use of water resources for such purposes as energy production, navigation;
flood control, irrigation, and drinking water.
Environmental problems attributable to "dust bowls" in the midwest and massive
deforestation throughout the country increased public awareness of the need for
watershed protection. The Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) was created in 1935 in an effort to improve measures for
controlling runoff and reducing soil erosion.

                                                                MODULE 1
                                                 COURSE INTRODUCTION
                 Goal in 1950s and 1960s was improving ambient
                 water quality and protecting drinking water by
                  • Performing pollution studies
                  • Funding publicly owned treatment works

                  • Developing water quality standards for
                   interstate waters
                  + Forming some river basin compacts
Viewgraph 6: Historical Perspective (continued)
The 1950s and 1960s saw increased emphasis on improving ambient water quality and
protecting the Nation's drinking water, much of which comes from ground water. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 provided for pollution studies and initiated
large-scale funding of publicly owned treatment works.

The Water Quality Act of 1965 introduced a water .quality-based approach to water
quality management. States were required to develop water quality standards for
interstate waters, and river basin compacts were formed to protect major systems such
as the Colorado and  Delaware Rivers. Some state sanitation commissions adopted river
basin approaches, including the development of basin plans that classified individual
waterbodies according to their best uses.

                                                                  MODULE 1
                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
                 of 1972 included
                 • Goal of physical, chemical, and biological integrity
                 • Basis for basin planning
                 • Technology-based effluent limitations
                 * Federal permitting program
                 4 Massive funding for wastewater treatment
                 * Funding for state water quality programs
Viewgraph 7: Historical Perspective (continued)
The Federal Water-Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which comprised
comprehensive legislation protecting both interstate and intrastate waters, established
the national goal of restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 303 .of this Clean Water Act (CWA) laid a
foundation for watershed protection with its provisions for intrastate water quality
standards, comprehensive basin planning, and establishment of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). Early implementation of the CWA, however, emphasized creation of a
federal permitting program (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or
NPDES) and technology-based effluent limitations. Massive fund ing was made available
through the CWA for construction and upgrade of publicly owned treatment works to
meet new federal requirements. The subsequent workload in handling NPDES permits
and construction grants overwhelmed many state water quality programs to the point
where primary focus became response to NPDES applications, establishment of point
source wasteload allocations, waste treatment construction project oversight, issuance of
NPDES permits, and NPDES permit enforcement.  Program resources were rarely
allocated to evaluating the importance of nonpoint source loads, such as those from
overland runoff or contaminated ground water discharge to surface waters.
Comprehensive watershed protection planning was more of an exception than a rule
during the first two decades following CWA enactment.

                                                                 MODULE 1
                                                  COURSE INTRODUCTION

                   CWA Amendments of 1987
                    4 Required states to expand programs for
                      toxics, nonpoint sources,, stormwater,
                      wetlands, and water quality standards
                    4 Established National Estuary Program
                   SDWA adds protection for ground and
                   surface water sources of drinking water
Viewgraph 8: Historical Perspective (continued)
With the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress sought to address several gaps in
existing legislation. The amendments expanded state program requirements for
establishing water quality standards and for managing toxics, nonpoint sources,
stormwater, and wetlands. The amended CWA also authorized comprehensive
programs to protect ground water. These numerous requirements have strained state
budgets. Additionally, implementation has generally occurred on an individual program
and agency basis, which has made multi-agency programs more difficult to coordinate
effectively.  The 1987 CWA amendments did establish the National Estuary Program
(NEP), however, which has resulted in several projects that have demonstrated success
at coordinating multiple agencies and programs effectively to implement needed
watershed protection measures.
Furthermore, the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its 1986 amendments
established state programs designed to protect surface and ground water sources of
drinking water.  Under this act, EPA has established additional programs for preventing
contamination of drinking water sources, including wellhead protection, sole source
aquifer protection, and watershed control plans.

                                                                    MODULE 1
                                                     COURSE INTRODUCTION
Stormwater, CSO,
and Wastewater

      - from Animal
    ' ^r Operations and
  ^r   Crop Fanning
                                                       of Drinking.
                                                       ~ Water
 Viewgraph 9: The Need for a Comprehensive Approach
The most recent National Water Quality Inventory [305(b)j Report indicates that the
Nation has not yet achieved its goal of restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical,
and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems.  Problems remain, particularly nonpoint
source pollution and habitat degradation, despite the fact that federal, state, and local
governments have spent billions of dollars to establish criteria, tools, and programs for
protecting surface and ground water quality. Furthermore, by EPA's own assessment,
the Agency currently cannot assure achievement of restoration and protection goals,
even, if there were perfect compliance with all EPA authorities. (See Exhibit 1 -2, an
excerpt from the EPA Edgewater Consensus.) One reason cited for this inability is that
most government efforts have proceeded independent of one another, becoming
program-specific and program-centered.

The comprehensive perspective illustrated in the viewgraph demonstrates how
numerous activities within a watershed, even when separated by great distances/can
impact conditions and uses of many aquatic resources. Because environmental
problems often cut across media (i.e.,  land, water, and air), program purviews, and
political jurisdictions, an individual agency typically lacks the authority and means to
address problems fully. We now understand that critical environmental issues are so
intertwined that mitigation and protection require a,comprehensive approach  that
incorporates ecological principles and collaboration among agencies.  Many agencies
and programs at the local, state, and federal levels are embracing the idea of using the
geographic boundaries of a watershed as the basis for coordinating and integrating
management efforts. This approach has come to be known as the Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA).

                                                              MODULE 1
                                               COURSE INTRODUCTION
   Exhibit 1-2. EPA Edgewater Consensus

Recent national evaluations reveal the need for a comprehensive, coordinated
approach to environmental management. One such evaluation took place at a
meeting of senior EPA leaders at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
near  Edgewater,  MD,  in  March 1994.   An  excerpt from  the meeting
documentation, referred to as the Edgewater Consensus, is provided below:

    To date, EPA has accomplished a great deal addressing many major
    sources of pollution to the nation's air, water, and land.  Yet,  even as
    we  resolve the more  obvious problems,  scientists discover  other
    environmental  stresses that threaten, our ecological  resources and
    general well-being. Evidence of these problems can be seen in the
    decline of the salmon populations  in the Pacific Northwest  and the
    oyster stock in the Chesapeake Bay,  the decline in  migratory bird
    populations, and degraded coral reef systems.

    The causes of these problems are as varied as human activity, itself: the
    way we farm, work, travel,  and spend our leisure hours. Although
    many federal, state, and local regulations address these problems, past
    efforts have been as fragmented as  our authorizing statutes.   Because
    EPA has concentrated on issuing permits, establishing pollutant limits,
    and setting national standards, the Agency has not paid  enough
    attention to the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. In
    short, EPA has been "program-driven" rather than "place-driven."
    Recently, we have realized that, even if we had perfect compliance
    with all our authorities, we could not assure the reversal of disturbing
    environmental trends.  We must collaborate with other federal, state,
    and local agencies, as well as private partners!,] to reverse those trends
    and achieve our ultimate goal of healthy, sustainable ecosystems that
    provide us with food, shelter, clean air, clean water, and a multitude of
    other goods and services. We therefore should move toward the goal
    of ecosystem protection.

                                                                   MODULE 1
                                                    COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     THE EMERGING FRAMEWORK
                       Overall Coal: Ecosystem
                       Integrity (Human Health
                         and Aquatic Life)   /Resource
                   Criteria for Protection
Watershed Protection Approach
                               Water Resource Management
                             -  Programs/ Toots, and Resources
Viewgraph 10:  The Emerging Framework
for Protecting Water Resources
The WPA is not a new program, it is a coordination framework. The addition of the
WPA is a logical step in the evolution of water resource management The WPA
establishes a framework for coordinating and integrating the multitude of programs and
resources that redirects their focus back to the original goal of aquatic eciosystem
integrity.  The approach reflects the realization that attaining the goal may only be
possible through implementation of an integrated approach; a common information
base; and agreement on the roles, priorities, and responsibilities for managing a
Although  the basis for the WPA has existed for almost a century, several fundamental
problems historically have prevented this approach from receiving national attention
and support. For example, even though CWA Section 303 endorsed comprehensive
basin planning for states back in 1972, many states are just now reaching the poinj
where they can undertake a comprehensive approach. States first had to expand their
expertise  in key areas such as standards development, monitoring, assessment,
modeling, nonpoint source management, toxics control, point source permitting,
enforcement, wetlands protection, wellhead and other drinking water source protection,
estuary management, and so on. In addition, states had to build expertise for other
 related mandates such as those for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 CRCRA), Superfund, control of underground storage tanks (UST), pesticide use,      /
 radioactive wastes, etc.  Furthermore, state and federal agencies had to build databases
to support comprehensive assessments that characterize water resources and help

                                                                    MODULE 1
                                                     COURSE INTRODUCTION
. identify priority concerns. Technology-based tools such as computerized data bases,
 water quality models, and geographic information systems (CIS) necessary to support a
 comprehensive WPA are only now becoming available. Thus, EPA and state water
 programs, in particular, spent the last 20 years establishing regulations, guidelines,
 programs,, tools, and data necessary to move management of the nat.on's surface and
 ground water resources into a more efficient, integrated approach.

 The need to control varied, dispersed sources of pollution led to centralized collection
 systems for sanitary and storm waters.  The CWA and its predecessors progress.vely
 improved treatment and  reduced pollution from these sources, which once were the
 primary cause of surface water degradation. In addressing this important need, the
 nation focused on establishing technology-based effluent guidelines for many types  of
 discharges, along with-a permitting system that required compliance with effluent
 guidelines or limitations set to meet instream water quality standards., Although
 significant improvements in ^he water quality of many waterbodies can be tied to point
 source controls, national assessments indicate that a broader scope of management is
 needed to achieve'national water resource management objectives.  Similarly, SWDA
 programs such as wellhead protection and sole source protection require a
 comprehensive approach to ensure protection of the nation's drinking water resources.
 The WPA is now being recognized as a practical approach to integrating the multitude ^
 of programs, tools, and financial resources aimed at protecting and restoring the nation s
 public health and aquatic ecosystem integrity.

                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     WPA FEATURES
                        4 Stakeholder involvement

                        • Environmental objectives

                        4 Priority concerns

                        • Integrated solutions

                        • Resource protection options
Viewgraph 11:  WPA Features
The WPA is a geographically-based system for managing resources that           <

  • Promotes Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders are all agencies, organizations,
    and individuals that are involved in or affected by water resource management
    decisions.  The WPA groups stakeholders by watershed so that they can work
   . together to reach agreement on priority concerns, goals, and approaches for
    addressing a particular watershed's problems; specific actions for mitigating
    problems; and how management activities will be coordinated and evaluated,

  • Focuses on Environmental Objectives: The WPA helps stakeholders focus on
    achieving ecological goals and water quality standards. Management success is
    gauge'd by the progress made toward protecting or restoring specific waters from
    threats to human health and aquatic life, rather than measurement of program
    activities, such as the number of permits issued or samples collected. In other
   ' words, the WPA is resource-centered, rather than program-centered.  Concentrating
    management activities within a watershed is an example of what EPA calls "place-
    based" management,
  • Targets Priority Concerns: The WPA places monitoring and assessment at the
    forefront of the management process for better identification of priority concerns
    within watersheds. Stakeholders can then direct their limited resources to cost-
   . effectively address priority concerns.     .   .,

  • Facilitates  Integrated Solutions:  Stakeholder expertise and funds may be applied
    more effectively when they are pooled to mitigate common problems. Under the

                                                               MODULE 1
                                                COURSE INTRODUCTION
WPA, personnel and financial resources can be leveraged to achieve watershed   .
management goals and objectives in accordance with plans.and roles established
through stakeholder agreement.             .
Broadens the Base of Resource Protection Options:  the WPA is expansive
enough to consider all interacting sources of stressors/pollutants within a given
watershed simultaneously. Broadening the evaluation basis also tends to increase
the diversity of stakeholders involved in management, thereby increasing the
management capabilities available to address priority concerns. Additional
participants and capabilities also generate more opportunities for innovative
solutions, such as ecological restoration, wetland mitigation banking, and market-
based alternatives (e.g., pollutant trading), to address these often complex problems.

                                                                   MODULE 1
                                                    COURSE INTRODUCTION
                            Watershed Protection Approach
                      Individual Watershed
                       Protection Projects
                        National Estuary
                        Program Projects
  Statewide Watershed
 •A method for integrating
and coordinating watershed
protection throughout a state
Viewgraph 12:  Statewide Watershed Management
General aspects of the WPA are often refined to more specific frameworks that meet
individual needs of states and regions. These frameworks reflect how agencies and
other stakeholders operate together under a WPA on a daily basis. Statewide watershed
management has emerged as a leading WPA framework. In general, statewide
watershed management involves a framework for integrating and coordinating
watershed protection throughout a state. This is not a new approach, rather it is a
logical extension of basin planning and area-wide waste management efforts performed
during the early years of CWA implementation, and more recent efforts such as the
National Estuary Program (NEP). Many common sense elements of this statewide
approach provide numerous benefits to agencies responsible for implementing water-
related legislative mandates. Also, the approach is very flexible in that it can  be adapted
to the unique circumstances Within a state or region.

Statewide watershed management is considered a large-scale WPA because it applies
WPA concepts to water resource management activities statewide. Many individual
projects across the Nation represent watershed management efforts on a smaller scale.
NEP projects involve  larger-scale watershed protection efforts for estuaries designated by
EPA as nationally significant. NEP and other individual watershed protection  projects
typically rely on special government appropriations and whatever time key agencies and
institutions can make available to participate in management strategy development.
Statewide watershed  management) on the other hand, incorporates the WPA  into the
daily operations of many regulatory and nortregulatory agencies responsible for
administering water program activities. Additionally, the approach provides an overall
framework for coordinating and implementing individual targeted watershed projects
throughout the state.

                                                                  MODULE 1
                                                   COURSE INTRODUCTION
                     STATE LEVEL
                      Pradacaffor coordination
                      Funds cHanifclJecl tiirough state agencies
                                    "•         ~ •
Viewgraph 13:  Organizing Watersheds at the State Level
The term "statewide" in the context of. a statewide watershed management approach
refers to the functional scale for structuring an integrated management framework.  It is
not an approach limited to state water quality programs.  Rather, a statewide approach
should provide a framework for linking all local, state, and federal water resource
management efforts at the state level. The rationale for developing organizational
frameworks at the state level is based on a combination of factors, including legal
structure, efficiency, effectiveness, and practicality:

   •  Most water program management authorities are retained by state governments.
      Organizing at the state level therefore allows the framework to be implemented
      within the existing state governmental infrastructure without changing federal
   •  From a governing standpoint, states are situated between the federal government,
 *    which establishes national policy and regulations, and local governments, which
      usually have responsibility to implement resulting programs. Thus, it is logical
      and practical for all three levels of government to coordinate at the state level.

   •  Resource efficiencies achievable under the WPA largely depend on coordination
      at the statewide level. Prioritizing, scheduling, and coordinating activities often
      hinge on the ability to cross local jurisdictions. Management at the federal level is
      impractical because of the difficulty in  dealing with legal and structural
      differences'from state to state.                                ...'..

                                                            MODULE 1
                                              COURSE INTRODUCTION
Although basin boundaries may cross state lines, many financial resources allocated
to address water quality management issues are channelled through state agencies
(e.g., CWA Section 104,106, 205, 314, 319, and 604 grants; SRF capitalization
funds; and SDWA Section 1443 funds). Thus, although EPA and other federal
agencies can help resolve interstate issues, management strategies are most
commonly implemented through individual states.


       MODULE 2


                                                           .   •.   MODULE 2
                     PURPOSE OF MODULE

                   Questions addressed in this module include:
                     • What are the basic principles and
                       elements of a statewide approach?
                     • Why should states and regions implement
                       a statewide approach?
                     • What roles can states, regions, and other
                       stakeholders play in developing and
                       implementing a statewide approach?
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of Module
The purpose of this module is to address thre^e questions that should be answered before
proceeding to a more detailed consideration of statewide watershed management:
  « What are the basic principles and elements of a statewide approach?
.  • Why should states and regions implement a statewide approach?
  « What roles can states, regions, and other stakeholders play in developing and
    implementing a statewide approach?                           .
This module describes common elements of statewide watershed management arid how
each element translates watershed protection objectives into a practical operating
framework for participating agencies and other stakeholders. The overview focuses on
basic principles and how elements are interrelated.  Later modules examine each
element in greater detail. Course participants learn how each element contributes to the
overall resource protection strategy offered through statewide watershed management
and how water resource management will likely change under this approach.

This module also identifies benefits of a statewide approach for agencies involved in
natural resource management, along with lessons learned in states that have pioneered
the approach.  General roles that stakeholders can play in the development and
implementation of a statewide approach are also described. .

                     LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                 This module should enable participants to

                 • Identify and describe common elements of statewide
                   watershed management
                 • Understand how the elements support basic
                   principles of the WPA
                 • Understand how statewide coordinating features
                   provide focus for watershed management activities
                 4 Identify benefits of a statewide approach and lessons
                   learned from existing efforts
Viewgraph 2: Learning Objectives
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to

  • Identify and describe the nine common elements of statewide watershed
  • Understand how elements support and incorporate basic principles of the WPA
    (i.e., risk assessment, geographic targeting, and stakeholder involvement) into a
    coordinating framework.
  • Understand how statewide coordinating features (i.e., basin management units and
    a basin management cycle) provide spatial and temporal focus for management
    activities, thereby promoting improved integration and coordination among
  • Identify benefits of implementing a statewide approach, along with lessons learned
    from existing efforts of states that have pioneered the approach.

                                                                 MODULE 2
                     COMMON ELEMENTS
                               Basin Management Cycle
                                         ^^^   Basin
                                    Geographic ^^B Assessment
                                         Priontization &
                                  Developing \  Targeting
Viewgraph 3: Common Elements
Each state that has helped pioneer statewide watershed management established a
framework tailored to its unique set of circumstances. The convergence, however, on
several common elements provides the building blocks for the framework described in
this course:
  • Geographic management units
  • Stakeholder involvement
  • A statewide basin management cycle
  • Strategic monitoring
  • Basin assessment
  • Apriority ranking and resource targeting system
  • Capability to develop management strategies
  • Basin and watershed management plans
  • Plan implementation
All nine key elements are interrelated, and each is adaptable to the, unique circum-
stances within any state. Each element is an integral part of the development and
implementation of basin and targeted watershed plans designed to satisfy
environmental needs while ensuring adequate participation by stakeholders. A
synopsis of the conceptual model presented in the viewgraph follows.

                                                                  MODULE 2
Geographic management units are at the center of the model! Under the proposed
framework/ a state is divided .into large, hydrologically delineated geographic
management units called basins to provide a functional spatial unit for integrating
watershed management efforts for a given state. Smaller geographic units (e.g., sub-
basins and watersheds) that nest within the basin boundaries can be delineated to
support coordination of activities at varying scales. Next, stakeholders are defined as
any entity involved in or affected by watershed management activities within a basin
management unit. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities are identified and coordinated
for six core activities, represented by the "spoked" elements encircling stakeholder
involvement: strategic monitoring, basin assessment, prioritization and targeting,
developing management strategies, basin and watershed management plans, and
implementation. A fixed time schedule for sequencing activities across basins
throughout the state, called the statewide basin management cycle (depicted as the
outermost ring of the model), is determined by partners in the framework. The
management cycle balances workloads for all stakeholders while still maintaining
spatial focus. The cycle is repeated for each basin at fixed intervals (usually every five
years) to ensure that management goals, priorities, and strategies are routinely updated
and progressively implemented. The following viewgraphs review each element

                                                                   MODULE 2
                     South Carolina Major
                     River Basin Delineations

                     01 Savannah-Salkehatchie
                     02 Saluda-Edisto
                     03 Catawba-Santee
                     04 Pee Dee '
                     05 Broad
Viewgraph 4:  Element 1.  Geographic Management Units
Under a statewide approach, the state is divided into geographic management units
drawn around large river basins. Hydrblogic features considered in this delineation
often include topographic ridge lines, aquifer discharge/recharge zones, major
hydromodifications (e.g., dams), and coastlines. The resultant basins are used by each
participating stakeholder as the geographic basis for coordinating their water resource
management activities. Thus, basins must be suitable for coordinating monitoring,
performing assessments, developing TMDLs, implementing point and nonpoint source
controls, and management planning for surface and ground waters.

Basins can be divided into smaller management units (e.g., sub-basins, watersheds,
waterbodies, aquifer interfaces, or stream reaches) to provide greater flexibility and
higher resolution for targeting program resources to specific problems or support
ongoing activities.  Basins are the preferred basis for statewide coordination among
local, state, and federal stakeholders because they afford an economy of scale.
Operating simultaneously in every local watershed across a state is impractical for state
and federal partners.  Basins provide a practical and functional scale for these
stakeholders, while still allowing for integration of local efforts through the smaller-scale
watersheds nested within basins. Discussion of sequencing basins under Element 3
elaborates further on this attribute.        ,
The viewgraph shows basins that were delineated for major rivers within the State of
South Carolina. Selected water program activities for South Carolina are coordinated
within each of the five basin management units. .   .

                                            '•••••          MODULE 2
                     A well designed statewide watershed
                     management framework creates
                     opportunities for stakeholders to

                      • Increase their awareness of water-
                       related issues
                      • Play meaningful roles in water
                       resource management
Viewgraph 5: Element 2.  Stakeholder Involvement
Under a statewide approach, basin stakeholders are all agencies, organizations, and
individuals that are involved in or affected by water resource management decisions for
a'given basin. They can include, but are not limited to,

  • State water resource management agencies
  • State agricultural, forestry, and wildlife agencies              .    ,
  • Local governmental agencies (e.g., city or county)   •
  • Local and regional offices of federal agencies (e.g., EPA; USDA Natural Resource
    Conservation Service and Forest Service; and USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation)  ,
  • Industrial water users and NPDES dischargers
  * Agriculture, forestry, and other private/individuaf nonpoint source contributors
    and/or water users
  • Public and private drinking water and wastewater utilities

  • Trade associations
  • Universities and research foundations
  * Environmental groups
  • Citizen vplunteer monitoring groups             .
  • General public

                                                                  MODULE 2
The success of a statewide.approach depends on pooling the resources, energy, and ,
regulatory authority of multiple stakeholders.  Stakeholder involvement in statewide
framework development and implementation is therefore critical. A well designed
approach creates numerous opportunities for a broad range of stakeholders to increase
their awareness of water-related issues and play meaningful roles in water quality
Roles and responsibilities should therefore be defined for each element of the statewide
framework and could include the following activities, the order of which reflects typical
chronological order in a basin management cycle:

  • Data and research sharing
  • Joint monitoring
  • Identification of waterbody stressors

  • Priority setting
  • Goal setting
  • Management strategy development                       ,
 , • Basin and watershed plan development, review, and approval
  • Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation
  • Outreach
  •„. Measuring success       ,

Additionally, methods for engaging stakeholders should be clearly identified in the
framework.  Many vehicles can be used to involve stakeholders in these activities,
  • Public meetings                                         ,
  • Citizen advisory groups, boards, or committees
  • Technical planning teams
• • „». Monitoring consortiums
  • Basin festivals
  • Agency administrative agreements                    .
  • Electronic bulletin boards and newsletters
 Using these basinwide mechanisms for increasing public involvement is often an
 efficient way to meet state and federal water program public participation requirements,
 because they provide opportunities to examine TMDL priority waters, NPDES permit
 requirements, UIC permits, etc.,  collectively within the basin.

                   1       '   '     '   2-7     ,  ••        .   '     •    .  '  :-  -

                                                                      MODULE 2
                               3. A STATEWIDE BASIN
                      MANAGEMENT CYCLE
                             Year I Year I Yew I Year I Year I  Year Year  Year  Year
                      El Inteiuive Monitoring
                      PH AnnmentandPrioritization
                      B Management Strategy Development
Buhi Plan Review and Approval
Viewgraph 6: Element 3. A Statewide Basin Management Cycle
Basin management units provide a basis for coordinating activities geographically, but
activities must also be coordinated over time. The statewide approach provides
temporal focus for stakeholders by implementing a basin management cycle that
supports a long-term, iterative program for restoring and protecting water resources.

The basin management cycle needs three features to create an orderly system for_
focusing and coordinating watershed management activities on a continuous basis:

  •  A specified length of time is established for each complete iteration of the
     management cycle and for each major activity (i.e., monitoring, environmental
     assessment, priority-setting, management strategy development, basin plan
     preparation, and basin plan implementation).*
  •  A sequence for addressing basins balances workloads from year to year.  For
     instance, if the specified length of the management cycle is 5 years, the state could
     group and sequence all basins such that during any given year, one-fifth otthe
  t  The length of a basin management cycle may vary from state to state and shou \d be defined by
      takeholders as they establish the statewide framework. Many states have selected a 5-year-cycle to
     coincide with the federal statutory requirement for NPDES permit renewaL Thus, a 5-year cycle
     en ures that an updated basin management plan will be available for each 5-year permitting cycle
     Additionally, a 5-year cycle has proved practical-including all act,v,t,es m a shorter period m.ght
     create unreasonable workloads, and too much time may laps^between p an updates and       -
     Implementation during a much longer period.' The'5-year cycle essentially translates into handling
     one-fifth of a state's waters each year for each activity category, which many states consider a
     reasonable workload.

                                                                  MODULE 2
    basins would be in the intensive monitoring phase, one-fifth in assessment and
    prioritization, one-fifth in management strategy development, one-fifth in basin
    plan development, and one-fifth in basin plan implementation. Ajthpugh activities
    are ongoing in each basin, sequencing the management cycle by basin group
    minimizes the burden on any single group at a given time, while still maximizing
    overall the amount of information obtained and other work accomplished. In
    Year 6, for example, intensive monitoring is focused within Basin Group 1  only,
    while other activities are carried put in Basin Groups 2 through 5.

  • A schedule of management activities is established for each basin for all
    participating programs, agencies, public interest groups, and other stakeholders.
    This schedule provides a long-term reference and coordinating tool for statewide
    framework partners.  Because many participants may have redundant requirements
    and capabilities, a master schedule can streamline activities, eliminate duplication
    of effort, and enhance the use of program^resources to achieve basin objectives
    more efficiently and effectively.

The viewgraph illustrates how water management activities can be scheduled and
sequenced using a 5-year cycle. For illustration, water management activities have
been simplified into five categories, shown in the legend at the bottom of the exhibit.
Activities are sequenced through five basin groupings, shown on the left. During the
first 5 years, the schedule for management activities is phased in across an entire state.
Thus, for Basin Group 1, the 5-year cycle of activities  begins in Year 1, is completed in
Year 5, and begins again in Year 6. Basin Group 2-begins its cycle in Year 2 and
repeats the cycle starting in Year 7; Basin Group 3 begins in Year 3, and so on. In this
example, the statewide framework is fully implemented after 5 years; that is, some
category of statewide watershed management activities is conducted in each basin
group every year thereafter.  Agreements between government agencies determine how
water management program requirements will be handled during this transitional
period.  For example, administrative extensions for permit renewal can be obtained to
facilitate synchronization of permitting activities with the basin management cycle.

                                                                 MODULE 2
                     ELEMENT 4. STRATEGIC MONITORING
                    • Collection of data to support assessment

                    4 Importance of environmental
                     information to effective management

                    • Strategic coordination of ambient,
                     compliance, and intensive monitoring by
Viewgraph 7: Element 4. Strategic Monitoring
Monitoring in the basin approach includes aggregation of existing data and field
collection of new data to support a variety of assessment activities.  Monitoring is a
critical part of a successful statewide approach, which relies heavily on environmental
data to identify stressors, estimate risk to waterboclies, develop goals and objectives for
waterbodies, assign priorities'and target program resources, develop management
strategies, and measure the success of previous management actions to assist with
Updating the basin plan.
Ongoing and new monitoring efforts are strategically coordinated by basin to address
many assessment needs> including

  • Determining surface and ground water quality status and trends

  • Evaluating use attainability                .                          ,
  • Developing site-specific water quality standards, where needed

  • Identifying stressors and their sources   " •    .

  * Targeting priority waters for action
  • Applying models to support TMDL development, nonpoint source best management
    practice decisions, and permit issuance
  •' Evaluating the effectiveness of management  actions

                                                                   MODULE 2

Typically, up to three types of ongoing and new monitoring for surface and ground •
water can be involved:                                    -.'..,
  • Ambient monitoring involves periodic (e.g., once per month) sampling at
    strategically located sites for the purpose of assessing water quality and/or quantity,
    documenting trends, identifying problems, and  evaluating the overall effectiveness
    of management controls.
  • Compliance monitoring pertains to inspection of permitted activities (e.gr, discharge
    from wastewater treatment facilities, public water supply withdrawals, underground
    injections/and waste disposal facilities) to determine whether permittees are
    meeting all permit conditions. These studies usually continue for the life of the
    permit.                                                         '.   '• ~
  • Intensive surveys are special studies that evaluate specific water quality and/or
    quantity issues. Surveys are.frequently used to locate and quantify pollutant
   . sources, characterize hydrology, measure the effect and fate of pollutants, and
    characterize the extent of environmental contamination or habitat loss.  Such
    studies typically last for 1 year or less.
The need for each type of monitoring can be determined through development of a
strategic plan that on a state level describes the strategy for statewide trend monitoring
and reporting,  and for the basin describes specific monitoring objectives in a given year
along with methods and means for achieving them.  For example, a state may maintain
a fixed-station  ambient network statewide that is sampled monthly, quarterly, or
annually for status and trend evaluations. The state may also establish a network of
"rotating basin" stations that are sampled one year during each basin management cycle
to augment the baseline network for basin assessments. Similarly, the monitoring plan
could focus intensive survey efforts in specific basins to fill identified data gaps in
support of basin planning activities (e.g., assessments before prioritization and model
calibration before TMDL development).  Some portion of compliance monitoring may
be performed on a continuous basis regardless of the basin cycle.  Special compliance
monitoring, however, can be focused on priority areas of the basin where impairment
attributable to  permitted sources is suspected or unclear. The strategic plan should also
coordinate and set forth procedures for related activities such as laboratory analysis and
data management.
The strategic planning process can be used to coordinate and leverage stakeholder
monitoring resources.. For example, EPA, USGS, NOAA, and NRGS (federal agencies
that may collect surface and ground water quality data in a state) monitoring activities
should be factored into the state's monitoring  program, and state and federal agencies
may be able to locate stations to complement activities of other stakeholders, when
possible. Permittees and other stakeholders with ambient monitoring requirements can
form basin monitoring consortiums to pool resources and coordinate with the state's

                                                                MODULE 2

    :     .     ' »                   •                '
 monitoring program in a given basin. Similarly, volunteer monitoring groups can be
 included in the plan.                  .
 Local monitoring consortiums and volunteer groups can focus on smaller watersheds;
 state and federal monitoring programs can cover the basin as a whole andrelate local
 data to basinwide information.  Collaboration among stakeholders is the key to
 designing a'monitoring program that makes the best use of each participants' resources
 and capabilities to support common environmental assessment objectives. The aim
 here is to minimize the monitoring burden for any one stakeholder, while maximizing
 the amount of useful information obtained about the basin overall.

                                                                   MODULE 2

s 	 - 	 "••""" 	 '" 	 ' 	 T-" 	

Assess water
quality and ' ^
identify causes
of impairment

i Quantify
problems and <
apply predictive

Evaluate the
effectiveness of
corrective measures
Purposes change throughout cycle.

Viewgraph 8:  Element 5. Basin Assessment
The terrri basin assessment is applied generally to a series of different types of
assessments that occur throughout a basin management cycle.

,-: • In the early stages of the cycle, assessment involves determining~severity of water
    quality and ecosystem impairment and identifying sources and causes of
    impairment, including those rejated to water quantity. Early assessments usually
    evaluate attainment of water quality standards that reflect existing and designated
    uses.  Surface and ground water monitoring data are analyzed to determine the
    status of water quality and whether uses are adequately protected. Additionally, the
    historical records can be reviewed for changes that indicate emerging problems or
    improvements. Results of preliminary assessments provide essentialinputfor
    assigning management priorities within a basin.

  • Assessment procedures, including problem quantification (e.g., establishing the
    correlation between pollutant loading and water quality) and predictive water
    quality modeling, are used in the middle stages of the cycle to help establish TMDLs
    and management goals.

  • In the later phases of the cycle, or in the early phases of the succeeding cycle,
    assessment (including measuring environmental indicators) can be used to evaluate
    how well implemented management strategies met water quality standards and
    other water resource goals.

 Exhibit 2-1 highlights how North Carolina has fully integrated its surface water
 assessment activities within a statewide approach to watershed management.

                                                          MODULE 2
   Exhibit 2-1.  How North Carolina Assessment
   Activities are Integrated within a Statewide Approach

The  State  of  North  Carolina  has  fully  integrated  its surface  water
monitoring and assessment programs within a 5-year basin management
cycle.   Preliminary assessments using  historical water quality  data, the
§303(d) list, and input from other stakeholders  help identify potential areas
of concern early in the first year of the cycle. Monitoring plans are then
updated as necessary to fill information gaps. The state spends Years 2
and  3 in  a given basin monitoring water and sediment chemistry at
ambient sites selected to augment  fixed  network  stations  that  are
monitored  monthly  or quarterly.   Biological  data  (i.e., on benthic
macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton,  and fish) are  collected  in Year 3.
Intensive survey information (e.g., time of travel studies,  NPS loading,
pollutant fate and transport studies) are also targeted for Year 3, although
study plans are developed by the end of Year 1 so that studies that depend
on specific instream conditions have a larger window of opportunity to be
performed when conditions match design criteria.

North  Carolina  summarizes physical,  chemical,  and biological assess-
ments by sub-basin in  a single reference document that covers an entire
river basin. All basin  assessment documents for the state are  formatted
similarly for ease  of reference. Each  assessment document draws on a
fixed set of sub-basin maps for visual display of station  locations and
assessment  results; these maps are also  used as templates  by  other
programs contributing to the basin plan and therefore provide consistency
for the overall  basin management plan and  other reporting documents.
Basin assessment documents contain considerable detail tor each station,
including statistical analyses of data collected, and are therefore intended
for long-term technical reference rather than for public outreach. Sub-
basin  summary  information  is  taken directly from the assessment
documents, however,  and used in  the basin  plans for communicating
assessment results.  Predetermining formats that meet the needs for both
documents has made the process of preparing the  basin plans highly
efficient.   The information also serves to meet CWA §305(b) reporting
 requirements. -:

                                                                  MODULE 2
                     TARGETING RESOURCES
                                           Rank basin concerns
                                            by level of priority
                                        Develop methods
                                           and criteria
Viewgraph 9:  Element 6.  Assigning
Priorities and Targeting Resources
A priority ranking and resource targeting system ensures that stakeholder resources are
directed effectively and efficiently to priority concerns within a basin. All stakeholders
will have constraints on personnel and funds available for statewide watershed
management activities. Additionally/many resource management agencies are
currently forced into a mode of crisis management, having to react instantaneously to
requests and complaints from a variety of sources.  Improving identification of priority
concerns helps place individual requests in the context of overall priorities and allows
limited stakeholder resources to be allocated more appropriately.

Assigning priorities and targeting are two related but separate steps: assigning priorities
is the process of ranking resource protection concerns within a basin, whereas targeting
is the process of deciding how resources should be allocated to address priority
concerns. Under a statewide approach, stakeholders agree on a common set of
methods and criteria for both assigning priorities and targeting program resources.
Criteria typically reflect broad public resource protection goals and can be updated and
changed, as appropriate, with each new iteration of the basin management cycle.
Example criteria are provided below:

                                          ' .  •'                     MODULE 2
  * Severity of risk to human health and the aquatic community

  • Impairment to the waterbqdy (documented or potential)

  * Resource value of the waterbody to the public             .

  • Proximity to cultural preservation area

  • Ranking based on priorities established above
  • Availability of staff and financial resources      -   >

  • .Feasibility and cost-effectiveness
  • Re-evaluation of applicability to overall resource protection goals (e.g., statewide
    or basinwide goals)
  • Willingness of local stakeholders to support required and voluntary actions

Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the prioritization and targeting process. At the beginning of the
process for each basin, stakeholders collectively develop a methodology, including
criteria selection. Methods for priority ranking could include numeric indices, decision
trees, data layer overlays, and consensus-based decision-making, all of which are
documented in EPA's Geographical Targeting: Selected State Examples (1993).
Stakeholders then input appropriate assessment data into the agreed-upon prioritization
system to rank concerns within the basin. Next, targeting criteria are applied to priority
concerns to evaluate the administrative and economic feasibility of taking management
actions. In many cases, resources needed to address all concerns will exceed available
resources, and stakeholders will have to choose how to allocate their- personnel,  funds,
and equipment for development and implementation of management strategies.  If
funds .are insufficient to address a high-priority problem during one cycle iteration,
funds may be targeted for mitigation of the problem during the subsequent iteration.
The entire prioritization and targeting process is repeated.duringthe next iteration of
the management cycle to update methods and priorities, as appropriate.

                                                                     MODULE 2
Exhibit 2-2.  Assigning Priorities and Targeting to
Allocate Resources for Protection of Waterbody Integrity
(adapted from EPA's Geographic Targeting:  Selected State
Examples, 1993)

          Best Professional Judgment
            Ambient chemical data
          Best Professional judgment
        .  :       •  NPDESdata
             Biological/habitat data
            Human health risk data
                Groundwater data
          Drinking water compliance
      Priority Lists from other programs
        Function and value of resource
             Feasibility of controls
        Degree of pollution reduction
                Site-specific data
              Watershed modeling
 Develop Ranking Method
Data Gathering and Analysis
  (including Assessment  •
   . of Use Support)
                                   Waterbody Ranking/
                                      Priority Lists
 Target Selected Sub-basin
    or Problemshed
  Target Sites within a
  Watershed for Controls

I Experience in other States
 Public input (public meetings,
  committees, questionnaires)
 Institutional strengths,
  authority, interest of
  local agencies
    update needed
      for next
 Private funding of controls.
 Public funding/incentives
 Local regulations/support

                                                                 MODULE 2
                    MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

                   • Extension of priority-setting and targeting

                   • Stakeholder coordination to achieve goals

                   • Strategies reflect unique basin concerns
Viewgraph 10:  Element 7.  Capability
for Developing Management Strategies
Each statewide framework must have a capability for developing management
strategies that are logical extensions of the priority-setting and targeting steps.
Mechanisms such as basin technical planning teams and citizen advisory groups can
bring stakeholders together for this purpose. Stakeholders establish specific goals and
objectives for targeted watersheds, and then design strategies to achieve these goals
and objectives.  Strategies include (but are not limited to) applicable controls for point
and nonpoint sources that reflect TMQLs for .the basin or targeted smaller watersheds
and aquifers within the basin.                              -
In general, management strategies should reflect

  • Concerns unique to individual watersheds

  • Constraining factors such as resources available for control measures, legal
    authority, willingness of stakeholders to proceed
  • Best available assessments for effectiveness of options

  • Likelihood of success
 Some considerations in developing management strategies are the same as those for
 targeting. Targeting, however, is primarily an administrative and budgeting process,
 whereas management strategies consider factors from a technical planning and
 implementation standpoint. Whenever possible, strategies should build on existing
 projects and management efforts (e.g., point and nonpoint source controls and
 ecological restoration projects) With demonstrated value.         	    •

                                                                 MODULE 2
                     ELEMENT 8. BASIN AND WATERSHED
                     MANAGEMENT PLANS
                       ; Reference documents that preJsent
                      /     assessment results, specific v , •
                           management strategies, arid
                         corresponding stakeholder roles
Viewgraph 11: Element 8. Basin arid
Watershed Management Plans
Basin management plans document this results of the statewide watershed management
process, including selected management strategies and stakeholder roles.  They also
serve as reference points for future basin cycles. Basin management plans are typically
documented by state water program staff and include useful background information on

  • The b.asin (e.g., historical information on management, physical characteristics,
    designated uses and water quality standards, and demographic trends)

  • Status of surface and ground water resources (i.e., quantity and quality)

  • Listing of priority concerns

  • Strategies for achieving goals (including point and nonpoint source controls)

  • A recommended plan and schedule for implementation.

