United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4203)
EPA 833-R-96-006
March 1994
SEPA
The Statewide Watershed
Management Course
-------
-------
MODULE!
COURSE INTRODUCTION
-------
-------
Contacts
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
202/260-1718
Instructors: J. Trevor Clements, Contractor
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Executive Park, Suite 100
1920 Highway 54
Durham, NC 27713
919/544-6639
Clayton S. Creager, Contractor
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
2436 Foothill Boulevard, Suite J
Calistoga,CA94515 ,
707/942-6907 -
111
-------
-------
-------
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. Page
MODULE!: COURSE INTRODUCTION
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
MODULE 2: OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ' ' ;
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 .
MODULES: GETTING STARTED
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
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
MODULE 4: ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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 , ' "
MODULE 5: DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS .
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°
MODULE 6: MAKING THE -TRANSITION
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 . ' -
MODULE 7: PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
Purpose of Module "
Learning Objectives -
Simultaneous Operation in Multiple Basins ' j>
Balancing Operational Needs '
Communicating Basin Plan Goals and Stakeholder Roles 7-5
VI
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Example Effects on Program Operations .....'........ 7-9
Case Study Examples of Statewide Activities ......... . . . .... . 7-15
MODULES: EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Purpose of the Module .8-1
Learning Objectives . . . ... . . ... 8-2
Delaware /. . . . 8-3
Idaho ..;..... 8-12
Nebraska ....... . . ........ 3-22
North Carolina ................... 8-32
EXERCISE 1: FORGING PARTNERSHIPS FOR STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT . El-1
EXERCISE 2: INTEGRATING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG STAKEHOLDERS- ...:... .....: E2-1
Vll
-------
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
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
IX
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(Continued)
Page
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 ;
-------
MODULE!
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.
1-1
-------
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
Milestones
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
integrated
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
management
Video: Partnership for Watersheds
Module 2: Overview of Statewide Watershed
Management
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
process
. Establish method(s) for communication
among partners
Identify existing and potential impediments to
developing and implementing a statewide
approach
Develop a work plan for framework
development
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
^process
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]
1-3
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Exhibit 1-1. Continued
Framework Development and Implementation
Milestones
Training Component
Tailoring Statewide Framework Elements
(continued)
Build capability to develop integrated
management strategies
Establish desired'level and methods of public
participation
Develop prioritization and targeting criteria
and methods
Select basin assessment methods and
environmental indicators
Develop strategic monitoring protocols
Define key implementation methods and
means
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
participation
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
solutions
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
implementation
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
needed
Module 7: Putting a Statewide Approach Into
Practice
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
1-4
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
USING GEOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT UNITS
Ecoregions
(denoted by shading)
= Southeastern Plains
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plains
Small Watershed
(draining small
waterbody system)
Large Watershed
(sub-basin)
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.
1-5
-------
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
example,
'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
strategies.
1-6
-------
MODULE!
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.
1-7
-------
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.
1-8
_
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE
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.
1-9
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
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.
1-10
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
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.
1-11
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
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.
1-12
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
Wetland
Habitat
Degradation
Stormwater, CSO,
and Wastewater
Discharge
Runoff/Infiltration
- from Animal
' ^r Operations and
^r Crop Fanning
Contamination
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.
1-14
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
THE EMERGING FRAMEWORK
Overall Coal: Ecosystem
Integrity (Human Health
and Aquatic Life) /Resource
Criteria for Protection
Coordination
Framework
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
watershed.
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
1-15
-------
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.
1-16
-------
MODULE!
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
1-17
-------
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.
1-18
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Watershed Protection Approach
Individual Watershed
Protection Projects
National Estuary
Program Projects
Statewide Watershed
Management
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.
1-19
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZING WATERSHEDS AT THE
STATE LEVEL
ructure
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
statutes.
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. ...'..
1-20
-------
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.
1-21
-------
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
-------
-------
. . MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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. .
2-1
-------
MODULE!
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
management.
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
stakeholders.
Identify benefits of implementing a statewide approach, along with lessons learned
from existing efforts of states that have pioneered the approach.
2-2
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMON ELEMENTS
Basin Management Cycle
^^^ Basin
Geographic ^^B Assessment
Management
Units
Priontization &
Developing \ Targeting
Management
Strategies
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.
