Watershed Protection:
A Statewide Approach
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
August 1995
Cover: Water quality management units designated by the Washington
Department of Ecology.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postoonsumer)
-------
-------
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) is a departure from the
way the EPA has traditionally operated its water quality programs and
how federal, tribal, and state governments have typically approached
natural resource management. Resource management
programs —programs for wetlands protection, wastewater discharge
permitting, flood control, farmer assistance, drinking water supply,
fish and game management, and recreation —have tended to operate
as individual entities and occasionally at cross purposes.
We now generally recognize that the critical environmental issues
facing society are so intertwined that a comprehensive, ecosystem-
based approach is required. We also recognize that solving
environmental problems depends increasingly on local governments
and local citizens. Thus, the need to integrate across traditional
program areas (e.g., flood control, wastewater, land use) and across
levels of government (federal, state, tribal, local) is leading natural
resource management toward a watershed approach.
One emerging framework for a statewide Watershed Protection
Approach focuses on organizing and managing by a state's major
watersheds, which are called basins in this document. In this
statewide approach, activities such as water quality monitoring,
planning and permitting are coordinated on a set schedule within large
watersheds or basins. Involvement of other natural resource agencies
is actively sought to achieve water quality and ecosystem goals.
This document is one of two guides to watershed protection designed
for state water quality managers. A second guide, Watershed
Protection: A Project Focus, describes another aspect of the
Watershed Protection Approach—developing projects for the
individual watershed. It provides a blueprint for designing and
implementing watershed projects, including references and case
studies.
I trust this Watershed Protection Approach document will provide a
useful guide for state water quality managers and others involved in
watershed-based activities as they adopt, implement and evaluate
watershed protection programs.
Robert H. Wayland, III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Amy Sosin and Donald Brady of the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, EPA Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Trevor Clements and Clayton
Creager of The Cadmus Group and Michael McCarthy, Bill Cooler, and
Kathleen Mohar of Research Triangle Institute. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the comments of reviewers from within EPA and other
agencies including the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Foreword
in
Acknowledgements jv
Figures ' ' ' ' ' vjj
Highlights vjij
Executive Summary jx
The Watershed Protection Approach 1_1
1.1 Historical Perspective 1_1
1.2 The Clean Water Act 1-1
1.3 The Safe Drinking Water Act 1-2
1.4 The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) 1-3
1.5 Managing by Hydrologic as Well as Political Units 1-7
1.6 Purpose of This Document and Intended Audience .... 1-10
Managing by Watersheds: Common Elements 2-1
2.1 Management Units 2-1
2.2 Management Cycles 2-6
2.3 Stakeholder Involvement 2-9
2.4 Strategic Monitoring 2-10
2.5 Assessment 2-11
2.6 Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources 2-13
2.7 Developing Management Strategies 2-14
2.8 Management Plans 2-16
2.9 Implementation 2-18
Why Manage by Watersheds? 3-1
3.1 Water Quality Programs Can Focus More Directly on
the Resource 3_1
3.2 The Basis for Management Decisions is Improved 3-1
3.3 Program Efficiency is Enhanced 3-2
3.4 Coordination Among Agencies in the State Can Be
Improved 3.3
3.5 Resources Are Better Directed to Priority Issues 3-3
3.6 Coordination with EPA Can Be Improved 3-5
3.7 Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged 3-6
3.8 Opportunities for Data Sharing Are Enhanced 3-6
3.9 Public Involvement Is Enhanced 3-7
3.10 Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged 3-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
4 Getting Started 4-1
4.1 Establishing a Common Direction 4-1
4.2 Managing the Transition 4-2
4.3 Documenting the Approach 4-3
4.4 Identifying Barriers 4-5
4.5 Tailoring the Approach 4-6
5 References 5-1
Appendix A: How Does Ground Water Protection Fit? A-1
Appendix B: Management Cycle for the State of Nebraska B-1
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Number
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
4-1
FIGURES
Page
Features of the Watershed Protection Approach 1-4
Emerging framework for achieving CWA goals 1-6
Statewide watershed management and key documents
resulting from the approach 1-9
Common elements of a statewide watershed management
approach 2-2
Hierarchy of nested watersheds 2-5
Watershed management goals, objectives, and stakeholder
matrix 2-17
Major steps in developing and implementing basin water
quality management plans 2-20
Example framework document outline 4-4
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIGHLIGHTS
Page
State of Washington's Water Quality Management Areas 2-4
North Carolina's Basin Cycle 2-7
Washington's Basin Cycle 2-9
Special Stakeholders in Delaware, Idaho, and Texas 2-10
Two States' Approaches to Monitoring 2-12
A Watershed Targeting Approach 2-14
Goals and Objectives of the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program 2-15
Nutrient Trading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin 2-16
Basin Management Plans in Delaware 2-19
Alabama's Use of Its Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Program to Coordinate Its Program 3.4
Regional Flexibility to Accommodate the Transition 3-6
Data Sharing in North Carolina 3.7
Providing Fish Passage 3.9
Ecological Restoration as a Cost-effective Solution 3-10
Implementing Statewide Approaches in Delaware and Texas 4-2
Key Issues Addressed by Delaware in Developing a Basin Management
Framework 4.5
Comprehensive Source Water Protection in Massachusetts 4-8
The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska 4-11
VIII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Watershed Protection Approach is a strategy for effectively
protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems and protecting human
health. This strategy has as its premise that many water quality and
ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather
than at the individual waterbody or discharger level. The Watershed
Protection Approach has four major features: targeting priority
problems, a high level of stakeholder involvement, integrated
solutions that make use of the expertise and authority of multiple
agencies, and measuring success through monitoring and other data
gathering.
One framework that states use to implement the Watershed
Protection Approach focuses on organizing and managing by the
state's major watersheds, which are called basins in this document.
This flexible framework encompasses management and protection of
ecosystems and human health at three levels: the state, the basin,
and the watersheds within each basin. Some issues are best
addressed at the watershed level, such as controlling nutrient loading
to small lakes or restoring headwaters riparian habitat quality. Other
issues may be best addressed at the basin level, such as phosphate
detergent bans, wetlands mitigation banking, or nutrient trading. Still
other activities and solutions are best implemented at the state level,
including policies on toxics control or the operation of permit
programs.
To be comprehensive, the approach requires consideration of all
environmental concerns, including needs to protect public health
(including drinking water), critical habitats such as wetlands,
biological integrity and surface and ground waters. This involves
improved coordination among federal, state and local agencies so that
all appropriate concerns are represented. Such involvement is
especially important to integrate emerging programs such as ground
water protection with older program frameworks. So, for example,
the concerns addressed through Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs), Wellhead Protection Programs,
National Estuary Programs or State Management Plans for Pesticides
would be considered along with concerns addressed by wetlands
protection programs and our more traditional programs for point and
nonpoint source pollution prevention and control. The state
IX
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
experiences on which this document are based reflect different levels
of integration. Thus, although the document is based on their
experiences, it does attempt to identify opportunities for incorporating
a truly comprehensive approach.
A number of states, for example, are developing watershed
approaches and CSGWPPs tailored to their priorities and individual
local conditions. Together, these approaches will serve as a broad
framework for facilitating surface and ground water coordination and,
ultimately, will involve all appropriate state agency staff in setting
goals, establishing priorities, convening and overseeing watershed
teams and implementing integrated and effective solutions.
What Does Managing by Watersheds Entail?
A statewide watershed approach, as described in this document, is an
approach to managing water quality by major hydrologic units.
Typically, activities such as monitoring, planning, and permitting are
conducted according to a set schedule (e.g., monitoring in years 1
and 2, data analysis and modeling in year 3, plan development in year
4, permit issuance and plan approval in year 5). Several state
approaches have other elements in common as well:
• Management units—Large hydrologic units (e.g., major river
basins or aquifers) are delineated by the state; each "basin"
contains multiple watersheds.
• Management cycles—A state's basins are grouped in sequence so
that the entire state is studied, and management plans developed,
in a set period (typically, 5 years).
• Stakeholder involvement— Agencies, organizations, and
individuals interested in the water quality, ecosystem health, and
management strategies are included in watershed management
activities.
• Strategic monitoring—Water quality and ecological health are
monitored to measure the extent of problems and the stressors
involved; this is typically done on a rotating basis (e.g., two
summers of sampling every 5 years for a given basin).
• Assessment— Data analysis and professional judgment are used
to identify problems, sources, and stressors; water quality
standards are integral to assessments because they reflect criteria
for restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of water.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
••MM^BHBI
Prioritization and targeting—Waterbodies or watersheds are
ranked according to resource value, degree of impairment, and
other factors; specific watersheds or waterbodies are targeted for
special management attention.
Development of management strategies—Realistic goals are set
for the basin and its watersheds; management strategies are then
developed before allocating scarce resources.
Basin or watershed plans—These plans document the assessment
results, goals, and chosen management strategies for each basin
or watershed; a plan may be issued in conjunction with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and
revised periodically (e.g., every 5 years); the plan also serves to
educate the public on basin-specific issues.
Implementation—Selected management strategies are
implemented in the years between updates of the plan.
Why Implement a Watershed Protection Approach?
Watershed protection provides states with a framework for protecting
their watersheds and addressing all priority problems, not just those
most readily solved. States already implementing a Watershed
Protection Approach anticipate many benefits, including:
• More direct focus by stakeholders on achieving ecological goals
and water quality standards rather than on measurement of
program activities such as numbers of permits or samples
• Improved basis for management decisions through consideration
of both traditional stressors (e.g., toxics from point sources,
biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients) and nonchemical
stressors (e.g., habitat loss, temperature, sediment, low flow)
• Enhanced program efficiency because activities such as
monitoring or permit writing are focused on a limited number of
watersheds at a time
• Improved coordination among federal, state and local agencies
and other organizations, including increased data sharing and
pooling of resources
• Enhanced public involvement, including better relations with
permittees due to increased involvement and greater consistency
and equitability in permit conditions
XI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Innovative solutions such as ecological restoration, wetlands
mitigation banking, and market-based solutions (e.g., pollutant
trading or restoration in lieu of advanced wastewater treatment).
How Does a State Get Started?