  • Measures for evaluating management effectiveness              .

Local sub-basin or watershed management plans, however,  can be developed with a
local agency playing a leading role. Strategies in local plans are often the result of
translating broader, basinwide goals into local action plans. For example, water supply
source protection goals may require detailed land-use and storm water control
ordinances at the local level. Appropriate information from local plans can be
incorporated into the overall basin plan. Planning documents are updated with each
iteration of the management cycle for that basin.

                                                                MODULE 2

Prior to implementation, basin management plans provide focus for basin planning
activities (e.g., setting or revising water quality standards, surface and ground water,
quality status assessment, priority setting, TMDL development, and management
strategy development).  After implementation, the basin management plan serves as a;
valuable reference for stakeholders and the general public on program management,
point and nonpoint source control requirements and recommendations, resource
allocations, and how plan performance is being measured. Well designed basin plans
should therefore document water quality management plans for the state's continuing
planning process. Also, with appropriate formats, basin plans should contain enough
information collectively to meet many federal reporting requirements such as those
under CWA Sections 305(b) and 303(d).           :

                                                                MODULE 2
                    ELEMENT 9. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
                          • Permit issuance
                          4 NPSBMPs
                          • Habitat restoration
                          • Monitoring effectiveness
Viewgraph12: Element 9.  Plan Implementation
Implementation of the basin and watershed plans is the culmination of the basin _,,
management cycle.  All activities up to this point should have built a foundation for
implementation.  Methods and means should already have been decided in the plan
development and documentation process. Implementation includes relevant
stakeholder activities such as:
.  •  Support of ongoing projects and management efforts to achieve basin and nested
    Watershed management goals     "  ,
  «  Issuance of permits (e.g., NPDES, public drinking water, U 1C, and ground water
    withdrawal) with conditions reflecting plan provisions
  •  Voluntary or mandatory best management practices to control nonpoint source
  •  Habitat restoration
  •  Pollution prevention programs
  • . Outreach programs to educate the public on management goals and involve them
    in implementation
  •  Continued development of phased TMDLs
  •  Allocation of funds to implementation activities through awards> grants, and other
    appropriations     .--.'•.'

                                            '                     MODULE 2
           T   •  ^"*™                               • (

  •  A monitoring'program to measure success and guide future basin management
    plan revisions                                      .
By the time this stage is reached, all stakeholders that participated in the process should
be well aware of management plan implementation provisions. The implementation
component has special significance, however, for local stakeholders who will have key
roles in implementing management strategies. In most cases, success will depend on
local actions regarding land use and utilities.  Implementation should therefore reflect a
truly integrated effort throughout the basin management planning process, with
assistance and commitment across all government levels, such that all parties
responsible for implementing the plans already endorse the basis and needier their
actions. Furthermore, sustaining cooperation will likely depend on demonstrating
accountability in carrying out plans and showing progress toward goals for public
health and resource protection and restoration.

                                                                MODULE 2
                    RIVER BASIN
                   Story contained in
                   Appendix 2-A

                   Example limited to
                   integrating elements within
                   single basin

                   Highlights local, state, and .
                   federal roles
Viewgraph 13: Integrating Key Elements Within a Basin: A
Hypothetical Example for Big River Basin
Understanding how the nine elements are integrated is essential to proceeding with the
course. A hypothetical example has been prepared drawing on experiences from
several statewide watershed management applications .and is provided in Appendix 2A.
For ease of illustration, the example is limited to integrating the elements within a single
basin (Big River Basin). Later modules within the course will focus on how integrated
operations are carried out statewide.  Emphasis in this example is focused on
demonstrating to participants how the nine elements relate to the flow of operations
under a basin management cycle. The example also highlights the involvement of a
local community (Waterville)to demonstrate how local efforts can be integrated with
state and federal activities.

                                                                 MODULE 2

                   4 More direct focus on resource protection

                   4 Improved basis for management decisions

                   * Enhancement of program efficiency
Viewgraph 14: Potential Benefits of a Statewide Approach
Theory and state experience to date indicate that implementation of a statewide
approach to watershed management can provide the following substantial benefits:

  • More Direct Focus on Resource Protection:  Traditionally, water programs focus
    on discrete activities such as standard setting, permitting, monitoring, enforcement,
    and nonpoint source control.  Program success has been defined quantitatively in
    terms of program activities (i.e., number of permits issued, samples taken,
    compliance orders, and inspections). Individual program goals and activities can
    more effectively protect and restore resources through a statewide watershed
    management process. Programs are less isolated under a statewide approach
    because activities of many programs are made complementary to achieve
    basinwide and nested watershed goals.
  • Improved Basis for Management Decisions:  A statewide approach can improve
    the scientific basis for management decision-making in three ways:
      -  Focusing on basins and watersheds encourages agencies to seek information
         on all significant stressors, including those often overlooked by traditional
         programs (e.g., ecosystem degradation attributable to habitat loss).
      -  Pooling resources and data of multiple stakeholders tends to increase the
         amount and types of data available for assessment and prioritization.
      -  Basin-oriented monitoring may yield more detailed information because of the
         intensive focus on a specific geographic region each year.

                                                           MODULE 2
Enhancement of Program Efficiency: Focusing on individual basins can improve
the efficiency of a state water program by facilitating consolidation of activities
such as monitoring programs, modeling studies, permit public notices, and public
meetings within each basin. Basin management plans also can be an.efficient
means for meeting CWA reporting mandates such as §305(b) assessment and
§303(d) listing of waterbodies needing TMDLs, as well as for monitoring
performance against §106 Work Program agreements.

                                                                 MODULE 2
                     APPROACH (CONTINUED)

                    • Improved coordination among programs
                     and agencies

                    • Allocation of resources to priority issues

                    * Consistency and continuity
Viewgraph 15: Potential Benefits of a Statewide Approach (continued)
    Coordination Among Programs and Agencies Can Be Improved: By design, the
    three core basin focus elements (basin management units, the basin management
    cycle, and basin plans) provide the foundation for coordinating the core activity
    elements (stakeholder involvement, monitoring, assessment, prioritization and
    targeting, developing management strategies, and implementation). Each statewide
    framework therefore provides the means for communicating and working in tandem
    with other partners. With each partner working under the same schedules, activities
    can be synchronized in advance arid made to complement one another. In
    particular, a basin approach can help clarify the role of the state water quality
    agency in relation to other natural resource agencies—those in state and local
    governments as well as federal agencies that have state and local offices.  Some
    tasks require site-specific knowledge and close local contact, while others require
    •state-level authority or can be more cost effective at that scale.
     - For instance, the state water quality agency often is well equipped to conduct
        laboratory analysis arid monitoring and to provide oversight for water quality
        standards and discharge permitting. This agency can play a coordinating role
        to secure support from other state and federal agencies and leverage resources
        for multi-stakeholder efforts.
     - The basin approach provides an umbrella under which local programs can be
        reinforced and their consistency with state- and basin-level objectives ensured.
        local agencies and organizations may. be in the best position to develop
        detailed land-use inventories; organize workshops and educational programs;
        and implement BMPs, habitat restoration and protection, or land-use controls.


                                                               MODULE 2
 Program Resources Are Better Directed to Priority Issues:  A state is better able to
 geographically focus its water quality program resources where they are most
 needed, because the statewide approach:     .

  - Assigns priorities to water quality issues and water resource concerns to target
    program resources and optimize management efforts

,  - Sequences basins to allow for comprehensive review of within-basin needs as
    well as comparison of resource needs among basins

  - Improves coordination among stakeholders through the statewide framework
    to produce common management priorities and promote resource leveraging

 Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged:  By focusing on goals to be achieved
 over several basin cycles, the approach reduces the tendency to.operate in a
 reactive or crisis mode. Issues can be evaluated for their relative priority, and
 efforts can be synchronized with the overall basin cycle schedule. The basin
 management cycle, because of its iterative structure, also ensures periodic update
 of priorities and management strategies. Successive updates of management plans
 can build on efforts in preceding iterations, adding continuity that may have been
 lacking prior to statewide watershed management. Such continuity provides
 stakeholders with a stronger foundation for long-term planning.  Utility directors,
for example, can better plan their long-term water supply and wastewater treatment

 Improved consistency is possible because pollution sources across a basin are
 evaluated within the same time frame, and because management actions are
subject to broad scrutiny during the planning process. Thus/for example, animal
 producers across a basin are likely to be subject to consistent ground and surface
water impact analysis and management measures. Similarly, a state may study all
 NPDES permittees along a major river at the same time using the same water
quality model; the fact that these stakeholders will be aware of the process and
each other's discharge  limits tends to promote consistent and equitable permits and
may reduce the number of grievances filed by permittees. Analogous steps can be
taken for drinking water and ground  water program-related permits  (e.g., UIC and
 RCRA permits). Implementing strategies at the same time throughout a basin also
 promotes consistency.

                                                                MODULE 2
                    APPROACH (CONTINUED)
                        • Opportunities for data sharing
                        f Increased public involvement
                        4 I nnovifive solutions" •
Viewgraph 16: Potential Benefits of a Statewide Approach (continued)
    Opportunities for Data Sharing Are Enhanced
     - Increased data sharing is an important benefit of any process in which
        stakeholders from different organizations work toward common goals. Most
        state and local agencies have records and information systems unique to their
        individual function.  In many states, for example, data on nonpoint sources are
        housed in several agencies and not readily accessible to outside parties.
        Inaccessible data on land use and BMPs significantly limit some state's
        nonpoint source efforts. The statewide approach's use of common geographic
        management units and emphasis on joint planning increase opportunities for
        data exchange.
     - A statewide approach can promote sharing of new computer technology among
        agencies. Geographic Information Systems (CIS) can be used to analyze spatial
        data from several agencies for entire basins, for example, to show the
        relationship between land use and predicted nonpoint source loadings. CIS
        buffering techniques are being used to assess the need for riparian habitat
        protection, design greenway systems, analyze biodiversity, and plan wetland
        banking programs, among other purposes.
    Public Involvement Is Enhanced: A statewide approach focuses on a discrete
    r.esource (the basin) around which citizens can rally. The approach promotes
    citizen awareness of water-related issues and encourages agencies to respond to
    their concerns. Opportunities for this interaction occur during basin plan

                                                              MODULE 2
development and activities such as workshops, hearings, and citizen monitoring..
Scheduling activities throughout a management cycle lets the public know well in
advance when certain activities will occur such that interested parties can plan
their participation. A secondary benefit of public involvement is that a better
informed public can lead to increased citizen and legislative support for water
quality programs.  *

Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged:  Some problems in a basin, such as habitat
destruction, inadequate stream flow, wetland loss, atmospheric deposition, and
introduced aquatic species, are difficult for traditional water quality-programs to
address. Statewide watershed management can provide a strong framework for
identifying and solving such problems. Problem identification is made easier by
involving technical experts from many fields during the environmental assessment
portion of the basin cycle—aquatic biologists working side by side with water
resource engineers and agricultural specialists, for example, can share data and
perspectives on a basin's stressors. Solutions are not  limited by the authority or
expertise of a single agency, but rather encompass the range of stakeholders.

                                                                  MODULE 2
                     "Top TEN" LESSONS LEARNED
                   • Statewide watershed management is not a panacea
                   • Stakeholders and partners must work together
                     toward a common .vision
                   • A targeted priority watershed approach can be made
                     more efficient and effective
                   • Documentation describing the consensus approach
                     is essential
                   4 A teamwork-oriented development process is
Viewgraph 17:  Lessons Learned
Statewide watershed management is not a panacea.  Stakeholders often have inflated
expectations regarding the ability of statewide watershed management to solve all the -
complex problems associated with water quality management. Stakeholders should
recognize from the beginning that not all activities, programs, or resources should be
included in the statewide framework. Certain workload requirements will not fall within
the coordinating structure offered by the statewide approach. For example, several
states have chosen not to include enforcement resources within the framework.
Managers must also recognize the need to reserve resources for dealing with
contingencies and emergencies that will occur outside of the basin or watershed
sequence. Allocation of resources must be balanced between activities within the
statewide framework and activities outside the framework. Statewide watershed
management can result in more effective targeting of declining program resources and
increased public support for resource protection, but it does not necessarily increase the
amount of funding available or resolve all differences among stakeholders.
Statewide watershed management stakeholders and partners must work together to
develop a common vision of the framework. Building a consensus vision for statewide
watershed management begins with educational forums that allow stakeholders to work
together in developing partnerships and fostering an understanding of how the approach
can serve as a coordinating framework for water and other resource  programs.
Establishing a consensus vision  requires recognition among partners of complementary
objectives that can be translated into a common purpose, set of goals, and elements for
statewide watershed management. Because this common vision can lead to agreement

                                                                  MODULE 2
on coordinating elements (e.g., management units, basin plans, activities), it is
important for partners to make an early effort to work together On this step.

Statewide watershed management can make a targeted priority watershed approach
more efficient and effective.  Statewide watershed management neither replaces nor
supersedes local or priority watershed initiatives. Instead, a statewide approach
provides a long-term mechanism for continuing support of ongoing and priority
watershed initiatives. Some states (e.g., Idaho) have adopted statewide watershed
management to more effectively allocate limited resources among an increasing
number of independent successful watershed projects.  Basin delineation, sequencing,
and individual basin cycles allow statewide partners to balance their own workload
and resource allocations while achieving better coordination with local, state, and
federal partners. Therefore/when the statewide sequence reaches a basin having an
ongoing watershed initiative, that project becomes a targeted priority and the statewide
partners determine how they can help to build upon its success.

Documentation describing the consensus approach to  statewide watershed
management is essential.  Because statewide watershed management is a new way of
doing business for most partners, having a reference document describing procedures,
agreements,  roles, and responsibilities within the new framework is extremely valuable.
Some participating agencies  and programs develop detailed work plans that
incorporate statewide watershed management procedures and can be used to guide
implementation. Some efforts also have a more general guide (e.g., an information
pamphlet) that is more accessible to public stakeholders and provides information
regarding opportunities for their involvement.

The character of the process to develop statewide watershed management is
important. Partners have learned not to rush the process to develop statewide
watershed management and  to ensure that the process is inclusive. Making and
defining partnerships takes time, especially when there  is no history of cooperation
among stakeholders. AH stakeholders can play an important role in identifying and
overcoming  impediments. A methodical, well-conceived, comprehensive approach to
the development process lays the foundation for the teamwork and coordination that
collectively represent the hallmark of statewide watershed management.

                                                                  MODULE 2
                     "Top TEN" LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
                   • Investment of time and effort during development .
                     and transition is substantial .
                   • Phased implementation allows time for the approach
                     to mature
                   * Operations under statewide watershed management
                     do not necessarily require additional resources
                   4 Proper means and timing of outreach is critical for
                     successful public participation       .
                   4 The impact on teamwork, morale, arid program
                     relationships is positive
Investment of time and effort during development and transition to statewide
watershed management is substantial.  Because one size does not fit all and some
assembly is required, partners must commit resources when developing a statewide
approach. Participating stakeholders must be involved so that the mechanisms for
coordinating their activities are clearly defined. Each element must be considered and
tailored to fit the particular needs for that state. For example, agencies should not
assume that the full burden for developing the framework document can be undertaken
solely by volunteer staff. Allocation of sufficient funds and staff time by partners will
demonstrate their commitment to the effort;
Phased implementation of statewide watershed management allows time for the
approach to mature. Partners must account for a transition period in moving from a
program-based operation to a resource-based operation. Technical and administrative
procedures must be allowed to develop and refine as the coordinating framework
becomes established.  An organization in transition will discover many new information
management needs and solutions.  Not all of the features of statewide watershed
management described in the framework document will be implemented immediately.
Synchronizing activities within.basin management cycles will be tied to the evolution of
key administrative procedures that define operations under a statewide approach.
Many of these needs and changes can be anticipated, and a plan can be developed to
smooth the transition to the  new approach.

                                                                  MODULE 2
Operations under statewide watershed management do not necessarily require
additional resources. States that have undertaken the development and
implementation of a statewide approach have done so under the assumption thattheir
water resource programs will continue to endure declining financial resources.
Typically, statewide watershed management is viewed as a zero-based budget
initiative.  Several elements, particularly the priority and targeting element, enhance
allocation of program resources.  Certain efficiency gains such as consolidation pf
reporting requirements contribute to new activities required by the statewide approach
(e.g., increased coordination and public involvement). Several states have viewed
statewide watershed management as a public sector marketing approach to build
citizen support in legislatures and to recruit more grants.

Proper means and timing of outreach is critical for successful public participation in
statewide watershed management: Recruiting agency and public partners as soon as
possible into the process of developing and implementing a statewide watershed
approach is key. On the other hand, reaching too far too quickly for partners is also
possible. The champion must be able to clearly outline the rationale and need for a
statewide approach and to provide administrative structure and support for involving
public stakeholders and other potential partners.

Statewide watershed management has a positive impact on teamwork, morale, and
program relationships.  The development process leads to a better understanding and
appreciation among stakeholders of their roles and responsibilities and how they fit into
the "big picture".  The coordinated timing of activities provides for more support and
cooperation among programs and agencies at all levels. Statewide watershed  ,
management establishes mechanisms to build capabilities for collaborative
development of management strategies. Examples of these forums include basin teams,
citizen advisory groups, targeting and priority setting workshops, and basin plans that
consolidate and fulfill resource management requirements.

                                                                MODULE 2

                 * Shaped by authorities and capabilities of
                 • Stages for discussion
                   * Organizing statewide framework development
                   * Tailoring statewide framework elements
                   * Making the transition
                   • Operating under a statewide approach
Viewgraph 19: Roles in Framework
Development and Implementation
The remainder of this training course will focus on how statewide watershed
management frameworks can be developed and implemented.  Integration and
coordination of activities require planning. A formal process for framework
development helps to ensure that components are well considered and that a common
understanding exists among participants before integration of activities is attempted,

Partners in the process will need to accept'certain roles in order for statewide
framework development and implementation to occur. Roles will be shaped by the
type of authority and capabilities that each partner brings to the process.
For example, where the state has retained complete water quality program authority,
the appropriate state agency could take the lead in statewide framework development.
A lead role will include duties such as procuring resources for the development
process, educating participants regarding the approach, recruiting stakeholders, and ^
managing the process to develop each framework component. In this situation, EPA's
role could be to gain a thorough understanding of the state's interests and needs to be
better positioned to facilitate and support the process for the state. Support could
include actions ranging from direct funding and technical assistance to participation as
a stakeholder in the development process. When EPA has assumed certain program
authorities for a given state, the agency may have a leadership role in the development
' of specific framework components. Roles of other federal, state, and local agencies
and nongovernmental stakeholders will-depend on circumstances that arise in each
state.                                                    .   '     •

                                                               MODULE 2

Throughout the remaining course modules, specific roles and opportunities will be
discussed for partners in the framework. Because the development and implementation
process is fairly complex, these roles will be discussed in stages:

  •  Organizing Statewide Framework Development (Module 3: Getting Started)

  •  Tailoring Statewide Framework Elements (Module 4: Establishing Statewide
    Coordination Elements; Module 5: Defining Core Activity Elements)

  •  Making the Transition (Module 6: Making the Transition to Statewide Watershed
    Management)                                             '
  •  Operating Under a Statewide Approach (Module 7:  Putting a Statewide Approach
    into Practice)


         APPENDIX TO
          MODULE 2



                                                   APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                  •HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
                                      APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                     HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
    Exhibit 2A-1.  Big River Basin Management Cycle


1 .






MONTHS 3-1 8
MONTHS 1 9-24
MONTHS 25-27
MONTHS 28-36
MONTHS 37-45
MONTHS 46-48
MONTHS 49-54
k '




                                                    APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                   HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
                          STEP 1. OUTREACH AND ORGANIZATION

                        Key Activities
                        • Public meeting to explain statewide
                         watershed management and opportunities
                         for Big River Basin stakeholders
                        • Formation of citizen advisory committee
                         and technical planning teams
                        • Orientation of committee and team
                         members to their roles and responsibilities
Stepl.  Outreach and Organization
Time Frame:  Months 1-3 in 60-month cycle

A meeting is convened in Waterville's City Hall to discuss the statewide watershed
management process with Big River Basin stakeholders. DEQ begins the meeting with a
general description of the statewide approach and anticipated benefits, drawing from
the state's framework document. Partners from agricultural, forestry, wildlife, and
community assistance agencies also present their roles in the statewide framework. The
meeting emphasizes how integrated basin management will proceed and highlights
opportunities for local stakeholder involvement, including the citizens' advisory
committee and stakeholder meetings. The following groups are assembled to facilitate
basin and local  planning:
  • A citizens' advisory committee to review findings of the technical basin planning
    team and provide input regarding basin management goals, problems, priorities,
    strategies, and implementation
  • A basin team to coordinate large-scale planning and implementation
  • Watershed teams to coordinate local planning and implementation
All of these entities include public outreach as a part of their functibns.     ; •,  .
Nominations are solicited by DEQ for the citizens' advisory committee for Big River
Basin.  Membership slots are filled from a cross-section of basin stakeholders, including
representatives from industry, agriculture, forestry, commerce, environmental groups,
and several local governments. The Waterville City Manager is appointed to chair the
committee. The first committee meeting involves orientation of new members on their
roles and committee protocols, along with review of initial management goals and
objectives for B.ig River Basin.

                                                   APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                   HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
A.technicai basin team and local watershed teams for.several sub-basins are also
organized. Most of the basin team is comprised of experts from1 state and federal
agencies, and the state university located in Waterville. Waterville is part of the Falls
Creek Watershed Team, along with two other municipalities and the county.  The
watershed team includes staff from WaterviHe's planning, engineering, stormwater,
utilities, parks and recreation, and sanitation programs. Chairpersons from each local
watershed team will meet with the basin team at key points in the basin cycle.
                          STEP.2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN

                           Key Activities
                           • Identifying information needs, with initial
                            emphasis on basin characterization and
                            strategic monitoring plans
                           4 Applying protocols for information
                            management and transfer
                           • Developing and implementing strategic
                            monitoring plan
Step 2. Collect Relevant Basin Information
Time Frame: Months 3-18
Basin information is collected by the basin management team. A list of information
needs is prepared using a checklist from the framework document, input from the
stakeholders meeting and advisory committee, and best professional judgment of basin
team members. Local watershed teams are to provide input to the basin management
team in accordance with the standard protocols developed for the statewide framework.
Waterville provides information on its population growth, water supply demands,
wastewater flows, and watershed protection measures (such as land-use zoning,
stormwater controls, stream buffer requirements, erosion controls, and provisions for
wetlands protection and pollution prevention). Providing information on general basin
characteristics (e.g., geology, hydrology, climate, and biology), designated uses, and
sources of stressors is the basin team's responsibility.

A strategic monitoring plan is developed and implemented with both basin and
watershed components based upon preliminary review of-available information. Tech-
nical planning team members and the advisory.committee help identify information
gaps and assessment needs to be addressed by the plan.  State and federal agencies
integrate their specialized expertise to collect ambient data throughout the basin for

                                                     APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                     HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
\ analyzing physical, chemical, and biological components of water quality trends and
 evaluating the effectiveness of existing management strategies. They also take the lead
 in special intensive surveys to identify and quantify risk. Primary contacts for the basin
 monitor ing team work with local monitoring consortiums to complement one another's
 efforts.  Waterville is a member of the Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring Consortium,
 which conducts a wide variety of monitoring, including stormwater, wastewater,
 drinking water, and ambient water quality sampling.  Local citizen volunteer monitoring
 groups also participate in the consortium. Sampling protocols are established for
 consistency and.comparability, and reporting format is standardized for local, state, and
 federal monitoring results.                                        .
 Each participating agency is designated as data custodian for selected basin information
 and is entrusted to follow agreed-upon quality assurance procedures in entering and
 storing data. Partners generally maintain data for their own program activities. For
 example,  DEQ maintains information on surface, ground, and drinking water. The
 forestry, agricultural, and wildlife agencies all maintain descriptions of relevant activi-
 ties, land use data, and ongoing water resource restoration and protection measures.
 Basin stakeholders can upload and download  information to and from a centralized data
 management system maintained by DEQ. The basin team compiles an inventory of
 available information and distributes it to members and interested stakeholders.
                           STEP 3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE
                          ' INFORMATION
                        Key Activities
                        • Partners perform assessments
                        « Basin team compiles assessment information into
                         preliminary report for review and evaluation
                        • Partners finalize assessment documents; DEQ uses
                         information to fulfill §303(d) listing and §305(b)
                         reporting requirements for Big River Basin
 Step 3. Analyze and Evaluate Information
 Time Frame: Months 19-24
 Water quality status assessments based on data collected in Step 2 are made by DEQ to
 fulfill the state's §305(b) reporting requirements for Big River Basin. Results include lists
 of impaired waters and habitat, along with preliminary identification of causes and

                                                    APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                    HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
sources of impairment. State and federal wildlife resource agencies and a local citizens'
group, Friends of Big River, also identify waters (including wetlands) within Big River
Basin that need special protection. The Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring Consortium
produces a report assessing stormwater runoff impacts below Waterville. The state's
geological survey and groundwater program cooperatively produce a groundwater
vulnerability study for the basin. A cooperative project among state and federal agricul-
tural agencies produces an analysis of agriculture-related water resource concerns.
Similarly, the state Forestry Commission identifies water resource concerns related to
forestry activities within the basin. The State University provides assessments for a wide
range of issues using funding from both private and public sources. USGS and DEQ
combine their CIS expertise to perform an overlay analysis summarizing basin
assessment results and corresponding relationships to physical features such as geology
and land use/land cover.
The basin team compiles all assessment information into a preliminary report that will
also be used to fulfill several subsections of the Big River Basin Plan (e.g., Chapter 1-
Basin Characteristics, Chapter 2-Existing Status of Water Resources, and Chapter 3-
Causes and  Sources of Resource Degradation). DEQ uses the compiled assessment
information to prepare a preliminary update of its CWA §303(d) list for waters in need of
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Partners and stakeholders discuss the preliminary
assessment results at a series of team and advisory committee meetings, and the
compiled assessment report and §303(d) list update are refined accordingly.
                          STEP 4. PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
                       Key Activities
                       • The basin team screens input for compliance
                         with minimum data requirements for ranking for
                         management strategy development
                       • Stakeholders review preliminary rankings

                       • Basin team finalizes rankings to develop manage-
                         ment strategies and additional monitoring
Step 4. Prioritize Concerns and Issues
Time Frame: Months 25-27

The Big River Basin team uses assessment information to develop a numerical index for
priority ranking using the prioritization system developed for the statewide framework.

                                                   APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                   HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Because the prioritization protocols include minimum assessment data requirements,
some waterbodies are not ranked for management strategy development. The
preliminary ranked list is presented to the Big River Citizens' Advisory Committee for
review and comment. Example issues on Waterville's ranked list include:.
  •  NFS nutrient loading to the Waterville drinking water reservoir> resulting in
     accelerated rates of eutrophication and threat to drinking water, aesthetics, and
   ' -public health (i.e., algal toxins and disinfection byproduct precursors);
  •  Physical habitat degradation of the Falls Creek riparian corridor within Waterville
     and extending into surrounding rural areas (farm and range lands), resulting in loss
     of fisheries;
  •  Stormwater pollution and increases in  peak runoff that exceed flood stage due to
     increased development;
  •  Ground water and surface water contamination from failing septic systems in
     adjacent unincorporated areas in conjunction with severe limits on remaining
     capacity available at existing wastewater treatment plant;

  •  NPDES permit changes for Waterville to account for major new industrial source.
     (Permit will require re-evaluation of local limits for pretreatment program and
     pollution prevention program.)     ;
Input issolicited from additional basin stakeholders at a public meeting held at
Waterville City Hall.  The citizens' advisory committee recommends revising the ranking
slightly to address specific management goals for the Big River Basin that are not taken
into account by the initial ranking method.  Additional priorities for monitoring to fill
identified management gaps are also discussed. The basin team adopts many of the
committee's recommendations and documents the final rankings in a chapter for the Big
River Basin Management Plan.

                                                    APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                    HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
                          'STEP 5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS'
                          OF PRIORITY ISSUES
                        Key Activities
                        4 Partners integrate efforts to perform detailed
                        • Basin team compiles and evaluates assessments

                        • Recommendations are made for loading
                         reductions or restrictions to meet restoration
                         and protection goals
Step 5.  Perform Detailed Assessments of Priority Issues
Time Frame:  Months 28-36

The Big River Basin team determines that resources and information are sufficient to
quantify thirty-five of the sixty issues prioritized for management. Watershed areas
lacking sufficient information for detailed assessment are targeted for future sampling in
the strategic monitoring plan. DEQ leads a process to establish TMDLs for impaired and
threatened waters within the basin where data are sufficient to quantify pollutant loading
levels required for restoration or protection. The Waterville Reservoir is assessed for a
nutrient TMDL that will reduce the threat of nuisance algal blooms. A combination of
field-calibrated and desktop models is used for the analyses based on assessment
objectives, model attributes, and resource constraints. The results will rank nutrient
loadings to the reservoir such that the information on loadings can be effectively used in
the next step to develop cost effective control strategies. NRCS leads a cooperative effort
with other agricultural agencies to identify significant contaminant loading areas and
quantify needs for agricultural best management practices (BMPs).  EPA leads a risk
assessment process for the Falls Creek.watershed. The Falls Creek Watershed Team
assists by quantifying primary source loads for priority parameters of concern identified
from the stormwater study. The state university is awarded a grant to estimate nutrient
load reductions needed to mitigate the eutrophication problem threatening Waterville's
water supply reservoir. The state and U.S. Geological Surveys help assess and model
hydrologic and geohydrologic conditions for many of the partner studies.

The Big River Basin team gathers and evaluates all detailed assessments for use in the
management strategy development step. Results include magnitudes of problems,
detailed information on causes and sources of impairment, inventories of areas in need
of special protection, habitat restoration needs, and estimates of loading reductions and
maximum allowable loadings (TMDLs) to meet restoration and protection goals.

                                                    APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                   HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
                         STEP 6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

                         Key Activities
                         « Basin team and advisory committee finalize
                           specific goals and objectives for 35
                           targeted priority concerns
                         • Management options are identified and
                           evaluated using multi-objective criteria
                         • Basin and watershed teams select preferred
                           management strategies and establish
                           implementation means                .
Step 6.  Develop Management Strategies
Time Frame:  Months 37-45
                                           , /
The basin team presents to the Big River Citizens' Advisory Committee and local
watershed teams proposed TMDLs, contaminant load reductions, and habitat
restoration needs corresponding to the thirty-five priority basin concerns. The
committee helps establish specific management goals based on the team's
recommendations. Focus groups are formed to identify and evaluate management
options that will meetbasin goals. Combinations of point and nonpoint source
controls, pollution prevention, and restoration options are evaluated based on the
degree of environmental benefit, feasibility, cost effectiveness, and willingness of
stakeholders to participate where voluntary measures are needed. Experts from the
basin and watershed teams provide technical input. The Falls Creek Watershed Team
proposes a six-pronged strategy for meeting goals in its part of the basin:

  •  Watershed master planning,

  «  General development restrictions,
  •  Environmental site-planning,         .
  •  Sediment and erosion control during construction,
  •  Urban stormwater BMPs, and                     .
  .-   .       '             .           i             .        -        ,•'.-'-
  •  A community stream restoration program.
NRCS leads development of several watershed BMP implementation plans where
farmers are willing to participate collectively. State and federal agencies propose target
watersheds for their grants, cost-share funds, and State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans as
partial means to implementing selected actions-.

                                                  APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                  HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
                         STEP 7. PREPARE DRAFT BASIN AND
                         WATERSHED PLANS

                      Key Activities
                      « Basin and
Step 7.  Prepare Draft Basin and Watershed Plans
Time Frame: Months 46-48

The Big River Basinteam and the local watershed teams compile the information and
draft chapters from earlier steps into draft basin and watershed management plans. The
Falls Creek watershed team refines its watershed protection strategy slightly based on
additional insight obtained during the later stages of Step 6. Implementation strategies
outlining methods and means for achieving basin and watershed management goals are
clearly documented.
                         STEP 8. FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN
                         AND WATERSHED PLANS

                        Key Activities
                        + Plans are distributed for stakeholder
                          review and comment
                        4 Public meetings are held to obtain input
                        • Plans are officially authorized for
 Step 8. Finalize and Distribute Basin and Watershed Plans
 Time Frame:  Months 49-54
 Basin and watershed teams release their plans for review by stakeholders. The Falls
 Creek Watershed Team conducts a public meeting in the Waterville City Hall jointly
 with the Big River Basin Team to obtain input on both the basin and watershed plans.

                                                     APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                    HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Because many stakeholders participated in plan development, revisions are minimal.
Officials from the Falls Creek Watershed Team formally sign the-plan to authorize its
implementation. The Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee and a
representative from each key agency with responsibility for implementing-the basin plan
provide authorizing signatures. EPA accepts the basin plan for meeting water program
§305(b) reporting, §303(d) fisting, and continuing planning process requirements.
                          STEP 9. IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED

                          Key Activities
                          • Basin and watershed teams conduct outreach
                           to raise stakeholder awareness of
                           implementation plans and participation needs
                          • Partners and stakeholders mobilize funds and
                           personnel to implement strategies
                          • Monitoring plans are updated to include
                           environmental indicators for evaluating
                           effectiveness of strategies
Step 9.  Implement Basin and Watershed Plans
Time Frame:  Months 55-60 and beyond

Initial activities involve outreach and mobilization of funds and personnel. The Falls
Creek Watershed Team holds a meeting in Watervilie to explain to stakeholders how
strategies will be implemented, particularly where voluntary efforts will be needed to
achieve basin and watershed goals.  DEQ issues Waterville a new NPDES permit with
effluent limits and monitoring requirements consistent with the basin plan; limits remain
similar to previous permits, except for nutrients and cadmium. Plans call for reductions
in both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients, and Waterville's revised NPDES
nutrient limits reflect TMDLs established for nitrogen and phosphorus.  Nonpoint source
load allocations under the TMDLs are addressed through a combination of strategies,
including BMPs made possible through state cost-share funds and CWA §319 grants.
EPA assists in locating and procuring additional funds for watershed protection  .
Waterville  revises its ordinances to reflect its six-pronged watershed protection strategy.
Significant effort is directed toward implementing a riparian reforestation program to
restore buffer zones around many streams impacted by rapid urban development.

                                                   APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
                                                   HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Community groups volunteer to plant seedlings provided by the state forestry agency.
Additionally, Waterville embarks on a five-year program to upgrade its urban
stormwater BMPs to imitate the natural hydrology that existed in Falls Creek prior to
urban development. The state issues Waterville a low-interest SRF loan to support the
project. DEQ works with Waterville to implement additional actions to support well-
head protection and drinking water source protection strategies.

The Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring Consortium updateslts strategic monitoring plan
to evaluate progress toward management strategy goals. Similarly, the Big River Basin
team updates its plan including key environmental indicators for the thirty-five priority
watershed zones.
                          STEP 10. REPEAT THE CYCLE
                        Participants will continually build on the
                        foundation developed through the first
                        basin management cycle iteration
Step 10. Repeat the Cycle

Waterville—along with its local, state, and federal partners—is ready to begin the next
iteration of the basin cycle for the Big River Basin. Participants build on the foundation
developed through the first iteration. For example, resource constraints prevented
partners from addressing several issues during the first iteration. These issues and new
concerns that emerge during the subsequent iteration are entered into the numerical
prioritization index and ranked for mitigation. Thus, water resource management
progresses—systematically building on previous efforts and bringing new concerns to
light—in a process that is designed to continually improve management of Big River
Basin's waters.



                                                        GETTING STARTED
                     PURPOSES OF MODULE
                       4 To present important steps that
                        will serve as a springboard for
                        statewide framework development

                       4 To help participants identify key
                        issues and potential solutions for
                        their states and regions
Viewgraph 1:  Purposes of Module
This module is intended to provide participants with an understanding of important
steps that can be taken early in the statewide framework development process to get the
effort off to a good start. It is also designed to help participants anticipate issues, arid
identify potential solutions for such issues, that may arise in their own states and regions
as a result of shifting from a management approach that is program-centered to one that
is basin-centered. The foundation for this part of the course derives from the
experiences of states that have completed the planning process and, in so doing,
changed functional relationships among individuals and programs as needed to
implement a statewide approach.

                                                         GETTING STARTED
                     LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                  This module should enable participants to
                  4 Identify steps for establishing a common direction
                    for stakeholders
                  • Describe the process for managing statewide
                    framework development
                  • Identify impediments to a statewide approach
                  • Explain the importance of preparing a framework
Viewgraph 2: Learning Objectives
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to

  • Identify key steps for establishing a common direction for the basin management
    initiative, including championing development of a statewide framework,
    identifying and recruiting stakeholders for the basin management initiative, and
    working with partners to promote and achieve a common vision.
  • Describe a process for managing the transition from an existing program to
    statewide watershed management, including identifying a leader for the process,
    establishing ground rules for the development process, establishing a resource base
    for framework development, educating participants on the approach, establishing a
    means of communication among participants and stakeholders, and developing a
    work plan for statewide framework development

  • Identify existing and potential impediments to developing and implementing a
    statewide approach, including institutional barriers such as the grant allocation
    process, staff concerns with change, and resource constraints.
  • Describe a rationale for and means of documenting the approach through a
    statewide framework document.