2-3
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
separately.
2-4
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT 1. GEOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT
UNITS
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. . .
2-5
-------
' MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT 2. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
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
2-6
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
management.
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,
including
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
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
3. A STATEWIDE BASIN
MANAGEMENT CYCLE
Year I Year I Yew I Year I Year I Year Year Year Year
Croup
Baiin
Croups
El Inteiuive Monitoring
PH AnnmentandPrioritization
B Management Strategy Development
Buhi Plan Review and Approval
Implementation
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.
2-8
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-9
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
basin
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
2-10
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
2-11
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
: . ' » '
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.
2-12
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
'_
ELEMENT 5.
BASIN ASSESSMENT ,
s - """" '" ' T-"
Early
Stage
Assess water
quality and ' ^
identify causes
of impairment
Middle
Stage
i Quantify
problems and <
apply predictive
models
Later
Stage
£
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
corrective measures
Purposes change throughout cycle.
f
j
i
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.
2-13
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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. -:
2-14
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT 6. ASSIGNING PRIORITIES AND
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:
2-15
-------
' . ' MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Prioritization
* 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
Targeting
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.
2-16
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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)
TECHNICAL/
PROFESSIONAL INPUT
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
BO
2?
Function and value of resource
Feasibility of controls
Degree of pollution reduction
Site-specific data
Watershed modeling
-Yes-
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
OTHER INPUT
I Experience in other States
Public input (public meetings,
committees, questionnaires)
Institutional strengths,
authority, interest of
local agencies
Criteria
update needed
for next
iteration?
Private funding of controls.
Public funding/incentives
Local regulations/support
2-17
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT 7. CAPABILITY FOR DEVELOPING
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.
2-18
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-19
-------
MODULE 2
. OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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). :
2-20
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
pollutants
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 .--.'.'
2-21
-------
' MODULE 2
. OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-22
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
INTEGRATING KEY ELEMENTS WITHIN A
BASIN: A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE FOR BIG
RIVER BASIN
Story contained in
Appendix 2-A
Example limited to
integrating elements within
single basin
Highlights local, state, and .
federal roles
{MmmaM^w
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.
2-23
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF A STATEWIDE
APPROACH
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.
2-24
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-25
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF A STATEWIDE
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 agenciesthose 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.
2-26
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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
needs.
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.
2-27
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF A STATEWIDE
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
2-28
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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 cycleaquatic 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.
2-29
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
"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
essential
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
2-30
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-31
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
"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.
2-32
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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.
2-33
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ROLES IN FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION
* Shaped by authorities and capabilities of
participants
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. . '
2-34
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
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)
2-35
-------
-------
APPENDIX TO
MODULE 2
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
DEMONSTRATING INTEGRATION OF
KEY ELEMENTS FOR BIG RIVER BASIN
-------
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR BIG RIVER BASIN
3
M*WV
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Exhibit 2A-1. Big River Basin Management Cycle
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVITY STEP
TIMING
'
1 .
/^STAKEHOLDER \ .
V INVOLVEMENT /"^
-
(STAKEHOLDER "\
INVOLVEMENT ji
-^
(STAKEHOLDER "\.
INVOLVEMENT J^
-~
(STAKEHOLDER "\_
INVOLVEMENT f~^
1 . CONDUCT INITIAL OUTREACH AND ORGANIZE BASIN
AND WATERSHED TEAMS/COMMITTEES
2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN INFORMATION
>
f
3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE INFORMATION -
^
4. PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
>
f
5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS OF PRIORITY ISSUES
f
6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
>
7. PREPARE/UPDATE DRAFT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
>
8. FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
MONTHS 1 -3
MONTHS 3-1 8
MONTHS 1 9-24
MONTHS 25-27
MONTHS 28-36
MONTHS 37-45
MONTHS 46-48
i
MONTHS 49-54
k '
9. IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS '
10. REPEAT CYCLE I
WON 1 Mb DD-OU
AND BEYOND
2A-2
-------
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.
2A-3
-------
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
INFORMATION
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
2A-4
-------
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
2A-5
-------
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.
2A-6
-------
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.