Switching from program-centered to watershed management is a
major functional change for most state agencies, although it need not
involve a change in organizational structure. Strong commitment of
high-level management is essential, as is strong leadership on the part
of the individual(s) appointed to direct implementation. Important first
steps include budgeting sufficient time for key staff who will develop
the approach, educating all parties on the principles of watershed
management, and establishing an efficient means of communication
among staff. Several states have used outside facilitators to bring
staff from various program areas together to agree on common
purposes and work out potential "turf" issues.
The lead agency should consider preparing a detailed framework
document that describes overall goals and objectives, the basin cycle,
basin-specific schedules, roles and responsibilities of each
organizational unit, procedures for developing plans, and guidelines
for public involvement.
Any Watershed Protection Approach must be tailored to suit the
state's particular situation. State officials can benefit from reviewing
the framework documents and, in some cases, watershed
management plans from states such as North Carolina, South
Carolina, Nebraska, Delaware and Washington.
How Does Ground Water Protection Fit?
Ground water and surface water are often directly connected, with
water flowing back and forth from one resource to the other over
time. The quality of ground water contributes to the overall condition
of the watershed, and ground water may serve as a medium for
transporting pollutants to surface waters (and vice versa). In many
instances, the Watershed Protection Approach is an appropriate
framework for integrating surface water and ground water protection.
In other instances, ground water protection presents challenges that
differ from those encountered in protecting surface waters. For
example, because ground water is so expensive and difficult to clean
up, there is heavy emphasis on prevention. Other dissimilarities
between the two resources include differing transport mechanisms,
monitoring approaches and resource boundaries (e.g., aquifer
boundaries may not coincide with basin or watershed boundaries).
XII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A truly comprehensive statewide approach, therefore, must be
designed to address specific concerns about ground water in addition
to concerns about surface water. These concerns include how to
address immediate and ongoing ground water program priorities such
as wellhead protection with a state's Watershed Protection Approach.
CSGWPPs provide states with the opportunity to implement an
aquifer protection approach that integrates well with a Watershed
Protection Approach. CSGWPPs incorporate the principles of the
Watershed Protection Approach in that they are place-based, include
the relevant stakeholders, consider multiple environmental objectives
and give the leading role to states. CSGWPPs play an important part
in tailoring all water programs to meet specific needs within
watersheds at the local, state and federal levels.
XIII
-------
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
CHAPTER 1
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
1.1 Historical Perspective
The concept of water resources management within watersheds
originated as early as the 1890s with the work of the U.S. Inland
Waterways Commission. The Commission, with the backing of
President Roosevelt, 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 (Inland
Waterways Commission, 1908). The focus of water resources
management then and throughout the first half of the century was on
efficient use of water resources for such purposes as energy
production, navigation, flood control, irrigation, and drinking water.
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 large-scale funding of publicly owned treatment
works. The Water Quality Act of 1965 required states to develop
water quality standards for interstate waters. River basin compacts
were formed to protect major systems such as the Delaware and
Colorado Rivers. Some state sanitation commissions adopted a river
basin approach to their work. They developed basin plans that
classified individual waterbodies according to their best uses. These
early water quality managers walked, boated, and drove throughout
entire river basins, documenting outfall pipes and collecting ambient
samples.
1.2 The Clean Water Act
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL92-
500) established as a national goal the restoration and maintenance of
the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
The dominant features of this Clean Water Act (CWA) were a Federal
permitting program (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System or NPDES) and massive funding for wastewater treatment and
state water quality programs. Under NPDES, each discharger receives
1-1
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
a permit containing numerical effluent limits that are, at a minimum,
based on best available wastewater treatment technology or other
guidelines (technology-based limits); more stringent limits are issued
where needed to take into account the condition of the waterbody
(water quality-based limits).
Under Section 303(e) of the CWA, states prepared basin plans for
controlling their point source problems. These plans consolidated
most known information about dischargers and water quality and
helped form the basis for grant decisions for wastewater treatment.
Mathematical models were used to determine allowable loads from
municipal and industrial treatment plants. However, after the initial
plans were completed, most states maintained only a limited basin
planning function while focusing on individual point source problems.
The CWA also set the stage of early ground water protection efforts.
Under Section 102, EPA, states and other federal and interstate
agencies are authorized to develop comprehensive programs to
reduce, prevent and eliminate pollution to ground water and surface
waters. This authority, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and other
laws provided for the initiation of Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs).
In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress required states to
expand their programs for dealing with toxicants, nonpoint sources
(NPSs), wetlands, water quality standards and other topics. These
requirements have strained state budgets and made multi-agency
programs such as NPS management more difficult to coordinate
effectively. Moreover, the states' progress in eliminating point source
pollution has revealed that NPS pollution and habitat degradation
account for most of the Nation's remaining water quality problems
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 1994a).
1.3 The Safe Drinking Water Act
The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) drew together several
important programs protecting public health that now need to be
considered within a comprehensive Watershed Protection Approach.
Then, in the late 1970's, hazardous waste sites were found to be
affecting public water systems. Some of these sites suffered from
surface water intrusion and contaminated ground water discharge.
The 1986 amendments established further the basis for protecting
ground water supplying drinking water to public water systems and
private users. The types of contaminants that must be removed by
drinking water systems was quadrupled. The requirements for
1-2
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
testing this expanded list of contaminants impose significant costs on
State and local drinking water monitoring programs.
EPA has also established the Source Water Protection and Wellhead
Protection Programs under the SDWA. Source Water Protection
emphasizes preventing contamination of drinking water resources and
includes wellhead protection and sole source aquifer watershed
control plans. The Wellhead Protection Program sets priority on
contamination to ground waters that will provide drinking water in the
next 5 to 20 years. It relies upon hydrologic models of ground water
flow to define the protection area which may include the portion of
the stream and the watershed upstream from the well. The Sole
Source Aquifer Program allows the public to define entire aquifers that
provide at least half the population's drinking water, whether for
public or private use. Watershed control plans under the surface
water treatment rule are used to define the area providing drinking
water to a public water system experiencing microbial contamination.
The area is to be managed to reduce or eliminate contaminant
sources.
1.4 The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
A comprehensive approach to water resource management is needed
to address the myriad water quality problems that exist today from
nonpoint and point sources as well as from habitat degradation. The
WPA is a management approach for more effectively protecting and
restoring aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health. The EPA
Office of Water is using this approach to focus on hydrologically
defined resource areas—watersheds and aquifers. The WPA
recognizes that water quality management must embrace human and
ecosystem health and that managing for one without considering the
other can be detrimental to both. The WPA allows managing a range
of inputs for specific outputs. It emphasizes all aspects of water
quality including chemical water quality (e.g., toxicants and
conventional pollutants), physical water quality (e.g., temperature,
flow, circulation, ground and surface water interaction), habitat
quality (e.g., channel morphology, substrate composition, and riparian
zone characteristics), biological health and biodiversity (e.g., species
abundance, diversity, and range) and subsurface bio-geochemistry.
The WPA has four major features: targeting priority problems,
stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions, and measuring success
(Figure 1-1). It is important to note that the WPA is not a new
program that competes with or replaces existing water quality
programs; rather, it is a framework within which ongoing programs
can be integrated effectively. Further, a watershed approach can
1-3
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Targeting Priority
Problems
All significant problems in a
watershed are Identified and
addressed, not just the
problems that are familiar or
easily solved. Monitoring
provides critical data for this
effort.
Problems that may pose health
or ecological risks in a watershed
include
Industrial wastewater discharges
Municipal wastewater. stormwater,
and combined sewer overflows
Waste dumping and injection
Nonpoint source runoff or seepage
Atmospheric deposition
Habitat alteration, wetlands loss
Hydrologic modification
Stakeholders include
State environmental, public health.
agricultural, and resource agencies
Local/regional boards, commissions,
and agencies
EPA water and other programs
Other Federal agencies
Indian tribes
Public representatives
Private wildlife and conservation
organizations
Industry sector representatives
Water suppliers
Academic community
Stakeholder
Involvement
Working as a task force,
stakeholders reach
agreement on goals and
approaches for addressing a
watershed's problems, the
specific actions to be taken.
and how they will be
coordinated and evaluated.
Integrated
Solutions
The selected tools are
applied to the watershed's
problems, according to the
plans and roles established
through stakeholder
agreement.
Coordinated action may be taken
In such i
Voluntary source reduction
(e.g.. waste minimization, BMPs)
Permit issuance and enforcement
Standard setting
Direct financing and incentives
Education and technical assistance
Critical area protection
Ecological restoration
Remediation of contaminated soil
Emergency response to leaks or spills
Effectiveness monitoring
Measuring
Success
Early in the project, stake-
holders agree on ecological
and administrative indicators
that will demonstrate
progress. These measures
are tracked throughout the
project by water quality
monitoring and other types
of data gathering.
Figure 1-1. Features of the Watershed Protection Approach
1-4
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
••^••••^•MlMBHMMI^Hi
provide benefits to individual citizens and the public and private
sectors.
Individual citizens benefit because watershed protection improves the
environment. The public sector benefits because agencies can
accomplish more through cooperation with other stakeholders than
they can on their own with limited resources. The participation of
local organizations ensures that those who are likely to be most
familiar with a watershed, its problems, and possible solutions play a
major part, often a leadership role. The private sector can benefit
because the burden of water resource protection is distributed more
equitably among pollution sources. All stakeholders benefit because
they can participate in decisionmaking that is based on a
comprehensive assessment of the watershed including all interacting
aquifers.
The features of the WPA shown in Figure 1-1 include a strong
monitoring and evaluation component. Using monitoring data,
stakeholders identify stressors that may pose health and ecological
risk in the watershed and any related aquifers, and prioritize these
stressors. Monitoring is also essential to determining the
effectiveness of management options chosen by stakeholders to
address high-priority stressors. Because many watershed protection
activities require long-term commitments from stakeholders,
stakeholders need to know whether their efforts are achieving real
improvements in water quality.
Figure 1 -2 illustrates how the WPA fits into the context of CWA
implementation by a state water quality agency. The peak of the
pyramid represents the goal of restoring and maintaining ecosystem
integrity for human and aquatic health. Water quality standards and
other environmental objectives are the measures of ecosystem
integrity that comprise the next level of the pyramid. As suggested
by its position in the pyramid, one purpose of the WPA is to integrate
the many individual programs that have evolved to implement the
goals of the CWA (e.g., to restore, protect and maintain the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters) and the
SDWA (e.g., to protect human health through source water
protection).