                                                        GETTING STARTED
                     Championing development
                     • Ensuring transition from a program focus
                      to a resource focus

                     • Recruiting partners

                     • Initiating the framework development
Viewgraph 3: Establishing a Common Direction
Starting the statewide framework development process involves establishing goals,
components, participant roles, and methods for development. Achieving consensus
among partners on purpose, goals, objectives, and components will help establish a
common direction that facilitates framework development and implementation.
Championing development, identifying and recruiting partners, and working toward
achieving a common vision are three tasks that cap expedite early efforts in establishing
a common direction.

Championing  Development

  • In most cases, development of a statewide approach will fundamentally change the
    way participants operate from an independent, program-centered approach to an
    integrated, resource-centered approach.  Such a change requires a champion, or
    champions, to ensure implementation. For example, there have been several cases
    where champions emerged from a state-level water quality agency, a pattern
    attributable to the degree of state responsibility for administering programs related
    to watershed management and the corresponding pressure to make these programs
    more efficient and effective. State agencies are not the only parties with a stake in
    watershed management, however, and other champions can arise. The champion
    takes on the job of recruiting other partners and initiating the statewide framework
    development process.

                                                                  MODULE 3
                                                         GETTING STARTED
                                   recruiting stakeholders
                                 [verse stakeholders
                                  i recruitment pkrt
                                        ; admhii^ative, and
                       environmental rationales for recruiting
4 Involv|i|
• Develijpr
Identifying and Recruiting Partners
  *  The champion(s) will need to determine what resources, agencies, and programs
    should be recruited for framework development. It is important to be as
    comprehensive as possible—an integrated approach requires commitment from
    diverse stakeholders that possess authority and resources for development and
    implementation of integrated solutions. Several states have defined the approach as
    a broad natural resources management initiative; other states have targeted specific
    programs within water quality as the basis for an integrated approach. States that
    are developing a broader approach have included many programs and agencies
    beyond surface and ground water quality, such as water resources (quantity), soil
    conservation and other agricultural extension services, fish and wildlife, drinking
    water, hazardous waste cleanup, and parks and recreation, among others (Exhibit
    3-1). If the statewide approach is to be restricted to a set of core programs, phased
    involvement for other interested agencies or programs may be the best strategy.
    Developing  a plan for recruiting and involving other programs and agencies that are
    eligible'to be partners within your basin management approach mandate is critical.
    Perhaps the  most difficult question for the lead agency is timing. For example, do
    you notify other groups before you have a clearly defined proposal, or do you wait
    until the concept is more fully developed, risking the possibility of offending
    potential partners?
    Clearly describing the legislative, administrative, and environmental rationales for
  '  recruiting each partner for participation in the initiative is also helpful. The level
    and extejit of involvement in statewide watershed management is flexible and can
    easily be defined for each partner.

                                       3-4                                 .

                                                     GETTING STARTED
    Exhibit 3-1. Delaware's Multi-Stakeholder Resource
    Protection Strategy

Initial planning for a statewide WPA in Delaware started with a small work group
within the Water Resources Division, where most of the traditional water quality
programs reside. A primary goal identified by the work group was the restoration
of wetlands and estuaries that have been impacted by the  extensive use of
drainage ditches by agricultural operations.  The Division of Water Resources
realized  that  a comprehensive  watershed  approach  would  require  new
partnerships with other resource  management agencies.  Therefore, a large
number of potential stakeholders  were  invited to the Delaware Whole Basin
Planning Workshop held in/January 1993,  including  Parks and Recreation, Fish
and  Wildlife,  Soil and Water  (nonpoint source programs  and  agricultural
extension services), Air and Waste Management (Superfund), and  New  Castle
County Planning.
Workshop  participants identified several complementary goals and objectives
that  could be  achieved  through, increased  integration and  coordination of
activities within basins.  This consensus was summarized in the  "Beachhead
Strategy—Ripple Model,"  which identified Water  Resources as the primary
planning lead for watershed approaches  in Delaware because of its base of
support through the Clean Water Act and associated programs.  The strategy
proposed  incremental  implementation  by  Water  Resources and gradual
involvement (ripple model) of other stakeholders (e.g., Fish and Wildlife).
The initial model for stakeholder involvement, however, was quickly superseded
through increased interest on the part of planning workshop participants to serve
as equal partners in the planning  and implementation process. Exercises were
conducted to identify areas of constructive interaction for each basin planning
component (e.g., strategic monitoring, environmental assessments, priority-setting
and targeting, development of management options, and implementation).  The:
draft outline for basin plans was amended  to incorporate the expanded resource
 protection strategy.   A  basin team comprised  of  representatives from each
 division prepared and presented a  proposal to the Department Secretary for
 development of a statewide framework document.  The Department Secretary
 and Division Chiefs endorsed the concept and approved resource allocations for
 completion of the Delaware framework document.

                                                                 MODULE 3
                                                        GETTING STARTED

                                Achieving a Common Vision
                                • Identifying complementary benefits
                                  for participating stakeholders

                                   • Authoring a unified mission
                                     • Ensuring interagency
Viewgraph 5: Establishing a Common Direction (continued)
Achieving a Common Vision
  • Achieving a common vision among partners of what will constitute the statewide
    approach is recommended before attempting to build the framework. Early efforts
    should involve identifying complementary and supporting objectives, roles, and
    benefits for programs and agencies participating in the approach.  Allowing each
    partner to define their own level of commitment and involvement greatly enhances
    this envisioning process. Each partner should have a substantive role
    (commensurate with its level of responsibility) in designing the statewide
    framework. The six core activity elements (i.e., monitoring, assessment,
    prioritization, strategy development, plan documentation, and implementation) can
    be used as a guide to encourage and categorize  responses. Discussion should
    center around general capabilities and resources that each partner can and is
    willing to bring to the framework.
   • A unified mission statement agreeable to all partners can document the common
    vision and.provide a mandate for completion of the framework. The mission
    statement should
       -  Demonstrate a long-term commitment to the approach,

       -  Specify program components to be included, and

     '  -  Describe specific goals and objectives for a statewide approach.

                                                              MODULE 3
                                                     GETTING STARTED
In many cases, the mission statement will need to reflect commitment from multiple
programs and agencies. An interagency mission statement ensures a common set of
goals and objectives that reflect some or all mandates of each participant (Exhibit
3-2).  Collaboration on targeting program resources and the elimination of redun-
dancy stem from joint commitment and action on the part of agencies and programs
that have established complementary missions. Consensus objectives and goals can
be articulated in a mission statement that explicitly^outlines a process to support the
development of a coordinating framework. The mission statement can overcome a
debilitating sense of cynicism regarding the ability of programs and agencies to
work together to address resource protection issues.                  ;

Some agencies may find it beneficial to run short-term pilot projects to demonstrate
success with each new partnership.  Critical, long-term partnerships are best
maintained through memoranda of understanding and othe.r agreements that clarify
and  define the partnership roles within the statewide framework.  Exhibit 3-3
displays the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 10 and the State of
Idaho documenting their mutual intent to work together to develop a statewide
watershed management approach for Idaho.

                                                               MODULE 3
                                                      GETTING STARTED
    Exhibit 3-2.  Mission Statement and Goals for the
    State of Georgia

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division facilitated a process among
selected basin stakeholders within the state to establish the following mission
statement and goals for developing the state's river basin planning approach.

   To develop and implement a river basin planning program to protect,
   enhance, and restore the waters of the State of Georgia that will
   provide for effective monitoring, allocation, use, regulation, and
   management of water resources.

   1.  To meet or exceed local, state, federal laws, rules,  and regulations and be
       consistent with other applicable plans

   2.  To identify existing and future water quality issues, emphasizing nonpoint
       source pollution                                     .
   3   To propose water quality improvement practices encouraging local
       involvement to reduce pollution and monitor and protect water quality
   4.  Toinvolveall interested citizens and appropriate organizations in plan
       development and implementation
   5.  To coordinate with other river plans and regional planning

   6.  To facilitate local, state, and federal activities to monitor and protect water
   7.  To identify existing and potential water availability problems and to
       coordinate development of alternatives

    8  To provide for education of the general public on. matters involving the
     "  environment and ecological concerns specific to each river basin
    9.  To provide for improving aquatic habitat and exploring the feasibility of
        re-establishing native species of fish
    10. To provide for restoring and protecting wildlife habitat

    11. To provide for recreational benefits
    12 To identify and protect flood prone areas within each river basin and
        encourage Locaf and state compliance with federal f loodplam management

                                                          MODULE 3
                                                  GETTING STARTED
    Exhibit 3-3. Memorandum of Agreement between
    EPA Region 10 arid the Idaho Department of Health
    and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality

EPA and the IDHW Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) enter into this
agreement with the mutual intent of developing a Watershed Approach for the
State of Idaho.                                   .    ,       ,   '

Mission Statement
The EPA and DEQ agree to develop a comprehensive "Watershed Protection
Approach" for Idaho that restructures and expands existing water quality
efforts on a geographical basis.

Goals of a Watershed Approach
  • Improve and enhance environmental quality                      ,  .

  • Focus all funding sources on environmental problems in a consolidated
  • Develop a schedule for basin-oriented problem solving that coordinates
    all water quality activities
  • Improve public involvement by bringing all stakeholders together as
    problem solvers
  • Satisfy state and federal regulatory requirements wherever possible

  •  Improve Water quality reporting processes as well as our understanding of
    existing data

 It is the state's intent to develop a watershed approach that is similar to the .
 North Carolina model/This template calls for a suitable planning period and
 then launching a five-year program that coordinates data acquisition, pollutant
 load assessment, and permit issuance on watershed basis for the. State of
 Idaho DEQ plans to construct a framework for the watershed approach and
 have each of their five regional offices undertake the watershed prioritizat.pn
 and implementation process simultaneously.

                                                    GETTING STARTED
    Exhibit 3-3. Continued
Roles                                                       '
It is understood that during the process of conversion to a Watershed
Approach and later when watershed activities are underway, the respective
roles for the two organizations will vary. It is envisioned that during the
scoping phase of the conversion process, EPA and the state will share the lead.
Following completion of the basic plan called the "Framework" document,
EPA will assist and partner with DEQ as the state begins the watershed-
delineation and prioritization process. Once activity begins on specific
watersheds, EPA's role will be determined on a watershed basis.

EPA and DEQ agree that there is a strong need to involve as many other
organizations, agencies, tribal nations, and individuals with an interest in
Idaho natural resources in the watershed planning and conversion process as

The following are general progress  indicators with approximate target dates. It
is understood that these dates are for planning only.                •    .
 October 1993
 November 1993
 February 1994

 March 1994

 July 1994
DEQ prepares a draft outline of the "Framework" document
DEQ gains consensus within the agency on internal roles
and process for conversion
DEQ begins the delineation of watersheds within DEQ
regions                                .
EPA and DEQ undertake internal education and briefings
for staff involved in conversion
Outreach activities to other stakeholders well underway
Draft "Framework" document completed
Final watershed delineation completed
Regional offices developing region specific conversion
plans where prioritization is complete
Watershed planning process is complete

 Implementation begins

                                                        GETTING STARTED
                                            ESTABLISH A
                                           RESOURCE BASE
                                       GROUND RULES
                                     IDENTIFY A
     Steps for a
smooth transition
 Viewgraph 6:  Managing Framework Development
State and EPA agency staff, and other partners, will be very interested in howthe
operation of programs will change to accommodate basin management. Several steps
can be taken to manage framework development and assure partners that the transition
will be relatively smooth.                                      .
  • Identify a Leader for Statewide Framework Development: Statewide watershed
    management is unusual because it is not a program, nor is it developed in response
    to federal mandates or other requirements. In the absence of program-based
    incentives and until the statewide coordinating framework is established, effective
    collaboration among participants during the development process will be difficult
    without clear leadership.  Therefore, a leader with strong communication skills
    should be appointed to facilitate open discussion and networking, and encourage
    commitment among participants (e.g., programs, agencies, and public interest
    groups).                                         .         ,
  • Establish Ground Rules for Framework Development:  Consensus needs to be
    reached on how the process of building a statewide approach will move forward.
    Roles of partners should be clarified along with the format for obtaining input and
    reaching  consensus. Experience to date has shown that a facilitated workgroup
    with one  or two representatives from each key organization provides optimal size
    and structure for making progress. Results of the workgroup can always be
    reviewed by a larger audience and input fed back through appropriate
    representatives. Establishing clearly understood methods and strong lines of
    communication can be very important to the process.

                                                             MODULE 3
                                                    GETTING STARTED
Deciding what level of consensus is required for adopting recommendations (e.g.,
agreement among two-thirds of partners) arid how conflicts will be resolved may
also help the process move along more smoothly. Workgroup members may want
a tiered approach that distinguishes between voting members and other interested
parties. Criteria for being a voting member could include degree of regulatory
authority and investment (i.e., people, funds, and equipment) in implementing
management actions.
Establish a Resource Base for Framework Development: Framework development
is a planning activity that will  require staff time and resources. Most states have
adopted a statewide approach on the basis of no net change to overall agency and
program budgets after implementation. Initial  planning efforts, however, require^
staff time for workshops/administrative support, framework development, and a few
other training and preparation tasks. Partners should identify program resources
that will be made available from the outset to support framework development.
Such an allocation is a clear signal to participants that the statewide framework
development process is important and worthy of their best effort. In many cases,
this may mean giving up allocations of resources for other tasks in order to use them
for framework development.
Conduct Educational Forums  on Statewide Watershed Management:  For  partners
to participate effectively in statewide framework development and implementation,
they must first understand the fundamentals of statewide watershed management.
Workshops are effective tools for providing a baseline understanding  among
participants and a good starting point for building the framework. Also, a broad
range of technical documentation and professional expertise is available through
EPA and other federal agencies, as well as from states with experience from
implementing this approach
 Establish a Means of Communication among Participants and Stakeholders: Many
 participants in a statewide framework development initiative will have no
 established lines of communication. Improved communication among stakeholders
 is critical to the success of the approach. Progress toward specific milestones, for
 example, needs to be described to all partners as framework development proceeds.
 Ultimate buy-in to a statewide approach likely will depend on how well partners
 understand each framework element and its impact on their operations. An
 effective means of communication, such as a newsletter or electronic bulletin
 board is necessary for both the framework development process and its eventual
 implementation. As mentioned above, the leader for the framework development
 process should be someone who has a.strong interest in facilitating communication
 among participants.        .  '       .

                                                              MODULE 3
                                                     GETTING STARTED
Develop a Work Plan for Framework Development: The leader of the statewide
framework development effort should coordinate with the other partners to develop
a work plan for framework development. The work plan should outline
tasks/milestones, and indicate who will be responsible for carrying the.m out (e.g.,
workgroup, committees, individual programs; or a facilitator). Time frames for
completion should be estimated, with consideration-given to tasks that are  ,   '
contingent on the outcome of other tasks.  Although the work plan will most likely
require revision throughout the development process, use of a work plan will
provide a guide and a schedule for measuring progress. Also, participants will be
better able to see how individual tasks relate to overall framework development.

                                                                  MODULE 3
                                                         GETTING STARTED
                     IDENTIFYING IMPEDIMENTS
Viewgraph 7:  Identifying Impediments
Participants in the statewide framework development process will almost certainly
encounter impediments along the way. Impediments, existing or potential, should be
identified early in the process, and steps should be taken to eliminate or minimize them>
as deemed necessary. Partners developing a statewide approach can take advantage of
the experience other states have had in identifying and overcoming a broad range of
barriers. Identification is the first step in overcoming barriers, several of which are
described below.                                               .       ,
  • Legal Impediments: In some cases, government statutes and regulations can
    impede statewide framework development and implementation. Laws that separate
    agency functions, prohibit interaction, or place constraints on the use of program
    resources may need to be revised to facilitate or enhance the approach.
  • Institutional Impediments: Organizational structures often make stakeholder
    coordination and joint decisions difficult. For example, if the monitoring and water
    quality programs have vastly different organizational structures or use methods to
    gather data that do not yield comparable results, coordinating special studies and
    TMDL development may be difficult. The tradition of creating single-authority
    programs (e.g., RCRA, Superfund, Pesticides, Radioactive Waste,  Drinking Water,
    Surface Water, Ground Water) also creates significant challenges to integrated
    planning and program implementation. Agencies may therefore need to
    reformulate or eliminate policies that conflict with statewide watershed
    management.         '       '        '     ,                        -
  .. Financial Barriers: Current  constraints on the use of program funds may not allow
    the flexibility that the basin management  approach requires for success (e.g., the
    formation of Basin Teams and allocation  of resources to priority issues).       	

                                                       GETTING STARTED
  Additionally, resource and infrastructural constraints may pose a barrier to
  statewide framework development and implementation (e.g., limited monitoring
  systems, CIS capabilities, communication resources, computer hardware and
  software, and expertise for water quality modeling).               •

• Staff Cpncerns with Change: Agency staff often question how new approaches will
  impact their position and function.  Their concerns may cover a wide spectrum,
    - How wilI changes introduced by statewide watershed management affect my
      current position, title> and grade?
   .- Will I still supervise the same number of people?

    -Who will be my supervisor?

    - Will I have to move?                ,                                 ,
    - Will my position be eliminated? If so, will I be moved into a new position?

    - Will I need to be retrained to perform my duties under the new approach?
    - Will performance evaluation criteria be revised to be consistent with new
      functional relationships?
    - What career and promotion opportunities are available within the new
      approach?       :
  For some agencies, staff changes may be minimal, whereas they may be substantial
  for others  Whatever the case, planning ahead helps diffuse unnecessary and
  disruptive staff tension.
 • Uncooperative Stakeholders:  Changing water management programs to follow a
  statewide approach may not be favored by all stakeholders, particularly those who
  fear losing  complete control over what they consider to be their "turf." Partners in
  the framework should work to broaden the view of reluctant or uncooperative  .
  stakeholders to help them recognize how their individual  goals might be achieved
  '. through a statewide approach, and how their constructive participation in the
  framework may help achieve water resource goals more effectively and efficiently.

 • Transitional Issues: Transition to statewide watershed management may disrupt
  existing operational relationships among agencies or other stakeholders. Program
  performance criteria (e.g., the number of permits issued or revised and samples
  collected)  may need to be renegotiated to free up agency resources for the period of
  framework development. Participant agreements should address these issues early
   in the process to avoid misunderstandings or unrealistic expectations down the

                                                               MODULE 3
                                                      GETTING STARTED
                    FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT
                          A jreference document that
                        < * 'describes how statewide
                        ~;watershed management wfflt
                        • " function for a
Viewgraph 8: Documenting the Approach:
Statewide Framework Document
Each state should prepare a document that describes statewide framework elements and
features for that state and serves as a reference for the public and participating agencies
and programs.  This document, often referred to as a framework document, can

  • Include overall goals and objectives
  • Delineate geographic management units
  • Provide a schedule for sequencing the basins
  • Describe the statewide basin management cycle
  • Identify roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
  • Define procedures for key activities such as strategic monitoring, assessment,
    prioritization,  and developing and implementing strategies
  • Explain recommended basin and watershed plan formats
  • Address other topics necessary for framework implementation

 In addition to being an agency reference and public information document, the
framework document promotes consistency in management across all basins of the state
through inclusion  of operational agreements between agencies and programs.
 Participants should establish the means at the outset, therefore, for preparing a
. framework document.
.Exhibit 3-4 provides the table of contents for the State of Nebraska's draft framework
 document.                    ,                                   .

                                                         GETTING STARTED
      Exhibit 3-4. Table of Contents from the State of
      Nebraska's Draft Framework Document

Chapter 1: Introduction
         1.1 NDEQ's Commitment to Protection of Natural Resources
         1.2 NDEQ's Decision to Implement a Basinwide Management Approach
             1.2.1  What is Basin Management?
             1.2.2  Why is NDEQ Adopting a Basinwide Management Approach?
             1.2.3  How is NDEQ Developing the Framework?
Chapter 2: NDEQ Basinwide Management Framework
         2.1 Nebraska Basin Management Units                           '.-...
      ,               •   .      -                   I '            ' - -  ,f '  • "
         2.2 The Basin Management Cycle: Steps to Basin Planning
         2.3 NDEQ's General Basin Plan Outline
            , 2.3.1  Audience and Purpose
             2.3.2  Basin Plan Format              "
         2.4 Prioritization and Targeting Methods
             2.4.1  Prioritization Criteria
             2.4.2  Targeting Criteria
         2.5 Strategic Monitoring
Chapter 3: Roles and  Responsibilities
         3.1 General Program Administration
         3.2 BMA  Roles and Responsibilities                      .
             3.2.1  Surface Water Section
             3.2.2  Permits and Compliance Section
             3.2.3  Wastewater Facilities Section
             3.2.4  Ground Water Section
             '3.2.5  Leaking Underground Storage Tank and Emergency Response, Section


                                                                  MODULE 3
                                                        GETTING STARTED
     Exhibit 3-4.  Continued
Chapter 4: The Keys to Success
          4.1  Agency Support                '
          4.2 Effective Outreach
              4.2.1. Providing Outreach Opportunities
              4.2.2 Communicating Effectively with Stakeholders          !

          4.3 Program Coordination                                        .
              4.3.1 Internal NDEQ Coordination
              4.3.2 Coordination among federal, state, and Local Partners

          4.4 Staying on Schedule

              4.4.1 Adherence to Priorities
              4.4.2 Evolution of Plans

Chapter 5: Transition to the BMA
          5.1 Progressive Framework Implementation
          5.2 Interim Tasks and Workload Considerations

              5.2.1  Initial Outreach to Explain the New BMA Framework
              5.2.2, Completion  of Methods for Assigning Priorities
              5.2.3  Synchronizing Permit Expiration Dates with the BMA Cycle

          5.3 Work Plan Agreements with EPA Region 7
          5.4 Technical Resource and Research Needs
              5.4.1  Refinement  of Assessment Standard Operating Procedures
              5.4.2  Development of CIS Data Layers to Support Basin Planning
               5.4.3  Integration of Surface and Ground Water Priorities
               5.4.4  Development of Assessment Methods for Ground Water
                     Assimilative Capacity

           5.5  Issues Still to Be Addressed
 Chapter 6: Adding to the Framework: Future Building Blocks

           6.1  NDEQ Integrated  Information System
           6.2 Expansion of BMA Program Coverage
           6.3 Strengthening Partnerships                ^         .
 Appendix A: NPDES Permit Reissuance Schedule Synchronized with the BMA Cycle

      MODULE 4


                                          •'•••''-                    MODULE 4
                      PURPOSE OF MODULE
                 To learn how to establish a
                 basin focus through
                 development of three
                 of the nine common
                 elements fora state-
                 wide approach
                                           Basin Management Cycle
Developing \  Targeting
• Strategic!
Viewgraph 1:  Purpose of Module
Module 4 is the first of two modules that describe how to tailor key statewide watershed
management elements to meet needs of a specific state. The purpose of this module is
to describe how geographic management units, the basin management cycle, and basin
and watershed plans, three of the nine common basin management elements, establish
baseline conditions for organizing activities within the statewide approach. (Note that
the basin wheel diagram has been modified to highlight the three elements under
discussion.) These three elements provide spatial focus (geographic management units),
temporal focus (basin management cycle), and a reference document for each basin
(basin and watershed management plans). Together, these three elements form the
structural basis of a statewide coordination framework.

This module outlines the objectives and tasks that partners will need to address to define
and tailor these three elements for their statewide frameworks.  Basin plans will be
addressed first. Experience to date demonstrates that it is helpful to define a general
basin plan format before tailoring any other element. This task further defines the
common vision by developing a detailed outline of what statewide framework partners
will collectively produce and implement. Basin plan definition, therefore, can strongly
influence how remaining elements are tailored.

                                          '                    MODULE 4
                    LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                This module should enable participants to
                • Identify the primary objective in establishing a
                  format for basin and watershed plans
                • Understand delineation of geographic
                  management units
                • Identify components of a basin management cycle
Viewgraph 2:  Learning Objectives
After completing this module, Workshop participants should be able to
  • Identify the primary objective in establishing a format for basin and watershed
    plans, and how to reach that objective
  • Understand objectives and options for delineating geographic management units
    (i.e., basins and nested watersheds)
  • Identify the three components of a basin management cycle

                                             '                    MODULE 4
                     FORMAT FOR DEVELOPING PLANS

                     .                 '    Basin Management Cycle
                 The primary objective
                 is to determine the
                 desired type and
                 level of information
                 for communicating
                 with stakeholders.
     Developing I  T»0jeting
 Basin and \
Viewgraph 3: Format for Developing Plans
Objective in Establishing a Format for Basin and Watershed Plans: The primary
objective in establishing a format for basin and watershed plans is to determine the
desired type and level of information that will be used to communicate basin
management goals, priorities, and corresponding basin and nested watershed
management strategies to stakeholders that wi 11 be responsible for-implementation.
Efforts under this task generally involve outlining plan components to provide statewide
framework partners with a common understanding of the product they will develop,
implement/and update collectively.' Prior to outlining components, however, partners
should reach consensus on the general audience, purposes, intended uses, and
corresponding level of approval for each type of plan.

                                         •  .'                     MODULE 4
                     PLAN FORMAT (CONTINUED)
                         For basin plan, establish
                         consensus on

                           • Audience and purpose

                           • Intended use

                           • Level of approval
Viewgraph 4: Plan Format (continued)
Basin Plan Format
The following factors should be considered when trying to reach consensus on audience
and purpose, intended use, and level of approval for basin plans:
  • The audience and purpose of the basin plan will influence the content of basin plan
    components. Basin plans can be written for the general public, the regulated
    community, other resource management agencies, or all of the above. For
    example, a consistent format for all basin plans in a state will help in fulfilling the
    state's reporting requirements and applying for grants. If the basin plan is written to
    promote public stewardship, however, language and technical detail must be
    understandable to the lay reader.
  • The intended use of basin plans and corresponding level of plan approval should
    be specified early in the process, because plan contents may be constrained by
    approval requirements. For instance, using basin plans as CWA §303(e) plans to
    support continuing planning requires approval by EPA and signature of the
    Governor of the state.  Both EPA and the Governor's Office will expect specific
    criteria to be met before approving such plans; basin plan formats should therefore
    reflect such criteria. Similarly, using plans to fulfill other federal mandates such as
    §303(d) and §305(b) listing and reporting requirements will  require that plans meet
    specified criteria. Furthermore, if the implementation component of a plan is to be
    binding for all participating agencies, and programs, then signatures of senior agency
     management will be needed; early input from those agencies on plan format may

                          '.'-..;, .''.-.''•                  MODULE 4
  prevent misunderstandings arid confrontations later on.  Basin plans, however, that
.  are used simply as a public information document on agency activities and resource
  conditions will likely require minimal approval.

Exhibit 4-1 highlights the role of basin plans in Nebraska.

                                       ••                   MODULE 4
  Exhibit 4-1. The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) held a workshop
to reach consensus on the required level of approval, purpose, and audience
for basin plans, with the following results:
Level of Approval
  • Long Range—In the future, plans could be officially adopted as CWA
    Section 303(e) plans, which would require signature of the Governor and
    approval by EPA as well as modification to the statewide framework.

  • Short Range—During initial implementation of the framework, plans
    'should be prepared for approval by the Water Quality Division Director.

Audience and Purpose

   Other State and
   Federal Agencies


    General Public
      Legislature ,
 Coordination and direction

 Address state work program requirements; expedite
- required approvals; indicate resource needs;
 coordination and direction

 Communication and outreach; coordination and

 Education; communication and outreach; aid long-
 range planning

 Education; communication and outreach; facilitate

 Communication; raise awareness of process and
 resource needs'/legislative needs

                                       -,  -:  •'".-"'.'./.' MODULE 4
                     PLAN FORMAT (CONTINUED)
                   North Carolina Basin Plan Example
                   * Chapter 1   Introduction	_
                   * Chapter 2../beneral Basin Description
                         ..-••"•*                   '          ..
                   * Chapters   Causes and Sources of Water Pollution
                    ... ••••"  *              i                   .-':
                  4 Chapter 4,....,Status of Water Quality        'f
                  :'.	-,v.	......-••""        "*••..             '      ?•>•.•'••••'•>
                   • Chapter 5   General Management Strategies,....,
                   • Chapter 6   Major Water Quality Concerns and
                               Recommended Management Activities

                   • Chapter?   Future Initiatives
Viewgraph 5: Plan Format (continued)
North Carolina Basin Plan" Example
Based on the established audience/purpose, intended use, and level of plan approval,
participants wiU need to specify what information should be contained in the basin
plans. This is a task well-suited to workgroups. To date, basin plans generally have
included a combination of physicalbasin description, historical management
information, and summaries and results of core framework activities relating to basin
plan development and implementation.  The viewgraph displays a typical basin plan
outline for the State of North Carolina:
  • The Introduction (Chapter 1) provides a purpose statement, introduction to the
    state's approach, and a summary of program responsibilities and legislative
    authorities. .  ' ~ .                    .
  • The General Basin Description (Chapter 2) describes the basin hydrology, land
    cover, population and growth trends, and water quality-use classifications for the
    basin.                   .  -
  • Chapter 3 identifies the major Causes and Sources of Water Pollution in the basin,
    emphasizing both point and nohpoint sources.
  • Chapter 4 describes the Status of Water .Quality in the basin. Types and locations
    of monitoring are identified, and assessment results are summarized.

                                  '       '                    MODULE 4
 Chapter 5 provides General Management Strategies for the basin, with descriptions,
 of statewide point and nonpoint source control programs that apply generally to the
 Chapter 6 specifically describes Major Water Quality Concerns and Recommended
 Management Actions. Basin management goals and priority issues are outlined as
 the basis for the recommended management strategies and corresponding
 implementation activities.
• Chapter 7 lists Future Initiatives including monitoring and modeling priorities and
 future programmatic concerns of high priority to be addressed in the next iteration
 of the basin management cycle.

                                       ,    '. .'                    MODULE 4
                     PLAN FORMAT (CONTINUED)
                       Watershed Plans

                         • Provide more detail at local level

                         • Focus on local management options
                           •(e.g., development restrictions,
                           storm water and erosion controls,
                           and restoration projects)
Viewgraph 6: Plan Format (continued)
Watershed Plans                                  /

The spatial scale of the basin plan may be inappropriate for many smaller watershed
management objectives.  Although the basin plan may address many resource
management issues within constituent watersheds, it often will not provide sufficient
detail for implementation at the local watershed level. The statewide framework
development process should therefore distinguish between the development of basin
plans and watershed plans.             .",'.'   >

The watershed planning process is an extension of the basin planning process at a
higher level of spatial resolution. The general outline of watershed plans might be
similar to the basin plan outline shown in the North Carolina example; but contents of
each chapter would be more specific to local conditions. For example, a General
Watershed Description would focus on local land  use, significant resources,      .
economics, and growth projections. Causes and Sources of Water Pollution and Status
of Water Quality would include more detail on local waters than the basin plan, and
Major Water Quality Concerns and Recommended Management  Activities would
address  local concerns and measures such as development restrictions, storm water and
erosion  controls, and restoration projects. Because of the attention to local detail,
watershed planning is usually initiated arid led at the local  or regional level, rather than
at the,state level.

Hence, in developing general outlines at the beginning of the framework development
process, partners should keep the need for spatial flexibility in mind and create a
framework that allows for complementary efforts at basin and watershed scales.  •

                                             ' •  • •  •              MODULE 4
                Objectives of Delineation
                • Divide state into single
                  set of geographic units
                  that all stakeholders
                  can agree to use
                • Facilitate integrated planning
                  and information management
                                              Basin Management Cycle
Viewgraph 7: Geographic Unit Delineatio.
After tailoring a basin plan format, partners should delineate geographic management
units (Element 1) for the statewide framework.
The Objectives of Delineation:  The primary objective of delineation is to divide a state
into a single set of hydrologically defined management units (e.g., basins and nested
watersheds) that establishes a geographic basis for focusing and coordinating watershed
protection efforts and activities, including development and implementation of basin
management plans. A broad range of criteria can be developed for the definition of
management units that promote management efficacy.
Stakeholders can contribute to selecting delineation criteria, which may include
ecoregion boundaries, the complexity of the system, ground water aquifer
configurations, common stressors, and common management strategies, among others.
The essential consideration in selecting criteria is delineating geographic areas around
which resource management activities can be effectively coordinated. An example of
delineation criteria from the State of Washington is included in Exhibit 4-2.
Local, state, and federal resource management agencies may already be using a variety
of hydrologic management units. EPA's Nonpoint Source Program (§319) and
assessments conducted to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (§303[d]) and in
support of the Waterbody System program (§305 [b]) may provide useful information for
geographic management unit delineation.

                                  -•',-••'''                   MODULE 4
A consensus from major stakeholders is needed, however, before establishing a
common set of management units to

  •  Facilitate integrated planning (e.g., environmental assessments, priority setting;
    workload and program resource allocations, and management strategies)

  •  Assist information management efforts, particularly where data are maintained in
    Geographic Information System (CIS) format

                                                               MODULE 4
    Exhibit 4-2. State of Washington's Water Quality
     Management Areas

The Washington Department of Ecology divided the state into twenty-three water
quality management areas, which are groupings of several Water Resource Inventory
Areas (WRIAs) established to respond to the State Water Resources Act of 1971 and
as sewage drainage basins to respond to the State Water Pollution Control Act,
Participating programs within the Washington Department of Ecology submitted the
following criteria for aggregating WRIAs into basin planning units. Similarity among
criteria recommended by different programs was strong.' (There is no priority
associated with the order in which criteria are listed.)
• Common receiving waters and
  aquifers (where known)
• Complexity of the system and pol-
  lution sources
• Available staff resources
* Regional office boundaries
• Water availability
                                     •  Water use, including groundwater
                                     •  Geography
                                     •  Demographics (current and projected)
                                     •  Loading from septic systems and sewers
                                     •  Ratio of unpermitted to permitted
                                     •  Water quality condition
                 1 Columbia Gorge <-o Horseheaven/Kitckitat,
                                         „— Water Quality Management Area boundary
                                         	Water Resource inventory Area (WRIA) boundary

                                         ,       '                      MODULE 4
                 South Carolina
                 0101  Seneca
                 0102 " UpperSavannah
                 0103  Lower Savannah
                 0104  Salkehatch'ie

                 0201  Upper Saluda
                 0202  Lower Saluda-Congaree
                 0203  Edisto
0301  Catawba
0302  Santee
0303  Ashley-Cooper

Pee Dee
040,1  Lynches
    Great Pee Dee
0501  Tyger-Enoree
0502  Broad
                             The number and scale of basin management
                             units often reflect program administration
Viewgraph 8: Geographic Unit Delineation (continued)
Statewide Coordination through Basins

Establishing the number and size of basins for a given state is usually a function of .
determining a reasonable scale for statewide coordination.  For example, the number of
river basin units into which the state is divided could be influenced by the number of
basin management plans that the state is willing to develop and capable of       ,
administering. Washington State used basin delineation criteria to consolidate sixty-four
Water Resource Inventory Areas into twenty-three planning basins such that its four
Regional water quality offices are each responsible for producing and implementing
approximately one basin plan per year.

The viewgraph illustrates how South Carolina sub-divided their five major basins into  '
smaller sub-basins using the four-digit USGS accounting unit. Statewide program
activity and workload are coordinated .using the five major river basins, whereas finer
detail coordination and plan documentation are organized by sub-basins. North
Carolina uses a similar approach that includes seventeen river basins and approximately
one hundred and ten sub-basins. Nebraska uses thirteen river basins and thirty-six sub-

                                             '                    MODULE 4
                    River Basin
14-Digit NRCS
                       Some states use a nested hierarchy of watersheds
Viewgraph 9: Geographic Unit Delineation (continued)
A comprehensive delineation approach is needed to address varied needs among
multiple stakeholders. The viewgraph shows a nested hierarchy of watersheds,
including a river basin, USGS Cataloging Units, arid new "14-digit watersheds." (NRCS
has begun a nationwide initiative to delineate 14-digit watersheds for natural resource
management. These small watersheds are subsets of both the USGS Cataloging Units
and watersheds previously delineated by NRCS.)
  • The "waterbody" may be the scale of choice for local assessment and reporting.
    (The term "waterbody" refers to individually defined units of water such as a stream
    reach, pond, aquifer, wetland, lake, river, estuary, etc.). A wellhead protection area
    is another example of a local geographic zone of interest.
  • The "14-digit NRCS watershed" reflects the scale at which many agricultural
    operations and BMP records are kept.            .

  • USGS "8-digit Cataloging Units" have been used by many agencies.
  • State "River Basin" units provide large hydrologic units for coordination at a macro-
    level scale.
Delineation of each level should ensure a common set of boundaries.  That is, one or
more waterbodies constitute an NRCS watershed, one or more NRCS watersheds nest
within a USGS Cataloging Unit, and so on. This allows aggregation of information from
the most detailed levePto the macro-level. For example, if a state water quality agency
were developing a nutrient loading budget at the  basin level, agricultural management

                                           '                     MODULE 4
practice information at the NRCS watershed level may be integral to accurate estimates
and distinguishing important loading sources,  the State of North Carolina established a
committee comprised of NRCS and state water quality agency staff to determine
guidelines for establishing common boundaries and resolving discrepancies.
Additionally, many agencies use Reach File Version 3 (RF3), an EPA-supported
hydrologic data base based upon USGS 1:100,000-scale hydrography data.  RF3 serves  .
as 3 national framework for geographically referencing water quality-related information
and can be used in a CIS to analyze upstream/downstream relationships and portray
these data with other CIS layers.

                                            '                     MODULE 4
                           MANAGEMENT CYCLE DEVELOPMENT
                Objectives in Establishing
                a Cycle
                • Establish cycle length
                • Choose basin sequence

                • Schedule activities
Viewgraph 10: Basin Management Cycle Development
The third element forming the structural basis for statewide coordination is the basin
management cycle. Initial development of the cycle at this stage (i.e., after establishing
management plan formats and delineating geographic management units) will greatly
increase each partner's understanding of activities to be integrated under the statewide
approach. Partners collectively may choose to refine the cycle, however, throughout
the development stage as activity elements are tailored (covered in Module 5).

Objectives in Establishing a Cycle: Establishing a basin management cycle requires
decisions on three components:  cycle length, basin sequence, and schedule for basin
management activities. Together these three components provide participating
programs with a temporal focus for their activities. Management cycles will be state-
specific, however, as scope and structure depend largely on goals, objectives, and
activities of stakeholders that participate in the process. Considerations in developing
cycle components are discussed in the following viewgraphs.