2A-7
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 2
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
'STEP 5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS'
OF PRIORITY ISSUES
Key Activities
4 Partners integrate efforts to perform detailed
assessments
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.
2A-8
-------
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-.
2A-9
-------
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
implementation
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.
2A-10
-------
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
PLANS
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 .
activities.
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.
2A-11
-------
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
Watervillealong with its local, state, and federal partnersis 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
progressessystematically building on previous efforts and bringing new concerns to
lightin a process that is designed to continually improve management of Big River
Basin's waters.
2A-12
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
-------
-------
MODULES
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.
3-1
-------
MODULES
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
document
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.
3-2
-------
MODULES
GETTING STARTED
ESTABLISHING A COMMON DIRECTION
Championing development
Ensuring transition from a program focus
to a resource focus
Recruiting partners
Initiating the framework development
process
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.
3-3
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
ESTABLISHING A COMMON DIRECTION
recruiting stakeholders
[verse stakeholders
i recruitment pkrt
; admhii^ative, and
environmental rationales for recruiting
-'
Identifyin
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 possiblean 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 .
-------
MODULES
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
StrategyRipple 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.
3-5
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
ESTABLISHING A COMMON DIRECTION
Achieving a Common Vision
Identifying complementary benefits
for participating stakeholders
Authoring a unified mission
statement
Ensuring interagency
commitment
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.
3-6
-------
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.
3-7
-------
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.
Mission
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.
Goals
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
quality
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
guidelines.
3-8
-------
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
Introduction
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
manner
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
Outline
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.
3-9
-------
MODULES
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
possible.
Timelines
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
3-10
-------
MODULES
GETTING STARTED
MANAGING FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
ESTABLISH A
RESOURCE BASE
ESTABLISH
GROUND RULES
IDENTIFY A
LEADER
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.
3-11
-------
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
i
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. . ' .
3-12
-------
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.
3-13
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
IDENTIFYING IMPEDIMENTS
Financial
Legal
Staff
Stakeholder
Transitional
Institutional
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).
3-14
-------
MODULES
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,
including
- 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?
j
- 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
road.
3-15
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
DOCUMENTING THE APPROACH: STATEWIDE
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. , .
3-16
-------
MODULES
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
(Continued)
3-17
-------
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
3-18
-------
MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE
COORDINATION ELEMENTS
-------
-------
'''- MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
Pnontizationi
Developing \ Targeting
Management
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.
4-1
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
4-2
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
FORMAT FOR DEVELOPING PLANS
. ' Basin Management Cycle
The primary objective
is to determine the
desired type and
level of information
for communicating
with stakeholders.
Prioritization&
Developing I T»0jeting
Management
Strategic!
Basin and \
.Watershed
Management
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.
4-3
-------
.' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
4-4
-------
'.'-..;, .''.-.'' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-5
-------
MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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 RangeIn 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 RangeDuring initial implementation of the framework, plans
'should be prepared for approval by the Water Quality Division Director.
Audience and Purpose
Audience
Purpose
NDEQ
EPA
Other State and
Federal Agencies
Regulated
Community
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
direction
Education; communication and outreach; aid long-
range planning
Education; communication and outreach; facilitate
participation
Communication; raise awareness of process and
resource needs'/legislative needs
4-6
-------
-, -: '".-"'.'./.' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-7
-------
' ' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
Chapter 5 provides General Management Strategies for the basin, with descriptions,
of statewide point and nonpoint source control programs that apply generally to the
basin.
i
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.
4-8
-------
, '. .' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-9
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
GEOGRAPHIC UNIT DELINEATION
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.
4-10
-------
-',-''' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
4-11
-------
MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE 'COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
supply
Geography
Demographics (current and projected)
Loading from septic systems and sewers
Ratio of unpermitted to permitted
activities
Water quality condition
1 Columbia Gorge <-o Horseheaven/Kitckitat,
Water Quality Management Area boundary
Water Resource inventory Area (WRIA) boundary
4-12
-------
, ' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
GEOGRAPHIC UNIT DELINEATION (CONT.)