CWA Section 303(d) and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
process provide one key legislative and technical underpinning for the
WPA. A TMDL may involve all of the actions or programs
shown —point and nonpoint source controls, monitoring, and
restoration. Similarly, SDWA programs for Source Water Protection
and Wellhead Protection can be key components of the WPA. Each
state may make more or less use of each of these CWA and SDWA
1-5
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Human Health
and Aquatic
Ecosystem Integrity:
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Water Quality Standards
Drinking Water Standards
Watershed Protection
Approach
Within Other Agencies/
Organizations
Section 404 Program
CZMA Program
USDA Initiatives
USDOI Initiatives
Private sector projects
(e.g., by The Nature
Conservancy)
Within the State Water Quality
and Health Agencies
• Point source controls
• NPS controls
• Restoration
• TMDLs
• Monitoring
• Enforcement
• Grants
• Incentives
• Drinking water protection
• Ground water protection
• Source water protection
Figure 1-2. Emerging framework for achieving CWA goals.
1-6
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
programs, tailoring them to create its unique watershed approach.
Various sources of funding may be brought to bear to carry out the
WPA (e.g., federal grants, state appropriations, and permit fees).
The pyramid includes initiatives by other agencies as integral
components of a WPA. Examples within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture include the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS; formerly the Soil Conservation Service or SCS) Small
Watersheds Program; another NRCS initiative to delineate consistent
watersheds nationwide; and the U.S. Forest Service's South Fork
Salmon River Project, where restoration efforts seek to mitigate
sediment impacts from past livestock grazing, logging, and road
building activities.
The WPA has evolved over the past several years. In 1991, EPA
produced an initial framework document that discussed EPA's
concept for watershed protection and outlined EPA's potential role in
watershed protection efforts (U.S. EPA, 1991). Since that time, EPA
has provided support to states and other entities to help build on the
many existing regional, state, and local watershed-based programs
and watershed projects. Following extensive consultation with the
States, EPA issued its National Guidance for Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs (U.S. EPA, 1993a). EPA has
worked with many other Federal agencies to harmonize the WPA with
other agency approaches. EPA has jointly and singly sponsored
numerous conferences on watershed management.
Point source controls and other traditional approaches to water quality
management have been effective to date in resolving many of our
Nation's water quality problems. The WPA provides a flexible model
for tackling the complex environmental problems that we still face
today. In addition, the growing number of water resource programs
with overlapping functions requires the coordination and integration
that a watershed approach can provide. A watershed approach also
allows new partnerships to form among federal, state, and local
agencies, citizens, and the private sector that are focused on a
specific resource. Finally, the WPA's emphasis on stakeholder
participation fosters a sense of ownership and stewardship of local
resources.
1.5 Managing by Hydrologic as Well as Political Units
Watershed boundaries seldom if ever coincide with jurisdictional
boundaries such as state, county or town lines. Like watersheds,
aquifers too are natural hydrologic units that seldom match
jurisdictional boundaries but have unique management needs. This
has long presented a special challenge to local and state water
1-7
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
resource managers whose geographic areas of responsibility are
politically rather than hydrologically based. It further complicates
matters that watersheds occur on a range of scales from the sub-
national or regional (e.g., the Mississippi watershed) down to local
scale (e.g., the watershed of a small creek). At any scale,
watersheds and aquifers function as natural systems within which
resource managers and stakeholders can work to establish and
maintain the best possible combination of ecological condition and
human health and welfare.
It is possible to organize watershed management around watersheds
at scales large or small. In an average state, there may be ten or
more major watersheds containing several hundred moderately-sized
watersheds, and thousands of still smaller watersheds within these.
Given the variety of scales and geographic units available, then, how
can state resource managers best implement their programs on
watershed management units?
One framework that states use to implement the WPA focuses on
organizing and managing by the state's major watersheds, which are
frequently called basins in this document. This flexible framework
encompasses management and protection of ecosystems and human
health at three levels: the state, the basin, and the watersheds (and
aquifers) within each basin. Some issues, such as controlling nutrient
loading to small lakes or restoring headwaters riparian habitat quality,
are best addressed at the local watershed level. Other issues may be
best addressed at the basin level, such as phosphate detergent bans,
wetlands mitigation banking, or nutrient trading. Still other activities
and solutions are best implemented at the state level, including
policies on toxics control or the operation of permit programs.
Typically, the state's basins and selected major aquifers become the
primary management units in this framework. Program activities such
as permitting, monitoring, modeling, and water quality planning are
scheduled for each basin on a rotating five-year cycle covering all the
state's basins. Other activities such as compliance and enforcement
are ongoing throughout the cycle. Products include an initial state
framework document describing this approach and individual basin
management plans that are updated every five-year cycle (Figure 1-3).
When states manage by basins, their programs are organized around a
limited and manageable number of major watersheds occurring within
the state. Basin-level activities can be coordinated more broadly with
statewide actions and policies, or more locally with watersheds of
concern within a basin. This approach can be an improvement on
past approaches to water resources management because it compels
managers to focus on systems (basins, watersheds and aquifers),
1-8
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Watershed Protection
Approach
State Framework
Document
A reference document
that describes how
statewide manage-
ment will function for
a given state*
* Could include a Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Program.
Statewide Watershed
Management Approach
A method for integrating
and coordinating watershed
protection throughout a state
Management Plans
Reference documents
that present assess-
ment results, specific
management strategies,
and corresponding
stakeholder roles for
implementation
Figure 1-3. Statewide watershed management and key
documents resulting from the approach.
1-9
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
how well these systems are working, and how the management
needs for these systems differ from watershed to watershed.
1.6 Purpose of This Document and Intended Audience
This guide is about the process of establishing a statewide WPA. It is
not technical guidance and does not cover topics such as monitoring
or permitting issues in detail. Rather, it presents common themes or
elements among states that have adopted or begun the transition to
watershed management—states such as Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. Chapter 2
describes these common elements. Chapter 3 addresses the benefits
of statewide watershed management, and Chapter 4 discusses how a
state can begin to implement this approach. Chapter 5 lists
references. Additional information about how ground water
protection fits into the approach is presented in Appendix A, and
Appendix B focuses on Nebraska's basin cycle.
This document is intended for state water resource managers and
technical personnel as well as for the natural resource managers in
other state, federal, tribal and local agencies with whom they
cooperate. By outlining the components of a statewide approach and
by providing examples of how some states are currently operating
under such an approach, the document encourages the adoption of
watershed-based water quality management by other states.
A companion report, Watershed Protection: A Project Focus
(U.S. EPA, 1995), describes key elements of local-scale watershed
projects. Larger watersheds or basins can provide the framework for
coordinating multiple watershed projects around the state, for
targeting resources, and for operating permit and monitoring
programs. At the same time, other water quality and ecosystem
protection activities can be managed best at the watershed level.
Examples include controlling point and nonpoint source pollutant
loadings to a lake or to a stream recharging an aquifer and restoring
riparian habitat in the headwaters of a watershed.
1-10
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
CHAPTER 2
MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
States independently develop watershed approaches to fit their unique
circumstances. Several key elements have emerged, however, that
are common in the approaches developed by states to date
(Figure 2-1):
Management units
Management cycles
Stakeholder involvement
Strategic monitoring
Assessment
Prioritization and targeting
Development of management strategies
Management plans
Implementation of the plans.
These are common elements rather than steps; they do not
necessarily occur in a sequence. Stakeholder involvement, for
example, is crucial throughout implementation of any watershed
approach. The following sections describe each of the common
elements in more detail.
2.1 Management Units
Management units are the geographic units within which the state will
implement its Watershed Protection Approach. States often select
major watersheds or basins as their management units, although
aquifers, groups of watersheds, or composites of ground water and
surface watersheds are also used.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has designed and mapped a
national system of hydrologic units for cataloging, sometimes called
HUCs, that provide a common national framework for delineating
watersheds and their boundaries at a number of different geographic
scales. The hierarchical system's largest units, called water resources
regions, are each designated by a 2-digit code. Each regional unit
may be subdivided into 4-digit subregions, and further subdivided
2-1
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Management
Cycle
Strategic
Monitoring
Implementation /stakeholder
Assessment
Assigning
Priorities and
Targeting
Resources
Management
Plans
Involvement
Developing
Management
Strategies
Figure 2-1. Common elements of a statewide watershed management approach.
2-2
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
into 6-digit and 8-digit units representing smaller and smaller
watersheds. The 8-digit units, which are still fairly large watersheds
averaging thousands of square miles each, are the most detailed
delineations currently available nationwide as a geographic information
system (CIS) coverage or a map. The approach has been carried
further in individual states down to the 11-digit and the 14-digit level
to delineate watersheds averaging approximately 100 square miles
and 30 square miles each, respectively. As hydrologic units will be an
important GIS data set within the envisioned National Spatial Data
Infrastructure, all watershed programs wishing to delineate smaller-
scale watersheds should collaborate with this existing national
framework for watershed delineation.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management uses river
basin boundaries developed in the 1970s under CWA Section 303(e).
The state is divided into 17 basins. The South Carolina Bureau of
Water Pollution Control took a different approach by combining basins
to form five very large basin management units. The highlight on
page 2-4 describes water quality management areas used for basin
planning by the Washington Department of Ecology. Many states
have also delineated smaller watersheds for water quality
management. For example, Virginia has delineated approximately 500
watersheds based on NRCS (formerly SCS) delineations; South
Carolina and Wisconsin have delineated approximately 270 and 330
watersheds, respectively.
Figure 2-2 shows a "nested" hierarchy of watersheds, including a
river basin, USGS Cataloging Units, and NRCS "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
previous SCS-delineated watersheds. North Carolina, for example,
has approximately 1,640 14-digit watersheds statewide; they
average 30 square miles in size.
The development of fully compatible watershed boundaries typically
involves close coordination among USGS, NRCS, and state water
quality, coastal management, and GIS agencies, among others.
Nested watersheds are important because they offer stakeholders
different levels at which to manage water quality. Basins allow the
state to allocate resources, while small watersheds are useful for local
governments and local NRCS conservation programs. The nested
watershed approach also facilitates information exchange among all
levels of government, especially if stakeholders are maintaining data in
a GIS format.