                                              ;'                    MODULE 4
                      Cycle Length Considerations

                      * Fixed versus variable length
                              s               "        •

                      • Balancing workloads over the long term
 Viewgraph 11:  Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
  Cycle Length Considerations

  Cycle length establishes the duration of a complete cycle of management activities
  within a basin (e.g., monitoring, assessment, prioritization, management strategy
  development, plan preparation, and plan implementation). Some states choose a    .
  specified period that correlates with other cyclical program requirements (e.g., permit
  renewals and program reporting requirements) and then adapt program activity
  schedules to fit within that period.  For example, several states including Delaware, .
  Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, and South Carolina have each
  chosen  a 5-year cycle.  Besides correlating to 5-year NPDES permit renewal cycles,
  most of these states have determined that a 5-year basin management cycle length
  translates into a reasonable annual workload for each management activity and still
  covers the entire state in a timely manner.
  Other states (e.g., Idaho and Texas) are exploring the use of varying cycle lengths.
  These states may use different cycle lengths for each basin to account for differences in
  size, complexity, goals, and resources. Idaho is obtaining input for its decision on cycle
,  length from the public through citizen task forces and watershed advisory groups.
  Choosing either a fixed or variable cycle length has trade-offs. A fixed cycle length
  maintains consistency and, because every basin has the same cycle length, stakeholders
  can learn and track the system more easily. Consistency helps build a stable, long-term
  planning structure and promotes stakeholder  participation. Exhibit 4-3 provides an
  example for a 5-year fixed cycle in which the fixed pattern of activities is readily
  apparent. Fixed cycle lengths, however, may be difficult to maintain in complex basins.

                                             '                     MODULE 4
   s      .      •    t           ..            .,             ,          '..
Variable Cycle lengths, on the other hand, can be tailored to the relative complexity of
each basin. This flexibility can pose an additional administrative burden, however,
because administrators and stakeholders have more difficulty tracking the system.
Activities must be planned carefully to prevent overlaps that impose excessive
workloads in a given year..            .
States should be cautious if considering completely open schedules, because lack of a
set time for plan implementation can lead to an endless period of planning. Maintaining
the cycle, whatever its length, ensures timely transition from planning to
implementation. Some states are concerned about maintaining set schedules because
they fear that unforeseen circumstances may cause a "backlog" in developing or
implementing basin plans.  A basic principle of statewide watershed management,
however, is that management actions are scaled and targeted to available data and
resources.  The  iterative nature of the cycle ensures progressive implementation of
strategies; issues that are not addressed during the first iteration of the cycle can be top
priorities for the next.  .
         Exhibit 4-3. A Basin Management Cycle
     Group 1

     Group 2

     Group 3

     Group 4

     Group 5
Intensive Monitoring
Assessment and Prioritization
Management Strategy Development
                                              Basin Plan Review and Approval

                                            '                    MODULE 4
                       Basin Sequence Considerations
                       • Workload balance
                       • Level of ongoing initiatives
                       • Environmental risk
                       • Data availability for first iteration
                       • Stakeholder support
 Viewgraph 12:  Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Basin Sequence Considerations         .

A basin sequence establishes the order for implementing basin management activities
throughout a state. Several states group basin management units to balance workloads
for key element activities such as monitoring and permit issuance. To some states, the
order in which groupings were sequenced was not of importance as long as workloads
were relatively balanced from year to year.  Other states, such as North Carolina, began
their sequence where ongoing initiatives (e.g., special monitoring studies and specific
management strategies) provided a strong foundation for preparing initial basin plans
and increased the likelihood for early success. Other considerations for choosing a
particular sequence include relative degree of environmental risk, data availability, and
stakeholder support. Exhibit 4-4 highlights  criteria used by the State of Washington.

                                      '                   MODULE 4
  Exhibit 4-4.  Criteria for Establishing a Basin   .
  Management Cycle from the State of Washington
Participating programs within the Washington Department of Ecology
(WDE) developed the following criteria to determine how basins would
be sequenced within the basin management cycle.  (There is ho priority
associated with the order in which the criteria are listed.)
  •  Number of currently permitted dischargers (This criterion ensures
    that  resources  allocated for  controlling  point  sources  match
  •  Number of "prospective" dischargers to be permitted
     - Stormwater dischargers
     - Dairies
     - Other general permitted entities
  •  Waters listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d)
  •  TMDLs for which research is complete
»  •  Availability of ambient monitoring data
  •  Threats to beneficial waters
     - Population growth
     - Commercial uses for fish or shellfish
     - Changes in actual or potential land use
  •  Political likelihood of success
     — Degree of consensus
     - Local organizational commitment; (e.g., stormwater utilities)
  •  Historical water quality, initiatives (e.g., nonpbint source watershed
    plans and initiatives of other agencies and WDE programs, including
    ground water)
  • Existing and potential funding, including grants
  • .Workload balance through phased approach

                                     •:•,.   ,''                     MODULE 4
                 !  Activity Schedule Considerations
                 ;  ;* ^,w.vw.v.%-.;.-.V^w.v.v.v.v.:..> •,:.,;.    '   >   •    ;
                 I  • Denning steps and associated activities for
                 \   developing 4ncl implementing basin plans

                 I  * Estimating tibie required tojomplete; each
                 i   activity    !   £^""i""""""""Z~
                 i ' '  ' •  !       I   •     1
                 I  • Back-calculating versus apply!
                 I   schedule   I     '••   !
 Viewgraph13: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Activity Schedule Considerations

The schedule for basin management activities specifies when particular activities will
occur within each basin management unit:  States generally define a series of steps for
developing and implementing basin plans. Programs then identify, correspond ing
activities for each step and estimate the amount of time needed to perform those
activities. To establish a steady stream of activities throughout a cycle, several states
identified the point in the cycle at which basin plans should be implemented and then
"back-calculated" the amount of time required to complete each task leading up to
implementation. This process can be complicated if many programs are involved and
often takes more than one iteration of planning sessions to reach consensus. In
Delaware, for example, the time required for the Fish and Wildlife Division to determine
fish population status in certain waterbodies exceeded the time needed for sampling by
the Water Quality Division monitoring team. The time allocated for strategic monitoring
was therefore increased  to accommodate sampling for fish populations.

Several states first developed a "generic" schedule for one basin and then applied the
schedule to^all basins by staggering starting dates to match the chosen basin sequence.
Nebraska, for example, initiates early activities  (e.g., public outreach, monitoring plan
development and implementation, and assessment) at the same time for all basins in the
same group. (Note:  Nebraska has thirteen basins divided into five groups of two or
three.) Activities in the middle of Nebraska's basin cycle (e.g., management strategy

                                           '    ' '.               MODULE 4
development, drafting and publicly noticing basin plans, and basin plan
implementation) were staggered for each group to enable the state to focus on one basin
at a time for those activities.
It took several iterations for Nebraska's statewide framework development workgroup to
fine-tune the statewide basin management activity schedule to meet each program's
needs. The following viewgraph and the appendix to this module describe Nebraska's
approach to developing a basin management cycle in greater detail.

                                                                  MODULE 4
                   Bcahiple Approiach: ;lfl the State of Nebraska/
                  I a workgroup of agency staff
                  :-  * Outlined management steps for cycle  \.
                  ;  4 Developed generic schedule for single basin
                  1  4 Sequenced basins and applied generic    \
                      schedule to each .basin                  \
                           :•               '          >
                    • Refined and finalized schedule
Viewgraph 14: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Example Approach: The State of Nebraska
The following approach was used by the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality in basin management cycle development:
 ,• the state established a workgroup with representatives from each core program to
    develop the management cycle through facilitated brainstornfmg sessions.
  • The workgroup established a series of steps to basin management applicable to all
    basins in the state (Exhibit 4-5).
  • A generic schedule for conducting steps was outlined for a single basin. /Timing of
    certain activities, such as seasonal constraints of monitoring, was a factor in
    choosing specific months within the cycle.                       .
  • Thirteen river basins were divided into groups by geographic region, and groups
    were sequenced within a 5-year cycle. To accommodate ongoing initiatives, some
    basins were addressed earlier in the cycle than others.                    .
  • The generic schedule was applied to each basin. Activities for basins grouped
    within the same year of the 5-year cycle are scheduled to begin at the same time.
    Starting dates for drafting basin plans are staggered, however, so that stakeholders
    can focus oh writing, reviewing, and implementing one basin plan at a time.
  • The workgroup examined representative months of the 5-year cycle to evaluate
    whether workloads for various programs were balanced and within resource
    constraints. Necessary adjustments were made (i.e., lengthening or shortening
    period for a specified activity), and a final schedule was developed.

                                     '                    MODULE 4
Exhibit 4-5. Steps in Nebraska's Basin
Management Cycle
                          1 Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan •
                          3 Implement Strategic Monitoring Plan
                          4 Canvas for Information
                          5 Analyze Information
                          6 Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
                          8 Implement Updates to Strategic -
                            Monitoring Plan
                          9 Quantify Problems and Issues
                         10 Develop Management Strategies
                         11 Prepare Draft Basin Plan
                         13  Finalize Basin Plan
                         14 Implement-Basin Plan
                         12 Perform Agency and Public Review     [

                                            '                    MODULE 4
                   Other Valuable Input for
                   Cycle Development
Viewgraph 15: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Other Valuable Input for Cycle Development

Discussion to this point has focused on considering core activities for key statewide
partners.  The following are examples of input from other stakeholders that could impact
decisions on basin management cycle length, basin sequence, and activity scheduling
within the cycle:

Cycle Length                                          ,
  • Timing of local water management planning cycles

  • Time associated with program activities of.-other federal partners, including Natural
    Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological
    Survey, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.
  • Time involved with water conservation plan development required by some state
    and local governments, particularly in the western United States

Basin Sequence
  • Level of environmental risk associated with municipal stormwater discharge, rate of
    land-use changes, etc.                                          .
  • Need for assessments and plans to support important economic development
    initiatives (e.g., major new .industrial operation)
  • Need for quick action to protect endangered species, outstanding resources,
    biological hot spots, etc.

                                            '                    MODULE 4
                             •         ,                                 >
 -? Timber harvesting and grazing schedules for federal lands

  •  Needs made apparent through ongoing citizen watershed initiatives.

Activity Scheduling                                             \

  •  Coordination with local monitoring initiatives

  •  Coordination with federal monitoring initiatives, including Fish and Wildlife species
    management plans, USGS National Water Quality Assessment studies, and NOAA
    coastal monitoring studies

  •  Agricultural nonpoint source control project planning and implementation schedules

  •  Local watershed planning schedules

        MODULE 4




Management activities within Nebraska's thirteen delineated basins will be coordinated around a five-year
cycle.  A series of steps are executed for each basin over the cycle,, ending with the'promulgation and
implementation of a management plan. ; These steps were  illustrated in Exhibit 4-4 and are described
below in more detail.

 '   Step 1.   Draft  Strategic  Monitoring  Plan:  A strategic plan  will be  drafted that specifies
             monitoring to support basinwide assessment. Details shall include monitoring objectives,
             station locations, parameter coverage, sampling frequency, and monitoring plan rationale.

    Step 2.   Initial Public  Outreach:   As  resources allow,  NDEQ will  hold public  meetings  at.
             appropriate sites within the basin to acquaint stakeholders with the overall BMA framework
             and help identify management concerns specific to that basin.   It is anticipated that the
             format of the meetings will generally follow that used for Nebraska Wetlands Conservation
             .Plans, which includes  Open House sessions, large group presentation,  and  small  group
             discussions.  Relevant  portions of the NDEQ strategic monitoring plan will be presented
             with an explanation of how the resulting data will be used for assessing water quality and
             prioritizing  management  needs.   This  initial  outreach  will provide stakeholders with
             opportunities early in the  basin planning process to submit relevant information, identify
             potential gaps in the monitoring strategy, participate in data collection where appropriate,
             or provide other feedback.

 '   Step 3.   Implement  Strategic  Monitoring Plan:  The strategic  monitoring plan for basinwide
             assessment  will be implemented  following any  modification resulting from feedback
             received during initial  outreach activities.

    Step 4.   Canvas for Information: NDEQ will  make direct contact with key agencies and other
             entities to obtain additional relevant information for use in basin planning.  In particular,
             data will  be sought for characterizing the basin (e.g., hydrology, land-use,  population
             demographics, economic base, etc.) and for evaluating water  quality.   Stakeholder
             information will  also  be  used where appropriate in the prioritization and  management
             strategy development process.

    Step 5.   Analyze Information:  Initial analyses of basinwide monitoring data and supplemental
             stakeholder information will focus on determining use support status, identifying problems
             and areas of special ecological value, and assessing information gaps.  Limitations  in data
             coverage should be specified so that initial findings can be appropriately qualified.  Some
             quantification of problems may occur to clarify causes and sources, estimate loading, and
             quantify assimilative  capacity.  Further analysis and  more  detailed  quantification  of
             problems will continue for waters that are prioritized in the next step. Known gaps  in field
              data will be addressed during  updates of the strategic monitoring plan.

    Step 6.   Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues: NDEQ will apply a standardized set of criteria
              and procedures to prioritize waterbodies in need of management or additional assessment
              so that resources can be targeted to address  the concerns in an efficient  and effective
              manner.                 .          '    .

                      '   •• "      .       :    '-  4A-1  "             '      •.'-.--.      '• ,   '

    Step 7.   Continue Public Outreach:  NDEQ will present potential stakeholders with a summary
          *   of the initial water quality assessments and recommended management priorities.  Areas
             in need of further problem quantification will be identified.  NDEQ will attempt to match
             stakeholders to corresponding priority waterbodies.  In some cases, "Focus Groups" may
             be formed among stakeholders to help clarify matters.  Stakeholder and Focus Groups will
             form the basis for stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of management options and
             development of basin management plans.

    StepS.   Implement Updates to  Strategic Monitoring Plan:  Based on the results of initial
             assessment and prioritization, along with feedback from public outreach activities, NDEQ
             will update and implement its strategic monitoring plan to gather data for further problem
             quantification.  This will include data for model development or other tools necessary to
             evaluate management options.                                    •

    Step 9.   Problem Quantification:  Additional problem quantification will be performed where
             required to establish the magnitude of a problem, determine assimilative capacity, calculate  ,
             loads for contributing  sources of pollutants of concern, or otherwise further  assess the
             problem such that sufficient information is available for management strategy development.
             This includes field  calibration of models  and development of total maximum daily loads

    Step 10. Develop Management Strategies:  NDEQ will work with other stakeholders to arrive at
             a consensus on management goals, such as specific waterbody segments to be restored or
             protected. This will include loading reductions that should be achieved, or the  amount of
             habitat that needs restpring, etc. Input will also be solicited from stakeholders to establish
             feasible  combinations  of point and nonpoint source  control measures and management.
             actions to achieve goals.  Management options will be evaluated via predictive modeling,
             or by other methods  where appropriate, for  their  relative  effectiveness at achieving
             environmental objectives.  Regulatory constraints and procedures will be considered, and
             stakeholder consensus will  be sought  where voluntary  efforts are needed to  meet
             environmental objectives.  Selected management strategies will outline mechanisms for
              implementing controls, time frames, anticipated costs, sources  of funding, monitoring
             strategies, compliance tracking and enforcement methods, etc.

    Step 11.  Prepare Draft Basin  Plan:  NDEQ will prepare a draft basin plan which documents the
              results of the basin planning  process including  assessment, priorities, goals,  selected
              management alternatives,  and  the implementation strategy.   (See section 2.3 for more
              details on the components  of a basin plan).             '                            ,

    Step 12.  Agency and Public Review: An internal review of the  draft basin plan will be performed
              to ensure that it is  ready for public distribution. Upon  agency approval, the plan will be
              made available for public review and comment.   Outreach will be provided to explain
              provisions and implications of the plan.

    Step 13.  Complete Final Basin Plan: Modifications will be made to the plan, as necessary, based
              on comments and  input received through the review process, to complete a final basin
              plan.                                    .               •

    Step 14.  Basin Plan Implementation:  Each cycle ends with a  basin plan implementation period.
              The implementation'strategy outlined in the plan  will  be  followed, taking such steps as
               necessary to implement pollutant source controls, best  management practices, monitoring


                                                                        APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
             programs, enforcement methods, etc.  Activities occurring during this period will include
             public notice and issuance of NPDES individual and basin general permite, distribution of
             state revolving fund (SRF)  loans to prioritized entities; and  allocation of 319 funds to
             prioritized NFS problem  areas.  In addition, implementation will include an outreach
             component to communicate the goals and selected management strategies of the final plan.
             Outreach  will  also be  used to educate  stakeholders on implementation  schedules,
             milestones, and where regulatory and .voluntary efforts are required to meet environmental
          -  objectives.

The final basin plan contains recommendations for follow-up basiriwide assessment to measure the degree
of success from plan implementation and to evaluate areas that were not assessed during the previous
cycle.  After af specified period of time for plan implementation,  NDEQ will implement the updated
strategic  monitoring plan and the basin management cycle will be repeated.        .

The basin management cycle will not be initiated in all basins at the same  time for practical reasons.
Activities within die thirteen basins will be sequenced so that steps  are performed incrementally across
the state. This helps to balance program workloads.  Focusing on the same steps at one time in a small
segment of the  state creates a more efficient and effective operating framework.

Table 1 shows  the sequence and scheduling of steps for Nebraska's thirteen river basins. The order in
which river basins will be addressed is shown along the left hand column of the table.  Corresponding
schedules for performance of each step of the basin management  cycle  are shown to the right of the
column of basins.  Two lines of symbols are used for each basin to better depict simultaneous activities
(Note: symbols are defined in the legend at the bottom of the table). The table shows how steps are
phased in across the state  over the first five year cycle from  1994 to 1998.  Basinwide management
activities will be ongoing in  all basins across the state by 1998, and basin management plans will be
implemented for all basins  by the end of 2001.

Specific  scheduling patterns  have been incorporated within the basin cycle.  For instance,  the vast
majority of field monitoring activities for NDEQ's Water Quality Division are performed between May
and November for scientific reasons.  Therefore, strategic monitoring plans will need to be finalized by
the end of April each year  so that actual sample collection can begin in May.                .. •-  >

Data analysis (A) and problem quantification (Q) are shown in the table under the months of November
through February following the first year of monitoring and information collection.  However, this does
not mean that analysis and quantification are restricted to that period.  Rather, this is the period where
data are  screened and assessed for watershed prioritization purposes.  It is recognized that analysis and
quantification  for purposes of evaluating  management options  will continue on in some  prioritized
watersheds up  until development of management strategies and written plans. This is illustrated in the
table by  the series of months with a Q following the Mq period.

Finally,  it  should be noted, that the length of time scheduled for follow-up problem quantification and
management strategy development differs across basins that are grouped .in  the same year of the cycle.
The times have been staggered so that only one basin plan is being drafted at a time.  For example, plan
drafting  will occur in July-August of 1996 for the Lower Platte whereas  the basin plan for the Nemaha
will be written in November-December, 1996. This same type of pattern is repeated for each year of the
basin cycle.        '            ,

o .
o .


»- M.

_._ _ & 6 a oz o z o z o z < a
~ Z _ _ K 6 a oz3'zfz3'z*
_ c «z z*z*z3o3o3o
o oz zlzIzSoSo.ao
_ 8 o oz z3fzJz3o3o3o
Z I 8 •» z o z z.J z 3T z 3 o 3 o.3 o
_ 5ttSozOzn.Sa.5o.S*B3>0. *B
U.SB: ozoz 3 o 3 o
i 3 o 3 o
c 3 u 3 u
> o 3 o
, u 3 u
( o 3 o
t B * B
I 8 1 8
t *
< O < O
•< O < O
3 a 3 u
3 o 3 o
3 o 3.o
3 u 3 o
3 u 3 u
3 o 3 o
.* 8 * B
S B * 8
3 t


< u
a u
                                                                               n «
                                                                               a: v>

n      a  ,a
Z   «   2  ^
V   2   m  S
=5   m   «  2-
H   o)  2  §"
E   5   U  K
                                         Q. •

                                                             APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
" z
4 .«.

*- Ik







8 K
8 *
ft n-
a o

z o
z q
z o
z o
z o

_. Jf

z 1
z T
Z i
z f
a a.
a <
o <
0 <
o 3
u i
u a
o 3
u 1
u 3
9 *
9 t
8 o
8 n
a 0
a o
_ Jf
_ f

_ jr
z I
z S
Z Q.
Z <

a .
a -

o, -
o _
u _
o _
0 _
u _
9 -.
9 _
















• i
m z
w z
0 z
0 z
o z
0 Z
o z
o z
0 Z
f z
f z
f z
f z
f z
I z
1 z
t 8
a a
< o
< 0
< 0
J o
I u

a u
a o
I 8


_ I
u. 2
0! I
te t
5 * t
S e
0 Z
0 Z
0 Z
o z-
0 Z
0 Z
0 Z
o z
0 Z
0 Z
0 Z
o z
a* z
J z
a* z
J z
J z
I z
J z
t a
Q. a
< o
< 0
,< 0
a o

a u
a u
a o
t, 9


_ 8
u. 8
K a
e a
s K a
J 0
m z
p z 0 z o z < o < a < a
        S    m
«   I   s
2   CO   S
m   u   =
                                . ±i


    MODULE 5


                                            '                     MODULES
                                   DEFINING GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                    PURPOSE OF MODULE
                 To provide
                 for tailoring core
                 activity elements to
                 address circumstances
                 for a given state
                                          Basin Management Cycle
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of Module
Module 5 provides recommendations for tailoring core activity elements to address
unique circumstances in a given state. Core activity elements are discussed in the
following order:                                                    .
  • Developing Management Strategies (Element 7)                         •

  • Stakeholder Involvement (Element 2)
  • Pripritization and Targeting (Element 6)

  » Assessment by Basin (Element 5)          '•',.....

  • .Strategic Monitoring (Element 4)                 .
  • Plan Implementation (Element 9)
These elements involve the primary activities recommended for integration, leading to
development and implementation of basin management plans that meet water resource
g6als and objectives.                    ,
Information on tailoring activity elements is presented in the order recommended for
building a statewide framework. Decisions made regarding some elements will
influence refinement of others; the order for element tailoring presented in Module 5
reflects staff experience to date. Additionally, potential impacts on program and staff .
functions are discussed for each activity.

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                     This module should enable participants to
                     4 Identify forums for developing integrated
                       management strategies
                     • List areas of public contribution
                     • Describe methods for developing and
                       applying prioritization andl targeting criteria
                     * List considerations for assessment protocols
                     • Describe purposes of strategic monitoring
                     • List example implementation tools
Viewgraph 2:  Learning Objectives
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to
  •  identify forums for developing integrated management strategies
  *  List areas in statewide watershed management to which the public can contribute,
     along with methods for securing public participation
  •  Describe methods for developing and applying prioritization and targeting criteria
  •  List ways of identifying assessment needs, along with considerations for   .  • •
     establishing assessment protocols
  *  Describe the purposes of strategic monitoring and potential components of a
     strategic monitoring plan                              .
  •  List example implementation tools that can t>e defined and compiled into a
     "toolbox" for  operation under a statewide approach

                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
                 The primary purpose is to
                 establish a forum for goal
                 setting and identifying,
                 evaluating, and selecting
                 management strategies
                                             Bash Management Cycle
 Viewgraph 3:  Build Capability to Develop Integrated
  Management Strategies
The capability to develop integrated management strategies (Element 7) is an important
feature and benefit of a statewide framework.  Partners must establish a forum that
promotes stakeholder coordination and cooperation within basins and facilitates
consensus on management goals, priorities, strategies, and means of implementation.
Proactive consensus is stronger than havingto defend a unilateral position adopted by a
lead agency. As a part of the strategy development process, basin stakeholders will need
an administrative structure that supports identifying, evaluating, and selecting
management strategies collectively.

                                             '                    MODULES
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     BUILD CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
                        Demonstrated Solutions

                        • Bastn coordinator

                        • Basin and watershed teams
                             ~*^<'   > ,
                        T Citizen advisory committees
                        VBasitrpten authorization board
 Viewgraph 4:  Build Capability (continued)!
Demonstrated Solutions
Experience to date suggests the following solutions for supporting integrated
management plan development:
  *  A basin coordinator whose primary responsibilities are maintaining clear, frequent
    communication on logistics for basin activities and ensuring progress on basin
    planning commitments.                               .                  ,
  •  Basin and watershed teams comprised of technical experts representing key
    stakeholder groups who work together through the sequence of activities to develop
    and implement basin and watershed plans.                                 ,
  •  Citizen advisory committees as a forum for people outside core water resource
    agencies to provide input to basin and watershed teams on various issues such as
    problem identification, goal setting, priority ranking, management options,
    implementation, and citizen monitoring.
  • Basin plan authorization boardto approve plans and authorize implementation.

Exhibit 5-1 describes organizational structures used for statewide watershed management
in Idaho.

                                  DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
     Exhibit 5-1. Organizational Structures in Idaho
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is voluntarily leading
development of a comprehensive watershed management approach for the State of
Idaho. DEQ has divided the state into six regions. For each region, IDEQ is
forming a Citizens' Watershed Task Force whose function is to set watershed
management priorities, target watersheds for management plan development,
resolve conflicts in the region, and assist in procuring funding. A Watershed
Advisory Group, open to the public living or working in the watershed, is formed
for each targeted watershed. The Watershed Advisory Group is responsible for
developing and implementing the basin plan, with assistance from a Technical
Planning Team established from interested agencies including IDEQ. Central office
staff from -IDEQ's Planning and Evaluation branch assist regional offices in
organizing, advertising, and conducting task force and advisory group meetings.
   Level of

Administrative Unit
Citizens' Watershed
    Task Forces
 Advisory Groups
  Planning Teams
     Agency Staff
Citizens Appointed by
Regional Administrator
   Interested Public
 Living or Working in

                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     BUILD CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
                                   Identify entities, I
                                  tions, and relationships
 Recommended Steps
for Building Capability
Viewgraph 5:  Build Capability (continued!
Recommended Steps for Building Capability
Participants in the statewide framework development process should collectively define
means for developing and implementing integrated management strategies that are best
for their state. The following steps for building capability are recommended based on
state experience to date:
  • Identify Entities, Functions, and Relationships:  By this phase of the development
    process, partners will likely have a clear idea of what structure will provide strategy
    development and implementation capabilities. All entities (e.g., coordinator, basin
    team, advisory committee, and approval board) should be clearly identified, along
    with their intended functions and relationships to one another.

  • Establish Organizational Structures: Partners should decide how each entity will be
    organized. Where multiple persons are involved (e.g., teams, committees, and
    boards), decisions should be reached on leadership and membership (i.e., who and
    how selected or appointed?).  Partners may even want to specify qual.f.cations for
    technical or advisory positions. Additionally, partners should decide who will
     handle administrative tasks such as meeting logistics (i.e., facility arrangements,
     meeting announcements, notes, and information distribution).

   •  Define Operating Protocols:  For each entity, partners should reach consensus on
     operating protocols that address such issues as:

      -  Will orientation or training be required? If so, what type and who will conduct?

                                DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
 - HOW will areas such as communication, information management, and
    consensus building be coordinated among entities and members?

 - How will conflicts be resolved?
 - How will responsibilities be assigned?

Establish Support Mechanisms:  Consensus should be reached on how, resources
will be budgeted and appropriated to keep each entity functioning. For example, a
statewide basin coordinator position could be funded and maintained by a single
agency (presumably the lead agency) or by statewide partners collectively.
Similarly, sources and amounts of funding to support members of teams, boards,
committees, etc. should be clearly delineated.

Identify Performance Evaluation Methods: To the extent possible at this phase of
the development process, partners should outline how performance and
effectiveness of each entity will be evaluated.  Partners and other stakeholders will
want to know whether each entity is carrying out its function and whether actions
are helping to achieve resource management  goals. Hence, performance standards
should be identified, along with methods for managing performance.  Respon-
sibilities for overseeing corrective action should also be delineated.

                                                                  MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     BUILD CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
                  Impact on Program and Staff Functions

                  4 Increased interaction with external advisory groups

                  • Increased time for consensus building

                  • Better solutions to complex problems

                  • Increased ability to complement partner efforts

                  • Improved working relationships
Viewgraph 6: Build Capability (continued
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
  •  Increased Interaction with External Advisory Groups:  Networking with basin team
    members and advisory committee members will change the way that some
    programs are accustomed to operating. .       "                       ,

  *  Increased Time for Consensus Building: Integrated strategies require consensus
    among participants, which typically takes more time to achieve.

  •  Better Solutions to Complex Problems:  Integrated strategies often include actions
    that extend beyond the scope and authority of any single partner. Programs may no
    longer feel limited to solving problems by means under their direct control.  Issues
    that previously seemed overwhelming to any one agency because of complexity
    and cross jurisdictions may now be resolvable through integrated efforts of partners.

  •  Increased Ability to Complement Partner Efforts:  Partners can better complement
    each other's activities to achieve resource goals and objectives, because forums will
    raise awareness of one another's program requirements and resource allocations.

  •  Improved Working Relationships: Coordination forums often improve working
    relationships with partners and the general public.

                                                                  MODULE 5
                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
                                              Basin Management Cycle
                   The primary objective for
                   integrating public
                   participation is to
                   create opportunities
                   for public outreach, input/
                   and constructive action
Viewgraph 7:  Integrating Public Participation
into Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder involvement (Element 2) covers a wide range of participation, including
government agencies, private institutions, and the general public. Most stakeholders
that participate in technical planning and implementation activities will contribute
through the forums described previously. This section focuses specifically on
participation of the general public, a desired component of any WPA that hopes to
achieve public buy-in for resource management plans and implementation strategies;
Public participation cart be integrated by creating opportunities for public outreach,
input, and constructive action.             "

                                             '                    MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING'GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                       Balance participation with the need to proceed
                        on schedule through clearly communicated,
                         well defined time frames for participation
Viewgraph 8: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Areas and Levels of Public Participation
Anticipated public roles should be clarified in the statewide framework development
process, including choices on where and how the public can participate. The challenge
lies in balancing participation with the need to proceed on schedule.  Potential areas tor
participation include:
  • Data and information col lection
  • Prioritization of basin concerns        .
  • Development of management goals and strategies
  • Input to allocation of resources
  • Review of management plans and implementation strategies
  • Identification of measures of success for documenting environmental improvements

  • Plan implementation                  ,
 Levels of participation often are governed by the extent of access; that is, will the public
 have open access to participating agencies at all times or be limited to specific windows
 of opportunity? Balance can be achieved by clearly communicated, well defined time
 frames for participation.  For example, states can build basin meeting schedules into the
 management cycle so that the public knows well in advance when opportunities will be
 available to obtain information on, provide input to, or help implement management
 plans for a given  basin.

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     (CONTINUED)              '  - '  .

                       Methods of Public Participation
                       * Basin Meetings
                       * Basin Festivals
                       • Volunteer Monitoring
                       * Advisory Committees
                       * Regulatory Notices/Meetings
                       • Newsletters/Electronic Bulletin Boards
Viewgraph 9: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Means of Public Participation

Basin Public Meetings: Basin public meetings are essentially open forums at strategic
locations within the basin to share information with the public and receive feedback.
Basin meetings can be used effectively to discuss prioritization criteria; program
resource allocations, goals, strategies, NPS projects, NPDES permit conditions, etc.

Basin Festivals:  Festivals may attract the public to events where outreach activities
occur. Events often include unique ways of conveying information such as movies,
games, and theater performances. A more informed public may result in more realistic
expectations regarding resource management and greater support for state-sponsored
Adopt-A-Waterbody and Volunteer Monitoring Groups:  Citizen groups can collect
information through coordinated monitoring programs. Information from such efforts
often facilitates identification of existing or emerging problems as well as providing
feedback on management effectiveness.
Citizen Advisory Committees or Groups: Committees or groups of citizens can be used
effectively to involve the public and may be particularly useful when help and
coordination are needed from several agencies or when gray areas of jurisdiction arise
in which no agency has clear authority.  Also, important restoration and protection
strategies may rely on voluntary programs or may require mobilization of broad public
support to secure funding.

                                                                   MODULE 5
                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
•Regulatory Notices/Meetings: Traditional regulatory mechanisms for public outreach
and participation, such as public notices and hearings for NPDES permits and revisions
to water quality standards and rules, can be used tp elicit information from the general
public that may have a bearing on basin management. Similarly, these mechanisms can
be used to increase public awareness of the statewide approach by providing
educational information in notices or meeting presentations.

Newletters/Electronic Bulletin Boards: The statewide basin management planning
process requires routine means of communication among stakeholders.  Newsletters are
effective for regularly distributing information on upcoming stakeholder events and
interim findings in the  process (e.g., basin priorities;), as well as advertising the needs
and resources of stakeholders. Electronic bulletin boards that can be accessed 24 hours
a day provide a means for communicating less routine or more impromptu information
that arises during the planning process. With today's rapid growth in computer literacy
and proficiency, bulletin boards are becoming an extremely efficient tool for capturing
input on all aspects of the planning process and making it available to stakeholders.

                                                                 MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS

                    Impact on Program and Staff Functions
                    • Increased time required for outreach
                    • Expanded scope of problem solving to
                     include broad public concerns
                    • Increased agency openness and flexibility
Viewgraph 10: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions

  • Increased Time Required for Outreach: Many programs can expect to spend more
    time providing outreach to the public and other stakeholders. As ^i return on staff
    investment, programs can expect an improved public understanding of respective
   ' roles in the statewide watershed management process, greater cooperation and
    support from stakeholders in assisting with implementation (for example, lobbying
    for additional funding and volunteering to assist with NFS control measures), and
    perhaps fewer challenges to management decisions made with stakeholder input.
  • Expanded Scope: Program planners may be involved more frequently in
    comprehensive problem-solving efforts that address broad public concerns rather
    than focusing on more narrowly scoped program concerns.
  • Increased Agency Openness and Flexibility:  Developing a strong rapport with the
    public likely will require demonstration of openness to public input and flexibility
    in approach to problem-solving and management implementation.

                                              '                     MODULE 5
                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                 The objective of prioritization
                 is to rank watershed concerns
                 in order of their importance
                 so that resources can be
                 targeted to address the
                 most important issues
                                               Basin Management Cycle
Viewgraph 11:  Refining Prioritization and Targeting Methods
Statewide framework development includes stakeholder consideration of methods and
criteria for priority-setting and targeting—proactive means of dealing with constraints on
the number.of environmental concerns that can be effectively addressed. This section
covers recommendations for tailoring a prioritization and targeting system (Element 6) to
meet the needs in a given state.

Recommendations for Establishing Criteria
The objective of prioritization is to rank watershed concerns in order of their importance
so that resources can be targeted to address the most important issues.  Assigning
priorities that can be followed by all stakeholders participating in the statewide
approach requires a consensus on criteria and methods for establishing priorities and
targeting resources. The following recommendations for establishing criteria are
adapted from Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples (EPA 1993):

  1. Distinguish between prioritization and targeting criteria:
      - Prioritization criteria should reflect importance of concern (e.g., resource value,
        severity of risk, and degree of impairment).

      - Targeting criteria help direct program and private resources to prioritized
        concerns where they will do the most good and  usually reflect factors such as
      .  management feasibility, cost effectiveness, and willingness to proceed on the
        part of stakeholders.

                                   DEFINING'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
2. Choose overarching factors that apply to the full range of management programs
   involved in the statewide framework.  For example, ecological value may have
   little meaning for certain groundwater concerns, just as wetlands may not be fairly
   considered if a public-use factor is emphasized. An overarching factor, however,
   such as resource value may be defined for each type of resource.

3. Choose a set of criteria that strike a balance between resource protection and
   restoration. If criteria place too much.emphasis on existing waterbody impairment,
   then remaining program resources may be insufficient to prevent other waters from
   becoming impaired.

4. Some criteria may need to be specific to a given basin.  Stakeholder meetings can
   be used to establish special value considerations for that basin.  Broad resource
   protection goals can be translated into specific prioritization and targeting criteria
   applicable to individual basins.

                                            '    '  '  .   '         MODULE 5
                                   DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                    METHODS (CONTINUED)

                     Choosing a Method for Applying Criteria
                     1. Recruit participants
                     2. Review candidate, approaches
                     3. Select/develop approach
                     4. Test and adjust approach
                     5. Seek approval
Viewgraph 12: Refining Prioritization
 and Targeting Methods (continued)
Choosing a Method for Applying Criteria
Developers of a statewide approach should use existing methodologies for ranking
watershed concerns whenever possible. Some states, however, do not have such a
method, and others could benefit from a re-evaluation of their existing methods (e.g.,
placing their approaches into a watershed perspective). For instance, some existing
ranking systems may have been created for specific program purposes (e.g., funding
upgrades for publicly owned treatment works or developing water quality standards).
Such systems may fail to give adequate emphasis to overarching environmental factors,
including such issues as habitat and riparian protection and restoration.

In general, a ranking and targeting approach can be developed using the following steps
(adapted from EPA's Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples, 1993):

  1.  Recruit participants for the development process

  2.  Review potential ranking and targeting approaches
  3.-Select an existing method (or combination of methods) or develop a new approach
     that incorporates chosen criteria
  4. Test the approach arid adjust as necessary

  5. Seek approval of the method from appropriate stakeholders

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
EPA's document on geographic targeting describes several approaches to priority
ranking including the following:                            •.

  • The Numerical Index Approach applies a weighted numeric index to each water
 .   resource unit (e.g./i waterbody)*  The index is usually comprised of several factors
    (e.g., resource value and environmental risk) that are each assigned a range of
    numeric values to provide a measurement scale. A numerical index score is usually
    obtained by choosing representative values for a specific waterbody from each
    factor rneasuremerit scale, weighting each factor value by its predetermined
    importance tp the index, and summing or multiplying factor values  to compute a
    total index score.  Numerical indices are popular because they can  be based on
    quantifiable criteria important to water quality, they produce a single list of
    waterbody rankings, and their results are reproducible. A potential  drawback is that
    a poor choice of variables may yield a poorly performing index. An example of a
    numerical approach developed for Oregon is highlighted in Exhibit  5-2.

  • The Decision Tree Approach relies on the best professional judgment of water
    resource managers to answer a series of questions that lead to assignment of
    waterbodies to specific priority categories. The primary advantage of using a
    decision tree is that it provides a clear overview of choices made to establish
    priority. A decision tree approach developed for New Mexico is highlighted in
    Exhibit 5-3.
  • The Data Layer Overlay Approach involves simultaneous display of geographically
    distributed data (e.g., land use, hydrography, impaired waters, and endangered
    species) that can be interpreted and grouped into priority categories using a
    decision strategy for analyzing data and ranking waterbodies.  This approach may
    be preferable to states and regions that have strong CIS capabilities  and adequate
    data bases from which to draw.  An overlay approach being applied in Ohio is
    summarized in Exhibit 5-4.                                        .