South Carolina
Sub-Basins
Savarinah-Salkehatchie
0101 Seneca
0102 " UpperSavannah
0103 Lower Savannah
0104 Salkehatch'ie
Saluda-Edisto
0201 Upper Saluda
0202 Lower Saluda-Congaree
0203 Edisto
Catawba-Santee
0301 Catawba
0302 Santee
0303 Ashley-Cooper
Pee Dee
040,1 Lynches
Great Pee Dee
Waccamaw
0402
0403
Broad
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-
basins.
4-13
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
GEOGRAPHIC UNIT DELINEATION (CONT.)
uses
Cataloging
Unit
River Basin
14-Digit NRCS
Watershed
Stream
Waterbody
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
4-14
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-15
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-16
-------
;' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
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.
4-17
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
Basin
Group 1
Basin
Group 2
Basin
Group 3
Basin
Group 4
Basin
Group 5
Intensive Monitoring
Assessment and Prioritization
Management Strategy Development
Basin Plan Review and Approval
Implementation
4-18
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
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.
4-19
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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
workload.)
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
4-20
-------
:,. ,'' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
! 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
4-21
-------
' ' '. MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
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.
4-22
-------
MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
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.
4-23
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
Exhibit 4-5. Steps in Nebraska's Basin
Management Cycle
YEARl
v
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 [
YEARS
4-24
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
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.
4-25
-------
' MODULE 4
ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE COORDINATION ELEMENTS
, >
-? 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
4-26
-------
APPENDIX TO
MODULE 4
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
-------
-------
BMA MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
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 " ' .'-.--. ' , '
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
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
(TMDLs).
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
4A-2
-------
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. ' ,
4A-3
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
o .
2
o .
M
"*
*>
a
*
a
a
X
o
M
a
a
»- M.
s
o
o
m
a
a
Q
X
0
n
<
_,
.,
a
«
a
B*
c
3
C
»
*
a
«
j
2'
_._ _ & 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
%
*
4
< u
a u
'"S
t
a-
z
0
0
S
5
a.
a
n «
a: v>
£
n
v
I
tu
(O
n a ,a
Z « 2 ^
V 2 m S
=5 m « 2-
H o) 2 §"
E 5 U K
Q.
-
4A-4
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
o
z
o
«
<
T
^
X
<
X
M.
a
" z
o
»
<
T
-1
X
<
X
4 .«.
O
X
X
*- Ik
1
<
r
i
-
u.
n:
"
u.
K
0)
O
O
O
T
f
J
I
t
CL
<
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
.
u.
e
K
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
at
a a.
a <
o <
0 <
o 3
u i
u a
o 3
u 1
u 3
9 *
9 t
a
IL
a.
a
8 o
8 n
a 0
a o
o
p
_ Jf
_ f
_ jr
z I
z S
Z Q.
Z <
z
z
z
a
a .
ai
a -
o, -
o _
u _
o _
0 _
u _
9 -.
9 _
8
8
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
a
o
o
u
0
u
8
9
u.
a.
te.
te,
te
0
a
m
0
O
o
O
0
o
o
CJ
0
I'
T
J"
i
<
<
^
4
3
4
a
*
t
-
8
8
a
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
o
o
u
u
o
8
9
a
e
0!
a
0
(/)
0,
0
o
o
o
i.
I
f
f
t
a.
<
<
f
3
a
a
t
t
-
-
u
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
a
a
0
o
0
0
0
8
I
I
i
o
o
m z
w z
0 z
0 z
O 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
1,,
I u
a u
a o
I 8
-
_ I
u. 2
0! I
te t
5 * t
J IE
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
au-
a u
a u
a o
t, 9
t
-
x
_ 8
u. 8
K a
e a
s K a
S K
S K
J 0
I Q
m z
p z 0 z o z < o < a < a
afzafzl'z<0zozoza'za'za''z
ozozozaaaaa1
OZ0zaza.ao.3a.
ozozoz
S m
« I s
2 CO S
m u =
Re
II
B
£
. ±i
4A-5
-------
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE
ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
-------
-------
' MODULES
DEFINING GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
PURPOSE OF MODULE
To provide
recommendations
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.
5-1
-------
MODULES
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
5-2
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
BUILD CAPABILITY TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED
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.
5-3
-------
' 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.