2-3
-------
2. MANAGING BY BASINS: COMMON ELEMENTS
State of Washington's Water dually Management Areas
The Washington Department of Ecology has divided the State into 23 water quality
management areas. These areas 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. The
criteria used lay the Department of Ecology for aggregating the WRIAs Into basin
planning units are
Common receiving waters and aquifers, where known
Complexity of the system and pollution sources .
Staff resources available
Regional office boundaries
Water availability and water-short areas
Water use, Including groundwater supply
Geography
Areas of population growth (actual and potential)
Loading from septic systems end sewers
Ratio of unperrmtted to permitted activities
Water quality condition.
Western Olympic!
•\ South
Puget Sound / Upper Yakima
Columbia Gorge ^HorseheaverVKitckita
Water Quality Management
Area boundary
Water Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) boundary
2-4
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
O)
c
'o>
O
03
"co
O
CO
O
CO
b
CO
cr
2-5
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Ecoregions represent another important type of boundary and are
useful integrators for managing water quality. Ecoregions are areas
having physical and biological traits that tend to support characteristic
aquatic communities. Ecoregions do not generally coincide with
basins or watersheds, and a given basin may cross more than one
ecoregion. However, the two concepts (basin and ecoregion) are fully
compatible. For example, basin goals might be based on biological
criteria for each ecoregion that crosses the basin.
2.2 Management Cycles
Water quality management activities for each major watershed or
basin are completed within a management cycle. A management
cycle has three features that create an orderly system for continually
focusing and coordinating management activities to meet water
quality standards and other environmental goals:
• A specified time period — Key surface and ground water
management activities within a basin (e.g., monitoring,
assessment, priority setting, management strategy development,
plan preparation, and plan implementation) occur within a specified
time period. The length of the cycle is state-specific, but most
states are using a 5-year cycle to coincide with NPDES permitting
requirements.
• A sequence for addressing basins — A sequence is established to
balance workload from year to year. States find it impractical and
inefficient to perform all management activities in every basin at
the same time. Therefore, in one year a state may focus on
monitoring in one-fifth of its basins; assessment and priority
setting in another one-fifth; modeling and TMDL development in
another one-fifth; developing management plans in another one-
fifth; and implementing management plans in the remaining one-
fifth of the state's basins. In succeeding years of the cycle,
efforts rotate among the basin groups. It takes time to work into
this cycle, so the state must determine the sequence in which
basins will be addressed (see the North Carolina highlight on
pages 2-7 and 2-8).
In choosing a sequence, most states take into consideration the
workload requirements as well as the degree of water quality
impairment or environmental risk. Other considerations include
data availability and stakeholder support. See the Washington
highlight on page 2-9 for a description of the factors that state
considered in establishing its sequence.
2-6
-------
BY BASINS: COMMON ELEMENTS
""-™"~"~~^——______
North Carolina's Basin Cycle
t^fZZ?^*"***. "*"" ««• 5-vear planning cycle of
next cycte of activfties for that basin wiH be completed in April 1998 Sties to
all
Activity
Data collection
Data analysis and modeling
Basinwide management plan development
Review and approval of plan and NPDES permits
16
12
17
NO.
WVERBASW
Lumtwr
Tw-Pmtfoo
C«mib«
Punch Brawl
MONTH
YEAR
NO.
MVERBASM
LMtlfcn.
MONTH
Odotwr
Owmtor
YEAR
Time Fraryig
Years 1 - 3
Years 1 - 4
Year 4
YearS
NO.
MVERBASM
LumtMr
MONTH
July
Permitting SolMdul. for North CMta.-. 17 M*r RhMrBMln.
YEAR
1998
1999
2-7
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
North Carolina's Basin Cycle (continued)
North Carolina's basin approach includes an emphasis on protection of surface water
sources of drinking water, in addition to the 17 major river basins, the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has identified over 200 smaller watersheds
supplying drinking water to communities, These water supply watersheds range in size
from 3 to 300 square mites and cover about 23 percent of the state. Local
governments are required to develop and implement watershed plans protective of
drinking water. These plans address allowable density and types of development in
these watersheds or portions of watersheds.
North Carolina's basin approach thus assesses water supply protection needs along with
other factors and identifies priorities for further protection throughout the basins. Other
factors considered In setting priorities for action include ambient water quality, fish
tissue contamination, nonpoint source impacts, NPDES permits, and storm water
impacts.
• A schedule for management activities — Once the statewide
sequence is established, a detailed schedule of management
activities is developed. The schedule specifies when particular
activities will occur during the 5-year cycle, thus providing a long-
term reference for all stakeholders. Appendix B contains the
detailed schedule for basins in Nebraska; the first 5-year cycle
shows how activities will be phased in across the state, and the
second 5-year cycle indicates how activities ultimately will be
coordinated across the state.
In many states, the management cycle will have to take into account
the goals, objectives and activities of a broad range of programs,
agencies and public interest groups who may also be stakeholders and
basin team participants. For example, Delaware will incorporate other
natural resource (e.g., fish and wildlife) and county planning agencies.
A management cycle for states that take an integrated resource
management approach may have different activities, structure, and
timing than those that focus exclusively on water quality. For
example, Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality will host
workshops to build basin teams from public resource management
agencies, interested citizens and tribes. Each team will determine the
cycle for its planning basin.
Most of the examples provided in this document focus on programs of
state water quality agencies. However, urban planning and zoning
(county planning agencies), habitat restoration and species protection
plans (fish and wildlife agencies), and soil conservation and animal
2-8
-------
21_MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Washington's Baste Cycle
By ma, the Washington Department of Ecology will be planning collect™ data
analysing data, managing information, and Issuing permits for atLst S
agement units per year. Baseline program activities such as enforcement and
compliance will continue on a statewide basis. The Departmeruse^the folfowin*
factors to establish the schedule of activities in each basin™nage^
Number of dischargers and permit workload
CWA Section 3Q3(dHtsted waters
Completed TMDLs
Availability of ambient monitoring data
Threats to beneficial uses {e.g., population growth)
Likelihood of stakeholder support
Historical water quality initiatives (e.g., NFS projects)
Existing and potential funding including grants
Workload balance.
waste management (agricultural agencies) can all contribute to the
preservation and protection of waterbody integrity.
2.3 Stakeholder Involvement
A watershed approach creates opportunities for a broad range of
stakeholders to play meaningful roles in basin plan development and
implementation. Success depends on the pooled resources, energy
and regulatory authority of multiple stakeholders. Stakeholders are all
agencies, organizations and individuals that could be affected by
water quality management decisions. They may include:
The state water quality agency
State agriculture, forestry, and wildlife agencies
State public health agencies
Municipal and industrial dischargers
City and county governments
Trade associations
Environmental groups
Chambers of Commerce
Local offices of Federal agencies
EPA Regions.
2-9
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Special Stakeholders in Delaware, Idaho, and Texas
fn Delaware, basin management teams include county planning authorities. Their
participation allows the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to
more effectively deat with land use issues that impact physical habitat and to better
coordinate their local management activities.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and U,S, EPA Region 10 are jointly
developing a basin approach for Idaho, Much of Idaho's land is federally owned and
managed by resource agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service, A key objective for Idaho is to engage these resource agencies directly in the
process.
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is incorporating their Water
Utilities and Water Resources {water rights} Programs into their basin framework. These
types of stakeholders, often neglected by traditional water quality programs, add
valuable insight and experience. For example, the Water Utilities Program has
established goals to reduce pollutant loading to protect drinking water supplies that are
consistent with water quality agency goals. The Water Resources Program brings
issues such as the timing and level of diversions into the basin management arena.
Stakeholder roles and responsibilities should be defined for each stage
of the management cycle. These roles and responsibilities can
include:
Data and research sharing
Joint monitoring
Identification of waterbody stressors
Priority setting
Public meetings for goal setting
Public outreach events such as presentations or festivals
Reviewing management plans
Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation.
The highlight above describes efforts by three states to include key
stakeholders. The companion volume to this document, Watershed
Protection: A Project Focus (U.S. EPA, 1995), also contains examples
of stakeholder involvement.
2.4 Strategic Monitoring
Most types of monitoring are strategically coordinated by basin to
address various needs such as:
2-10
-------
2.5 Assessment
- MANAGING BY W.T»gueDS; COMMOM P. CM».~
• Identifying stressors and their sources
• Determining water quality status and trends
• Targeting priority waterbodies/watersheds for action
• Evaluating the effectiveness of management actions
" ESS" m°delS l° SUPPOrt ™DL "'-"P-nt and permit
•"•
2-11
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Two States' Approaches to Monitoring
The Washington Department of Ecology has revised its monitoring activities, "Core"
fixed stations throughout the state are sampled monthly every year of the 5-year cycle
for basic physical and chemical parameters; targeted watershed stations are sampled
monthly for 1 year in a S-year cycle; biological samples {e.g., benthic
macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, 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 years two or three in the cycle for a given watershed. Intensive
surveys are initiated in year two and are completed in years three or four.
The South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control has also revised its monitoring
program. The Bureau will continue its statewide primary network of over 200 sites on
major rivers and estuaries. However, its secondary network now focuses almost
entirely on watersheds in one basin per year, with emphasis on
« Waterfcodies listed under CWA Sections 303(d), 304(1), and 314
• Watersheds with limited water quality data
* Known point source and NPS problem areas
• Waterbodies impacted by groundwater
• Waterbodies needing wasteload allocations.
years under CWA Section 305(b). Assessment typically involves
comparing monitoring data to state water quality standards to
determine whether each waterbody's designated uses (e.g., aquatic
life, swimming, drinking) are being achieved. Statistical analyses also
may be done to determine whether water quality is improving or
declining over time. Thus, assessments are important because they
provide the basis for evaluating the success of past management
actions and targeting future management efforts.
In recent years, state 305(b) assessments have focused on biological
measures of ecosystem integrity in addition to chemical measures.
For example, biological assessments of streams may include measures
of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and habitat
quality. This focus on aquatic ecosystem integrity is consistent with
watershed protection approaches and, in fact, a state may choose to
set the water quality goals for a basin or its watersheds in terms of
biological integrity. If a state has developed biological criteria, these
can be used to develop water quality goals for individual basins. One
basin may have a set of biocriteria for each ecoregion that crosses
basin boundaries.
2-12
-------
2.