  • The Consensus-Based Approach uses broad participation by multiple agencies and
    other stakeholders to reach consensus on priorities within the basin. Participants
    review technical information by using approved ranking techniques. Consensus is
    reached when all parties agree on decisions or agree to support the decisions of the
    larger group. The strength of this approach lies in the widespread acceptance of the
    end product. Weaknesses include the potential inability to reach consensus.  An
    example of a consensus-based ranking system used in Washington is provided in
    Exhibit 5-5.
These are not the only methods, and partners are encouraged to develop an approach
that best fits the unique circumstances in their state.

                                             '                       MODULES
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
    Exhibit 5-2. Numerical Approach Developed for

    Oregon                                                     .

Oregon assigns a severity score to each waterbody based on impacts or threats to
beneficial uses. The following primary use factors are taken into account:

  • Human health factor (drinking water and shellfish)
  • Recreation factor                       •
  • Aquatic life factor
  • Habitat (optional)

Each beneficial use factor is assigned severity points as follows:

  0 points =   fully supporting the use or no data
  1 point  =   moderate problem
  3 points =   severe problem
Each waterbody also is assigned a value factor (or weight) related to its importance as a
drinking water supply, its recreational value, and its fishery and aquatic life functions.
For instance, the scoring system for recreational value is:

  Minimal recreational value: 1  point
  Fair:                     2 points
  Good:                    3 points
  Excellent:                 4 points
  Wild or Scenic River:       1  extra-point
For each beneficial use factor, a sub-index is calculated as the product of the use factor
or severity score (a number from 0 to 3) multiplied by the value factor weight (a number
from 1 to 5).  The total water quality index is the sum of the resulting products for the
health, recreation, and aquatic life factors, plus an optional aquatic impact factor for

Example Calculation for a Stream:                                             ,
Beneficial Use                Severity   x   Value = Total
Human Health                   1       .    • 5         5      .  .
Recreation                       3       .3         9
Aquatic Life                      3            3         9
Habitat (maximum of 10)           3            5      ,  10. (maximum value)
Total Score                                             33    .
Waterbodies  are initially ranked according to the total of the first three factors above. If
there are close calls in defining the class of high-priority waters, Oregon considers the
extra habitat scores (especially for streams with  anadromous fisheries). A second set of
tie-breaker criteria gives higher priority to waters that need TMDLs or are candidates for
Clean Lakes Grants.                                                 .   .    .

                               DEFINING'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
   Exhibit 5-3. Decision Tree Approach Developed for
   New Mexico                                       .

 New Mexico's decision tree approach groups waterbodies into priority
 categories, from which a class of high-priority candidates can be
 identified. The process is organized in the form of a series of questions
 and decision responses.  If the response is simply a "yes" or a '-no/' then
 the waterbody is advanced into one of two branches on the decision tree.
 Some decision nodes have numerous branches.

 One of the main  objectives is to distinguish between waters having
 adequate data for a management response versus waters with extremely
 limited data. Where data gaps are apparent, priorities can be established
 for conducting additional monitoring work. Where existing data are
 sufficient, an additional series of questions assigns a waterbody to.one of
 six priority classes.                                              :

 Higher priority is assigned where there are frequent water quality
 standards violations.  Higher priority is also given where the resource is
 designated as an  outstanding value water and where feasible techniques
for mitigation or protection are available.  New Mexico has used this
 system for Section 319 NFS project selection, for prioritization under the
State Revolving Loan  Program to assist POTWs, and in targeting
enforcement actions.

The following flow chart provides a graphical display of the decision tree

                                                                         MODULE 5
                                      DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
   Exhibit 5-3.  Continued
Problem Indicated:
* Standards violation
• Use impairment
• Rapid watershed
• No recent data
to increase
                                                to  increase
                                                                           Priority for
                                                                            Controls: •
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                                                               Mgmt. tools
                 No ranking
                            for Data
                                                to increase
                                                to  increase

                                      DEFINING GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
      Exhibit 5-4.  Overlay Approach Applied in Ohio
As part of its Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, the State of Ohio
implemented a targeting system using map overlay techniques. Each mylar map displayed
information on natural resource conditions,(see diagram). Shadings were used to show
different degrees of each factor (e.g., darkly shaded streams might indicate severe habitat
destruction). When the mylar sheets are superimposed, some areas stand out as being  .-
heavily impacted or in need of action based on the density of shaded areas. • The method
works well for locating problem areas where multiple layers indicate pollution problems or
degradation threats.

The Ohio Target Waterbodies System was based on nine major map overlays:  (1) sig-
nificant public water supplies according to the frequency of maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations; (2) locations of landfill sites; (3) locations of hazardous waste disposal
sites; (4) locations,of significant fish kills; (5) NPDES discharge .locations; (6) agricultural
land use; (7) priority areas with documented water quality concerns; (8) major grouhdwater
use areas; and (9) significant (sensitive) environmental resource areas.    ,
Ohio's map overlay process has seen limited use since the mid-1980s. Ohio EPA is cur-
rently increasing the number of watershed units it uses for its ranking procedures and is
working with major state and federal agencies to encourage the use of consistent data
sources. With steady improvements in CIS capabilities, Ohio anticipates developing a
more sophisticated overlay system  in the future.
                                         Water Supplies


                                         Priority Areas/Sensitive Areas

                                         NPDES Discharges

                                         Landfills/Hazardous Waste Sites

                                         Fish Kills

                                         Groundwater Use Areas

                                         '    •'               MODULE 5
                                 DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
    Exhibit 5-5.  Consensus-Based Ranking System Used in

The State of Washington has completed a final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) for Puget Sound under the National Estuarine Program.
To produce the final CCMP and two interim management plans starting in 1987,
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority coordinated efforts with a variety of
federal and state agencies as. well as the numerous local governments in the 12-
county study area (Cole. Ranking of Puget Sound Watersheds for the Control of
Nonpomt Source Pollution. 1990).

Targeting Process
One of the Authority's main challenges was to conduct a local watershed
planning process. The State of Washington had created a special Centennial Clean
Water Fund, and resources were available to initiate up to 12 early-action
watershed projects (one for each county). The emphasis was on addressing major
problems associated with nonpoint source impacts. To choose candidate
watersheds, the Authority and a Federal/State Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin
Study Team worked with the county governments to set up special committees. A
Watershed Ranking Committee was organized in each county to prioritize
watersheds within the county. Separate Watershed Management Committees were
also formed to prepare coordinated action plans for the chosen watersheds.

Committee membership was drawn from local government, agriculture and
business groups, citizen and environmental organizations, and tribal governments.
Representatives from natural resource agencies assembled water quality •
information and presented this material to the local Watershed Ranking
Committees.  Using consensus-based approaches, the local committees then '
determined how to prioritize management needs for water resource areas within
their counties. High-priority candidates were pooled from the entire study area for
 use by the Washington Department of Ecology in targeting the award of the early-
 action watershed grants.

                                  DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
     Exhibit 5-5.  Continued
Criteria for Targeting
Watershed rankings Were carried out in all"! 2 Puget Sound counties using the
general guidance contained in the Puget Sound Authority's "Nonpoint Rule"
(Chapter 400-12) adopted in 1988. The basic ranking criteria used to. assign scores
to each watershed included the following:       '

   1. Assign differential scores where a beneficial use such as recreational or
      commercial shellfish beds, fish habitat, or drinking water is impaired or
      threatened by pollution from nonpoint sources.

   2. Consider if a watershed has a likelihood of intensified land or water use,
      including a likelihood of being logged, in the next 10 years.

   3. Consider special local environmental factors such as soil, slope, and
      precipitation on land and/or limited flushing in the sound, that might
      increase the probability of present or future water quality degradation.

   4. Consider whether a watershed produces more contaminants (loadings) or
      causes greater harm to a beneficial use than other watersheds.

Each county was allowed to adapt these general principles in a flexible manner.
Most counties adopted a two-phase approach.  Very simple scoring rules were
developed and applied to identify a consensus list of high priority watersheds.
More detailed scoring and evaluation methods were then applied to assign relative
ranks to high-priority candidates. Each county provided documentation for the
ranking approaches they used.

Although there was no uniform set of technical criteria in this strategy, the Puget
sound approach has proven productive in many respects. The process itself
incorporated heavy public participation. Because priority rankings from each local
group were based  on a consensus drawn from many diverse viewpoints, the final
recommendations usually met with widespread public acceptance and political
support.        •-.."-'

                                   DEFINING 'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                    METHODS (CONTINUED)

                      Additional Considerations
                      + Minimum data requirements for
                        inclusion in ranking process
                      • Prioritization for multiple purposes
Viewgraph 13: Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued)
Additional Considerations
Minimum data Requirements: There will be times when information is insufficient to
evaluate the priority of a specific concern or identify where stakeholder resources
should be targeted (e.g., when an environmental assessment is lacking). States may
want to consider establishing minimum data requirements for inclusion in the process.

Prioritization for Multiple Purposes: Priorities may apply for purposes other than
management strategy development. For instance, New Mexico prioritizes watersheds
for data collection when information is insufficient for assessment (see Exhibit 5-3).
Thus, even if a watershed is not ranked for control through a numerical index, it may
receive a high priority for additional monitoring in the next cycle iteration.

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     METHODS (CONTINUED)

                      Impact on Program and Staff Functions

                      • De-emphasizing fixed priorities

                      • Translating priorities into specific
                        resource allocations
Viewgraph 14:  Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions                  ,

De-Emphasizing Fixed Priorities: The prioritization process de-emphasizes fixed
program priorities (e.g., perform "x" number of inspections per year); instead, program
goals remain flexible to reflect basin and nested watershed resource priorities.  For
example, more concentrated inspections may be needed in a specific watershed
because of impairment thought to be attributable to point sources and confined animal
Translating Priorities into Specific Resource Allocations:  Priorities need to be translated
by statewide partners and other stakeholders into specific program resource targeting
allocations. For example, priorities will affect
  • The Ibcatjon and purpose of field monitoring efforts
    The type and magnitude of TMDL development efforts
    The types and amount of laboratory support services
    The types and amount of modeling support
    Decisions on where to establish site-specific surface or ground water standards
    Decisions on drinking water standards and monitoring waivers
    Priorities for use of §319 grant funds
    Priorities for approval of SRF loans
    the level of effort for NPDES permit development, compliance tracking, and
    The amount of effort placed on habitat restoration
    The types and amount of public outreach	•' • . ;   ,.

                                                     . /
                                                                  MODULE 5
                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                                             Basin Management Cycle
                  Partners should identify   A
                  assessment needs and    ffL
                  capabilities during      I
                  the statewide framework
                  development process
Viewgraph 15:  Identifying Basin Assessment Methods
Development and application of basin assessment (Element 5) methods should be
closely related to prioritization criteria and resource management goals. Whether
assessing water quality status, identifying problems, quantifying impacts, calibrating
models, or evaluating effectiveness, assessment techniques should produce results that
assist stakeholders in ranking and addressing resource management priorities. Although
specific methods often are best selected by technical experts assembled to carry out
planning activities for a given basin, partners can benefit by identifying during the
framework development stage probable assessment needs and corresponding
capabilities to fill those needs.
Assessment needs and capabilities will vary substantially from state to state. Some
statewide frameworks will include sophisticated techniques such as rapid bioassessment
and risk assessment, whereas others may need to rely on physical and chemical
measurements because of limited capabilities. Some states will have the capability for
large-scale, complex assessments, whereas others may be able to cover only small
portions.of basins in any one cycle iteration. For some partners, integrating efforts will
create capabilities heretofore unattainable (e.g., CIS analysis).  Whatever the case,
identifying needs and capabilities in the framework development stage helps partners
and stakeholders set realistic expectations and highlight gaps in capabilities that can be
filled as the statewide approach evolves.

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                       Identifying Assessment Needs

                       • Defining needs specific to each
                         step in basin cycle
                       • Relating needs to selected environ-
                         mental, indicators arid stressors
Viewgraph 16:  Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Identifying Assessment Needs
Defining Needs Specific to Each Step in the Cycle:  Assessment needs change
throughout the basin management cycle. Partners can define preliminary needs by
evaluating each step of the management cycle.  For example, initial assessment needs
may relate to identification of strategic locations for monitoring. Prior to prioritization,
assessments will need to produce use support ratings that are also used to meet CWA
Section 305(b) reporting and 303(d) listing requirements. After prioritization> assessment
needs likely will include'problem quantification and criteria development (e.g., site-
specific water quality standards and TMDLs). Assessments may involve predicting
effectiveness of alternatives during the strategy development phase and evaluating actual'
effectiveness after plan implementation. Spatial scale (e.g., basin, watershed,
waterbody, aquifer, and stream segment) for each assessment type should be established
during this review.  By carefully evaluating needs at each step,  partners will be better
positioned to match specific needs with specific capabilities.

Relating Needs to Selected Environmental Indicators and Stressors: Assessment needs
can also be identified as environmental indicators are established for broad-based goals.
Assessment endpoints are typically chosen for designated uses  that apply to many
waterbodies across the state.  For example, drinking water is an endpoint for water
supply use. Corresponding environmental indicators (measurement endpoints) are
drinking water criteria, taste, and treatment costs.  Each indicator would require an
assessment method, so partners can discern assessment needs by reviewing and
selecting desired indicators. Similarly,.partners can identify assessment needs for
common types of stressors that are likely to occur in each or many basins throughout the
state (e.g., sediment and nutrients).                      ,

                                                                 MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                          Assessment protocols are
                          recommended for
                           • Assessment methods
                           • Documentation
                           • Information transfer
Viewgraph 17: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Establishing Assessment Protocols
Integrating assessments under a statewide approach requires protocols for successful
aggregation of results for each basin. Protocols are recommended for the following
  • Assessment Methods: Partners should establish protocols where information will be
    pooled to make a collective or comparative assessment. Methods used by different
    partners should be comparable, and quality assurance protocols applied uniformly.
  • Documentation Format:  Protocols for assessment documentation ease the
    compilation burden and ensure that sufficient reference information is provided for
    reviewers and users. Example protocols include requiring:
     - Information on where and how data were obtained
     - Descriptions of methods  used for assessment
     - Reporting formats for selected categories of assessment results
  * Information Transfer: Information will be shared for both assessment and basin
    plan documentation purposes.  Hence, partners should agree on how information
    will be transferred.  Possible areas to address include:
     •_. Who will be responsible  for compilation?
   •  _ in what format should information be stored for submittal or retrieval?

                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     Impact on Program and Staff Functions
                     • Changes in existing methods
                     • Increased access to a broader range of
                     • Increased use of environmental indicators
                     • More comprehensive assessments
                     • Improved basis for management and
                       monitoring recommendations
Viewgraph 18: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions

  • Changes in Existing Methods: Basin assessment protocols may require changes in
    methods used by some partners.
  • Increased Access to Broader Range of Information: Protocols will improve access
    to information for many partners and increase confidence in information that is
    obtained from other partners.
  • Increased Use of Environmental Indicators: The importance of assessment to
    statewide watershed management likely will support the development, and
    increased use, of environmental indicators to measure progress toward resource
    restoration and protection goals.
  • More Comprehensive Assessments: Aggregating information for basins and
    watersheds will lead to more comprehensive assessments. Partners will have access
    to multiple indicators and comparable information collected by other stakeholders.
  • Improved Basis for Management and Monitoring Recommendations:  The
    statewide watershed management approach's emphasis on assessment likely will
    provide more and better information than is currently available to many programs.

                                                                 MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     ELEMENT .
                                           B»in Management Cycle
                   Purpose is to
                   monitoring types,
                   methods, purposes,
                   and participants
Viewgraph 19: Developing the Strategic Monitoring Element
Strategic Monitoring Purpose and Participants

The purpose of developing a strategic monitoring element (Element 4)  is to establish a
cost-efficient, effective means of collecting data to support assessment activities.
Coordinating monitoring efforts can be complex, because there are multiple
  • Types of monitoring (ambient, compliance, and intensive survey)

  • Types of parameters (chemical, physical, and biological)
  • Purposes for monitoring (assessment of water quality status, model calibration,
    evaluation of management actions, etc.)
  • Sampling protocols
  • Agencies/groups collecting monitoring data

  • Ways to store and retrieve monitoring data
Coordination is essential if the statewide framework is going to make the best use of
each participants' capabilities and leverage program resource expenditures for shared
monitoring objectives. Potential participants and their corresponding interest in strategic
monitoring include
  • State water quality agency §106 surface and ground water monitoring programs
    'may focus on evaluating whether beneficial uses are being met and identifying
    causes and sources of waterbody impairment to support §305(b) reporting and set
    management priorities.  These programs may also support water quality model and

                                     DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
    TMDL development, as well as evaluating the success of existing and past
    management actions.                                '.

  • Other state agencies may contribute collected data (e.g., fish and wildlife, marine
    fisheries, soil and water, drinking water).                         '•

  • USGS may be interested in evaluating the status of and trends in water quality on a
   , regional and national basis.

  • Other federal agencies may .collect surface and ground water data (e.g., NOAA,
    EPA, USDA, U.S. GOE, U.S. F&WS, BLM).

  • Permittees (e.g., NPDES, UIC, Drinking Water) may be required to perform instream
    monitoring (or may do so voluntarily to establish an information base) to evaluate
    their impacts on waterbody water quality and quantity.

  • The NRCS and state N.PS programs will probably focus on BMP and §319 project

  • Universities may gather monitoring data for research purposes that are also useful to
    resource managers.                                                    ,

  • Local government or citizen volunteer groups concerned with protection of local
    resources may want to monitor their own drinking water and recreational resource
    areas more heavily,

  • Private industries and institutions may monitor for research purposes.
Exhibit 5-6 highlights North Carolina's use of basin NPDES discharger consortiums to
coordinate supplemental monitoring efforts.

                                          '                       MODULE 5
                                 DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
  Exhibit 5-6.  North Carolina NPDES Discharger Basin

  Monitoring Programs

North Carolina has discovered that their statewide approach provides new oppor-
tunities  for  coordination.    Private and municipal dischargers are  forming
consortiums  in some basins to perform instream monitoring in lieu of individual
NPDES ambient monitoring requirements.  State staff found numerous problems
with the  individual self-monitoring approach that limited the usefulness  of data.
Consortiums allow resources to be pooled and subsequently directed  to address
the most important information  needs within the basin. As a result, the  state
receives  better and more useful  information  with  the same (or  even fewer)
resources than permittees  expend complying  separately with NPDES instream
monitoring requirements. (A more complete list of advantages is provided below.)
The state requires  consortiums  to  become legal  entities and then draws up  an
agreement with the group, which  lays out requirements for data collection and
reporting and sets forth conditions under which the agreement can be terminated.
NPDES  permit conditions  allow  the  state to  add individual  self-monitoring
requirements in the event that the agreement is breached.  The consortium is
responsible for seeing that each member abides by the group's by-laws.  In this
manner, the state's administrative burden for overseeing the collection  of instream
data is reduced to working with one organization rather than having to coordinate
with each individual discharger or. other member. Agreements between the state
and consortiums are updated periodically (e.g., annually or biannually) such that
the monitoring program can be adjusted to reflect highest priorities.

Advantages of North Carolina's Basin Monitoring Agreements with Consortiums:
   •  Collection of data by trained staff reduces error in sample results.
   •  Coordinated data collection improves usefulness of information for  .
     management purposes (e.g., assessment, model calibration, targeting, and
     TMDL or WLA development).
   • Basinwide monitoring programs support cumulative impact analyses rather
     than single-source impact evaluations.                     .
   • Coordination ensures critical waterbody segments are monitored
   • Burden of overseeing the monitoring program is reduced, because evaluating
     one program is easier than numerous individual permittees.
   • State/consortium monitoring programs are easier to modify than multiple
     NPDES permittee conditions.
   '• Consortiums help summarize data and submit information in electronic
     formats (e.g., computeri'zed data bases).             '     •

                                    DEFINING' CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS

                     Statewide and Within-Basin Strategic
                     Planning Components
                     • Statewide fixed-station ambient network
                     • Rotating basin ambient network
                     • intensive surveys by basin
                     • Compliance monitoring
Viewgraph 20:  Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Statewide and Within-Basin Strategic Planning Components

Strategic monitoring may reflect varying spatial and temporal scales to address specific
assessment needs. For example,

  •  A portion of monitoring resources may be used to support a statewide fixed-station
    ambient network that is monitored monthly or quarterly to evaluate status or trends
    continuously for physical and chemical parameters.  Such a network may require
    fewer fixed sites than under pre-statewide framework conditions, because resources
    are shifted to other monitoring needs.

  •  A network of rotating basin sites that are sampled only 1 or 2 years out of the basin
    cycle may be used for biological and habitat sampling (where one sample can be
    representative of status for a longer period of time) as well as supplementing fixed-
    station ambient physical and chemical data. Some new sites may be selected for
    each cycle to address watershed-specific concerns and to measure the effectiveness
    of controls.  Some states are converting a portion of their fixed-station sites to
    rotating sites such that more waters are monitored overtime.

  •  An increased number of intensive surveys may be needed to support activities such
    as problem identification, model calibration and validation, and TMDL

                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
               •                 •
  •  Compliance monitoring by the Permitting Authority may remain independent of the
    basin management cycle or may increase in a given year for.specific watersheds
  '  where permittees are suspected of contributing to non-achievement of standards or
    other impacts in the basin.
Statistical design analysis can help determine how often sites need to be sampled to
provide reliable results or to choose the number of stations that are needed to
adequately characterize an area, which may help in balancing fixed-site and rotating
station monitoring.  Available resources will also place practical constraints on the
amount of monitoring that can be performed for specific purposes. Cost-effective
designs are a primary objective. Leveraging resources with other stakeholders therefore
can be very important to achieving a sufficient level of monitoring. Exhibit 5-7
highlights strategic monitoring approaches for.the states of Washington and South

                                           t                    MODULES
                                  DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
     Exhibit 5-7. Two States' Approaches to Monitoring
     Under a Statewide Watershed Framework

 Washington:  The Washington  Department of Ecology  has used  a  statewide
'.watershed management approach to coordinate monitoring activities.  "Core"
 fixed stations throughout the state are sampled monthly  throughout the 5-year
 cycle for basic physical and chemical parameters; targeted watershed stations are
 sampled monthly for 1 year in the 5-year cycle; biological samples (e.g., benthic
 macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, and fish) are collected mid-summer in Year
 3; and lakes are sampled twice annually, near the start and end of the growing
 season.  Compliance monitoring occurs in Year 2 or 3 in'the cycle for a given
 watershed.  -Intensive surveys are initiated in Year 2 and are completed in Year 3
 or 4.
 South  Carolina:  The South  Carolina Bureau  of Water  Pollution Control has
 revised its monitoring program for the state's watershed management approach.
 The Bureau will continue its statewide primary network of over 200 sites that are
 sampled year-round to characterize water quality  status and trends for a broad
 spectrum of rivers  and estuaries.   The state also will continue to monitor a
 secondary network of stations that  were established for special concerns (e.g.,
 upstream and downstream of problem sources). Its secondary network, however,
 now includes watershed monitoring sites that are sampled during  1  year of a.
 5-year cycle, with emphasis on

  •  Waterbodies listed under CWA§303(d), §304(1), and §314
  •  NRCS watersheds with limited water quality data
  •  Known point and nonpoint source problem areas
  •  Waterbodies impacted by ground water
  •  Waterbodies needing point source wasteload allocations
 Close coordination between central office, district office field staff, and the state's
 laboratory  increased the number  of analyses by approximately  50 percent
 without any increase in the amount of program resources that were devoted to
 monitoring under pre-siatewide framework conditions. The bureau may  not be
 able to maintain its current monitoring  pace,  but 'expects some relief by
 converting  more secondary sites to the rotating basin schedule as the process is

                                                                  MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                                 THE MONITORING ELEMENT
                   Strategic Monitoring Plans
                   • Help partners integrate monitoring activities
                     efficiently and effectively
                   •..Document important components: monitoring
                     "p^poses; resources and capabilities;
                     paranteters,of concern; data catleetfem,
                     analysis^ and mantagemenf protocols; and
                     training needs ^< ,,^
Viewgraph 21: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Strategic Monitoring Plans
Some states develop strategic monitoring plans for each basin, so that partners and
stakeholders have a.clear picture of what to expect during each basin cycle iteration.
Monitoring plans can document several important components, including:
  • Purposes for monitoring (i.e., related to basin goals and objectives and
    corresponding assessment needs)
  • An inventory of stakeholder monitoring resources and capabilities
  * Parameters of concern and their basis (i.e., basin goals, historical basis, public
    interest, and environmental indicators)
  • Data collection plan, including
      - Sampling assignments
      - Sampling locations
      - Timing and frequency of sampling
      - Methods of monitoring
      - Field sampling and handling protocols

                                    DEFINING GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
    Laboratory analysis protocols (i.e., to ensure comparable methods)        ;
    Data storage and transfer protocols
  • Training (i.e., for agency personnel applying new techniques, or to support citizen
    monitoring efforts)
  • Methods for strategic plan update

Developing a generic monitoring plan outline during the statewide framework
development stage expedites actual plan development during the first management
cycle iteration for each  basin.  Also, partners may be able to address some protocol
needs during this stage, before developing specific monitoring plans.

                                             ''..'...          MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                     Primary input through
                     formal planning -process
i Secondary feedback from
j implementation process
                                       -.>>•-" "
                                 Wan Update % %- ;
                     Strategic monitoring plan update mechanisms
Viewgraph 22:  Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Mechanisms for Strategic Monitoring Plan Update
Monitoring plans often need to be flexible to changing circumstances. Coordination
among lead monitoring agencies and groups maintains a stable, efficient, and effective
monitoring program. Two levels of coordination are common with regard to monitoring
plan update and should be considered by partners when establishing monitoring activity
protocols for the statewide approach:

  • Primary coordination involves formal planning to determine how monitoring
    specifics will reflect statewide watershed management priorities. Because of the
    dynamic nature of management priorities, some states find it useful to refine long-
    term monitoring plans annually (typically during the winter period prior to spring
    and summer sampling periods when increased intensive surveys are likely). Primary
    coordination focuses on major areas such as clarifying goals, refining agency and
    group roles, leveraging resources, and reviewing proposed methods.

  • Secondary coordination incorporates feedback provided during day-to-day
    implementation of monitoring plans and the interpretation of sampling results. Plan
    details such as timing, location, and parameter coverage may need to be altered
    "on-the-fly" based on important new findings.

 Some states use public meetings to educate stakeholders about the strategic monitoring
 planning process.and solicit comment on monitoring plans specific to each basin.  Basin
 advisory groups representing a broad range of stakeholders can be formed to work
 alongside technical planning teams.

                                     DEFINING 'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS

                     Impact on Program and Staff Functions
                     * Increased time required for planning
                     f Improved access to quality-assured data
                     4 Increased information management
 Viewgraph 23: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
 Impact on Program and Staff Functions

 Increased Time Required for Planning:  Individual program staff will likely spend more
 time collaborating with other monitoring stakeholders prior to sample collection to
 clarify roles, eliminate redundancy, establish mutually acceptable QA/QC procedures,
 and coordinate field logistics. For example, effective ambient data collection through'
 NPDES permittee monitoring requirements will necessitate development of ah overall
 strategy for a basin or sub-basin unit. Permitting staff may find themselves translating
 monitoring strategies into permit conditions or helping establish discharger consortiums
 that provide for coordinated permittee monitoring. Similarly, NPS project monitoring
 plans may need to be revised to coincide with other basin monitoring objectives and
 time frames,  which could become more time consuming.                      :

 Improved Access to Quality-Assured Data:  Program staff who assess monitoring data
 will probably have greatly improved access to a broader range of quality-assured,
 comparable monitoring information collected by numerous stakeholders.
 Increased Information Management Requirements: Program staff outside the
 monitoring program who rely on monitoring and assessment data will need to establish
 procedures for relaying information needs to the monitoring program. For example,
TMDL and water quality model developers will, need to provide input on the type of
data needed to support their activities.

                                                                 MODULE 5
                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
                 Partners can prepare for
                 plan implementation by
                 identifying key
                 authorities, stake-
                 holder resources, and
                 implementation means
                                           ilashi Management Cycle
Viewgraph 24: Preparing for Plan Implementation
Much of the.plan implementation component (Element 9) of a statewide approach will
be defined during the management strategy development and basin plan documentation
phases of the management cycle for each basin. Partners can prepare for plan
implementation, however, by identifying authorities, stakeholder resources, and
implementation means that likely will play significant roles. Such an inventory provides
stakeholders with a toolbox for reference when evaluating management options and
making targeting decisions. Examples of areas to inventory include:
  • Regulatory Authorities (e.g., NPDES permitting, wellhead protection, RCRA, U1C,
    drinking water, and local ordinances)
  • Non-Regulatory Support (e.g., pollution prevention and conservation planning)

  • Outreach (e.g., agency programs and school programs)
  * Funding Mechanisms (e.g., grants, loans, appropriations and donations)

                                    DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMEATTS

                  Impact on Program and Staff Functions  .
                  • Increased number of management options
                  • Decreased time search for means
                  • Increased time coordinating implementation activities
                  • Reduced paperwork for resource allocation,
                  • Less individual monitoring burden
                  • Greater outreach support
Viewgraph 25:  Preparing for Plan Implementation (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
  • Increased number of management options: Having a toolbox of implementation
    means will broaden the base of solutions for statewide framework partners.
 v       "  •   •            '                 •   " '        •  '-              -  .
  • Decreased time searching for means: Having both a toolbox and a forum for
    coordination should reduce time partners spend searching for means to achieve
  • Increased time coordinating implementation activities:  The flip-side of integrating
    implementation efforts is that coordination overhead tends to increase for
    participating programs.
  • Reduced paperwork for resource allocation: Basin plans will provide justification
    for authorizing expenditures on implementation activities, thereby reducing the
    need for individual justifications for each action.                   (
  • Less individual monitoring burden: Some programs may see a reduction in burden
    for measuring progress toward goals because they will have access to data collected
    by partners that meet their needs.                                     ^
  • Greater outreach support: Stakeholder awareness of basin planning goals and
    implementation strategies should increase, because multiple partners likely will
    conduct outreach under the statewide watershed management approach.


      MODULE 6


                                                                  MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                     PURPOSE OF MODULE
                        To provide considerations and
                        recommendations for making a
                        smooth transition to a statewide
                        watershed management framework
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of Module
Modules 4 and 5 focused on recommendations for tailoring the nine common elements
of a statewide approach to the needs of partners seeking to integrate efforts within a
specific state. Collectively, the tailored elements form the basis for a-new operating
framework for participants. Additional steps are recommended/ however, to complete
the framework so that it can support efficient and effective operations.

.Module 6 includes considerations and recommendations for making a smooth transition
to the new operating framework; it also provides instruction on how to capitalize on the
opportunities for increasing efficiency and effectiveness that a statewide approach
affords. The transition may require participating programs and agencies to refine
organizational structures and administrative operating procedures.  Methods for
evaluating refinement heeds  are discussed, and examples of refinements are provided
for selected programs. Additionally, the module covers developing and implementing a
transition plan to move participants from existing operations to their newly defined
statewide approach.     ,

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                'MAKING THE TRANSITION
                     LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                      •This module should enable participants to

                      • Evaluate organizational refinements to
                        support statewide framework functions

                      • List types of operational procedures to
                        evaluate for refinement

                      • Prepare and implement a plan for
                        transition from development to operation
Viewgraph 2: Learning Objectives
This module should enable participants to

  * Evaluate refinements to organizational structure to support statewide framework
  * List types of operational procedures to evaluate for refinements that improve
    efficiency and effectiveness

  • Prepare and implement a transition plan to move from the development stage to the
    operational stage of a statewide approach

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                     EVALUATING REFINEMENTS TO
                       Build bn organisational entities defined
                       during framework development to enhance
                       the capability tb^deyejio|ipihid implement
                       integrated management: strategies

                       Review each stejipf thelbasin cycle and
                       refine: organizational roles to cover all
                       responsibilities i
Viewgraph 3:  Evaluating Refinements to Organization
Enhancing coordination and integration of multiple agencies, programs, and other
stakeholders in a statewide approach presents challenges not easily overcome through
traditional organizational structures. Geographic management units and a basin cycle
form an incomplete coordination framework if organizational units are not established
to put key elements into operation. Individual programs and agencies generally are not
accustomed to committing to projects that extend beyond the scope of their own (often
narrowly defined) mandates.  Additional mechanisms are often needed for programs and
agencies'to function in an integrated manner.
Some organizational decisions may already have been made in establishing a capability
to develop management strategies (Module 5 discussed four types of,organizational
entities: basin coordinators, basin teams, citizens' advisory committees, and basin plan
approval boards). For example, partners already may have decided to use basin teams
and citizens' advisory committees as the means for producing basin plans. Many details
of day-to-day operations that extend beyond basin plan development, however, likely
will need to be refined. Partners should evaluate organizational structure in light of all
activities necessary for statewide watershed management. If roles and responsibilities
for each step in the basin cycle cannot readily be associated with  one of the
organizational entities, partners should refine the organizational structure. In many
cases, a basin coordinator may meet the need for handling much of the day-to-day
administration. Exhibit 6-1 describes roles and functions of organizationalentities in the
State of Georgia's river basin planning framework.

                                                                      MODULE 6
                                                   MAKING THE TRANSITION
      Exhibit 6-1. Roles and Functions of Organizational
      Entities in Georgia's Statewide Framework

The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) is required under Georgia Senate Bi|l 637 to
lead and carry out a river basin planning'process. To implement the law, EPD is
developing an organizational framework that integrates agency partners and stakeholders.
EPD has created Basin Coordinator positions to facilitate coordination and Basin Teams
composed of appointed EPD program staff and technical representatives from selected
partner agencies.  The Basin Teams carry out core activity steps within the state's basin
management cycle, including development of  management strategies and preparation of
basin  plans. As required by SB 637, EPD also relies on input from River Basin Advisory
Committees consisting of local representatives from several key interest groups who are
appointed by the EPD Director.  The committees act as a sounding board for basin
planning-decisions, providing advice to EPD at strategic points in the planning process.
Stakeholder Meetings are also conducted by EPD for each basin throughout the
management cycle to raise public awareness and provide opportunities for input and
participation. A statewide framework development workgroup took these initial concepts
and refined them for each organizational entity.  Descriptions of key roles and functions
are summarized below:
 Environmental Protection Division
  •  Legally accountable
  •  Provide leadership/coordination
  •  Seek public involvement
  •  Technical resource
  •  Oversee implementation

 Basin Coordinators
  •  Facilitate Basin Teams
  *  Oversee maintenance of schedules
  •  Report to administration
  •  Ensure consistency of approach
  •  Conduct outreach/education

  •  Coordinate constituencies
  •  Provide technical expertise and resources
  *  Participate in management cycle
  •  Support implementation
  •  Conduct outreach/education  . .
Advisory Committee
    Represent stakeholders
    Advise EPD
    Identify issues
    Help build consensus
    Disseminate information

Basin Team
  • Carry out 12 steps of Georgia basin
    management cycle
  • Host advisory committee and
    stakeholder meetings
  « Involve partners and stakeholders

  • Participate in basin meetings
  • Provide input/feedback
  • Coordinate constituencies
  • Implement nonregulatory plan
  • Conduct outreach/education

                                                                  MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION

                     Review procedures in the following areas for
                     refinements that better support statewide
                     framework functions:
                       * Staffing
                       • Planning
                     ,  • Budgeting
                       4 Directing
                       • Technical approaches
                       • Performance evaluation
                       • Information management
Viewgraph 4: Evaluating Refinements to Operational Procedures
Evaluating how operations should be refined for a statewide approach involves
reviewing procedures for staffing, planning, budgeting, directing, defining technical
approaches, conducting performance evaluations, and managing information flow.
Many opportunities are presented through this review. For example, partners can
determine where

  • Institutional impediments can be removed
  • Economies of scale exist

  • Multiple government mandates can be met through reduced effort

  • Partners can pool resources or integrate efforts to complete a core activity more

Review of staffing procedures can coincide with evaluation of organizational structure.
The remaining areas for review (i.e., planning, budgeting, directing, technical,
performance evaluation, and information management) are discussed in the viewgraphs
that follow.

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                        jProvidesj geographic focus^
                       4 jlitiprovejs efficiency
                         r       •    f ''•ffffff.'&fffrff,
                                     sisieht decision-making
                       • ilmprovejs longptefm planning
                       • jlncreasefc effectiveness
Viewgraph 5:  Refining Planning Procedure
Because agency and program planning for core activities is closely tied to the basin
management cycle, partners shoiild synchronize many of their activities with the cycle s
schedule. Synchronization involves aligning individual program work plan schedules
for core activities with the statewide basin management cycle schedule.
Numerous benefits evolve from synchronizing program work plans with the basin
management cycle, including
  •  Activities are performed in defined geographic: units over specified time periods.
  •  Activities are performed simultaneously throughout a basin, increasing the
     likelihood that decisions and actions will be consistent.
  .  Workloads are balanced from year-to-year and month-to-month, data collection  is
     consolidated by basin, public notices and hearings for agency actions are
     consolidated by basin, water quality modeling efforts for TMDL and WLA
     development are consolidated, and so on.
   •  Synchronizing program plans with a multi-year basin cycle typically improves an
     agency's ability to plan activities proactively.
   . Increased focus, consistency, efficiency, and long-term planning collectively
     promote program effectiveness.       .                        '
 Synchronization benefits most routine activities carried out throughout the state  Each
 partner should refine its work plans where possible to take advantage of these benefits.
 Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the process for synchronizing NPDES permit re-,ssuance with
 basin schedules in Nebraska and Michigan.                                .