5-4
-------
MODULES
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
Coordination
Statewide
Regional
Watershed
Administrative Unit
Composition
IDEQ
Citizens' Watershed
Task Forces
Watershed
Advisory Groups
Watershed
Technical
Planning Teams
Agency Staff
Citizens Appointed by
Regional Administrator
Interested Public
Living or Working in
Watershed
Interested
Agencies
5-5
-------
MODULES
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?
5-6
-------
MODULES
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.
5-7
-------
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.
5-8
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INTO
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. "
5-9
-------
' MODULE 5
DEFINING'GORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTINUED)
Public
Participation
Management
Progress
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.
5-10
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(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
initiatives.
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.
5-11
-------
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.
5-12
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTINUED)
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.
5-13
-------
' MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
METHODS
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 targetingproactive 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.
5-14
-------
MODULES
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.
5-15
-------
' ' ' . ' MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
REFINING PRIORITIZATIOM AND TARGETING
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
5-16
-------
MODULES
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.
5-17
-------
' 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
habitat.
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. . . .
5-18
-------
MODULES
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
approach.
5-19
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-3. Continued
Problem Indicated:
* Standards violation
Use impairment
Rapid watershed
development
No recent data
Problems
expected
to increase
Problems
n6t
expected
to increase
Priority for
Controls:
Mgmt. tools
available
Mgmt. tools
unavailable
Mgmt. tools
available
Mgmt. tools
unavailable
Mgmt. tools
available
Mgmt. tools
unavailable
.5
No ranking
Priority
for Data
Collection:
Problems
expected
to increase
Problems
not
expected
to increase
5-20
-------
MODULES
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
Agriculture
Priority Areas/Sensitive Areas
NPDES Discharges
Landfills/Hazardous Waste Sites
Fish Kills
Groundwater Use Areas
5-21
-------
' ' MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-5. Consensus-Based Ranking System Used in
Washington
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.
(continued)
5-22
-------
MODULES
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. -.."-'
5-23
-------
MODULES
DEFINING 'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
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.
5-24
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
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
operations.
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
enforcement
The amount of effort placed on habitat restoration
The types and amount of public outreach ' . ; ,.
5-25
-------
. /
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
IDENTIFYING BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS
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.
5-26
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
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). ,
5-27
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
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
areas:
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?
5-28
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
Changes in existing methods
Increased access to a broader range of
information
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.
5-29
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC MONITORJNG
ELEMENT .
B»in Management Cycle
Purpose is to
coordinate
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
5-30
-------
MODULES
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
effectiveness.
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.
5-31
-------
' 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
appropriately.
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). '
5-32
-------
MODULES
DEFINING' CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
/
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
development.
5-33
-------
MODULES
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
Carolina.
5-34
-------
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
streamlined.
5-35
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
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
5-36
-------
MODULES
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.
5-37
-------
''..'... MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
Primary input through
formal planning -process
i Secondary feedback from
j implementation process
-.>>-" "
'-Monitoring
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.
5-38
-------
MODULES
DEFINING 'CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
* Increased time required for planning
f Improved access to quality-assured data
4 Increased information management
requirements
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.
5-39
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
PREPARING FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
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)
5-40
-------
MODULES
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMEATTS
PREPARING FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
(CONTINUED)
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
goals.
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.
5-41
-------
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
-------
-------
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. ,
6-1
-------
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
functions
»
* 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
6-2
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
EVALUATING REFINEMENTS TO
ORGANIZATION
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.
6-3
-------
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
Partners
Coordinate constituencies
Provide technical expertise and resources
* Participate in management cycle
activities
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
Stakeholders
Participate in basin meetings
Provide input/feedback
Coordinate constituencies
Implement nonregulatory plan
components
Conduct outreach/education
6-4
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
EVALUATING REFINEMENTS TO OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURES
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
efficiently.
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.
6-5
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING PLANNING PROCEDURES
cycle
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. .
6-6
-------
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
6-7
-------
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). .
NE
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.
6-8
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING BUDGETING PROCEDURES
Areas to Review
Merging statewide framework "
administration with government budget
recycles , ^,
:. . ;v--v. **
4 Allocating funds consistent with targeting
decisions
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. ' . ; ' . .' '
6-9
-------
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
format?