MANAGING BY WATERSHED COM*.™ E.»....„.
stakeholders. MateTc^les « assessments -"ore accessible to
basin and watershed aoa^a'htS h<5'P determin* whether
options chosen in an SSr eye*.'"9
2.6 Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources
- •
•:
from the prioritization step above
Availability of staff and financial resources
2-13
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
A Watershed Targeting Approach
tn the late 1980$, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission delineated approximately
300 watersheds for NFS assessment. The agency used a numeric index method for
ranking these watersheds based on waterbody-tevei information. For each watershed
with adequate data, three factors were calculated:
• Beneficial Use factor. Each assessed waterbody received a score according to
degree of use support from the EPA Waterbody System database. Scores range
from low (1) for a futly supporting waterbody to high (4) for a nonsupporting
waterbody* Weights were assigned based on waterbody size,
* Human Use Factor, Highly populated watersheds and those containing ma|or
recreational attractions received higher scores {e.g., 4 on a scale from 1 to 4}.
* J-ffgh-Quatity/Monctegradatron Factor This factor was scored according to
ecological value of assessed water-bodies. Scores range from low (1) for habitat-
limited fisheries to high (4} for outstanding resource waters. Scores were
weighted by waterbody size.
For more detailed information on this and other state indexes, see Geographic Targeting:
Selected State Examples {U.S. EPA,
2.7 Developing Management Strategies
Before preparing a basin plan, the state identifies a range of
management strategies and evaluates their effectiveness.
Management strategies take into consideration the unique problems of
individual watersheds as well as constraining factors such as
resources available for control measures, legal authority, willingness
of stakeholders to proceed, and the likelihood of success.
The first step in developing management strategies is to establish
clear goals and objectives for addressing priority concerns. Goals and
objectives can be quite specific. For example, a basin goal could be
to reduce or eliminate the incidence of algal blooms in an estuary; a
corresponding objective could be to reduce total phosphorus
concentrations in its tributaries by 30 percent. The Klamath River
Basin highlight describes one goal and one objective that provide a
basis for management strategy development for that basin. Similarly,
goals and objectives may be developed for certain watersheds. See
Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (U.S. EPA, 1995) for further
discussion of watershed goals.
2-14
-------
2. MANAG.MGBVWflTERSHEDS;
. „ ------
Goaf I:
^^ anad~ **
S^^
•subsist, ceremonial,
to
from
expectations aataba*>. v,ew ex.stmg regulations as minimum
fish habitat
monitoring recov of
Kcurrent timber
Wtat int89rity;
i ^* - ----<- ^••%**^yfl IX/^
plans to protect highl, W1WWW
unimpaired safmonid habitat."
Kiamath River Basin Restoration
"* monitoring
Rt"eS and F°rest Service
tO Prot««ion of
2-15
-------
2. MANAGING BY WATERSHEDS: COMMON ELEMENTS
Nutrient Trading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin
The Tar-Pamlico Basin is designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) by the State
of North Carolina* In 1989, state officiate were poised to establish strict new controls
on point sources of phosphorus and nitrogen, believing at the time that point source
controls were the only enforceable option. However, dischargers concerned about the
high capital costs of the new controls formed the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association and
worked with the state and two local environmental agencies to craft a nutrient trading
program.
The management strategy for the basin now calls for the Association to fund rural best
management practices (BMPs) by contributing to the State Agricultural Cost Share
Program, The investment by the Association was approximately one-fifth the amount
that point source controls were expected to cost, and the reduction in loading to the
nutrient-sensitive portion of the basin should be considerably larger than point source
controls alone could achieve.
Some strategies developed for a management plan may be basinwide
in nature (e.g., phosphate detergent bans or incentives for riparian
protection) while others may be more local (e.g., improved animal
waste management in a watershed with a high concentration of
livestock operations). Implementation of a basin approach allows
states to address large-scale problems and local issues at the same
time (see the "Nutrient Trading" highlight above).
Stakeholder involvement contributes to equity in point and nonpoint
sources controls. Individuals are more likely to negotiate when their
knowledge of watershed problems is strong and they see that all
sources are being asked to make sacrifices. Figure 2-3 illustrates a
method for relating specific goals and objectives to stakeholders for
management strategy development. Effective statewide approaches
may provide opportunities for innovative management alternatives
such as pollutant trading, wetlands mitigation banking, and ecological
restoration. (See Section 3.10 for additional information on these
topics.)
2.8 Management Plans
Management plans are critical. They document the process, the
selected management strategies, and stakeholder roles, and also serve
as a reference for future basin cycles. Teams, composed of staff of
the state water quality, agricultural, public health and other state
2-16
-------
"-"
Partic patlng Program*, Agenclee. and other Stakeholder.
OAL 1 - Control of Pollutant Inputs
Stormwater - Sewage
Overflow Control
Point/NPS Trading Program
NPS BMPs
QOAL2 - Ecological Restoration
Channel Reconstruction
Water Flows
Redesign Diversion Structures
GOAL 3 - Habitat PrMan/rtton
Conservation Easement
Program
Wetlands Watershed Scale
Advanced Identification
pupa. HeaHh/Drinidm.w
Puttte Water Suppftw
Conipn»hensiveQroundwater
ProtectJon Policy
Wellhead Protection
Source Water ProtecUon
GOAL 5 - Biodi
leal I
Improve Timing for Diversions
Contiguous Habitat Corridors
Species Landscape Needs
Analysis
GOAL 6 . Su.tj.ln.Kj- p^ ^
Eliminate Excessive Soil Loss
Public Outreach and
Education
2-17
-------
agencies, are responsible for developing the documents. Plans are
updated periodically thereafter.
Watershed management plans must specify how goals will be
achieved, who is responsible for implementation, on what schedule,
and how the effectiveness of the plan will be assessed. Clearly
defining an implementation step is a characteristic that separates
basin protocols from initiatives for planning purposes only. Experience
suggests that formal commitments from all stakeholders are critical
before moving into implementation.
The highlight on page 2-19 shows a draft basin plan outline for the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control.
2.9 Implementation
Upon completion and approval of a basin plan, the plan is
implemented. Implementation activities may include issuance of
NPDES permits with conditions reflecting the plan provisions,
implementation of voluntary or mandatory BMPs to control NPS
pollutants, critical area protection, habitat restoration, a monitoring
program to measure success and guide future plan revisions, and
development of TMDLs.
As an example, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (NCDEM, 1993) describes management strategies
for this basin and its watersheds. For the first cycle, the Plan
describes point source controls in the Neuse Basin in considerable
detail. NPS strategies for this cycle involve numerous existing
programs and prioritization of BMP funding. In future cycles, North
Carolina anticipates including more detailed information about NPSs
and strategies.
Figure 2-4 shows the major steps identified by the Washington
Department of Ecology for its statewide approach. Although the
terminology differs slightly, Figure 2-4 features all of the common
elements presented in this chapter.
2-18
-------
ZJVJANAGING^Y WATERSHEDS: CQMMn*. c. C«E..~
•—•—•••.
Basin Management Plans in Delaware
1« introduction/Summary
1.1 Purpose of Plan
t ,2 Whole Basin Planning Cycle
1 -3 Participating Agencies and Publics
1.4 Public Input Process
1.5 Summary of the Management Plan
2. General Basin Description
2.1 Physical, Geographical, and Ecological Features
2.2 Overview of Potential Environmental Stressors
2.3 Land4Jse/Umd Cover Characteristics
2.4 Socioeconomlcs and Government
2,5 Projected Trends in Basin Development
3. Existing Environmental Conditions, Uses, and Stresses
3J Land
3,2 Water
3.3 Air
3.4 Resource Integration
4. Major Concerns and Priority Issues
4.1 Issues of Concern
4.2 Targeted Geographic Areas
5. Long Term Goals and Management Strategy
5,1 Goals
5.2 Options Analyzed
5.3 Strategies Selected
5.4 Measures of Success
6, Implementation
Area-Specific Implementation Activities
7. Next Steps
2-19
-------
2. MANAGING BY BASINS: COMMON ELEMENTS
• Other agencies
• Dischargers
• Tribes
• Advocacy groups
Drinking water
suppliers
1. Public Outreach
Yearl
2. Canvas for Information
3. Analyze Information
No
Yes
5. Determine Status of Basin Resources
6. Identify Problems and Critical Issues
Loading and Habitat
7. Define Management Goals
8. Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
9. Evaluate and Describe Management Options
10. Select Management Approach
11. Prepare Draft Basin Plan
12. Review/Public Hearings
13. Implement Approved Basin Plan
v
Years
Figure 2-4. Major steps in developing and implementing Basin Water Quality Management
Plans (adapted from Washington Department of Ecology)
2-20
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATFR.QHcno,
CHAPTER 3
WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
3.! Water Qua.rty Program, Can Focus More Direcfly on the Resource
3.2 The Basis for Management Decisions is Improved
3-1
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
• Focusing on basins and watersheds encourages agencies to seek
information on all significant stressors, including those that tend to
be overlooked by traditional programs (e.g., ecosystem effects due
to habitat loss). This encourages monitoring programs to account
for the full realm of impacts and sources.
• The pooling of resources and data by multiple stakeholders tends to
increase the amount and types of data available for carrying out
assessments and prioritizing problems for action.
• Basin-oriented monitoring may result in more detailed information.
In North Carolina, for example, approximately 38 percent more
monitoring sites were sampled during the first full year than
previously, with about the same level of effort.
3.3 Program Efficiency Is Enhanced
Focusing on individual basins can improve program efficiency within
the State water quality agency. For example:
• Coordinating monitoring by basin results in more efficient use of
staff and reduces travel time between sites.
• Modeling studies can be consolidated to increase the stream miles
of waterbody modeled per unit of effort.
• NPDES permit notices can be consolidated by basin to limit the
number of publication documents; this requires adjusting permit
expiration schedules so that all permits in a basin have the same
expiration dates.
• Public meetings can be consolidated to cover multiple permits for a
given basin.
The development of basin plans can also be a means to achieve
compliance with CWA mandates:
• Basinwide assessment results can support Section 305(b) reporting
if a common database is used for basin plans and Section 305(b)
reports. For example, basin plans can include water quality
assessment text and Waterbody System data summarized by basin.
The Waterbody System can then be used to generate the required
statewide summary results and tables for Section 305(b) reports.
In 305(b) reports, states may choose to reference the basin plans
for detailed assessment results, thus avoiding duplication of effort.