                                                              MODULE 6
                                            MAKING THE TRANSITION
   Exhibit 6-2.  Synchronizing Permit Re-issuance
   with a Basin Management Cycle

General Concept of Permit Synchronization

Permit synchronization involves setting permit expiration dates by geographic
location within a basin so that all permits in a specified sub-basin or watershed
are reviewed for re-issuance at the same time.  The expiration date for a
watershed grouping of permits is strategically scheduled during the
implementation phase of the management cycle, after basin plans that include
TMDLs have already been adopted. The concept can be applied to any type
of permit, including permits for other media when coordination may
streamline the overall renewal process (e.g., issuing air and wastewater permits
for a given industry at the same time).
Example  of NPDES Permit Synchronization

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued
by authorized states or EPA regions to dischargers of contaminated water.
NPDES permits cannot be issued for periods exceeding 5 years,, and permitting
authorities must review renewal applications at the end of every permit cycle.
Many states have hundreds to thousands of permitted dischargers, so
synchronizing permit review and re-issuance with a basin management cycle
can help substantially by balancing work loads and providing geographic
focus for consistent, efficient, and effective permitting decisions.
Methods for synchronizing basin permit schedules are influenced by the
institutional arrangement for issuing permits. Programs that issue permits
through a single central office within a state are typically handled differently
from programs that issue permits through district offices. This example
therefore includes descriptions of permit synchronization in both Nebraska
(issues permits through central office) and Michigan (issues permits through
district offices).
Nebraska: The permitting program within Nebraska's Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) first established a target of re-issuing eleven
permits per month to balance workload (i.e., total number of permits in the
state divided by total number of months in the basin cycle). Using spread-
sheets to assist in the analysis, DEQ grouped permits by sub-basin and basin.
Starting at the headwaters of each basin, eleven permits were assigned to a
group and to a specific month. The first group was scheduled for four months
after basin plan approval (to allow time for public notice).  Each  permit group .
that followed was assigned to the next month.  After initialvset-up, the overall
schedule was fine-tuned to balance anticipated workloads based upon

                                                              MODULE 6
                                            •MAKING THE TRANSITION
   Exhibit 6-2.  Continued

knowledge of more complex permits and to ensure that sufficient time was
allotted between basin plan approval and scheduled permit re-issuance.
Michigan: The State of Michigan issues its NPDES permits through district
offices by hydrologic unit. A monthly target of 35 permits was established in
1988, which accommodated existing permit modification as well as new
permit applications. The state's permit section developed and distributed  a
series of tables and maps that indicate the permit re-issuance schedule by
basin and district over a five-year cycle. Under the Michigan system, the
number of permits issued annually across the state has been relatively
constant; likewise, each district processes a relatively constant number of
permits each year. This temporal and spatial uniformity of permit re-issuance
promotes both effective and efficient use of permitting resources (both staff
time and operation costs).                     .
              Issued from Central Office
Issued from District Offices
              Methods for establishing basin permit schedules will
             depend on whether permits are issued through a single
                    central office or several regional offices.

                                                                    MODULE 6
                                                  MAKING THE TRANSITION
                      Areas to Review

                      • Merging statewide framework   "
                        administration with government budget
                       recycles   ,               ^,
                       :. . ;v--v.           **
                      4 Allocating funds consistent with targeting

                      • Coordinating grants

                      * Maintaining fiscal accountability
Viewgraph 6:  Refining Budgeting Procedures
Statewide framework partners may choose to refine budgeting procedures to capitalize
on the opportunities provided by the new operating framework. With multiple agencies
and programs involved, budgeting for integrated efforts likely will be difficult without
procedural refinements.  Example areas to review are

  • Merging Statewide Framework Administration with State and Federal Budget
    Cycles: Each partner has a planning cycle for agency operations, which includes
    budget planning and procurement requirements to receive appropriations, fees,
   * grants, etc. Partners may find benefit in clarifying budgets for operations under the
    statewide framework and developing a strategy that considers timing of proposals,
    grant applications, appropriations, and other key factors.                 .

  • Allocating Funds Consistent with Targeting Decisions: Procedures for allocating
    funds may need to be revised to operate the statewide approach efficiently and
    effectively. The basin planning process will produce resource protection and
    restoration priorities for targeting program funds based on environmental
    assessments that identify key stressors and cost-effective management strategies.
    Often, states are restricted  in how they can target funds and activities, particularly
    where elected representatives set specific and restrictive funding conditions for each
    program.  To implement a  statewide approach, partners may therefore wish to
    pursue both short- and long-term strategies to increase flexibility for directing funds
    to basin priorities. The recommended short-term strategy involves analyzing
    funding guidelines and requirements to determine the maximum amount of
    flexibility that can be applied immediately to allow basin teams to target priority
    concerns. The long-term strategy is to work with funding agencies to revise funding
    guidelines and requirements.                 	'        .   ;  '       •. .'•  '


                                                               MODULE 6
                                             MAKING THE TRANSITION
;           * •                    .
Exhibit 6-3 illustrates the relationship between funding sources and basin priorities
for a statewide approach centrally administered by a single agency. Each basin in
the exhibit has a list of actions required for addressing priority concerns.
Challenges for the central agency include determining how much funding to
allocate to each basin and documenting for outside funding sources how funds
were used. The challenges become even greater and more complex when multiple
agency budgets are involved.                           ,
Coordinating Grants: Consideration must be given to the timing, application,
expenditure, reporting, and accounting requirements of state and federal grants that
provide support to existing water quality and other resource protection programs.
How can the statewide approach be structured to fulfill these existing requirements
more easily? How can  existing requirements be changed to support statewide
watershed management? Specific examples of issues to be considered in answering
these questions include
  - Can grant proposals, allocations, and reports be scheduled to support the
     statewide basin management cycle?
  - Can grant requests be formatted so that information from basin plan chapters on
     problem identification, priority setting.and targeting, management options, and
     implementation can easily be used in the. application process?
  - How can grant reporting requirements for implementation progress,
     accountability, and measures of success be made consistent with basin plan
 Maintaining Fiscal Accountability: Maintaining fiscal accountability is often the
 rationale used by funding agencies for requiring program-specific budgets. The
 statewide approach, however, offers new opportunities for efficient reporting on the
 use of funds that could still comply with federal and state reporting mandates. For
 example, Idaho's Division of Environmental Quality emphasizes the use of basin
 plans as an accountable entity for funding allocations, an approach having distinct
 advantages:                                             ,
   - A broad base of basin stakeholders participate in and support funding
   - Funding is more clearly tied to specific management objectives and measures
     of environmental success, and
   - Funding flexibility allows implementation of the most cost-effective approach to
     achieve environmental objectives.

                                                             MODULE 6
                                            MAKING THE TRANSITION
           *               '                                       .
When mtiltiple programs and agencies are involved, a method must be devised to
obtain sufficient resources from all programs to address priorities. From a practical
standpoint, this method must address two competing requirements:

  - The method must be flexible enough that programs and agencies-maintain
    authority over and accountability for their respective budgets.

  - The method must ensure sufficient commitment of program and agency
    resources such that the basin plan can be reliably implemented.

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                  MAKING THE TRANSITION
        Exhibit 6-3. Targeting Funds to Priority Issues
        Using a Consolidated Funding Process
State Funding

Permit and Other
User Fees
$ | (20%)

Federal Grants:
§106, §201, §31 9,
OSDA, etc.
    Pooled State Watershed Management Funds Targeted to Priorities by Basin

         $ (35%)
        Basin 1
    Water Resource
   Management Team
  Basin 1  Management
     Plan Priorities
1. Habitat restoration in W6*
2. Permit for wetlands project
3. Purchase of habitat in W3
4. TMDL development in W4
5. Public water use education
6. Water supply protection
7. NPS mgmt. plan for W2

N. Permit for Discharger X
           $  (20%)

          Basin 2
      Water Resource
     Management Team
    Basin 2 Management
       Plan Priorities
1. Municipal stormwater plan
2. Purchase water rights
3. Permit for Discharger Y
4. Industrial pollution prevention
5. Fund WWTP upgrades in W2
6. Assess flow diversion impacts
7. Support monitoring consortiums

N. TMDL development in W1
         $  (45%)

        Basin 3
    Water Resource
   Management Team
  Basin 3 Management
     Plan Priorities
1. Permit for Discharger Z
2. NPS mgmt. plan for W1
3. NPS mgmt. plan for W2
4. NPS mgmt. plan for W3
5. Basinwide permit for CAFOs
6. Outreach on fertilizer use
7. GW vulnerability study in

N. Habitat restoration in W2
 ' W stands for watershed

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                         ^...Translating basin prioritiesinto
                          program[• work plan priorities
                          \ \    :;5.<:X. I':'.. j..\':.i- :"!'!?i>
                         4 Gphductirig'activHles that occur
                          outside the basin management
Viewgraph 7:  Refining Directing Procedures
Statewide watershed management can significantly benefit those charged with directing
program efforts. The basin cycle provides a schedule for activities, antl management
priorities are produced for each basin in a state. Hence, program directors can focus
more on defining specifics for implementation. For example, the prioritization step
produces a set of priority concerns, each of which the partner must translate into
specific program priorities. Procedures for directing, therefore, can be evaluated for
refinements that enhance a program director's ability to translate basin priorities into
program work plan priorities.
Additionally, some programs will be required to conduct activities that are not
integrated with the basin management cycle.  For instance, agencies must respond to
emergencies such as spills and natural disasters and regulatory needs such as a hew
permit for a new discharger.  Procedures should be evaluated to ensure that these
contingencies can be handled and that the proper balance is maintained between work
performed under the statewide framework and work that must be handled outside of the
framework's basin management cycle.

                                                                  MODULE 6
                                                MAKING THE TRANSITION

Technical procedures can be refined to better
support statewide watershed management
and increase individual program efficiency
and effectiveness
Factors that may promote change include
new activity schedules, increased integration
of activities with other partners, and basin-
scale operations
Viewgraph 8: Refining Technical Procedures
Many partners may want to refine their technical procedures to better support statewide
watershed management and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the
approach; Many factors can be considered. For example, the basin activity schedule
may differ from past work planning schedules, and procedures may need to be revised.
to work within the new schedule. Additionally, increased integration of activities with
other partners may affect technical decisions and approaches. Furthermore, the
increased focus on basin and watershed scale analyses may require application of
different tools and methods, particularly for those programs unaccustomed to
coordinating efforts by hydrologically defined units.

The degree of refinements likely will vary from program to program and from state to
state. A single solution that is best for every case probably does not exist. The next
three viewgraphs illustrate refinements that can be made to a state's nonpoint source
program. The example is not meant to be all-inclusive; rather, it is intended to stimulate
thinking  on how refinements can be made to technical programs and procedures to
achieve water restoration and protection goals more efficiently and effectively under a
statewide approach.                                        ,

                                                MAKING THE TRANSITION

                  Opportunities for NFS Programs
                  • Basin assessment of NPS control needs
                  • NPS project selection based on degree of
                    environmental benefit
                  • NPS program outreach and project selection
                    synchronized with the basin management
Viewgraph 9: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Opportunities for Nonpoint Source Programs

A statewide approach can facilitate nonpoint source (NPS) program implementation on
a watershed basis. Many states have an approved NPS management program that
allows them to receive federal funds appropriated for CWA §319 projects. Under these
programs, each state identifies NFS-impaired waters and associated causes and sources,
and implements best management practices (BMPs) to control the sources. Even though
the CWA encourages implementation of the NPS management program on a watershed-
by-watershed basis (§319 [b] [4]), many states currently administer their programs on a
project-specific basis (including selecting projects based on proper grant application
submittal and readiness to proceed). The assessment, prioritization, strategy
development, and basin plan implementation elements of the statewide approach that
are systematically sequenced within the basin management cycle provide a ready-made
watershed management framework for NPS program integration. The framework also is
useful for states with Coastal Zone Management programs, which are required to
develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore
and protect coastal waters (Section 6217 of Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990).                                              .'..-...

Basin assessment and prioritization elements within a statewide approach will result in a
ranking of NPS concerns that may help states make difficult choices in selecting projects
for cost-share grants where funding demands exceed the state's supply of funds. In other
words, identifying projects having the greatest.amount of environmental benefit for each
dollar spent may be easier under a statewide approach. Accordingly, partners may need
to bolster their outreach to increase the demand for grants in priority areas.

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                *                    •                   '
Basin assessments can also influence the type of project that may be most effective in
addressing the NPS-related concern. For instance, the assessment might indicate that
ecological restoration projects such as bank revegetation and stream channel
modification are needed before diversity and abundance of aquatic organisms can be
restored to acceptable levels. NFS project solicitation and selection procedures may
need to be adapted, therefore, to tie into the information bank created through basin
The timing of activities in NFS programs also may need to be modified to be in sync
with the basin management cycle. Project identification and selection in a given basin
should be synchronized with management strategy development so that feasibility and
predicted effectiveness are evaluated in light of basin, or smaller watershed,
management goals. Project implementation should coincide with basin plan
implementation, and NPS project monitoring can be coordinated with other strategic
monitoring to collectively assess basin plan effectiveness.

                                                                     MODULE 6
                                                  'MAKING THE TRANSITION
                             EPA:  Distribute technical and public information,
                                provide support, and conduct outreach
                          STATE: Refine project selection and funding
                         procedures, synchronize program activities with
                       the basin cycle, and increase outreach in priority areas

                     ADDITIONAL PARTNERS:  Support NPS basin
                     assessment and prioritization, assist outreach,
                      and plan efforts in sync with the basin cycle

                          EXAMPLE ROLES FOR NPS PROGRAMS
View-graph 10: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Example Roles for NPS Programs

EPA: Provide technology and information transfer on ways that the NPS program can be
integrated with a statewide watershed management, including examples from states with
effective approaches; provide outreach materials and participate in outreach activities to
demonstrate EPA support; negotiate interim EPA/State Work Program agreements that
encourage transition of CWA §319 programs to a statewide approach; watershed
management support integration of CZARA §6217 programs within framework.

State: Review existing NPS program procedures and make refinements to operate on a
watershed basis; adapt §319, State Revolving Fund (SRF), and other funding mechanisms
to support NPS projects that coincide with basin management goals and priorities;
synchronize project selection, implementation, and monitoring with appropriate phases
of basin plan development and implementation; aggressively market NPS project
funding opportunities in priority areas to increase NPS control and ecological
restoration/protection activities.

Additional Partners:  Assist the process by creating means to input NFS-related
assessment information that can be integrated with prioritization methods; help establish
multi-stakeholder outreach methods by contributing expertise and information; establish
schedules for activities that are in sync with the statewide basin management cycle and
NPS Management Program activities,schedule.

                                                                 MODULE 6
                                               MAKING THE TRANSITION

                   Impact on NFS Program and Staff Functions
                   * Increased time required for outreach
                   • More time spent on non-§319. grant and
                    loan projects
                   4 Improved assessment of watershed-level
                    program effectiveness
Viewgraph 11: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Impact on NFS Program and Staff Functions
Increased Time Required for Outreach: NPS program staff can expect to spend more
time-on outreach to stimulate voluntary NPS projects, especially in high-priority regions
of the basin where NPS stresses are significant. Outreach will be particularly important
where low-interest loans (e.g., through the SRF) are being used as a primary funding
mechanism for projects. The inability to use §319 funds for program management (i.e.,
program  outreach) may be seen as an impediment.

More Time Spent on Non-§319 Grant/Loan Projects: Improved assessments through
statewide watershed management will likely cause an increase in identified  NPS control
needs.' Because the demand for §319 funds already exceeds the supply in many states,
NPS program staff can expect to spend more time securing and distributing non-§319
grants and loans. The SRF is one example of a funding source outs.de of the §319
program that could be tapped for this purpose.
Improved Assessment of Watershed-Level Program Effectiveness: Although every §319
NPS project requires monitoring to evaluate control measure effectiveness, the wide
distribution of sites coupled with uncoordinated timing of monitoring under non-
framework programs makes large-scale effectiveness evaluations difficult, if not
 impossible. If NPS projects are funded and monitored on a basin basis, however then
 project monitoring can be coordinated with other monitoring efforts through strategic
 monitoring plans to more readily evaluate"effectiveness at the watershed and basin

                                                                 MODULE 6
                                                MAKING THE TRANSITION
                  Recommendations include
                         '.     * t  '
                  « Programmatic indicators that track
                    development and implementation of the
                    framework and basin plans

                  V Environmental indicators that track progress
                    toward environmental objectives
Viewgraph 12: Refining Procedures for Measuring Success
Establishing procedures for measuring the success of statewide watershed management
operations will probably require substantial refinement to existing methods.
Performance of statewide framework operations is likely to be judged by stakeholders
through both programmatic: measures and environmental indicators established in the
basin plan. Although programmatic indicators can help track interim management
milestones and progress toward implementing management strategies that are crucial to
achieving environmental objectives, using environmental indicators is preferred because
they directly measure achievement of environmental objectives.  Environmental
monitoring, however/ may not demonstrate improvements for long periods of time (e.g.,
in lakes or estuaries where internal pollutant recycling temporarily masks improvements
from reductions in overall loading).                                        ,

Programmatic  Indicators
  •  Programmatic indicators or measures, where possible,should provide for relative
     comparisons and are meaningful to evaluation of environmental objectives (e.g.,
     percentage of waters comprehensively assessed and percentage of impaired or
     threatened waters covered by TMDLs).
  •  Measures can track development and implementation'of the statewide framework
     including delineation of geographic management units, implementation of a basin
     management cycle, and synchronization of program activities with the management
     cycle (e.g., monitoring, surface- and ground-water assessment, permitting, NFS
     §319 project selection, and SRF project selection). Measures should address

                                               MAKING THE TRANSITION
whether partners are fulfilling responsibilities and obl.gat.ons, u^^7™«'m*"*
are delaying implementation, and whether the functions of organjzat.onal entities (e.g.,
basin coordinators, basin teams, advisory committees, and approval boards) are being
carried out efficiently and effectively.

Environmental Indicators
  . Environmental indicators may reflect general aquatic ecosystem health or human
    S h criteria when the objective is overall assessment. They can also be used to
                       criteria or management performance for addressing pnonty
       Exhibit 6-4. Example Environmental Indicators
  Assessment Endpoint



  Surface Water Quality

  Ground Water Quality

                                        Measurement Endpoint
Surface area of aquatic, sandbar, riparian, and wetlands


Abundance and diversity of primary producers,
macroinvertebrates, fish species, etc.

Physical: pH, temperature, DO, and turbidity

Chemical: Toxics and nutrients
Biological: Bacteria and bioassessments

Metals, pesticides, nitrates, other toxics, and bacteria

 Flow volume, velocity, water depth, groundwater level,

 and seasonal variation    _^_^___________—

                                                                   MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
                   Benefits of Integrated information Management
                   • Promotes data consistency and aggregation
                   • Easier access to multi-stakeholder information
                   * Improved infoemation qualify
                   * Increased management consistency
                             jf'x                   :•'•-'
                   * Enhanced|day-fo-day planning capabilities
Viewgraph 13:  Refining Information Management Procedures
Information management procedures are essential for statewide watershed management
success.  Integrated efforts require efficient and effective means for sharing, analyzing,
and communicating information.

Integrated information management systems can be built around several options,
including          -                                                   '

  « Aggregation of related information for data sharing (e.g., waterbody monitoring and
    assessment results and information on permitted facilities)

  • Interface with federal data bases to ease uploading arid downloading burdens (e.g.,,
    STORET, the Waterbody System, Reach File 3, and Permit Compliance System)

  9 CIS interface to support data layer maintenance, analysis, and presentation

  • Scheduling of multi-stakeholder events such as monitoring, inspections, mailings,
    and permit issuance                  •                                     '

A system  that integrates information from participating agencies and stakeholders offers
the following benefits:                 '

  • Promotes consistency in data collection and reporting procedures
                                 /•              '
  • Easier access to data maintained by other stakeholders

  • Improved information quality, which increasesthe reliability of assessments and
    improves the basis for management decisions

                                                               MODULE 6
                                              •MAKING THE TRANSITION
              •                   *
 • Increased overall management consistency through access to numerous sources of
   data housed in a common information base
 • Enhanced day-to-day planning capabilities among stakeholders

In addition to enhancement of systems, partners also should evaluate procedural
refinements for system operation,, including user training and format standards for
inputting information.

                                                                MODULE 6
                                               MAKING THE TRANSITION
                 I Components for a, smooth transition!       |
                   4 A schedule for framework implementation  j
                 ,' 4 Interim work plans    !        , i \
                  " 4 Actions to remove remaining Impediments  %
                   4 Methods for framework update
                   4 Outreach plans
Viewgraph 14: Developing a Transition Plan
Partners should consider developing a transition plan to guide themselves in moving
from the statewide framework development stage into the operational stage. As is the
case for any major change, the transition will proceed more smoothly if transition steps
are well planned. Potential transition plan components include:

  • A schedule for framework implementation:  Although a schedule exists for the
    basin management cycle, some activities may need to be phased in over time
    (Exhibit 6-5). The transition plan should clearly communicate planned
    implementation schedules to all partners.
  • Interim work plans:  States often phase in the basin management cycle according to
    the sequence of basins agreed to in the cycle. Hence, statewide framework
    operations will not be fully implemented in all basins for several years. Partners
    should clarify how they intend to balance work between covered and non-covered
    basins during the transition period.
  • Actions to remove remaining impediments: Any remaining impediments to
    framework implementation or efficient operations should be identified, along with
    actions that will be taken to eliminate or mitigate them.
  • Methods for framework update: The statewide framework will likely undergo
    refinement and enhancement as  it evolves. Partners should clearly understand how
    to effect necessary changes so that implementation and operations can proceed as
    smoothly as possible.             ...
  • Outreach plans:  Partners should outline how stakeholders throughout the state will
     be informed of statewide watershed management and the opportunities it offers for
     integrated management.                 .                   '


                                                                  MODULE 6
                                                 MAKING THE TRANSITION
Additionally, the complexities of some priority concerns will require more time than is
available under one cycle iteration. For example, targeting NFS projects in certain
priority areas where little previous information exists may require advanced assessment
methods that participants are not prepared to apply during that cycle iteration.
Emphasis might be placed in setting up the framework for data collection and analysis
to be conducted during the next iteration.
Some priority concerns, on the other hand, may already be adequately assessed and
already partially addressed through ongoing efforts that began prior to statewide
watershed management. Stakeholders may achieve longer-term goals earJ.er in these
basins than in others. Stakeholders should therefore realize that implementation of the
statewide framework will be more advanced in some basins than in others and that this
situation may be desirable with respect to workload and program resources.

                                                               MODULE 6
                                             MAKING THE TRANSITION
   Exhibit 6-5. Phased Statewide Framework Implementation

Implementation of the statewide framework is likely to occur in phases, because
in-formation, time, expertise, and financial resources may be constrained. Rather
than postponing implementation until all elements are fully developed to address
all long-term goals, partners are encouraged to begin implementation in spite of
perceived resource deficiencies.  Initial  implementation efforts create a foun-
dation to anchor more sophisticated framework elements  as they evolve over
                       The level of implementation is
                      a function of available stakeholder        .
                         resources and capabilities.

During  the first iteration  of the basin  management  cycle, in  particular,
participants will depend largely on currently available information and expertise,
along with whatever additional  information can be collected given time and
financial constraints. The comprehensiveness of basin assessments, management
plans, and coordinated implementation efforts may not be at the desired level for
some stakeholders.  This initial effort therefore forms the baseline for directing
future efforts in subsequent  iterations of the cycle for each basin.  With each
iteration of the cycle, information gaps and resource needs will be brought to the
surface for review. Stakeholders can then determine the amount of resources that
can be directed to address these needs.  Resulting basin and watershed plans can
be used to document remaining needs, can raise the awareness of legislators for
appropriation needs, and can serve as the rationale in applications for special
grants.   In the interim, however,  the water resources  benefit from whatever
projects can be implemented using existing available resources.

                                                               MODULE 6
                                              MAKING THE TRANSITION
                   Effective outreach using the statewide
                    framework document arid transition
                       plan will improve chances for
                        immediate success. Then ...

                               JUST DO IT!
Viewgraph 15:  Implementing the Framework
Statewide watershed management partners should proceed as planned OUST DO IT!).
The transition plan and the framework document provide written guidance for
implementation. Although preparation of these documents may require considerable
time and effort from partners, their existence ensures, a common point of reference for all
stakeholders. Additionally, having to document the framework and plan for transition
encourages participants to organize their thoughts carefully and comprehensively.
Hence, partners should be able to use these two documents as complementary, road
mapsfor implementation.
From the outset of implementation (and prior to if possible), outreach should be
performed to increase stakeholder awareness of the statewide framework and transition
plan.  Partners should be careful not to overlook their own staff and constituencies with
regard to outreach. Some will have played a lesser role than others in framework
development and will need to be fully educated with regard to the approach and its
implications on them. Effective outreach will increase understanding and improve
chances for immediate success;

      MODULE 7


                                     •  •   ' •'                 MODULE 7
                    PURPOSE OF MODULE
                    To review considerations for and
                    examples of statewide watershed
                    management operations, along
                    with effects on commonly involved
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of Module
This module provides participants with considerations and recommendations for putting
statewide watershed management into practice. The module also describes how
specific activities for commonly involved programs may be affected by a statewide
approach. The.primary focus of the examples are on agencies and programs that
operate statewide; some examples, howeyer, also involve local stakeholders.
Additionally, course instructors will describe selected operations from states that are
currently operating under a statewide watershed management framework.

                                                                  MODULE 7
                     LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                 This module should enable participants to better understand
                  • Managing simultaneous operations in multiple basins
                  • Balancing statewide framework operations with other
                  4 Techniques for communicating management plan goals
                    and corresponding stakeholder roles
                  4 Potential effects on commonly involved programs
                  • How specific state frameworks operate
Viewgraph 2:  Learning Objectives
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to:
  * List important recommendations for statewide partners that have simultaneous
    operations in multiple basins
  • Identify practical steps for balancing statewide watershed management operations
    with other operations outside the framework
  • Describe a useful approach for communicating basin and watershed management
    plan goals and corresponding stakeholder roles to all stakeholders
  • List some of the practical changes in decision-making and activities for programs
    commonly involved in statewide watershed management
  • Describe example operations for specific states

                                             '                    MODULE?
                   Recommendations for partners operating
                   simultaneously in multiple basins:

                   • Basin cycle should balance workloads across
                     all basins % _             „
                               •v^:                    J
                   • Participation methods for basin team should
                     ensure continuity throughout cycle, with
                     access to specific technical support as needed
Viewgraph 3: Simultaneous Operation in Multiple Basins
The example presented in the appendix to Module 2 focused on integrating efforts in
one basin—Big River Basin. For some partners, however, operations will be ongoing in
more than one basin.  Agencies operating statewide likely will have ongoing operations
in every basin. Hence, sequencing activities and balancing workloads and program
resource expenditures will be very important for these partners. The design of the basin
sequence and activity schedule components of the basin management cycle (Element 3)
should reflect these considerations. Furthermore, some members' level of participation
in basin team activities likely will vary during the course of the. management cycle.
Team members focusing on strategic monitoring activities, for example, may be very
active during the first two years of a 5-year cycle for one basin and less active during the
latter three years, when they will be very active in monitoring activities for other basins
and in supporting other teams.
Some statewide agencies choose to have one coordinator on the basin team, who then
relays information and directives to various technical staff within his or her agency to
support team needs. This approach provides consistency and continuity by ensuring
that basin team composition remains constant through the cycle, and that at least one
agency staff person is aware of all basin team actions and findings throughout the entire
cycle. •   .  „                                            ••'•••.

                                     ' .--   .''••••             MODULE?
                 Recommendations for balancing statewide watershed
                 management operations with outside needs:
                  • Set aside resources to handle emergency operations,
                   regulatory needs (e.g., permits for new sources), and
                   general technical support needs
                  • Track projects and activities and periodically evaluate
                   balance between statewide framework operations and
                   operations outside
                  • Respond to reactive management pressures in
                   accordance with cycle and priorities
Viewgraph 4:  Balancing Operational Needfe
Some management activities of partners will need to occur outside of the basin
sequence and activity schedule. For example, agencies will need to respond to
emergencies such as toxic/hazardous material spills and natural disasters like floods and
hurricanes.  Some partners will.need to respond to regulatory needs such as new
discharge or water withdrawal permits for new sources. Additionally, some programs
may be charged with providing technical support on a daily basis regardless of basin
location. For example, wetlands §401 certifications are not an activity that can be,
scheduled.  However, planning for identification, classification, and protection of
wetlands through mitigation occurs most successfully on  a proactive basis. Agencies
should set aside resources to handle such operations and  contingencies, without falling
into the trap of reactive management and overallocating resources to non-priority
activities.                                      .            ,                .
Project management procedures can include periodic comparisons of active projects to
basin priority listings to ensure proper balance.  Some unforeseen requests will not
constitute emergencies and should therefore be appropriately scheduled within the
basin cycle where they can be properly evaluated for relative priority.

                    STAKEHOLDER ROLES
                    Summarizing management plan goals and
                    corresponding stakeholder roles increases
                    stakeholder awareness and reduces
                    confusion regarding integrated strategies
Viewgraph 5:  Communicating Basin
Plan Goals and Stakeholder Roles
Large-scale integrated management strategies may seem complex and confusing to some
stakeholders when many stakeholders are coordinating numerous activities to achieve
multiple goals under the plan. Overviews of strategy goals and roles for stakeholders
can help increase stakeholder awareness and reduce confusion.
Exhibit 7-1 displays a useful matrix approach for communicating management goals
and stakeholder roles in a watershed plan for the Anacostia River in Maryland and the
District of Columbia. Overviews should be included in basin plans and in outreach
materials and presentations.

                '               MODULE 7
.. HOD
Exhibit 7-1. Goals and Objectives for Stakeholders
in the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Project

GOAL 1— STORMWATER: Dramatically reduce pollutant loads delivered to the tidal estuary to
improve water quality conditions by the turn of the century

' •


Se'wage Overflow Controls: Sharply reduce the volume of combined sewage overflow jnto the
Anacostia from the District of Columbia's combined sewer system and the aging suburban
-•sanitary sewer network in the tributaries


Urban Stormwater Retrofits: Sharply reduce urban stormwater pollutant loadings from
existing development in the watershed through the implementation of stormwater retrofit
• ponds, marsh, and filter systems



Urban BMPsfor New Development: Prevent increases in urban stormwater pollutant loadings
from new development in the upland watershed through the use of stringent stormwater quality
and sediment control regulations at new development sites .





1 Control of Trash and Debris: Prevent trash and floatable debris from getting to the tidal river
nn/i *am/\«tA »t*a finitohia /loKric ttiat jo currently trsnned in the estuar*7

IGOAL 2— STREAMS: Protect and restore the ecological integrity of urban Anacostia streams to
enhance aquatic diversity and provide for a quality urban fishery

S '.


Urban Stream Restoration: Comprehensively apply both stormwater management and
instream restoration techniques to improve the habitat quality of severely degraded urban
streams (Streambank stabilization methods include bioengineering, rip-rap, and instream
restoration methods such as log check dams, boulder placement, and deflectors.)



Urban Stream Protection: Apply land-use controls and stringent urban stormwater and
sediment control practices at new development sites to protect receiving streams from the
impacts of urbanization -


| GOAL 3— FISH PASSAGE: Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical limits






Removal of Fish Barriers: Strategically remove or modify fish barriers to expand the
available spawning range for both anadromous and resident native fish


S .




Improve Habitat Quality: Improve the quality of spawning habitat in the lower Anacostia
through the installation of instream habitat improvement structures


                               MODULE 7
. SdN
* Exhibit 7-1. Continued

II GOAL 4— WETLANDS: Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply
1 increasing the acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands




|| Wetlands Protection: Prevent further net loss of wetlands in the watershed as a result of new
1 development and other activities




1 Urban Wetland Restoration: Restore the ecological function of existing degraded wetland


1 Urban Wetland Creation: Create several hundred acres of new wetlands throughout the basin
to partially replace the natural filtering capacity lost over time

IGOAL 5— FORESTS: Expand forest cover throughout ttie watershed and create a contiguous
corridor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers




1 Forest Protection: Reduce the loss of forest cover associated with new development and .other
activities by local implementation of the 1991 Maryland Forest Conservation Act


» Watershed Reforestation: Take full advantage of existing local, state, federal and private
resources to extensively reforest suitable sites throughout the basin
•> r
w '
1 	 ~

s '||

1 Riparian Reforestation: Reforest ten linear miles of riparian areas along the Anacostia over
the next three years as a first step in creating an unbroken forest corridor from the tidal river
to the uppermost headwater streams


|| GOAL 6— STEWARDSHIP: Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river and
increase volunteer participation in watershed restoration activities





1 Watershed Outreach and Education: Raise public awareness about the problems of the
Anacostia River and restoration efforts; ask for sustained citizen commitment; educate the
public, especially children, about the ecology of the river system and the role of the public in
reducing urban pollution . '



. ' \ "
1 Restoration Stewardship: Encourage the development of an Anacostia stream constituency and
grass-roots network of watershed residents to participate in a variety of ways: practicing good
. citizenship, joining environmental activist groups, adopting stream segments, and participating
in small-scale habitat improvement projects

                                          '                    MODULE 7


                   Key to Stakeholders Listed in Exhibit 7-1
Corps of Engineers (Baltimore District)
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Programs
Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission -
Montgomery County              .
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission - Prince
George's County
National Park Service                            -
Prince George's County Department of Environmental Regulation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Water and Sewer Utility Administration
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
 * From Anacostia Restoration Team. 1991.  A Commitment to Restore Our Home River.

                                                                  MODULE 7
                  • All Programs:  Increased collaboration to achieve
                   goals through cost-effective management
                  • Permit Writers: Greater emphasis on permits
                   with most impact; permit decisions consistent
                   with basin plan provisions
                  • NPS Staff: §319 project selection based on basin
                   priorities; monitoring effectiveness in watershed
Viewgraph 6: Example Effects on Program Operations
The Big River Basin example presented in the appendix to Module 2 included several
example roles for a broad range of local, state, and federal partners operating within a
statewide watershed management approach. The roles were listed in the context of
basin cycle steps, largely representing overall agency functions. Broad state and federal
agency water programs, however, often involve numerous water resource management
components. Examples of how the implementation of a statewide approach might affect
the management of these components include:

  • All Programs: In general, all programs should be more aware  of other programs'
    goals, including overlap between these goals and their own.  Programs can
    collaborate to optimize the overall management strategy to meet environmental
    goals and objectives established for the basin by stakeholders. Specific means of
    integration are described in the following individual program  synopses.
  • Permit Writers:  Greater emphasis will be placed on permits documented in the
    basin plan as having the greatest environmental impact.  NPDES permits, for
    example, should contain effluent limitations reflecting wasteload allocations (WLAs)
    established in TMDLs that are documented in the basin plan;  WLAs should reflect
    any decisions on pollutant trad ing and load capacity banking negotiated during
    plan development, although  special conditions may need to be included in permits
    for administrative purposes;  permit conditions may also include ambient
    monitoring requirements to support continued environmental assessments. Basin
    plans will help permit writers identify potential problem areas for discharges and
    provide a sound basis for permit denials where loading capacity would be exceeded

                                                              MODULE 7
or where subsequent degradation would violate antidegradation policies. Similarly,
permitting decisions for other activities (e.g., RCRA, U.IC, and Drinking Water) can
be made in light of basin and watershed plan provisions.
NFS Staff:  Basin planning priorities will translate into NFS program priorities.
Section 319 project funds should be allocated on the basis of environmental
benefit. NFS programs are in a position to collaborate with drinking and ground
water programs to achieve mutual objectives that satisfy important program goals
for each. In addition, NFS BMPs play an important role in ecological restoration
that can significantly contribute to aquatic species management goals (i.e., fish and
wildlife). Nonpoint source issues in coastal areas can be addressed through
coordination with programs operating under CZARA §6217. Operating within a
watershed context with the NPDES program will also improve the opportunity to
use pollutant trading to fund NFS projects. Monitoring effectiveness should extend
beyond the project's geographical boundaries to account for overall load reductions
and interactions among point and nonpoint source pollutants within watersheds.

                                             '                     MODULE?
                     EXAMPLE EFFECTS ON PROGRAM
                     OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)

                    • Monitoring Staff: Target information gaps
                      and effectiveness measures; conduct phased
                      TMDL studies
                    • Wetlands Staff: Better basis for §404
                      permit reviews and conservation planning
                    • SRF Program:  Translating basin priorities
                      into funding priorities
Viewgraph 7: Example Effects on Program Operations (continued)
    §106 Monitoring Staff: Fixed-and rotating-station ambient monitoring will
    continue, along with site-specific specialty monitoring. Strategic monitoring plans
    should be updated to reflect basin plan findings and recommendations (e.g., to fill
    assessment information gaps for priority areas, establish performance measures, and
    develop and implement TMDLs). Staff will spend more time coordinating with
    other partners to augment one another's efforts.

    Wetlands Staff: Functions and values of individual wetl.ands can be better
    understood within a basin or watershed context.  More comprehensive inventory
    and assessment of wetland resources within a basin will help reduce uncertainty
    associated with reviewing §404 permits individually.  In addition, communication
    through basin plans regarding critical wetland areas can alert stakeholders to
    potential permit issues before significant resources have been committed to a  ,
    development project. Other agencies (e.g., Fish & Wildlife) can help with
    conservation planning for protection, restoration, or mitigation of wetland biological
    hot spots.                                  .

    SRF Program: Basin planning priorities should be translated into SRF program
    priorities for funding eligible activities.  Staff will work with NPDES, NFS, and
    Drinking Water programs to target funds appropriately.

                                             '                     MODULE?
                     EXAMPLE EFFECTS ON PROGRAM
                     OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)

                 • Groundwater Staff: Influence olf basin plans on
                  permit decisions, protection measures, and
                  monitoring design
                 • Drinking Water: Basin plans support sanitary surveys,
                  monitoring waiver evaluations, and source protection
                  collaboration                •
                 • Water Quality Standards Staff:  Update designated
                  use; better basis for site-specific standards; improved
                  standards review
Viewgraph 8: Example Effects on Program Operations (continued)
    Groundwater Staff: Understanding the relationship between ground and surface  .
    water discharge within a basin may influence ground water management decisions.
    For example, permitting excessive ground water withdrawals may adversely impact
    the combined uses of the surface/ground water resource. As a result, permitting
    installation of new municipal or private wells and approving increased pumping
    rates could take into account impacts to baseflow in hydrologically connected
    waters. Similarly, public water systems that draw water from aquifers directly
    linked to surface water supplies can account for surface water quality in wellhead
    protection management and petitions for monitoring waivers. Finally, programs that
    require permits for discharges to shallow aquifers (e.g., large drainfields) or BMPs
    proposed for shallow aquifers (e.g., infiltration ponds) can examine the impact of
    discharges on achieving ground water and surface water standards within the basin.

    Drinking Water Utilities and Programs:  Basin plans provide a comprehensive
    context and source of information for conducting sanitary surveys, developing
    giardia lambia cofitrol programs (under 40 CFR 141.71), and evaluating petitions for
    monitoring and treatment waivers. Basin plans can also serve as a starting point for
    developing wellhead and source water delineations and protection programs.
    Finally, basin plans may provide information on ground and surface water
    interactions that will help utilities understand how excessive withdrawals may
    impact the combined uses of the resource.