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
decisions,
- 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.
6-10
-------
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.
6-11
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
Exhibit 6-3. Targeting Funds to Priority Issues
Using a Consolidated Funding Process
State Funding
Sources
$
(50%)
Permit and Other
User Fees
$ | (20%)
Federal Grants:
§106, §201, §31 9,
OSDA, etc.
$
(30%)
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
regulation
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
program
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
W4
N. Habitat restoration in W2
' W stands for watershed
6-12
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING DIRECTING PROCEDURES
^...Translating basin prioritiesinto
program[ work plan priorities
\ \ :;5.<:X. I':'.. j..\':.i- :"!'!?i>
4 Gphductirig'activHles that occur
outside the basin management
cycle'
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.
6-13
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
[ps*P
REFINING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
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. ,
6-14
-------
MODULES
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTINUED)
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
cycle
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.
6-.15
-------
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
assessment.
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.
6-16
-------
MODULE 6
'MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTINUED)
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.
6-17
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTINUED)
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
levels.
6-18
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING PROCEDURES FOR MEASURING
SUCCESS
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
6-19
-------
MODULES
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
involved.
Exhibit 6-4. Example Environmental Indicators
Assessment Endpoint
Habitat
Biota
Surface Water Quality
Ground Water Quality
Hydrology
Measurement Endpoint
Surface area of aquatic, sandbar, riparian, and wetlands
habitat
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 _^_^___________
6-20
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
REFINING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
PROCEDURES
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
6-21
-------
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.
6-22
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
DEVELOPING A TRANSITION PLAN
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. . '
6-23
-------
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.
6-24
-------
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
time.
Phase
III
Near-Term
Objectives
Long-Term
Objectives
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.
6-25
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION
IMPLEMENTING THE FRAMEWORK
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;
6-26
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE
APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
-------
-------
' ' MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE-APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
PURPOSE OF MODULE
To review considerations for and
examples of statewide watershed
management operations, along
with effects on commonly involved
programs
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.
7-1
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to better understand
Managing simultaneous operations in multiple basins
Balancing statewide framework operations with other
needs
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
7-2
-------
' MODULE?
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION IN MULTIPLE
BASINS
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 basinBig 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. . '.
7-3
-------
' .-- .'' MODULE?
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
BALANCING OPERATIONAL NEEDS
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
V
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.
7-4
-------
MODULE?
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
COMMUNICATING BASIN PLAN GOALS AND
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.
7-5
-------
' MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
.. HOD
SdN
vasn
.vda
SHdDI
9O3
OSSAV
Mdd-Dd
VHDd-Dd
tfNd
3dP\[
Od-DddDNW
HHd-Od
DJM-DddDNW
dHd-DPM
Exhibit 7-1. Goals and Objectives for Stakeholders
in the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Project
W?\
GOAL 1 STORMWATER: Dramatically reduce pollutant loads delivered to the tidal estuary to
improve water quality conditions by the turn of the century
S
'
S
S
S
S
S
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
S
S
S
S
"
S
S
S
S
S
.S
S
S
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
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
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 .
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
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
S
S '.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
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.)
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
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
S
S.
S
S
S
S
Removal of Fish Barriers: Strategically remove or modify fish barriers to expand the
available spawning range for both anadromous and resident native fish
S
S .
S
S
S
Improve Habitat Quality: Improve the quality of spawning habitat in the lower Anacostia
through the installation of instream habitat improvement structures
7-6
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
HOD
. SdN
vasn
Vd3
SHdDI
ODD
DSSAV
AVdd-Dd
VHDd-DQ
HNd
HdPM
Od-DddONW
H3d-0d
3PM-DddDNW
d3d-3W
* 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
s
s
s
s
s
|| Wetlands Protection: Prevent further net loss of wetlands in the watershed as a result of new
1 development and other activities
V
S
S
S
s
,s
s
1 Urban Wetland Restoration: Restore the ecological function of existing degraded wetland
areas
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
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
S
S
S
s
s.
s
s
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
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
» Watershed Reforestation: Take full advantage of existing local, state, federal and private
resources to extensively reforest suitable sites throughout the basin
> r
s
w '
s
s
1 ~
s '||
s
'
s
s
s
s
s
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
S
S
S
s
s\
s
s
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 . '
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
. ' \ "
s
s
s
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
7-7
-------
' MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
COE
COG
DC-DCRA
DC-DPW
DNR
EPA
ICPRB
MC-DEP
MDE
MNCPPC-MC
MNCPPC-PG
NPS
PG-DER
USDA
WASUA
WSSC
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.