3-2
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
• Basin plans can satisfy Section 303(d) reporting requirements since
strategies for addressing impaired waters (i.e., actual TMDLs) can
be included in basin plans.
• TMDL development often requires a watershed approach. EPA
regulations and guidance define a TMDL for a specific pollutant as
being equivalent to the loading capacity of a waterbody. This total
load includes both point and nonpoint sources. Since nonpoint
sources are often diverse and widely distributed across a
waterbody's watershed, management strategies that affect the
entire watershed are often needed.
3.4 Coordination Among Agencies in the State Can Be Improved
A watershed approach can help clarify the role of the state water
quality agency in relation to other natural resource agencies—those in
state and local government as well as federal agencies, such as USGS
and USDA, that have state and local offices. Some tasks require site-
specific knowledge and close local contact; other tasks need state-
level authority or can be more cost-effective at that scale. For
instance, the state water quality agency is usually best equipped to
conduct laboratory analysis and 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 watershed 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.
Improved efficiency may also result from closer coordination among
programs. For example, Nebraska's Department of Environmental
Quality hopes to reduce the amount of time spent investigating citizen
complaints. Through closer coordination, only one agency will
respond to each complaint and that agency will determine if further
action is needed. In Alabama, many water-related programs are being
coordinated through the CSGWPP (see highlight).
3.5 Resources Are Better Directed to Priority Issues
A state is better able to focus its water quality program resources,
which are often dispersed among several agencies, on those portions
3-3
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
Alabama's Us* of Its Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program to Coordinate Its Programs
As a first step toward total water resource management, Alabama is coordinating its
programs through its Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPB. In developing its CSGWPPr the state recognized the unique challenges of
ground water protection, including the enormous costs and technical difficulties c-f
ground water remediation and the difficulty of locating sources of contamination due to
the lag time between discharge of pollutants at the land surface and their transport
through an aquifer. These challenges emphasize the need for a coordinated state
approach centering on common priorities.
Alabama is implementing this coordinated prevention approach through its CSGWPP.
All of Alabama's major environmental programs, including its waste programs, are
located in the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. In addition,
Alabama has established the Water Programs Advisory Committee, which brings
together all the major entities with ground water protection responsibilities. Alabama's
Department of Agriculture has been a full partner in this effort, Once the CSGWPP has
been fully implemented, all ground water-based programs wilt direct their efforts first at
wellhead protection areas. Alabama is also in the process of developing a ground water
classification system that will direct program priorities. Currently, the state's
Underground Storage Tanks Program is focusing its inspection and prevention efforts in
wellhead areas and is spending funds to heip delineate the state's wellhead areas.
of basins where they will do the most good. The watershed approach
opens the door to statewide application of risk-based procedures for
targeting where and how program resources should be spent. This
improved capability is primarily the result of three features of a
statewide approach:
• Improved information bases and assessments more clearly identify
water quality issues and waterbody concerns for the process of
assigning priorities.
• Systematic review of all basins as the state cycles through the
sequence allows for comprehensive review of within-basin needs
as well as comparison of resource needs among basins.
• Improved coordination among stakeholders produces common
management priorities and promotes the leveraging of resources.
3-4
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
3.6 Coordination with EPA Can Be Improved
EPA and the states are already working together on programs with a
watershed orientation and extensive stakeholder involvement.
Examples of such programs include
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• Clean Lakes Program
• National Estuary Program
• TMDLs with watershed-wide nonpoint source issues
• Great Lakes Program (especially Remedial Action Plans and Lake
Management Plans).
Watershed approaches provide an opportunity for EPA and state
agencies to augment one another's efforts throughout the state, not
just in areas that fall under special programs. In the long run, an
approach that serves to clarify roles, identify resource needs, and
establish management priorities enhances the efforts of all partners.
States pursuing watershed approaches have identified several ways
that EPA can help facilitate the approach. EPA can:
• Issue program guidance that encourages long-term watershed
management goals rather than short-term program goals that might
draw resources away from the basin planning process
• Negotiate annual or multi-year state program plan commitments
that revise traditional reporting requirements (e.g., STARS/SPMS,
TMDLs, lists, reports)
• Provide for transfer of information so states can learn from
experiences throughout the EPA Region or the Nation
• Make basin planning efforts a priority under grant programs such as
the Sections 104(b)(3) and 319 programs
• Where feasible, Regions can work with states to ensure that grants
have compatible requirements and planning periods
• Assist in negotiations involving other federal agencies or adjoining
states.
3-5
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
Regional Flexibility to Accommodate the Transition
North Carolina officials found that considerable time was needed to plan the state's
basin approach. Also, the first round of basin plans are more time consuming than
plans will be in subsequent 5-year cycles. The state asked EPA Region 4 for permission
to maintain existing effluent limits in cases where NPDES permits came up for renewal
ahead of the basin schedule (i.e., prior to the year when all the basin's permits are to be
renewed}. If approved, state staff would not need to remodel each water quality-limited
parameter, and permittees would not be penalized by different effluent limits upon the
adoption of a basin plan in 1 or 2 years. The state reasoned that major management
decisions should await the improved technical analyses associated with the basin plan.
Region 4 agreed that this interim flexibility would further long-range water quality
management goals.
EPA Regional staff are aware that watershed protection is a new way
of doing business and are responding to these requests on a case-by-
case basis (see North Carolina highlight on this page).
3.7 Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged
By focusing on goals to be achieved over several cycles, the approach
reduces the tendency to operate in a reactive or crisis mode.
Stakeholders can expect improved continuity in decisions because
management actions throughout the basin are fixed for at least the
length of a basin cycle. Utilities directors, for example, can better
plan their long-term wastewater or water supply needs.
Improved consistency is possible because pollution sources across a
watershed 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 watershed are
likely to be subject to consistent impact analysis and management
measures. Similarly, all NPDES permittees along a major river may be
studied at the same time using the same water quality model; the fact
that these stakeholders will be aware of the process and each others'
discharge limits tends to promote consistent and equitable permits
and may reduce the number of grievances filed by permittees.
3.8 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 functions. In many states, for example,
3-6
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
^——i^mmmmmam^
NPS related data are housed in several agencies and are not readily
accessible to outside parties. Inaccessible data on land use and BMPs
present a significant limitation to some states' NPS efforts (see
highlight on this page).
Sharing and linking new computer technologies among different
agencies is also encouraged. Geographic Information Systems (GISs)
can help analyze spatial data for entire basins using data from several
agencies, e.g., to show the relationship between land use and
predicted nonpoint source loadings. CIS buffering techniques are
being used to assess the needs for riparian habitat protection, to
design greenway systems, for biodiversity analysis, and for planning
wetland banking programs, among other purposes.
3.9 Public Involvement Is Enhanced
Watershed protection focuses on a discrete resource around which
citizens can rally. The approach promotes awareness of water-related
issues by citizens and encourages agencies to respond to their
concerns. Opportunities for this interaction occur during basin plan
development and activities such as workshops, hearings, and citizen
monitoring. An additional benefit of public involvement is that a
better informed public can lead to increased citizen and legislative
support for water quality programs.
Data Sharing in North Carolina
During its first S-year basin management cycle, North Carolina is promoting data sharing
among natural resource agencies* This initiative might have occurred without a basin
approach, but the basin approach has accelerated the process. Initially, a Sub-basin
Database was developed containing available data on point sources, land use,
agriculture, and other NPSs by watershed for preparing basin plans.
Realizing the need for more detailed nonpoint source data, the state is consolidating
NPS and BMP data from multiple agencies, including new information yet to be
collected. The Tar-Pamlico Basin will be the focus for system development, and the
needs of state and toeal users and modelers will receive top priority. To the extent
possible, spatially based information will be collected for GIS analysis, The agencies'
GIS data layers are maintained in the state's Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis.
3-7
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
••
3.10 Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged
Some watershed problems, such as habitat destruction, inadequate
stream flow, wetlands loss, atmospheric deposition, and introduced
aquatic species, are difficult for traditional water quality programs to
address. This approach can provide a strong framework for
identifying and solving such problems. Problem identification is made
easier by involving technical experts from many fields during the
environmental assessment portion of the basin cycle —aquatic
biologists working side by side with water resource engineers and
agricultural specialists, for example, can share data and perspectives
on a basin's stressors. Solutions are not limited by the authority or
expertise of a single agency, but rather encompass the range of
stakeholders. Following are several nontraditional solutions that are
feasible under a watershed approach.
Ecological Restoration - Ecological restoration is the reestablishment
of physical, chemical and biological components of an aquatic
ecosystem that have been compromised by point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, habitat degradation, hydromodification, or other
stressors (Restoration as a Water Resource Management Tool, U.S.
EPA 1994b). Categories of restoration techniques include
• Techniques applied directly to the stream channel (e.g., channel
reconfiguration to restore geometry and sinuosity; streambank
stabilization)
• Techniques applied in the riparian zone (e.g., replanting of riparian
buffers to increase the canopy and other functions)
• Techniques applied outside the riparian zone that result in instream
improvements (e.g., BMPs that reduce stormwater surges and
improve riverine habitat).
Restoration activities in the stream channel and riparian buffer zone
are much less commonly used than traditional point and nonpoint
source controls. Yet, restoration activities may be essential for
achieving ecological integrity. Examples include:
• Chronic sedimentation and catastrophic blowouts caused by
logging roads; such occurrences may be unavoidable on steep
terrain, despite engineered BMPs. Revegetation and road
decommissioning may be necessary to restore instream habitat.
3-8
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
Providing Fish Passage
On regulated river systems, impassable barriers sometimes block the migrations of
anadromous fishes. The most dramatic cases involve salmon stocks on the Columbia
River system in the Pacific Northwest, where dams either interfere with fish passage or
in the case of structures like the Grand Coulee Dam, preclude migration altogether,'
Other obstructions may be less obvious but equally deleterious. For instance, culverts
and minor flood control structures around bridges or stretches of a channelized stream
can block the migrations of shad or rock fish. Eliminating such minor blockages is a major
goal of the Anacostta River Restoration Project in Maryland and the District of Columbia.
On larger systems, retrofitting fish ladders or elevators may be viable options.
• Barriers to fish passage that may prevent reestablishment of
important fish species, regardless of water quality (see the highlight
above).
• Waterbodies with toxics-laden sediments that must be removed
before healthy aquatic communities can reestablish themselves.