    Water Quality Standards Staff: The basin cycle includes necessary activities for
    determining appropriate water quality standards by basin. Intensive basin

                                                             MODULE 7
assessments can provide the opportunity to update narrative criteria and designated
uses for waterbodies within the basin. In addition, assessments will alert staff to
inappropriate numerical water quality standards. If addressing a basin priority
requires establishing or modifying a water quality standard, the neces.sary studies
and evaluation process to support development of a site-specific standard can be
incorporated into the basin implementation plan. Some of the requirements for the
triennial standards update can be fulfilled on an incremental basis by using .
information gathered from basin plans completed in the previous three years.

                                            •'..'.•           MODULE 7
                     EXAMPLE EFFECTS ON PROGRAM
                     OPERATIONS (CONTINUED)

                   Fish and Wildlife: Streamline Endangered Species
                   Act consultations; improved collaboration on species
                   protection and recovery plans
                   Agricultural Extension Services : Better support for
                   BMP planning and implementation; increased
                   outreach to targeted landowners
                   Local Planning and Zoning:  Provides focus for
                   revitalization projects; improved land-use, floodplain,
                   and storm water planning and mianagement
Viewgraph 9: Example Effects on Program Operations (continued)
    Fish and Wildlife: Fish and Wildlife staff can substantially benefit from integrating
    many of their activities into the statewide framework. Endangered Species Act
    consultations will be enhanced through access to diverse stakeholders responsible
    for species preservation and recovery.  Fish and wildlife staff should expect
    increased collaboration on monitoring, assessment, priority-setting, project design,
    and implementation for many species management requirements.
    Agricultural Extension Services: This category covers a broad range of agricultural
    and resource management support programs. For example, the National Resource
    Conservation Service is already providing leadership on many watershed projects
    and would be a logical candidate for lead coordinating agency on many Basin
    Teams. These agencies have a demonstrated track record for negotiating with
    landowners and providing implementation support for BMPs and could greatly
    enhance outreach to help meet basin and watershed plan goals and objectives.

    Local Planning and Zoning Staff:  These agencies have a local or regional focus and
    must respond to zoning requests as they are submitted.  When the basin sequence is
    focused in their basin and watersheds, however, staff can play important roles and
    derive significant benefits from participation.' Watershed projects have been used
    successfully as a focal pointfor community revitalization projects and to address
    flood protection. In addition, zoning decisions can complement resource
   ' management goals through land-use decisions, including the placement of parks
    and  open space. A Basin Team can assistvyith the development of county-
    implemented and enforced standards for stormwater and water quality.

                                           '                  MODULE 7

                  4 Examples of actual or envisioned
                    operations under a statewide approach

                  4 Presentation by statewide approach
                    practitioners in attendance \
Viewgraph 10:  Case Study Examples of Statewide Activities
The course instructors have selected examples from states that have fully or partially
implemented a statewide watershed management approach to demonstrate actual or
envisioned operations. Discussion is organized around the basin cycle presented in
Exhibit 7-2. Statewide approach practibners that are attending the course may be asked
to share some of their experiences with the class.

                                 '                MODULE 7
    Exhibit 7-2. Basin. Management Cycle








; * ^


MONTHS 3-1 8
MONTHS 1 9-24
MONTHS 25-27
MONTHS 28-36
MONTHS 37-45
MONTHS 46-48
MONTHS 49-54
MONTHS 55-60


       MODULE 8


                                                            >  MODULES
                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                    PURPOSE OF MODULE
                    To provide summaries of selected states'
                    watershed management frameworks to
                    help workshop participants understand
                    how individual framework components
                    fit together, and how these states
                    developed and implemented their
Viewgraph 1: Purpose of the Module
The purpose of this module is to provide comprehensive summaries of statewide
watershed management approaches in selected states that will help workshop
participants understand how individual framework components fit together, and how
the states developed and implemented their approaches. Each state summary includes a
description of the initiating agency and its structure, a list of participating programs,
outstanding features, framework development and implementation milestones, current
statewide framework elements, and future building blocks.

                                        . , .   .  '                     MODULE 8
                                         EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                      LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                  This module will enable workshop participants to
                  • Capture a "big-picture" view of selected statewide approaches
                  « Learn who initiated framework development in these states,
                    along with the range of participants
                  • Compare similarities and differences in states' framework
                    development and implementation milestones
                  • Compare current states' framework elements to note
                    variations in emphasis and tailoring for specific circumstances
                  • Identify the outstanding features of each statewide approach
                  4 Understand future building blocks in each state
Viewgraph 2: Learning Objectives
This module enables workshop participants to
  • Capture a "big-picture" view of entire statewide watershed management frameworks
    for selected states                            -                -
  • Learn who initiated framework development in these states, along with the range of
  • Compare similarities and differences among statewide framework development and
     implementation milestones
  •  Compare current statewide framework elements among the states to. note variations
     in emphasis and how elements are tailored for specific circumstances in each state
  •  Identify outstanding features of each statewide approach
  •  Understand future building blocks in each state

                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                   + Initiating Agency:  Department of Natural
                     Resources and Environmental Control
                   • Participating Programs:  All state resource
                     management agencies
Viewgraph 3:  Delaware
Initiating Agency and Structure

Delaware's statewide watershed management approach was initiated in 1992 by the
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), whose programs
are operated centrally from its headquarters in Dover.

Participating Programs                                                   ,
Division of Soil and Water
  • Nonpoint Sources
  • Conservation Districts (agricultural extension)
 „• Coastal Zone Management •.-   • '
  • Channel (Drainage) Construction and Maintenance       -
  • Beach Protection
  • Navigational Maintenance (Dredging)                      .

Division of Fish and Wildlife
  • Conservation
  • Fisheries Research          .       .     -
  « Consumptive Species Management
  • Non-Consumptive Species Management
  • Stream Restoration
'"• Fishing Regulations                                                   :
 ^« Interstate Management Plans           ,
  • Surveys

                                     •'.'..'               MODULES
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
  • Access (Fishing)            ' .                        ,        v
  • Acquisition (Conservation Lands)                      -.
Division of Parks and Recreation
  • Natural Heritage Program                                    '•
  • Land Preservation Open Space
  • Resource-based Recreational Programs
  • Natural Areas Protection
  * Recreation - Public Interpretation                                 -
  • SCORP - National Park Service            •                   •
Division of Air and Hazardous Waste     .
  • Superfund
  • Underground Storage Tanks
  • Multi-Media Permitting   .
  • Pollution  Prevention
  •  RCRA Corrective Action
  • Air Toxics
  • Solid Waste                    .               .                .
  •  Enforcement                                             .
Division of Water Resources
  •  NPDES Permits: Major, Minor, General, and Stormwater
  • Wetlands Permitting
  •  Standards
  •  Underground Discharges  •
  •  Estuaries                       ^
  *  Citizen Monitoring
  *  Septic Systems/Wei Is
  • Toxics
  •  Clean Lakes
  •  Ground Water
  •  Water Supply
  •  Fish Kills
  •  Watershed Assistance: Technical Services (TMDLs) and Monitoring Plans

Management and Operations
  * Geographic Information System
  • Public Education and Information
  • Development Advisory Service (Staff Training)
  *                                    '
County Planning and Zoning Authorities
  • New Castle County
  • Kent
  • Sussex                                                   •  ,

                                            '.;,"'•             MODULES
                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                    DELAWARE (CONTINUED)

                            v""'    ' V.      '
                            \     ^\
                   Outstanding Features  \

                   .* Comprehensive resource protection
                     strategies  \         "  ,.

                   • Emphasis on restoring physical habitat
Viewgraph 4: Delaware (continued)
Outstanding Features

The DNREC approach incorporates all resource management agencies in Delaware,
which allows for the development of comprehensive resource protection strategies. A
primary goal for Delaware is to mitigate physical habitat problems attributable to
agricultural drainage ditches that have been in place since pre-Revolutionary times.

                                            '                   MODULES
                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                    DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
                              Framework Milestones
'.- ' •''

1 995

of framework

Viewgraph 5:  Delaware (continued)
Framework Development and Implementation Milestones
1992 Aug     Division of Water Resources staff discuss the need for comprehensive
              management approaches to address habitat degradation.

1992 Sen     DNREC staff from all Divisions are invited to a series of meetings to
     •         consider adopting a WPA for Delaware.  Workshop participants evaluate
              potential WPA objectives, opportunities, and concerns and reach near-
              c-onsensus support for proceeding with development of an approach for
1993 Ian     ' DNREC conducts a statewide framework development workshop to
              continue defining various elements of the basin approach for Delaware.
              Roles and responsibilities for individual programs are discussed, and a
              definition of resource protection is developed that allows cross-
              division/agency participation. The following work groups are formed to
              address issues not resolved at the workshop:  Implementation,
              Coordination, and Institutional Barriers; Management Units, Data
              Management, and Monitoring; Public Outreach and Education; and
              Briefing Package for Department Secretary (because DNREC staff have
              not yet received the mandate to proceed).

 1993 Summer. Changes in top management at DNREC delay development of a_
            '  statewide approach as incoming senior managers become familiar with
              the initiative and provide input to its future direction.

                                              '   •  .'              MODULES
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
1993 Fall       Work groups established In January 1993 distribute recommendations
  ,             on their assigned topics to all statewide framework development
               workshop participants.

1994 Apr       The Delaware Basin Management Workshop begins with an open
               meeting to reassess or confirm earlier decisions on the statewide
               approach. Following the open meeting, the work group convenes to
               prepare a brief ing for Secretary Tulou and Division Managers on the
   •            updated approach. Secretary Tulou and Division Managers approve a
               pilot project and the development of a framework document for
               statewide implementation.                         T

1994 Jul     ,   The Nanticoke River Basin is selected for the pilot analysis. Work
               group representatives plan specific activities for each step in the basin
               management cycle. The pilot analysis addresses questions on roles,
               methods, products, and costs for each division for each phase of the
               cycle. The purpose is to provide senior managers with insight into
               .workload planning and resource allocation issues associated with the
               statewide watershed management approach.             <

1995 Jan       DNREC produces for the Division Secretary and EPA Region 3 a
               management plan for completion and implementation of a statewide
               watershed management approach. The plan is also the, basis of a
               Section 104(b)(3) grant application to Region 3, which would fund  a
               basin coordinator to facilitate the activities of participating agencies
               and divisions.                               '...;,

1995 Jul        DNREC will begin phased implementation of the statewide approach.

1995 Aug       The basin coordinator and a contractor will complete a public release
               edition of the framework document.

                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                    DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
                                  .   .//
                               has Delaware tai
Viewgraph 6:  Delaware (continued)
Current Framework Elements       .
Geographic Management Units: Delaware delineates six basin management units, four
of which are defined using hydrological boundaries of major drainage basins in the
state. The Delaware Bay Unit and Atlantic Ocean Unit are added to address special
resource management issues for these areas. Although technically these management
units are not drainage basins, the geographic areas within them have common
ecological characteristics, stressors, and resource management issues and solutions.
Additionally, the Delaware Bay Unit provides a useful interface between the Delaware
statewide framework and the Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program and Susquehana River
Management Commission. Ecoregional overlays continue to be an important
component of resource status and trend analysis.

Basin Management Cycle:  The  Delaware framework has eight components: Planning,
Preliminary Assessment, Intensive Basin Monitoring, Comprehensive Analysis,
Management Options Evaluation, Resource Protection Strategy, PubMc Participation,
and Implementation.  Repeating a series of steps defined for each component constitutes
Delaware's basin cycle; a fixed length of time for each program to complete each step of
the process, however, has not been calculated. DNREC is currently conducting a
workload planning assessment to determine whether developing an average cycle
length across all basins is practical; estimates range between 5 and 7 years. One
potential solution is to get a fixed cycle length and allow phased implementation of
planning components during future cycle iterations.               ,

                                                '                   MODULES
                                        EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
^Stakeholder .Involvement: DNRECs goal is to provide citizens with a meaningful role in
 basin management, without creating an undue burden on other stakeholders. The
 Outreach and Education Review Group developed a communication strategy to    .
 promote public awareness and involvement that identifies two different audiences,
 macro groups and micro groups.  Macro groups are involved in the overall Whole-basin
 planning process and have an opportunity to be involved in individual watershed
 planning. Micro groups are involved in planning for their own watersheds and have an
 opportunity to be involved in the overall whole-basin planning process. This strategy
 offers a series of communication approaches, ranging from personal communication to   ;
 the use of mass media. Approaches are tailored for each audience and phase of the
 basin planning process. The communication strategy also offers practical suggestions
 for promoting the support of and convening stakeholders.

 Strategic Monitoring: DNREC is completing a data needs survey of participating
 programs and agencies as background for a strategic monitoring plan. As part of this
 assessment, participating programs identify complementary data collection and
 management objectives. This assessment is enabling the strategic monitoring plan to
 identify opportunities for collaboration in gathering environmental data. The plan
 includes the following sections: basin  planning, special studies, statewide resource
 status and trends, compliance, and enforcement. The Water Resources Division has the
 lead in developing and implementing a strategic monitoring plan for the state, with other
 DNREC divisions playing an important role.
 Basin Assessment: "The statewide approach has a broad array of assessment objectives
 for basin plans because of the numerous core agency stakeholders. DNREC recognizes
 that existing environmental information is not being used to its fullest extent, especially
 in setting priorities and targeting resources. Although assessment using a statewide
 watershed management approach is broadly based on weight-of-evidence, including the
 use of traditional endpoints such as numeric and narrative standards, it also  includes
 development trends (e.g., county planning and zoning authorities), measures of physical
 habitat integrity, and other factors critical to ecpsystem integrity.

 Assigning Priorities  and Targeting Resources: The Delaware statewide approach uses  a
 two-step priority setting and targeting protocol. Because the Delaware approach
 directly involves multiple resource protection and management agencies, this protocol
 calls for establishing joint and independent priorities for basin team members. A multi-:
 program review group is currently developing criteria for problem determination. The
 draft framework document recognizes that basin team members may have conflicting or
 nonoverlapping objectives.  For example, a county planning authority may want higher-
 density zoning in an area where Parks and Recreation has a natural heritage site.
 Criteria for problem determination include procedures that (1) attempt to achieve
 consensus; (2) if consensus is not possible, serve as the basis for a negotiated solution;
 and (3) in the worst-case scenario, establish a means to proceed in the absence of an
 agreement.  ,

                      ;                 8-9

         '   MODULE 8
development process focuses on improving the capability for divisions to work together.
The close proximity of most state resource programs facilitates coordination. The
statewide watershed management approach provides a coordination framework for
programs having independent legislative mandates to cooperate to achieve
complementary resource protection goals (e.g, restoring an estuary that requ.res; the
contributions of all divisions to different aspects of the restoration effort). Basm teams
provi'de the forum for program collaboration on solutions to targeted env.ronmental
problems. County planning and zoning authorities have also expressed a_n interest in
participating on basin teams; their participation would enable cons.deration of land-use
Fssues in trufbasin planning process. The ability to develop comprehens.ve resource
protection strategies that are supported by local stakeholders ,s a primary goal of
Delaware's statewide watershed management approach.

Basin Management Plans: DNREC is responsible for writing and producing the basin
management plans, which serve as a reference pointto stakeho ders for the plannmg
proceL Basin plans are formal program plans for DNREC; the level of authority for
other participating agencies is determined for each basin through program agreements.
Basin plans serve both as a stewardship document for the generalpublic and as a means
to fulfill several legislative and program reporting obligates When appropriate, basm
plans contain technical analyses associated with TMDLs, standards reviews, and other
CWA requirements.
Basin Plan Implementation Component: The basin management plans contain a
chapter for area-specific implementation activities, such as documentation for an estuary
restoration project. This implementation plan includes information on the s.te to be
restored, specific parameters of concern, management actions, funding sources, timing
and sequence of activities, responsible parties, and other relevant project information.
Phased TMDLs are also described in this section. The timing and magnitude of planned
management actions are presented in a manner easily understood by .the general publ.c.

                                             '    :                MODULES
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
                       Improve data management and CIS
                       capabilities to
                        • Provide information to all stakeholders
                         on environmental stressors, priorities,
                         and management activities
                        • Analyze overlays of several sources of
                         environmental information
Viewgraph 7: Delaware (continued)
Future Building Blocks

DNREC is improving its data management system and CIS capabilities to provide all
stakeholders within basin information on environmental stressors, priorities, and
management activities. The improved system includes the capability to analyze
overlays of several different sources of environmental information (e.g., species
distribution from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, land-use trends from County Planning
and Zoning, and nonpoint source loading from Soil and Water Resources). Overlays
enhance appreciation of complementary objectives and discussions regarding basin
planning goals.

                                             '                   MODULE 8
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                   • Initiating Agency: Idaho Division of Environ-
                     mental Quality (ID EQ)
                   • Participating Programs: Currently, IDEQ, EPA,
                     and citizen groups; IDEQ envisions partnerships
                     with ail resource agencies operating in Idaho
Viewgraph 8: Idaho
Initiating Agency and Structure
Idaho's statewide watershed management approach was initiated by the Divisionof
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) within the Department of Health and Welfare.  IDEQ s
central office in Boise provides technical assistance and statewide guidance on water
quality standards and planning. The six regional offices have substantial responsibility
and autonomy for implementing the programs listed below. Regional boundaries
generally correspond to major river basins within the state.

Participating Programs

IDEQ                          •
  • Nonpoint Source Management Program
  • Antidegradation Program
  * Nonpoint Source Coordinated Monitoring Program
  • State Agricultural Water Quality Program
  • Forestry Program
  • Mining Program
  • Clean Lakes Program/Wetlands
  • Ground Water Program
  • Drinking Water/Wellhead Protection            .      .
 • • 319 NPS Program
  •  106 Water Quality Planning
  •  Nutrient Management

                                             '                    MODULES
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
    Land Application
    Storm Water Run-off
    401 Certification
    Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal
EPA Region 10                         ,                       -          ,


Citizens'Voluntary Monitoring Program

The April 1994 draft of .Idaho's watershed framework document, which identifies several
potential partners in the watershed approach, was distributed to several additional state
and federal agencies for review and comment. IDEQ is currently conducting outreach
to encourage these programs and agencies to participate, including Idaho Department of
Water Resources, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management/Bureau of
Reclamation, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, National Park Service, U-S. Army
Corps of Engineers, county and city governments, and tribal governments.

                                      ,   • .   '                    MODULES
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     IDAHO (CONTINUED)

                    Outstanding Features
                                   i  I
                    • Partnership with E^A Region 10

                    4 Provisions for puBlic^participation
                                   V- '"' '.'  $
                    • Selection of lead agehcy Based on specific
                      needs within {each watershed

                    • Watershed plans to satisfy reporting
                      requirements.^        ! |
                                   v"v"v-*'-v.....-;...  ". t        '  .
Viewgraph 9: Idaho (continued)
Outstanding Features
IDEQ's partnership with EPA Region 10 serves as a model for state and regional
interaction. Although the specific nature of this partnership is still being defined, NPDES
permitting staff from Region 10 clearly will be members of watershed teams.

IDEQ provisions for citizen participation through the Citizens' Watershed Task Forces
and Watershed Advisory Groups provide the public an uncommon opportunity and
level of responsibility for developing and implementing watershed plans.
Idaho's planning process provides flexibility for alternating the lead agency for each
watershed. The lead agency can be selected based on several factors, including, but not
limited to, citizen advisory committee recommendation/priority resource management
issues, and responsibility for primary resource management mandate (e.g., USDA Forest
Service in National Forests).
IDEQ proposes using watershed plans to satisfy multiple local, state, and federal
resource management and reporting requirements;. Examples of resource management
issues that could be addressed in watershed plans include conservation plans for
endangered species (Endangered  Species Act) and water quality standards review and

                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES

""IDAHO .(CONTINUED) . •-'•'."
1 ' ' •
IDEQ, learns benefits
of WPA through <
•experience in 4
watershed projects
s i <
Production of work
plan for developing
statewide watershed
1994 ^
External review of
^ watershed frame-
work document
Framework Milestones

Viewgraph 10: Idaho (continued)
Framework Development and Implementation Milestones
1990,-199 2
1993 Aug
IDEQ is involved in four major targeted projects in the Henry's Fork
River, Mid-Snake River (Nutrient Management Plan), Coeur d' Alene
Lake, and the South Fork of the Salmon River watersheds. Through
these projects, IDEQ realizes the benefits of program collaboration in
achieving specific environmental objectives within a defined
management area. Citizen participation is also a key component.

The Monitoring and Technical Support Bureau (MTSB) within
Community Programs at IDEQ is designated as the lead for a work group
on the watershed approach initiative. The group includes  .
representatives from other programs in IDEQ headquarters and its
regional offices. The work group compiles and distributes information
regarding the watershed approach to others within IDEQ.

The work group develops a Watershed Work Plan describing the
preliminary rationale and recommendation for a watershed approach.
The Watershed Work Plan outlines a process to continue developing
and refining a watershed approach for Idaho.  Stakeholders are afforded
the opportunity to provide input-on the approach throughout
development of the framework document. The work plan includes a
series of action items that clearly Identify a product, start date,
completion date, and responsible staff for each task.

                                          '  '   •                  MODULES
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
             The work plan also describes a nested approach to watershed
             delineation and identifies basic components of Idaho's watershed
1993 Sep •    IDEQ and EPA Region 10 meet to discuss Idaho's proposed watershed
             approach and the development of an Idaho/Region 10 Memorandum of
             Understanding for Development of a Watershed Protection Approach.
             The memorandum includes a mission statement, goals, approach
             outline, preliminary description of organizational roles, and timeline.

1.9.93 Oct     MTSB produces an internal draft of the watershed approach framework
             document for review by IDEQ regional offices.

1993 Nov    A 2-day workshop with staff from IDEQ headquarters and regional
             offices is held in Boise to identify major issues and practical steps to be
             taken for transition to a watershed approach. IDEQ begins to address
             several issues during the workshop including roles and responsibilities,
             participating agencies, basin delineation, and implementation.

1993 Dec    The draft framework document is updated.based on results of the
             watershed workshop, and a description of participating agencies,
             preliminary roles and responsibilities, basin and watershed delineations,
             and an implementation schedule are incorporated. MTSB's primary
             concerns regarding this draft are defining the document's target
             audience, determining whether the document will communicate
             effectively to this audience, and assessing whether the document
             provides sufficient guidance on developing watershed plans.  A
             brochure based on information contained in this draft is  produced for
             public outreach and education regarding the approach.

1994 Jan     The second internal draft is sent to IDEQ regional offices, other IDEQ
             programs, EPA Region 10, and outside consultants for review and
             comment.                                              . '  ,   .
1994 Apr     IDEQ incorporates comments from IDEQ and EPA Region 10 and
             produces the first external review draft of the framework document. This
             draft is sent to a broad range of individuals and organizations for review
             and comment.        .     .

                                                                  MODULE 8
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
 1994Jun      Based on comments received from the first external review, IDEQ
              substantially revises document format and content. This second external
              draft is sent to all agencies and programs, identified in the framework
       -       document. This draft serves as the basis for discussions with programs
              and agencies regarding their.participation, roles, and responsibilities in
              IDEQ's watershed approach.

 1994 Aug     IDEQ produces a draft watershed companion guide for IDEQ regional
              offices that provides information on participating programs, contacts,
              and other logistical  information for their use in establishing watershed
              groups.                 ,                       '

 1994Oct     IDEQ receives numerous comments from.local, state, and federal
              agencies, ranging from minor editorial changes to concerns about
              fundamental issues. An October draft of the framework document is
              produced that incorporates editorial changes and some minor textual
              changes. More significant issues are being addressed as part of IDEQ's
              outreach to partners.

              IDEQ awaits the outcome of two events before proceeding  with another
              draft of the framework document and implementation of the watershed
              approach: (1) the passage of statewide watershed legislation that would
              combine the Nutrient Management Act and the state Antidegradation
              Policy [including provisions for integrating identification of stream
              segments of concern and conducting joint basin area meetings] and  (2) a
              joint agency project to determine which local, state, and federal require-
              ments can be fulfilled through watershed plans and what information
              would need to be included in watershed plans to fulfill selected

1995 Mar      The statewide watershed legislation passes; all references to the control
              of NFS pollution, however, are deleted from the final act.,The project to
              define how watershed plans can  fulfill requirements is still pending,  but
              expected to start in the near future. Several lawsuits related to the TMDL
              process introduce considerable uncertainty and concern among,
              stakeholders on how court decisions may impact the watershed
              approach.  Many stakeholders, however, believe that the watershed
              approach is the solution to disputed TMDL issues.

                                      .   '    '                    MODULE 8
                                      EXAMPLE-STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                ppr  -
                               has Idaho taH
Viewgraph 11: Idaho (continued)
Current Framework Elements
Basin Management Units:  Idaho has six major basins that are delineated in accordance
with Title 1 ,-Chapter 16 of Rules and Regulations for Nutrient Management.
Delineations account for the importance of both surface waters and aquifers.
Boundaries of the six Idaho regional offices coincide with the six delineated basins. A
nesting approach establishes a three-tiered spatial scale: basins, watersheds, and sub-
watersheds and enables framework activities to be targeted to any scale. Basin maps
identify hydrological unit boundaries for surface waters and aquifers, and basin plans
address the interaction between ground water and surface water.

Basin Management Cycle:  The IDEQ watershed approach uses an iterative basin
management cycle for a prescribed series of steps to develop and implement a
watershed plan. Currently, the length of basin cycles can vary from basin to basin.
Although flexible cycle length allows IDEQ to accommodate a broad range of
stakeholder activities and  priorities, the impact of a variable length cycle on resource
and work load planning is not known.

Stakeholder Involvement:  Idaho has defined two levels of citizens' advisory committees
that have significant input to each step of the watershed approach.  The Citizens'
Watershed Task Force assists the IDEQ regional Administrator in prioritizing watersheds
within each basin unit for study and management plan development.  The Watershed
Advisory Groups 'are responsible for assisting with the development and implementation

                                              '•                    MODULES
                                        EXAMPLE- STATEWIDE APPROACHES
of a watershed plan. A remaining issue for the Idaho watershed approach is
coordination and integration of other natural resource management agencies and
programs on the watershed teams.  - •
Strategic Monitoring: Strategic monitoring is used in each phase of the watershed
planning process. Targeted monitoring provides the basis for identifying and prioritizing
water quality concerns, focusing on attainability and current status. Idaho currently
monitors biological, chemical, and physical parameters. Substantial data col lection
activities precede the preparation of watershed plans, with focus on priority areas within
each watershed or sub-watershed to fill gaps in existing data. Monitoring is tailored to
support the decision-making process. Once management strategies are implemented,
environmental indicators are monitored to document project or plan success,.water
quality trends, and beneficial uses. Enforcement and compliance monitoring are based
on objectives in watershed plans, but notification and scheduling for these activities is
independent of the plan.  IDEQ has a strong and expanding volunteer monitoring
program that is being incorporated into the watershed approach.

Basin Assessment: IDEQ is continuing to develop and implement the Data Management
Plan for facilitating data exchange. This system can receive and send data statewide and
includes CIS (ARC-lnfo and ARC-View), statistical processing modules, environmental
modeling and other analysis components. The goal is to provide access for all IDEQ
staff to the central data system and all its functions arid, to the extent possible, access for
members of the watershed advisory group and agency planning team. The watershed
data management system provides simple and understandable resource-based
information for use in planning watershed activities.

Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources:  The Idaho watershed approach relies
more than any other state on citizen advisors for assigning priorities and targeting
resources. The Idaho framework document clearly states that its mission is to fulfill
CWA requirements, and funding limitations necessitate choosing which problems to
address first or which outstanding resource areas to preserve. Such obligations and
limitations sometimes conflict with the priorities assessed by citizens' groups.  IDEQ and
other participating programs and agencies make recommendations and provide the
advisory groups with technical information on sources,  cause, and severity of impacts.
At the same time, citizen advisory groups have a substantial decision-making role in this
process. Previous experience in Idaho suggests that when citizens are integral to the
watershed planning process, they are effective advocates in seeking additional project
resources from the legislature.

                                            ' .'.  •                 MODULE 8
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
Capability for Developing Management Strategies: The Idaho watershed approach
promotes using agency watershed teams to develop comprehensive solutions for
multiple stressors. Teams provide outreach to public citizens and local, state, and
federal agencies. The framework document provides examples of over thirty activities
carried out by potential members of the agency watershed teams and identifies many
organizations that do not traditionally have roles in developing and implementing
resource protection strategies, such as public schools. Theframework document also
describes several administrative mechanisms for consolidating agency activities.

Basin (Watershed) Management Plans:  A Watershed Advisory Group begins planning
for individual watersheds in the sequence determined by the Citizen Watershed Task
Force. IDEQ provides an example outline for a watershed plan, but Watershed Advisory
Groups have final authority for selecting the format and content for individual plans. All
participating agencies contribute to the watershed plan, but the lead agency or program
for a watershed assumes responsibility for producing the watershed plan.  Each
watershed plan includes a signature block for participating agencies to demonstrate
agency support, but the level of authority and subsequent nature of commitment by
agencies vary from one watershed to the next based on program agreements signed by
participating agencies. Each  plan should include specific environmental measures of
success for each watershed.  IDEQ and Region 10 are sponsoring a project to develop
guidelines for satisfying specific program and legislative requirements.
Basin Plan Implementation: Idaho watershed plans contain a detailed section on
implementation, including an implementation schedule that considers phasing in
complex activities over several iterations of the basin cycle. The schedule provides
information  on specific monitoring activities, evaluation of plan effectiveness, plan
revision, and enforceable actions in the event that elements of the management plan are
not implemented. Plans describe an enforcement approach, where regulatory authority
exists. Where possible, specific individuals or agency contacts are identified to respond
to inquiries  on activities listed in the plan.

                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     IDAHO (CONTINUED)
                       Future Building Blocks j \
                       • guidance to watershed f^ams-bn
                        satisfying program and agency
                        requirements through basin plans
                   I   4 Data management and GIS network
 Viewgraph12: Idaho (continued)
 Future Building Blocks

 IDEQ is currently conducting outreach to potential agency partners for the statewide  _
 approach.  The framework document will be revised to reflect the contributions of
 several partners. EPA Region 10 and IDEQ are evaluating requirements for a broad
 range of participating programs and agencies to ensure that watershed plans fulfill their
. needs. Findings will be summarized to provide guidance to watershed teams for
 satisfying those requirements.                                            "••.-.

 IDEQ is developing a data management and GIS network between the central office and
 regional offices.  Completion of this network will facilitate environmental assessments,
 production of watershed plans, and clear presentation of sources and impacts of
 pollutants and other stressors to citizen advisory committees. Access to clear, relevant
 environmental data will facilitate priority setting, targeting, and management strategy

                                            '                    MODULE 8
                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                       •  Initiating Agency: Department of
                         Environmental Quality
                       •  Participating Programs: Core water
                         quality programs initially; envision
                         broader coalition for future
ViewgraphlS: Nebraska
Initiating Agency and Structure
The Nebraska statewide watershed management approach was initiated in 1992 by the
state's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ's programs are operated
centrally out of its Lincoln headquarters, and they maintain one regional office in North
Platte for field operations in the western part of the state.  .

Participating Programs
DEQ Surface Water Section         . .   •      .
    Statewide Monitoring
    Ecological Assessment
    Intensive Survey
    Surface Water Modeling
    TMDL Development
    Basinwide Planning
    Nonpoint Source Management
    Clean Lakes Program
    Wetlands Conservation Program
    Standards and Classifications

                                                               MODULE 8
                                      EXAMPLE- STATEWIDE APPROACHES
DEQ Permits and Compliance Section                        x
  • NPDES Permitting                                  -.         .
  • State Permitting
  • Compliance and Enforcement
  • Pretreatment

DEQ Wastewater Facilities Section
 '• State Revolving Fund Program
  • Onsite Assistance Program
  • Municipal Water Pollution Prevention

DEQ Ground Water Section
  • Planning and Assistance: CSGWPP and Wellhead Protection
  • Septic Tank Program
  • UIC Program

DEQ LUST/Emergency Resppnse Section

DEQ envisions a time when management of most Nebraska environmental programs
will be coordinated with the Nebraska statewide framework.  Early success by the
framework's core water quality programs is expected to add credibility to the approach
and attract increased involvement from other relevant stakeholders.

                                              '                    MODULES
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     NEBRASKA (CONTINUED)
                  I ........ Outstanding Features
                        .                             •"..
                     •Well planned schedule that allows all
                       framework5 participants to know when
                     • • activities will occur                \
                     ...-.' :.•..•                           \
                     jKjDpportunities for greater stakeholder  \
                       involvement, including  basin meetings  \
                       that Coincide with important milestones  \
                       in the-basin-eyele ........... <""•- ............... " ..... ••"•'•""" ..... " ...... —
Viewgraph 14:  Nebraska (continued)
Outstanding Features                               - '        .    •       •
DEQ has a well planned schedule for activities within the basin management cycle.
Substantial effort was expended to balance workloads and adjust timing of activities to
meet needs and constraints of participating programs. The level of detail provided in
Nebraska's schedule (Appendix 4A to Module 4) allows all participants to know
precisely when activities will occur for each basin and to prepare for and implement
actions accordingly. The schedule ensures that priorities and plans will be updated
every 5 years, and that efforts will move beyond the planning phase into
implementation on.a routine basis.

Additionally, DEQ strives to provide opportunities within Nebraska's statewide
framework for greater stakeholder involvement. The principal mechanism for outreach
is a series of meetings heldln local Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) during each
iteration of the basin cycle. Meetings focus on obtaining information from stakeholders
to help establish basin management goals, identify environmental concerns and
monitoring needs, develop management strategies, target resources to address highest
priorities, identify measures of success, and solicit public participation in volunteer
programs. Meetings are strategically scheduled to coincide with  important milestones in
the basin cycle, and their format includes open house sessions, large group
presentations, and small focus group discussions.

                                             '                     MODULES
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES

1993 .
DEQ begins to concep-
tualize comprehensive
watershed management ^
,' 1994-
^ 1994 "
Draft statewide framework
document is completed
y , i
First comprehensive
basire management plan
completed for
; Lower Platte 1 Basin
2001 ^
Basin management
plans completed
> for all 13 basin
management units
Framework Milestones

Viewgraph 15: Nebraska (continued)
Framework Development and implementation Milestones
1993 Aug
krc.lV/L/lllv:ill. OJ ivi uisijriv.aiBV.iia.ui.ivsi • ITIIIV*^t.wuv.^7

 FY1993 DEQ Strategic Budget Plan and Water Quality Division Five-
 Year Strategic Plan lists goals for integrating and prioritizing activities
 and optimizing use of available agency resources through
 comprehensive watershed management.

 Surface Water Section holds several sessions to discuss methods for
 improving effectiveness and efficiency when using agency resources for
 monitoring activities.
 Surface Water and Permits and Compliance Sections concur on
 preliminary ideas for a 5-year basin management cycle that groups the
 state's existing 13 major river basins into 5 larger management units.

 DEQ and EPA co-sponsor a workshop to begin educating agency staff
 on the statewide watershed management approach and facilitating a
 process for framework development. The group documents goals and
 opportunities, along with potential barriers, and reaches consensus on a
 workgroup process for framework development and an outline for the
 corresponding Work plan.

                                           '                     MODULES
                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
1993 Nov     Two 3-day facilitated workgroup sessions are conducted for statewide
              framework development. The workgroup focus.es on defining basin
              plan format, establishing a detailed basin management cycle,
              documenting program roles and responsibilities, and developing
              prioritization and targeting criteria.

1994 Jan      DEQ completes schedule for synchronizing NPDES permits with
              proposed basin management cycle.

1994 Apr      Draft framework document is completed:

1994 May     Strategic monitoring plan for first two basins is completed and
              implemented.        .
1994 6ct      DEQ obtains the services of a technical staff person from the Natural
              Resources Conservation Service through an Intergovernmental
              Personnel Act (IPA) agreement.  The staff member will help coordinate
              nonpoint source management activities under the statewide framework.

1997 Feb     • First comprehensive basin management plan is scheduled to be
              completed for the Lower Platte Basin.

2001 Oct      DEQ expects to have completed the first iteration of basin management
              plans for all 13 delineated basins.

                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     NEBRASKA (CONTINUED)
                          How has Nebraska tailored  ,,
                          the nine common framework
                         . elements for its approach! ,_
Viewgraph 16: Nebraska (continued)
Current Framework Elements      .

Basin Management Units: Nebraska has 13 major river basins that are subdivided into
36 sub-basins.  Some basin boundaries have been adjusted outside natural surface
drainage patterns to account for extensive diversions through canal systems or the flow
of ground water.

Basin Management Cycle: The state has sequenced activities for its 13 river basins over
a 5-year basin cycle to balance DEQ workload. Within a given basin, monitoring for
use support assessments and canvassing stakeholders for additional assessment
information are emphasized in Year 1 of the cycle.  Prioritization, problem
quantification, and stakeholder negotiations to reach consensus on management goals
and strategies occur in Years 2 and 3. Basin plan development, public review, and
adoption occur in Years 3 and 4.  Plan implementation occurs in Years 4 and 5 of the
first cycle iteration and continues until the plan is updated 5 years later, when a new
implementation phase begins.                                 .

Stakeholder Involvement: The initial draft of Nebraska's framework document (April
1994) calls for stakeholder involvement through public basin meetings to begin the
cycle in each basin. Stakeholders can stay involved by participating in several activities
strategically timed to coincide with key milestones throughout the management cycle.
(See "Outstanding Features" section below for more information.)

                                                                  MODULE 8
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
Strategic Monitoring:  DEQ monitors lakes, fish tissue, pesticides, sediment quality, and
wetlands. The agency also conducts biological assessment, fishki 11 investigations, and
special water quality studies. Due to limited program funds, however, support for the
statewide ambient monitoring network is being reduced to free resources for strategic
monitoring within basins according to the management cycle sequence. In addition,
DEQ is building on cooperative relationships developed with other agencies and
institutions to leverage its monitoring resources through coordinated strategic planning.
Ground water monitoring and assessment is performed at the local  level.

Basin Assessment: DEQ now analyzes its monitoring data and information received
from other stakeholders by basin, according to the basin management cycle. In addition
to conducting common statistical and modeling analyses, Nebraska is building a CIS to
enhance its assessment capabilities. CIS hardware is in place, but key environmental
information has yet to be compiled in quality-assured data layers for use within the

Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources: DEQ is developing a waterbody
prioritization and resource targeting system for use in its statewide  approach. The
agency anticipates that the prioritization process will rank watershed concerns in order
of their importance for incorporation into basin plans. Numerical indices are being
developed to facilitate ranking by providing quantitative comparisons among
waterbodies. DEQ plans to follow this priority ranking when directing program and
private resources in managing prioritized waters.