7-8
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
EXAMPLE EFFECTS ON PROGRAM OPERATIONS
All Programs: Increased collaboration to achieve
goals through cost-effective management
strategies
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
7-9
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
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.
7-10
-------
' MODULE?
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
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.
7-11
-------
' MODULE?
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
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
7-12
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
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.
7-13,
-------
'..'. MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
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.
7-14
-------
' MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
CASE STUDY EXAMPLES OF STATEWIDE
ACTIVITIES
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.
7-15
-------
' MODULE 7
PUTTING A STATEWIDE APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
Exhibit 7-2. Basin. Management Cycle
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVITY STEP
TIMING
4-
C STAKEHOLDER "\,
INVOLVEMENT J~^
STAKEHOLDER \
INVOLVEMENT ji
STAKEHOLDER \
INVOLVEMENT J^
i
(STAKEHOLDER ^\
INVOLVEMENT J~^
1. CONDUCT INITIAL OUTREACH AND ORGANIZE BASIN
AND WATERSHED TEAMS/COMMITTEES
>
2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN INFORMATION
>
f
3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE INFORMATION
>
4. PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
>
5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS OF PRIORITY ISSUES
f
6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
>
7. PREPARE/UPDATE DRAFT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
; * ^
.8. FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
>
r
9. IMPLEMENT BASIN AND. WATERSHED PLANS
10. REPEAT CYCLE 1
MONTHS 1 -3
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
. AND BEYOND
7-16
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
APPROACHES
-------
-------
> 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
approaches
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.
8-1
-------
. , . . ' 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
participants
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
8-2
-------
MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
DELAWARE
+ 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
8-3
-------
'.'..' 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.
8-5
-------
' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
Framework Milestones
'.- ' ''
>ct
oke
in
1 995
1995
Completion
of framework
document
mes
r
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
Delaware.
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.
8-6
-------
' .' 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.
8-7
-------
MODULES
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. ,
8-8
-------
' 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
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
'
_
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.
8-10
-------
' : MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
Future
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.
8-11
-------
' MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
jpr^JJ
IDAHO
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
8-12
-------
' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
303(d)TMDL
Land Application
Storm Water Run-off
401 Certification
Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal
EPA Region 10 , - ,
NPDES
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.
8-13
-------
, . ' 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
update.
8-14
-------
MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
""IDAHO .(CONTINUED) . -''."
1 ' '
<
/
T990-
1992
1990-1992
IDEQ, learns benefits
of WPA through <
experience in 4
watershed projects
1993
s i <
1993
Production of work
plan for developing
statewide watershed
approach
1994
1994 ^
External review of
^ watershed frame-
work document
Framework Milestones
/
/
Viewgraph 10: Idaho (continued)
Framework Development and Implementation Milestones
1990,-199 2
I993jul
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.
8-15
-------
' ' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
The work plan also describes a nested approach to watershed
delineation and identifies basic components of Idaho's watershed
approach.
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. . .
8-16
-------
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
requirements.
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.
8-17
-------
. ' ' MODULE 8
EXAMPLE-STATEWIDE APPROACHES
ppr -
IDAHO (CONTINUED)
has Idaho taH
om
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
8-18
-------
' 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.
8-19
-------
' .'. 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.
8-20
-------
MODULES
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
development.
8-21
-------
' MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
NEBRASKA
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
8-22
-------
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.
8-23
-------
' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
NEBRASKA (CONTINUED)
I ........ Outstanding Features
L...
""-:,..
. "..
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.
8-24
-------
' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
^NEBRASKA (CONTINUED)
<
/
1990-
1993 .