In many cases ecological restoration may be the most cost-effective
way to achieve watershed water quality goals. The highlight on
page 3-10 describes a case in which habitat restoration was
preferable to advanced wastewater treatment.
Protection of Critical Areas - The National Research Council recently
cited promising examples of restoration projects that have restored
functions in small wetlands, stretches of streams, and small lakes
(National Research Council, 1992). However, the study did not find
cases where populations of fish or wildlife were restored on a broad,
regional scale.
Fortunately, long-term biological integrity in a watershed may be
possible through a watershed-wide strategy of protecting and
restoring high priority areas such as headwaters, riparian buffers, and
biotic refuges.
Traditional CWA programs may not protect these areas. In many
watersheds, for example, headwaters and riparian buffers do not
receive protection as wetlands under CWA Section 404. The loss of
these areas may reduce or eliminate future opportunities for healthy,
balanced biological communities and good habitat. In other words, an
"ounce of prevention" by protecting key areas in a watershed may be
3-9
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
Ecological Restoration as a Cost-effective Solution
In addition to meeting the needs of living resources, ecological restoration or habitat
protection can sometimes increase the capacity of a system to assimilate and
transform pollutants, in Boulder Creek and the South Flatte River in Colorado, city
governments rebuilt natural flood plain meanders and reestablished natural channel
depths and near-stream vegetation patterns. These restoration efforts helped reduce
the concentrations of unionized ammonia in reaches downstream of the cities of
Boulder and Denver. This in turn eliminated the need for costly sewafle treatment
pfant upgrades.
the only way to ensure long-term ecological integrity and avoid the
costs of restoration in the future.
B/otic refuges are areas with relatively undisturbed habitat that
maintain aquatic biodiversity. They may include the headwaters
portion of a watershed or undisturbed riverine segments. A
watershed may also contain many smaller patches of intact aquatic
habitat (e.g., undisturbed small lakes or stretches of stream with deep
pools for fish habitat). These biotic refuges and smaller patches may
have been protected by fortuitous land ownerships or simple chance.
Scientists now recognize that the restoration of ecological integrity
across a watershed or a basin may depend on identifying these
special areas and protecting them from disturbance (development
pressures and point or nonpoint sources).
For further information on protection and restoration of ecologically
important areas, see U.S. EPA (1994b), National Resource Council
(1992), Doppelt et al. (1993), and Moyle (1992).
Wetlands Mitigation Banking - This approach has emerged as an
alternative to onsite compensation for wetlands loss. In wetlands
mitigation banking, larger offsite wetlands are used to mitigate for
many smaller development projects. Developers purchase
"compensation credits" from the mitigation bank. Wetlands in the
bank are created, enhanced, restored, or preserved for this purpose
(Environmental Law Institute, 1993).
Wetland mitigation banking potentially can provide greater ecological
benefits than onsite, project-specific mitigation-e.g., if the
compensation sites are larger and more viable hydrologically and
biologically. Also, continuing professional wetland management is
3-10
-------
3. WHY MANAGE BY WATERSHEDS?
^•••••••••i^^Bm
more likely to protect water quality than ad hoc management at
isolated sites (Environmental Law Institute, 1993).
Ideally, wetlands management will become integrated within
comprehensive management programs and the policy of "no net loss"
implemented by basin or watershed unit. This approach could provide
water quality benefits for the entire basin.
Market-based Solutions - Market-based approaches such as pollutant
trading do not have a long history, but some states are developing
promising approaches. Pollutant trading between point and nonpoint
sources may be feasible in cases where one source category is facing
large costs to control pollutants common to other sources. For
example, point source dischargers may find it cost effective to
provide funds for nonpoint source controls or ecological restoration
rather than to add additional treatment. One example is nutrient
trading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin of North Carolina, where a
consortium of municipalities and other point sources has agreed to
fund the State Agricultural Cost Share program for nutrient BMPs in
the basin (RTI, 1995). Other market-based applications include
wasteload allocation trading among point source dischargers on the
same river. Local governments can play a facilitation role in such
approaches. In South Carolina, for example, the Bureau of Water
Pollution Control hopes to involve regional councils of government in
wasteload allocation decisions.
3-11
-------
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
CHAPTER 4
GETTING STARTED
wah .« t 9 H ' SWItChin9 fr°m Pr°9ram-centered to
watershed-centered management involves a fundamental change that
will prompt intense scrutiny by staff and administrators. Although
^vid3,^ T1^ Chan9eS '" ^^'relationships among 9
.nd,V1duals and programs, it does not necessarily require a change in
orgtn.zat.onal structure. Nonetheless, a significant investment of
time rs needed to resolve such issues. The use of skilled outside
The process is unique to each state (see highlight next page).
Stat6S face seve'al '
• Establishing a common direction
• Managing the transition
• Identifying barriers
• Documenting the approach.
These challenges and some ways to address them are described in
the followmg sections. EPA understands that this is not the only way
™lCath " 3 IT"1 approach' Rather' the information beovT
states to meS teChniqUeS that have P™" useful in several
4.1 Establishing a Common Direction
have d«fearndtPr0gramS lnV°'Ved in wa'ershed protection are likely to
have different perspect.ves and goals. Successful development
° 9 'eaderShiP and SUPP°rt frOm each Participating
m StaH "^ Want a clear direction'and
°re a£|reelng to P*«ciprte. This "buy-in" to the
a demonstration °f
4-1
-------
GETTING STARTED
Implementing Statewide Approaches in Delaware and Texas
In Delaware, managers from two separate divisions within the state's Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control recognized the limitations of operating
nonmtegrated programs. These managers brought together their staffs and
representatives from several other agencies. Through a series of workshops and
workgroups, they are developing a core program to integrate the activities of the
Division of Water Resources programs (i.e., surface water, ground water, wetlands)
with the activities of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation Programs (i.e., NPS
management, coastal zone management, sediment, and stormwater).
The Stale of Texas initiated a process after a Division Director brought the approach to
the attention of both the Deputy Executive Director and Chairman of the Texas Natural
Resources and Conservation Commission. These top^ievel administrators, in turn have
instituted an agency-wide review for application of the approach to ail programs, A
series of educational and discussion sessions led to the establishment of internal
workgroups to address preliminary issues and provide the foundation for development
of a basin approach.
Administrators can demonstrate their commitment by developing a
mission statement that supports the concept of basin- or watershed-
centered management. Meetings can be held with staff and
managers to develop consensus regarding goals and objectives. The
expected products (e.g., basin plans, technical references) and
services (e.g., assessment, planning, outreach) should be specified
from the outset.
4.2 Managing the Transition
State agency staff and other stakeholders will be very interested in
how the operation of programs will change to accommodate
watershed management. Several steps can be taken to assure
stakeholders that a smooth transition can be accomplished.
• Determine who will direct development:
Planning all the details of basin schedules, stakeholder
responsibilities, monitoring plans and other activities is a significant
effort. To lead this effort, it is important to have a knowledgeable
person with strong communication and organizational skills. The
leader may select a core group of contacts throughout the
stakeholder agencies to advise and act on process issues. The
4-2
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
• Establish a resource base for development:
«-e,opment
i watershed approach will require an expenditure of
start time to plan, document and implement the approach
Therefore, it is helpful to determine, up front, the availability of
n,,atJJ!SOUr?eS' -°ther resources such as federal assistance or
outside contracting services can be explored.
• Educate participants on statewide management:
Educate all staff likely to be involved in the process on the
fundamental concepts.
• Establish a means of communication among participants:
Given the significance of the process, agencies should not rely on
information to trickle down through supervisors to staff
is recommended that reaches all participants directly. '
4.3 Documenting the Approach
The lead agency should prepare a document that describes the
approach for that state. This document, often referred to as the
framework document (see Figure 1-3), should include the overaN aoals
and ob,ect,ves for participating agencies, a definition of the ®
management units for the state, the basin cycle schedule procedures
for develop^ basin plans, roles and responsibilities of pa^dpattg
programs and agencies, targeting criteria and procedures and
gu,del,nes for public involvement. The framework document serves
and nWT" 7*ere?Ce f°r Staff to ensure <=°™stency °f application
and quahtv of results. The document also often serves to
cornmun.cate to the public what the approach involves and how they
can better participate in the process. V
faturesmmnt ** f framework do<=^«nt that contains
features common to several states. The next highlight presents some
of the .ssues bemg addressed by the Delaware Department I" Natu^!
8 " Envir°nmental Contr°' '" Developing a framewort for
4-3
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Executive Summary
Statewide Watershed Management Approach Vision
Long-Term Basin Management Vision
Relationship of Current Basin Approach to Vision
1
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Rationale for Approach
1.3 Federal CWA Mandate for Approach
Coordination/Integration of Agency Programs and Functions
2.1 NPDES Permitting
2.2 Monitoring
2.3 Financial Planning and Grants
2.4 Water Resource Planning
2.5 Nonpoint Source Programs
2.6 Coastal Zone Management
2.7 Drinking Water
2.8 Ground Water
2.9 Fish and Wildlife
Transition Issues and Solutions
3.1 EPA Flexibility
Organizational Structures
Coordination with Local Planning Agencies
Basin Scheduling Process
Other Issues
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Major Components of a Basin Management Plan
Procedures for Developing Basin Management Plans
Statewide Monitoring Plan
Data Analysis, Modeling, Presentation (TMDLs)
State Financial Assistance
Roles and Responsibilities in Basin Approach
9.1 Surface and Ground Water Quality
9.2 Soil and Water Resources
9.3 Other Divisions
Implementation Schedule
Data Management
11.1 GIS
11.2 Existing Data Management Structures
11.3 Recommended Data Management Structures
Figure 4-1. Example framework document outline.
4-4
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Key Issues Addressed by Delaware in Developing a Basin Management Framework
* A primary goal in Delaware is to restore and preserve physical habitat that is
essential to waterbody integrity.
• The Division of Water Resources will phase-in coordination with other divisions
and agencies, The consensus strategy recommended that the Division take the
lead in the early phases of development and implementation. This will provide
the program with a base of CWA authority and precedence. However, the
program description includes a definition of water quality inclusive of biological
resources, physical habitat, and watershed linkages to ensure that the Division's
approach is consistent with the goals and objectives of programs and agencies
that will be partners in subsequent phases. The Delaware approach will
ultimately include many of the natural resource programs including the Fish and
Wildlife Division, the Parks and Recreation Division, and county ptannino
authorities.