Capability for Developing Management Strategies:  DEQ has informally named a
Basinwide Coordinator to lead staff from participating programs in  developing
management plans for each basin according to the state's basin management cycle. The
department hopes to create a formal agency position to fill that role.  The state has not
yet reached the plan  development stage for any basin, but the framework does call for
an integrated effort among DEQ programs and other stakeholders.  Basin public
meetings and outgrowth focus groups will be significant tools for developing
management strategies.

Basin Management Plans:  DEQ has established the intended audience and purposes for
its forthcoming basin plans.  A general plan outline has been developed and is being
used as a guide by DEQ staff for carrying out activities during the early part of the basin
management cycle.  The outline will ensure appropriate information is available for
 production of the plans. The ground water-related sections of the  plan will depend
 heavily on information in Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
 (CSGWPP) plans, which are produced at the local level.

                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
Basin Plan Implementation: No plans have«been developed to date. As they become
available, however, DEQ will use plans to direct agency implementation activities,
including permitting, nonpoint and point source control project grants and loans,
monitoring, etc. The state also hopes that stakeholder involvement will lead entities
outside DEQ to use, the plan when implementing important activities.

                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                **   NFRC
                       Future Building Blocks;
                       4 [IntegritedHnfprTnatfort system
                       • [Expanded DEQ (program coverage
                  p:;:::^^                     wifh
                  !      stakeholders outside DEQ
Viewgraph 17:  Nebraska (continued)
Future Building Blocks
Nebraska's current statewide framework represents the first phase of development.
Initial efforts were restricted to a core set of water quality programs to establish a strong
central focus that is firmly based in authority of the CWA and related state statutes and
regulations.  DEQ intends to build on this foundation by adding other environmental
management programs, as appropriate, to achieve the goals of environmental resource
protectiori in fulfilling the agency's mission. Future building blocks include:
  • Integrated Information System: DEQ plans to provide shared access to multi-
    program information through a computerized network.

  • Expanded DEQ Program Coverage:  Coordinated permitting, for example, will be
    expanded beyond current NPDES emphasis. Expiration dates of all appropriate
    permits  (e.g.,  RCRA, air quality, landfill, and storm water) will be aligned with the
    basin management schedule, to the extent possible, to facilitate issuance of multi-
    media permits that better serve facilities and help ensure better coordination and
    integration among DEQ programs.
  • Strengthened Partnerships:  Stronger partnerships with  Nebraska's NRDs are a
    likely starting point. NRDs play a significant role in protecting ground water and
    sponsor a large number of NPS implementation projects. DEQ is evaluating the
    possibility of jointly funding a position in NRD offices to respond to complaints and
    help conduct water quality monitoring at the local level.  In addition, DEQ would

                                         '                   MODULES
                                  EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
.addition, DEQ would like to continue exploring options for leveraging its resources
with other stakeholders to achieve shared resource goals. Current joint monitoring
and assessment projects among several stakeholders (e.g., DEQ, EPA, USGS, NRCS,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Game and Parks Commission, and the .University of
Nebraska) provide examples of >vhat could be accomplished on a statewide scale
under the statewide watershed management approach. Additionally, NRCS and the
state's Cooperative Extension Service are beginning to synchronize their activities
with DEQ's basin management cycle.

                                                                MODULE 8
                                     EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                    NORTH CAROLINA
                    •  Initiating Agency: Division of Environmental
                      Management within the Department of
                      Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

                    •  Participating Programs: Core water quality
Viewgraph 18: North Carolina
Initiating Agency
North Carolina's statewide watershed management approach was initiated in 1986 by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) within the Department of
Environment^ Health, and Natural Resources. OEM's programs are operated centrally
out of its headquarters in Raleigh; they also maintain seven regional offices throughout
the state. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) oversees
state environmental policy and rule-making for DEM.

Participating Programs
DEM Environmental Sciences Branch
  • Statewide Monitoring
  • Biological Assessment
  • Ecological Assessment
 . • Intensive Survey
  • AquaticToxicity
  • Clean Lakes Program

 DEM Planning Branch                                     .
  •  Basinwide Planning
  •  Nonpoint Source Management .   .
  • Water Supply Watershed Protection
 " • Wetlands
  •  Standards and Classifications

                                   EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
DEM Technical Support Branch      ,
  •  Surface Water Model ing                            -.        ,
  •  TMDL Development
  •  NPDES Permitting i
  •  State Permitting

DEM Operations Branch
 ••  Compliance and Enforcement
  •  Pretreatment
  •  Operator Certification and Train ing
          i        ..'                .  -              ^
DEM Regional Offices
  «  Support monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and basin planning functions

                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
                 Outstanding Features          /.,,..--  '
                 • Strategic Monitoring...... -   '"
                    _ Statewide ambient and targeted monitorin^ttes^
                    - Extensive resources for biological sampling
                  • Assessment
                 f"- Coordination^arnortg programs
                 /^...^Statistical analysis and watei
Outstanding Features
North Carolina's statewide watershed management approach is supported by a strong
monitoring-element that combines a statewide ambient monitoring network with
targeted blsin monitoring. The state commits extensive resources to biological sampling
(i e  phytoplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish tissue and communities, and
aqu'atic toxicity) that complements broad physical and chemical .monitoring.
Monitoring objectives are strategically coordinated among programs to support a w.de
range of assessment needs. DEM has initiated efforts to leverage its monitoring program
resources with those of USGS and other monitoring programs, including consortiums of
local basin stakeholders. North Carolina's assessment element is_also strong using
statistical analysis and water quality modeling tools to prov.de a firm saentrf,c bas.s for
priority setting and management recommendations within basins.

                                              '                    MODULES
                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES

x • ' • •- ' . - • • •

DEM begins to
basin approach <
> i
1 1990
DEM announces
basinwide per-
mitting initiative

' 1993
Neuse River
basin plan
> approved <

Basin plans
for ali basins '
Framework Milestones

Viewgraph 20:  North Carolina (continued)
Framework Development and Implementation Milestones



,1990 Jan
1990 May
Srnajl group of DEM staff begin conceptualizing a basin approach for
coordinating NPDES permitting-related activities.

A permit workload study is performed to evaluate alternatives for
grouping NPDES permits by river basin (and sub-basin) and issuing
them sequentially over a 5-year cycle. EPA Region 4 cautions that
changing the permit cycle will require issuing short-term permits, which
is seen as a barrier by permit writing staff because the method will
create a permit backlog.

Informal internal review of permit writing procedures reveals several
inefficiencies. DEM embarks on permit writing automation project to
reduce inefficiencies and remove barrier to permit synchronization.

First generation of automated permit writing system is implemented.
Synchronized permit reissuance schedule is finalized.

DEM publicly announces its basinwide permitting initiative. First set of
short-term permits is issue'd; over next 5-year period, NPDES permit
expiration dates will be synchronized with basin schedule as permits
come up for renewal.

Staff begin discussing benefits of expanding basin permitting approach
to other water quality program areas.

                                               '                    MODULE 8
                                        EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
.  1990Oct
  1991 Mar
  1991 Aug

  1992 Oct
  1993 Feb

  1994 May

  1994 Aug
   1994 Dec

   1995 Jan

   1995 Mar
Workshop is held, with selected representatives from DEM
Environmental Sciences, Technical Support, Planning, and Operations
Branches to outline framework for implementing a comprehensive
statewide watershed management approach that integrates water
quality program functions. Details are streamlined through facilitated
Workshop is held with participating DEM Branches, EPA, SCS, and
National Rivers Program staff, along with representatives from some
adjoining states (SC, TN/VA). Draft framework document is reviewed,
'and next implementation  steps are discussed.          .  ,
DEM publishes framework document, North Carolina's Basinwide
Approach to Water Quality Management: Program Description.
DEM releases for public review a draft of the first basin plan developed
under the comprehensive statewide framework for Neuse River Basin.
Basin meetings are held to obtain public feedback on proposed basin
plan provisions.
NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approves Neuse
River basin management  plan.
EMC approves Lumber River Basin Management Plan following series
of public meetings and revisions to draft plan.
DEM Water Quality Section reorganizes Planning and Environmental
Sciences Branches to, in  part, better support basin planning. Changes
include creating a Basinwide Assessment Unit within the Planning
Branch to support public coordination, basin plan development, and
agency implementation.
EMC approves Tar-Pamlico River Basin Management Plan with the
condition that DEM develop a strategy for nonpoint source nutrient
reduction within the basin by September of 1995.
 EMC approves Catawba River Basin Management Plan following series
 of public meetings and revisions to draft plan.
OEM Water Quality Section establishes a statewide nonpoint source
 workgroup and river basin teams that include members from
 agricultural and wildlife  agencies.  Listing of many of the state's waters
 as impaired by nonpoint sources is based on wildlife data from the
 1970s and 1980s. Identifying methods and means for updating these
 assessments is a primary task of the workgroup, along with updating the
 state NPS program management plan. The river basin NPS teams help
 identify priority NPS concerns and develop and implement
 management strategies to achieve corresponding.objectives.

 DEM expects to.complete the first iteration of basin management plans
 for aH 17 delineated basin management units.   	

                                                                  MODULE 8
                                       EXAMPLE-STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
                         How has North Carolina tailored
                       ,  the nine common framework
                         elements for its approach?  ,
 Viewgraph 21:  North Carolina (continued)
 Current Framework Elements

 Basin Management Units:  North Carolina has 17 major river basins that are subdivided
 into 1 33 sub-basins. The state's basin and sub-basin units were rece'ntly streamlined in
 a cooperative effort with NRCS and USGS such that NRCS 14-digit watersheds nest
 within sub-basins, which in turn nest within USGS hydrplogic units and state major river
 basins.                                .

 Basin Management Cycle:  The state sequenced activities for all 17 river basins over a
 5-year basin cycle.to balance DEM workload. Within each basin, strategic and
 intensive monitoring are emphasized in Years 1 and 2 of the cycle, and assessment
 using statistics and modeling occurs in Years 3 and 4. Management plan development,
 public review, and adoption occur in Years 4 and 5.  Implementation of the plan begins
 in Year 5 of the first cycle iteration and continues until the plan is updated 5 years later
 when a new implementation phase begins.

.Stakeholder Involvement:  Stakeholder .involvement occurs largely through basin public
 meetings held in Years 4 and 5 of the cycle. Stakeholder associations formed in some
 basins and sub-basins play meaningful roles throughout the basin cycle in areas such as
 monitoring, assessment, prioritization, planning, and implementation.

 Strategic Monitoring: The/state uses a combination of fixed stations that are monitored
 each month within a statewide ambient network and strategic stations that are included
 during intensive monitoring periods for each basin. Monitoring serves a wide

                                       EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
range of assessment needs, including evaluation of use support status, water quality
trends analysis, problem identification and quantification, model calibration, use
attainability, arid evaluation of management strategy effectiveness.

Basin Assessment:  The current statewide approach relies largely on DEM's-assessments,
which include analyses of benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, fish, sediment,
ambient water-column physical and chemical parameters, and bacteria.  DEM also
assesses the trophic status of its lakes, and targeted surface waters are often modeled
using field-calibrated fate and transport models or empirically based statistical models.

Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources:  Management priorities are currently
established through an ad hoc process within DEM. The agency uses its own
assessment information, along with information obtained from other stakeholders, and
reaches an informal consensus among agency programs on the most important issues
Participating programs then decide how their resources should be targeted or leveraged
with others to address priority concerns.

Capability for Developing Management Strategies: North Carolina has a Basinwide
Coordinator who coordinates staff from participating programs to develop management
plans for each basin according to the state's basin management cycle schedule. TMDL
and WLA analyses are used for all point source management strategies. TMDLs
influence some NFS management activities, but most NFS actions are conducted
through  one or more of the 30+ individual programs in the state.

Basin Management Plans: North Carolina produces basin management plans according
to its basin management cycle. Plans are written  by DEM staff, undergo extensive
public review, and are approved by the state's Environmental Management
Commission. The first plans are being developed in the first basin cycle iteration  (to be
completed in 1998) and will be updated every 5 years thereafter. Each plan contains
policy and technical information summaries and  is intended to reach a wide spectrum
of stakeholders, ranging from internal staff to the regulated community and general
 public,  Detailed and highly technical information is placed in technical appendices or
supplemental documents for reference by the smaller audience interested in that  level of
 Basin Plan Implementation:  Current implementation activities emphasize issuance of
 NPDES  and state permits according to the plan. Areas targeted for NFS controls receive
 greater attention through selection of CWA §319  projects and coordination with
 agricultural cost-share programs. To the extent possible, statewide NFS programs focus
 on priorities for a given region that are highlighted in basin plans.

                                      EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
                     NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
                   Future Building Blocks    : ;

                   • Increased stakeholder involvement in and
                     support for basinwide planning workshops
                        :            _. :f.
                   > Cooperative watershed  projects     _
                     basin plans M;           ! - ;
Viewgraph 22: North Carolina (continued)
Future Building Blocks
DEM is working to involve more stakeholders outside the agency, and the division has
made progress in the area of outreach. The NC Cooperative Extension Service and the
NC League of Municipalities, for example, now co-sponsor basinwide planning
workshops with DEM to inform the. public and encourage broader participation earlier
in the management cycle than originally occurred. Cooperative watershed projects in
the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basins are also laying the groundwork for increased
coordination with USGS, SCS, and the NC Division of Soil and Water. Continued
coordination with outside agencies and local stakeholders is expected to result in
greater stakeholder commitments to address concerns that fall outside OEM's regulatory
authorities. As.stakeholder commitments increase, DEM anticipates that basin plans will
eventually contain more specific NPS control strategies.


       EXERCISE 1


                                                              EXERCISE 1
                                               FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
   Instructions for Exercise 1
 Background and Objectives                                     '
 This exercise simulates an initial meeting of prospective partners to discuss
 developing a statewide approach. As a group, you will draw upon the role
'descriptions that are inpluded with this exercise to simulate the process of
 stakeholders developing a consensus vision arid tailoring a statewide approach
 to meet their needs. The overall goal of Exercise 1 is to provide you with
 experience in working with others to assess the foundation for a statewide
 framework that will facilitate a common approach to resource management.
 This hands on exercise will also provide you with the opportunity to apply and
 evaluate the information in Modules 1 -A, listed below. Drawing upon that
 material, you will work with other participating "stakeholders" to simulate the
 discussions that must occur in order to develop working relationships with
 basin partners.
   •  Module!—Historical background and  a rationale for place-based
   •  Module 2—Definition of the nine common elements of statewide
      watershed management                 .
   •  ModuleS—Description of the statewide watershed management
      development process and how to initiate the process
   •  Module 4—Introduction of the process for tailoring the elements to
The scenario underlying this exercise is the initial meeting among potential
 partners in a statewide approach. The State Water Program has called the
 meeting to introduce the Statewide Watershed Management Proposal and to
 discuss the potential for partnerships. The participants have received outreach
 materials and information from  the State Water Program that are consistent
 with the information in Modules 1-4. Stakeholders are therefore familiar with
the terminology and the basic principles and elefhents being proposed (i.e.,
 geographic management units,  basin management cycle, and basin and
 watershed plans). The State Water Program wants to determine whether the
 proposal for statewide watershed management will facilitate formation of
 partnerships with the stakeholders convened for this meeting.       .

.The objectives of the meeting are to

   •  Promote communication  among stakeholders to raise awareness
      regarding key activities and issues for protecting and restoring of the
      resource                             	             .

                                                                  EXERCISE 1
                                                   FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
 •  Identify shared goals/ complementary objectives, and common needs among
    stakeholders'           .
 •  Identify potential impediments to development of statewide watershed
    management, and other areas of concern among stakeholders

 •  Develop an understanding of what each partner can contribute in terms of
    authorities, mandates, expertise; and resources

Detailed Exercise Instructions
We will divide the class into groups. Each group should take a few minutes to review
the basin stakeholder roles and select a facilitator and scribe to moderate and record
the discussion that emanates from the scenario described above. The group will have
55 minutes to address the questions listed in the problem formulation section of these
instructions. After the discussion period, the class will reassemble and be led through a
reporting out process by Course Instructors (20 min.).

The basin stakeholder roles that each group will consider during the exercise include:

  • State Water Program Manager(s)
  • EPA Regional Water Program Manager
  * Agricultural Agency Manager
  • Fish & Wildlife Agency Manager
  • President of an NPDES Discharger Association
  • Representative of State Municipal Drinking Water and Wastewater Utility
    Association                           »•
  * Forestry Agency Manager
  • Bureau of Land Management Manager
  • Geological Survey Representative
  • Representative of Environmental Organizations

A description for each role is contained on the pages that follow these instructions. The
Role Descriptions include the following information: role title, jurisdiction, agency
mandate, agency programs, issues, and activities of interest to the statewide approach
agency resources that can be committed to the statewide approach, and the goals and
interests of each constituent group. The group should try to explore each stakeholder
role in consideration of the problem formulation questions.

                                                  FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Problem Formulation        .
Discussion groups willbe asked to report on their findings in the-fol lowing six areas:
  •  What goals and objectives among participating stakeholders are complementary?
  •  What opportunities for collaboration do these shared goals and objectives provide?
  •  Do the statewide watershed management elements serve as catalysts or
   ' impediments to promoting integrated efforts among partners? (Be prepared to
    explain your answer.)                                     V     .
  •  Describe impediments to forming partnerships that your group has identified.
  »' Identify any program areas or components that should be excluded from the
    statewide framework and explain why.
  •  List other significant conclusions or observations resulting from your group's

                                                                             EXERCISE 1
                                                          . FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Rolel: State Water Program Manager(s)
Jurisdiction: Statewide
Agency Mandate: This agency has primary responsibility for administering statewide programs
regulating surface and ground water resources (water quality and water supply). TheAgency's programs
are governed by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and other federal
and state statutes.
Asency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:  The agency administrator, and key
"staff have discussed the concept of statewide watershed management development, and cons.der
integration of the following agency programs and activities as crucial to the effort's success:
   * Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
   • Environmental Assessment (including for CWA §305b)
   • Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling
   • TMDL Listing and Development (under CWA §303d)
   • Water Quality Standards                                        , ,             .
   • Nonpoint Source Management (including CWA §319)
   • NPDES Permitting and Enforcement
   • Ground Water Wellhead Protection
   • Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
   • Drinking Water Program
   • Wetlands Conservation Program
   • CWA §401 Certification
   • State Revolving Fund
   • Pollution Prevention                          ,        .                -
 Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
   • Substantial resources are available for agency operations through federal grants (e.g., CWA §106,
    205J, 604b), state appropriations, and various fees assessed on the regulated community.  Both staff
    and operating budgets under the above programs may be used at your discretion.
   • The agency  also administers funds for implementation projects (e.g., CWA §314 Lakes Restoration
     Grants, §319 NPS Demonstration Projects, and State Revolving Fund) that could be prioritized for
     use under a statewide watershed management approach.
 Goals and Interests:                                    ,
   • Leveraging resources for collecting, managing, and assessing environmental data.
    • Consolidating federal and state reporting and grant requirements.
    • Improving public outreach and involvement.
    • Addressing a broader range.of water quality stressojs with more comprehensive strategies.  .  •

                                                            FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 2:  EPA Regional Water Program Manager
Jurisdiction: States within EPA Region                                           ';

Agency Mandate: This agency has primary oversight responsibility for state implementation of key
federal environmental statutes and regulations involving the management of surface and ground water  ,
resources (water quality and water supply). These statutes and regulations include the Clean Water Act
(CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and several other
federal statutes. The region also offers education, technical assistance, grants, and loans for pollution

Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach: The agency administrator, and key
staff have discussed the concept of developing a statewide watershed management approach, and
consider integration of the following agency programs and activities as crucial to the effort's success:

  • Water Quality Management Programs (water quality standards, water quality management planning,
    TMDL/WLA, nonpoint source, environmental assessments, wetlands, Clean Lakes,  National  Estuary
    Program and other coastal programs, etc.)           ,

  • Ground Water (wellhead protection, CSGWP, sole source aquifer programs)
         i           ,                      '  •         ,.'•''•'                  .
  • Drinking Water (PWS/UIC program oversight, outreach, etc.)    '

  • NPDES Permitting

  • Enforcement

  « Municipal Facilities (state revolving fund, construction grants, technology transfer, pollution
    prevention, etc.)                   •                                   :
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:

  • Staff for administrative oversight, technical assistance, compliance monitoring, research and special
    studies.                                                         -

  • Grants for states for most water quality protection/restoration activities (e.g., CWA §106, 205{j], 314,
    319, and 604 [b]).                                     .

  • Funds for special studies or projects  (e.g:, 104[b] [3]).
Goals and Interests:

  • Ensuring accountability to Congress  for funds appropriated to state programs.

  « EPA regions require well-defined environmental objectives and documentation of the planning
    process and implementation in basin plans.

  • Translating traditional program requirements and benchmarks into basin objectives. Ensuring full
    compliance with the CWA and SDWA.         . .                                      -

  • Maximizing efficiency of procedures used to address environmental concerns.

  • Resolving transboundary issues (states, regions, and countries).

                                                                             EXERCISE 1
                                                           FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 3: Agricultural Agency Representative
Jurkdiction: Statewide (Representing both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: This stakeholder represents multiple agencies operating under the general mandate to
stabilize and support the efficient production, marketing, and distribution of food and fiber.  In addition
to commodity and public welfare programs, this stakeholder represents several .conservation programs
designed to assist private and public land owners or managers in natural resource conservation anjT
management. Related federal statutes include the Food and Agricultural Conservation and Trade Act,
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act,
Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:

  • Conservation Reserve Program (conserves/protects highly erodible land using vegetative cover and
    easements/annual rental payments)
  • Wetlands Reserve Program (protects or restores wetlands using easements/annual rental payment
    method)                                                             „             .
  • Conservation cross compliance programs (e.g., "Sodbuster" and "Swampbuster''; these programs deny
    subsidy payments to farmers who plow highly erodible land or dram wetlands)
  • Water Quality Incentives  Program (a watershed treatment program to improve/protect soil and water
    resources in watersheds impacted or threatened by NPS pollution)
  • Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program (promotes lower input methods of farming)

  • NRCS Small Watershed (PL-566) Program                                                  -
  • NRCS Natural Resource Assessment Programs (Soil Survey, Natural Resources Inventory, River Basin
  • ASCS Agricultural Conservation Program (cost-sharing for soil-conserving and water quality
    practices)                                                                           .  :
  • State and Federal Cooperative Extension Services

  • State Soil and Water Conservation Commissions .
 Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
   • Staff and equipment for technical assistance, program administration, research, and outreach.
   • Funds for cost-share grants, easements, rental subsidies, special studies, and watershed
    demonstration projects.
   information such as maps, data, environmental analysis, BMP selection and implementation
    guidance, BMP implementation status, etc.
 Goals and Interests:                              -.
   • Promoting and supporting agricultural production in a manner ^ complies with recommended
     conservation practices and other environmental legislation (e.g., CWA, MI-KA;.
   • Achieving environmental objectives (e.g., soil conservation, wetlands preservation) with minimal
     contact by regulatory agencies with individual Tandowners and agricultural businesses.

   • Improving incentives (financial) for land owners to implement BMPs.


                                                                              EXERCISE 1
                                                            FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 4:  Forestry Agency Representative

Jurisdiction: Statewide (Representing both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: This stakeholder represents multiple agencies operating under the general mandate to
manage the nation's forests and grasslands for sustained production and multiple use (e.g., timber,
grazing, fish, recreation, and water). These agencies oversee timber sales and harvest contracts, grazing
leases, and mineral development on forest lands and provides technical assistance to permit holders in
proper use of resources. Watershed and Ecosystem programs conduct overall planning and technical  -
support for forest management decisions.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:
  • USFS Permit Program (timber sales and harvest contracts, grazing leases, and minerals development
    on USFS property)
  • USFS Air and Watershed Programs (overall environmental planning and technical support for
    management decisions; special studies and watershed demonstration projects)
  • USFS Forest Stewardship Initiative (technical assistance and cost share for installing BMPs on private
    inholdings or lands adjacent to nation forest lands)
  • State Forestry BMP Education and Outreach Programs
  • State Enforcement Program                                .
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:                               ,
  • Staff for technical  assistance and compliance monitoring.
  • Funds for special studies and  watershed demonstration projects.
  • Information such as natural resource inventories, water,quality/habitat monitoring data,
    environmental analysis  of resource trends and conditions, BMP selection and implementation
    guidance.                                                 '
Goals and Interests:
  • Maintaining forest health with continued  use of forest resources by permittees and the public. Fbrest
    health extends beyond trees, (both commercial and noncommercial timber) to all habitats and species
    within the state's forests.                 '                 ...''','
  • Seeking assistance with  restoration projects in  upland streams, range lands, and abandoned mines
    that impact water  quality downstream.                                            .

                                                            FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 5:  Fish and Wildlife Agency Representative
jurisdiction: Statewide (Representing both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: This stakeholder represents state and federal agencies operating under the general
mandate to manage the nation's wildlife resources. Responsibilities include overseeing and regulating
public wildlife reserves and fish and wildlife harvesting, enforcing game and fish laws, protecting
endangered and threatened species, cooperatively administering national wetlands program, and
sponsoring special.studies such as fishery investigations and cooperative projects to enhance wildlife
Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:
  • Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and other laws on public and private agricultural land
    related to managing of wildlife resources.                                      .

Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
  • Staff for technical assistance, research, and enforcement.
  * Information such as fish and wildlife resource inventories (e.g., Natural Heritage Program), research
    reports and data on wildlife habitat and populations, educational materials and maps, etc.

Goals and Interests:
  • Restoring and preserving habitat for fish and wildlife, especially for endangered species. Example
    interests include protecting salmon stock from hydraulic intakes, preserving flow during critical times
    of the year, restoring stream channels that have been channelized, and preserving waterfowl habitat
    (i.e., wetlands).
  • Developing plans that designate critical habitat areas for protection and preservation.
  • Ensuring that agency consultations on endangered species have realistic management strategies that
    can be implemented.
  • Obtaining monitoring data on fish and waterfowl tissue contamination by persistent pollutants (e.g.,
    mercury, PCBs).                                                                .
  * Developing management programs for nonindigenous species that threaten indigenous species (e.g.,
    zebra mussels, feral pigs)

                                                                            EXERCISE 1
                                                           FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 6: Bureau of Land Management Representative
Jurisdiction:  Federal lands designated for agency oversight                         '•
Agency Mandate: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM.) is responsible for administration and
management of designated federal lands. This stakeholder oversees grazing leases, and mineral
exploration and extraction bids and leases on BLM lands.  This oversight includes providing technical
assistance to permittees regarding proper resource use. This stakeholder is also responsible for managing
fish and wildlife, forests, and cultural resources on lands within BLM jurisdiction. Additionally/the
agency oversees recreational uses of BLM land.                                 •
Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:

  • Grazing management
  • Mining leases (lease conditions for environmental controls and landscape restoration)

  • Abandoned mine cleanup           .                                    ' /
                     '.                  .              \           i •  •     •
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
  • Staff and equipment for technical assistance, oversight, and environmental analysis  and trend
    evaluation on BLM land.
  • Funds for special studies, cost-share for permittees for certain conservation practices, range ,
    improvement, riparian area management, and recreational area development projects.
  • Information such as maps, data, and reports on BLM lands.
  • Staff and equipment for technical assistance and implementation of ecological restoration of river
    corridors and degraded rangelands on BLM lands.
    '                   '     -             '            •          •            '
Coals and Interests:
  • Providing technical assistance to permittees on the proper use of resources granted  to their use, and
    oversight of other uses (e.g., recreation) on  BLM land.                •
  • Improving cooperation with downstream stakeholders to restore degraded upland grazing and
    riparian areas that impact water quality downstream.
  • Leveraging resources for addressing environmental problems associated with abandoned mines.

                                                                            EXERCISE 1
                                                           FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 7: Geological Survey Representative
jurisdiction:  Statewide (Representing both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: A primary part of the Geological Survey's mission is to provide hydrologic
information for managing the Nation's water resources. As such, the programs of the Geological Survey
involve delineating geologic drainage basins and patterns, conducting long-term baseline monitoring of
watef resources (quantity and quality), hydrologic and geologic investigations, and special intensive
short-term studies. Additionally your agency coordinates the activities of all federal agencies in
acquiring and storing of water data.                                            •
Agency Programs Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:
  • Topographic mapping and hydrologic unit delineation
  • Streamflow monitoring network                    ,
  • Ground water well monitoring network
  • Water resource investigations
  • Water use data collection
  • National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs, (where applicable)
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:                       .
  • Staff and equipment for technical assistance, field studies, research and special projects.
  • Matching funds for cooperative studies or projects with other governmental agencies.
  • Information such as  maps, data, and reports on geology, hydrology, water quality status and trends,,
Goals and Interests:                                                  .
  • Adhering to monitoring and data management protocols.
  • Maintaining consistency in long-term monitoring network.  .
  • Collecting scientifically defensible water quality  and quantity data.

                                                          FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
        Role 8:  Representative of State Drinking Water and

      ^Wastewater Utility Managers Association

Jurisdiction:  Statewide
Organization Mandate: This stakeholder represents numerous local municipal utility districts operating
throughout the state.  Local utilities oversee the construction, operation, and maintenance of public
works projects for drinking water and wastewater.  As such, this group's members must comply with
numerous environmental mandates,  including applicable provisions of the Clean Watef Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.
Constituency Activities Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:

  • Wastewater discharge (planning, constructing, operating, maintaining)
  • Water supply delivery (planning; constructing, operating, maintaining)

  • Compliance monitoring
  • Ambient monitoring (voluntary and mandatory)

  • Pollution prevention programs

  • Pretreatment programs                                    .
Organization Resources at Your Disposal:
  • Utility districts collect a  broad range of environmental information such as monitoring data, reports
    on water issues, district maps.
  • Association members may contribute funds to special projects.              •              ,
  • A well established distribution and communication network with utility subscribers (e.g., billing
    network) within service districts  provides a mechanism for direct contact with citizen stakeholders
    regarding basin issues.
Goals and Interests:                                .                    "         ,
  • Ensuring that wastewater treatment plants are not assigned disproportionate responsibility for
    reducing pollutant loadings where needed in the basin.  That is, all pollutant control options
    including nonpoint sources are considered in the management strategy.
  • Establishing closer ties to rural and urban nonpoint source pollution control programs for source
 •   (drinking water) protection objectives.
  • Protecting the quantity and quality of drinking water available to districts.
  • Establishing a pollutant trading program that allows members to meet pollution control goals more
    cost effectively.                   ;   ,                          '

                                                                           EXERCISE 1
                                                         FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
       Role 9:  Representative of Environmental Organizations

Jurisdiction: Statewide (Having connections with state and national organizations.)   '•
Organization Mandate: This stakeholder represents numerous environmental organizations (i.e., a
consortium) throughout the state. Various groups have formed to protect and restore the env.ronment at
fame or ^address specific issues. Some groups actively lobby for environmental laws and programs, as
3 as fading. Many perform volunteer services such as water quality momtormg or natural resource
rehabilitation work.                                                      .
Constituency Activities Considered Important to the Statewide Approach:

  • Volunteer ambient water quality monitoring

  • Ecological restoration projects
  • Public outreach projects
Organization  Resources at Your Disposal:
  • Staff and volunteers for assistance with local projects.
  • Information such as-monitoring data, reports on environmental issues, educational materials and
  • Limited funds .from members for special projects, including cooperative work.

Goals and Interests:                                            ,
  • Preserving and expanding outdoor recreation  opportunities
  • Preserving open space and habitat (e.g., wetlands, wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, ancient
  '• Promoting biodiversity and compliance with the Endangered Species Act
  • Ensuring pollution is sufficiently controlled (Point and Nonpoint Source)

  • Ensuring water quality standards are enforced

      EXERCISE 2


                                           -•'_...'               EXERCISE 2
       Instructions for Exercise 2
 Background and Objectives    .' •  •                                '        .
 Extending the simulation started in Exercise 1, Exercise 2 begins to define potential
 roles and responsibilities among stakeholders for activities integrated under a statewide
 watershed approach. The setting is a second meeting among partners during which
 specific roles and responsibilities within the framework will be clarified.. Discussions
 are structured around the basin management activity cycle and a basin plan outline,
 developed arid distributed by the State Water Program to each stakeholder. Partners
 are being asked to use these products to define their specific roles and responsibilities
 at each step of the cycle, including basin plan production and implementation. For
 example, partners will determine key tasks, as well as which of them will play principal
 roles in developing, documenting, and implementing strategic monitoring plans; tasks
 and roles for assessment; and so on for each step identified in the cycle. •  ' <  '

 This exercise has been conducted in.several states that have developed a statewide
 watershed management approach. Typically, the discussions have primarily involved
 state programs and agencies; federal and local agencies have participated only
 infrequently. The results, however, have been very successful whenever federal and
 local agencies have been included. Again, Exercise 2 includes a diversity of local,
 state, and federal roles so that you can more fully understand the benefits afforded by a
 broad-based approach.                  .                 '

The objectives of this second simulated meeting are to
   •  Provide experience in statewide watershed management brainstorming sessions
      among statewide partners using specific objectives

   •  Demonstrate how examining cycle steps and products can help determine where
      resources of individual partners can be best used or pooled with those of other
      partners for key activities

   •  Emphasize the importance of communication and coordination to developing
      and implementing basin management plans                  ,

 Detailed Exercise Instructions
 The class will be divided into groups, as in Exercise 1.  Each group will select a new
 facilitator and scribe to moderate and record the discussion. The discussion notes can
 be structured by cycle step. Because of the time constraint for the exercise, groups
 should focus on a limited number of steps rather than try to describe the activities for
 all steps. For example, describe the stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities

                                       -      >                    EXERCISE 2
only for those steps selected by the group. As before, the group will have a few minutes
tq review the background materials (i.e., generic basin plan and.generic basin •
management cycle) and 55 minutes to discuss stakeholder roles and responsibilities.
After the discussion period, the class will reassemble and be led through a reporting out
process by course instructors (20 minutes).

Problem  Formulation
Each group should report on their findings in the following three areas:
 . • Identification of lead and support roles at each step of the proposed basin
    • management cycle                               /
  • Identification of organizational structures or forums to promote communication,
   ' coordinate planning, integrate decision-making, and ensure progress through the
    cycle                •                   ,
  • List of support needs and recommendations for maintaining the organizational
    structures or forums

                                                                  EXERCISE 2
        Generic Basin Plan Outline

This generic basin plan outline for Exercise 2 is based on examples from several states.
        The basin plan introduction provides historical background information;
        introduces the basin planning process and participating agencies; and the
        purpose of the plan.
          1.1   Historical perspective on basin management efforts and vision for the
          1.2   Purpose of the basin plan as a comprehensive management and
               stewardship guide for stakeholders
          1.3   Description of basin management participants

    2.0 RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION                                 '
  ,      The background descriptions included in Chapter 2 cover a.broad range of
        basin  attributes that provide essential information for the multi-objective
        planning process. To the extent possible this information is displayed in
        graphic format.                                        .
          2.1   Physical, geographic, hydrologic, and ecological features, including  .
               discussion of ground water/surface water interface
          2.2   Summaries of governmental organization and population demographics
          2.3   Economic base
          2.4   Land use/land cover, including practices
          2.5  Water body use, classifications, and standards (streams, lakes, ground
              water, wetlands, estuaries)
          2.6   Fish and Wildlife
          2.7  Cultural Resources                                       •
          2.8  Other Resources

                                                                 EXERCISE 2
3.0  ASSESSMENT OF THE BASIN.                              .
     The purpose of this chapter is to clearly convey the condition of the resources
     described in Chapter 2.

      3.1  Surface Water

      3.2  Ground Water

      3.3  Fish and Wildlife
      3.4  Habitat/ Special Ecosystems (e.g., wetlands, estuaries, forests, riparian)

      3.5  Cultural Resources
      3.6  Other Resources (Air)                   .

     The purpose of this chapter is to identify the sources and causes of impairment
     identified in the assessment. Sub-basin summaries are included in the appendix.

      4.1  Point Sources                       .
             4.1.1  NPDES Permitted Wastewater Dischargers

             4.1.2 NPDES Permitted Stormwater Dischargers


       4.2  Nonpoint Sources
            Identify and describe nonpoint sources of concern within the basin,
            including such types as land development, construction, crop production,
            animal operations, landfills, leaking.underground storage tanks, failing
            septic systems, etc.

       4.3  Loading Determinations
            Provide loading estimates for key parameters, including, where appropriate,
            conventional pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, and
            fecal coliform bacteria), and toxic substances (e.g., metals and orgamcs).

                                                                  EXERCISE 2
       4.4  Degraded Physical Habitat

          , Stream channel alterations, riparian habitat, wetlands'filling, etc.

       4.5  Hydrological Modifications

           Stream diversions, drawdown, flushing, extreme fluctuations, etc.

       4.6  Exotic Species

           Zebra mussels, feral pigs, nonnative sports fish, etc.
                    ,              '            t   —                      .


     .Chapter 5 describes the methods used in the basin planning process to establish
     priorities. The resulting priority concerns and issues are also reported.

       5.1  Priority Setting Method

           Ranking method                           .

       5.2  Priority Setting Results

           River Basin Concerns
'.  • '        Priorities for additional data col lection


     Management strategies are developed only for priority issues (by watershed),
     because resources are limited for rigorous quantification and technical analyses
     that are required.  Many management strategies require a high level of precision
     and certainty. For example, some areawide wasteload allocations will require
     well developed TMDLs to support a pollutant trading program. Reconfiguration
     and restoration of physical habitat will require a detailed hydrological analysis.
     Please note that the management strategies address a broad range of stressors,
     include and economic analysis, and a detailed implementation plan.

       6,1  Watershed A   , '  •

             6.1.1  Priority #1
                   Development of Management Option
                      Description of Problem
                   .   Overview of Management Options
                      Technical analysis (quantification, modeling, other techniques)
                      Economic Analysis

          '   '-  '   '  ..    '           E2-5    .     .   "                   .  •

                                   •  -  •   '                  EXERCISE 2
                 Implementation Strategy
                    Tasks and Responsible parties        -.
                    Methods and Means for Implementation

           6.1-N Priority #N
                 Development of Management Option
                 Implementation Strategy

      6.N Watershed N


    Issues to be addressed in future iterations of the basin management cycle.

      7.1  Issue identified but not  addressed

          Data needs                         ,
          Resource needs
          Technical needs

      7.N Issue identified but not addressed

          , Data needs
          Resource needs
          Technical needs

                                                                 EXERCISE 2
      Basin Management Cycle for Exercise 2
               ACTIVITY STEP
                                                      MONTHS 1-3
                                                                  MONTHS 3-1 8
                                                                  MONTHS 1 9-24
                                                     MONTHS 25-27
                                                                  MONTHS 28-36
                                               MONTHS 37-45
                                               MONTHS 55-60
                                                AND BEYOND
            10. REPEAT CYCLE