1992
DEQ begins to concep-
tualize comprehensive
watershed management ^
,' 1994-
1997
^ 1994 "
Draft statewide framework
document is completed
y , i
1997
First comprehensive
basire management plan
completed for
; Lower Platte 1 Basin
1998-
2001
2001 ^
Basin management
plans completed
> for all 13 basin
management units
Framework Milestones
/
f
Viewgraph 15: Nebraska (continued)
Framework Development and implementation Milestones
1992
1993
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.
8-25
-------
' 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.
8-26
-------
MODULES
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.)
8-27
-------
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
system.
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.
8-28
-------
MODULES
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.
8-29
-------
MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
** NFRC
NEBRASKA (CONTINUED)
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
8-30
-------
' 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.
8-31
-------
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
programs.
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
8-32
-------
MODULES
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
8-33
-------
MODULES
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.
8-34
-------
' MODULES
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
* NORTH
i CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
x ' - ' . -
1985-
1988
1986
DEM begins to
conceptualize
basin approach <
1989-
1992
> i
1 1990
DEM announces
basinwide per-
mitting initiative
1993-
1996
' 1993
Neuse River
basin plan
> approved <
1997-
2000
1998
Basin plans
completed
for ali basins '
Framework Milestones
J
Viewgraph 20: North Carolina (continued)
Framework Development and Implementation Milestones
1986
1987-
1988
1989
,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.
8-35
-------
' MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE APPROACHES
. 1990Oct
1991 Mar
1991 Aug
1992 Oct
1993 Feb
1994 May
1994 Aug
1994 Dec
1995 Jan
1995 Mar
1998Jun
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
process.
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.
8-36
-------
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
8-37
-------
MODULES
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
detail.
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.
8-38
-------
MODULES
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.
8-39
-------
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
FOR STATEWIDE WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
-------
-------
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
management
Module 2Definition of the nine common elements of statewide
watershed management .
ModuleSDescription of the statewide watershed management
development process and how to initiate the process
Module 4Introduction of the process for tailoring the elements to
individualstates
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 .
El-1
-------
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.
El-2
-------
EXERCISE!
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
discussion.
El-3
-------
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. .
El-4
-------
EXERCISE!
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
control.
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).
El-5
-------
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
Studies)
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.
El-6
-------
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. .
El-7
-------
EXERCISE!
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
habitat.
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)
El-8
-------
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.
El-10
-------
EXERCISE!
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. ; , '
El-11
-------
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
programs.
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
forests)
' Promoting biodiversity and compliance with the Endangered Species Act
Ensuring pollution is sufficiently controlled (Point and Nonpoint Source)
Ensuring water quality standards are enforced
El-12
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG
STAKEHOLDERS
-------
-------
-'_...' EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
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
E2-1
-------
- > EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
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
E2-2
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Generic Basin Plan Outline
This generic basin plan outline for Exercise 2 is based on examples from several states.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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
future
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
E2-3
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
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) .
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS
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
Municipal
industrial
4.1.2 NPDES Permitted Stormwater Dischargers
Municipal
Industrial
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).
E2-4
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
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 .
5.0 BASIN CONCERNS AND PRIORITY ISSUES
.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
Criteria
Ranking method .
5.2 Priority Setting Results
River Basin Concerns
'. ' Priorities for additional data col lection
6.0 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
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
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Implementation Strategy
Tasks and Responsible parties -.
Methods and Means for Implementation
Milestones
6.1-N Priority #N
Development of Management Option
Implementation Strategy
6.N Watershed N
7.0 FUTURE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
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
E2-6
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Basin Management Cycle for Exercise 2
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVITY STEP
TIMING
STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
>l
1 . CONDUCT INITIAL OUTREACH AND ORGANIZE BASIN
AND WATERSHED TEAMS/COMMITTEES
2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN INFORMATION
3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE INFORMATION
STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
4. PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS OF PRIORITY ISSUES
STAKEHOLDER
. INVOLVEMENT,
JH
6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
MONTHS 1-3
MONTHS 3-1 8
MONTHS 1 9-24
MONTHS 25-27
MONTHS 28-36
MONTHS 37-45
7. PREPARE/UPDATE DRAFT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS I MONTHS 46-48
STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
8. FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS I MONTHS 49-54
MONTHS 55-60
AND BEYOND
9. IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
10. REPEAT CYCLE
E2-7
-------
-------
-------
------- |