• A statewide monitoring program addresses targeted needs for individual basins
(e.g., rotating stations and intensive surveys) and maintenance of a statewide
network for monitoring water quality status and trends.
• Transition issues raised in Delaware will require solutions, They include EPA
flexibility, workload planning, coordination with local planning agencies, and
scheduling basin rotation. Delaware is working actively with EPA Region 3 to
make grant funding schedules and requirements more consistent,
• The process for funding through the traditional State Financial Assistance
process presented an institutional barrier for implementation. Alternatives
involving a geographically targeted risk-based approach are discussed in the
framework document.
• Changes to current information management practices are also necessary.
Information management is an important issue for most states, especially
because the WPA focuses more attention on environmental assessment and
involves information from a larger number of data sources.
{see also Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 1994)
4.4 Identifying Barriers
State agency policies or even individuals may pose obstacles to
developing a basin approach. For example, an agency policy or
regulation may have provisions contrary to the proposed approach or
a key individual may fail to participate in the development process.
4-5
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
There may also be staff resistance if organizational changes are
necessary to implement the approach. Because the approach
encourages direct networking among technical experts in different
program areas, some supervisors may have difficulty with the
changing supervisor/staff relationship. For example, biologists and
engineers might need to work more directly with their peers in other
agencies.
To identify concerns and risks of switching to a basin approach, some
states have used a workshop setting and outside facilitators who
have no vested interest in the approach selected. Positive outcomes
may include reduced level of concern and new ideas for resolving
issues. Workshops and workgroups are especially useful for issues
that can be resolved in a relatively short time. Involving a skilled and
impartial facilitator can also help mediate difficult, long-term issues.
To identify potential impacts to agencies, it may be helpful for states
to consider the following questions:
• Will organizational changes be necessary?
• How will changes in methods affect staff and training?
• Are additional resources needed?
• How will the state's relationship with EPA/other agencies be
affected?
Once a basin approach has been established, educating the public is
critical to building support for the approach. Potential methods
include briefing state and local agencies, commissions, and special
interest groups about the process and what roles they can play. This
important step may be difficult for states to accomplish when so
much staff energy is going into developing the basin approach.
4.5 Tailoring the Approach
Once issues of direction and administration have been resolved, a
state is ready to develop an approach that will best meet its needs
and objectives. Answers to the following questions will guide this
effort.
• What are the appropriate management units (i.e., basins and
watersheds) to be used by all participants?
As discussed in Chapter 2, basin boundaries should be established
as a baseline for all participants in the management process. Too
4-6
-------
STARTED
mana9ement
«*
and basin
Resource constraints -available staff and funding
6 ^^ -^ ^
may
Balancing workload from year to year (e.g., in permit
•"- Z-n Plan
e' °f tCtiVI'ty ln a basin~a state maV want to begin with
"* antial information and mana9emen<
- Anticipated degree of public involvement-a state may prefer to
address f.rst those basins with a high degree of puWic interest
and wlhngness to implement management initiatives
Which programs should be involved?
Decide which programs should be integrated (e.g., surface water
drinkin9 W3ter' W6tlandS' agricultu'ai ««»S «S '
'
Some states may choose to initiate a basin approach
otherDrorateS °"'V ' feW Pr°9rams and P|an to incorporate
other programs once some success has been demonstrated.
the^L0,tTn'l0r'n9 m,aV be the first pr°9rams incl""ed due to
the expected substant.al gains in efficiency from coordinating these
acmmpes wrthin a basin management cycle. Other statesmay
choose to innate an approach that includes all water quality
programs. See the next highlight regarding the integration of
aoaDSroaafhUtSettS drinki"9 Water Pr°teCti0n »r°9ram wi»" ^ basin
approach to resource management.
mavfH>S df f rmi,nati°n °f Which Pr°arams to include, a state
may find ,t useful to hst in detail the tasks required to implement
basin management (e.g., data collection, data analysis and
assessment, priority setting, TMDL development, public
LtoSI?0^ Pla" P'Jeparation and adoption, permitting, and other
elements). Roles and responsibilities can then be identified for
4-7
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Comprehensive Source Water Protection In Massachusetts
EPA is actively promoting development of CSGWPPs, Massachusetts is currently
working to develop a CSGWPP aimed at integrating protection of both surface water
and ground water sources of drinking water using EPA's CSGWPP Guidance as a
model. Through this process, the state has begun to identify inconsistencies and gaps
in the protection programs for both ground and surface water-based drinking water
supplies and to develop recommendations and actions necessary to address those
deficiencies,
A critical part of Massachusetts' current effort is the integration of the state's drinking
water protection program with its river basin approach to resource management. With
development of its Clean Water Strategy in t993, the state started synchronizing
functions within each basin that had previously been carried out in isolation within
discreet water protection programs: water quality monitoring; water withdrawal
permitting {new wells); mitigation and remediation of nonpoint sources of pollution; and
permitting under NPDES, Each of these activities impacts drinking water supplies as
well as other waters of the state in some way, and drinking water supplies are critical
resources to be protected in each basin. The state's strategy is ultimately to combine
ground water and surface water protection program efforts into a unified Source Water
Protection Program which wilt provide protection for aJJ sources of drinking water
throughout Massachusetts*
Specific issues to be addressed during development of its Source Water Protection
Program include: te) defining surface water protection areas for reservoirs and river
intakes of varying sizes and types and identifying appropriate land use restrictions in
those protection areas; {bj alleviating problems resulting from highway runoff to surface
water supplies; and (c) developing a policy for disposal of water supply-generated
sludge in drinking water protection areas. Additional opportunities for integration of
drinking water protection into the state's basin approach will be identified as the
program is developed further.
completing these key tasks, thereby identifying the programs and
stakeholders that need to be involved.
• What are the desired levels and methods of public participation?
Determine how and to what degree the public will be involved in
the process. Potential areas for participation include:
- Data and information collection
- Prioritization of problem waterbodies
4-8
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Development of management strategies
Review of management plans and implementation strategies
ion (e.g., by NPS agencies and local
Determine whether the public will have open access to the
°r be limited < °
What interactions among programs are key to effective
implementation of the approach?
h by Products or servic°* from
other programs but are not currently interacting at the most
effecfve level. Some agencies have found it useful to develop a
the reciuired Cements o? the
basi" 'Vole
Work with stakeholders to establish a schedule for key task
< that corresponds t0 the overal1 basin management
OUd the" idemifV imerim products tha< win be
S preparatlon 'e-a- monitoring summaries,
h "SSef SmentS) and establisn tne format in which they
d a"d the SChedule bv which theV should be
thann 'S particular|V imP°«ant to identify those products
that one program area must receive from another before work can
proceed, smce bottlenecks can affect basin plan preparatton and
.mplememat.on. Often, the review/revision of interim products fs
necessary before they can be used in the next steps of planning
Appendix B shows a detailed schedule of activities for Nebraska.
To date nearly all states that have adopted basin approaches (or
wTthe8!,"8"' are Synchron™9 NP<*S permit expiation
with the basin management time cycle.
Pr°9uram JS SUCh a large Part of a Date's water
agency, synchronizing permits makes it easier for this
actmty to be integrated with other components (planning
4-9
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
monitoring, etc.). In fact, increased permitting efficiency was the
initial reason that several States such as South Carolina adopted a
basin approach. However, a state could choose to bring other
programs into the cycle and let permit issuance remain on its own
schedule, incorporating permits into the basin plans.
If permitting is synchronized with the basin management cycle, it is
recommended that permits expire shortly after the scheduled basin
plan adoption date so that plan recommendations can be
incorporated into the permits and results can be tracked prior to the
next basin plan update. For large basins with many NPDES
dischargers, permits may need to be issued over a longer period of
time to spread out the workload for agency permitting staff.
Permittees can be grouped by sub-basin in this case so that
consistency and efficiency factors (e.g., consolidation of public
notices and hearings) can be maintained.
• What criteria will be used to prioritize specific waterbodies and
watersheds within basins for management action, and how will
agency resources be targeted to address specific concerns within
those prioritized waterbodies?
In light of resource constraints, participating programs will need to
establish criteria to prioritize waterbody segments, watersheds,
pollutants of concern, etc., for effective management. Because
objectives may differ across programs, it is useful to make
prioritization criteria explicit so that program involvement remains
efficient and consistent. See Section 2.6.
• What resource or technical support needs must be addressed
before the approach can be implemented?
Determine the specific needs of participating programs for
implementation (e.g., information management systems, GIS, and
modeling capabilities).
• How will basin plans be used?
Establish the intended audience(s) and purpose(s) of your basin
plan, identify the level of plan approval that will be required, and
outline the anticipated components of a basin plan. See the
highlight concerning Nebraska's decisions about the role of basin
plans.
4-10
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Th* Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska
Level of Approval
* l^l^8"^8"8 Sh°uW be official|y ad°Pted a* CWA Section 303(e) plans
which require si9nature of the Governor and approval by EPA
plans should be prepared for approval b* the
Audience and Purpose
* NDEQ-provide for coordination and direction of programs
* Natural Resource Districts -provide for information transfer; raise awareness-
assrst coordination and implementation awareness,
* Other state and federal agencies -inform; direct activities and plan implements
• Begulated community- raise awareness of process; communicate reasons for
effluent limitations (education tool); aid long-range planning
• Legislature^communicate; raise awareness of process and resource
needs/legislative needs
* General public -increase awareness of process; improve perception* facilitate
participation; hefp direct citizen monitoring efforts P*0**™' tac.lttate
£PA~address program plan requirements; expedite required approvals; indicate
resource needs; a
-------
4. GETTING STARTED
Once implemented, how will the basin approach and its component
programs be administered?
It may be helpful for states to review operating agreements or state
programs supported by federal funds to identify areas where
revisions or consolidation are needed. Multiple grants often result
in complex administrative burdens. Consultation with EPA and
other participating federal agencies may result in possibilities for
block grants or other mechanisms to encourage program
integration. Where feasible, program plans should be revised to
support implementation. Also, new interagency memoranda of
understanding may be needed.
4-12
-------
CHAPTER 5
REFERENCES
5. REFERENCES
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control. 1994. Draft Delaware Basin Management Approach-
Statewide Framework Document. Draft. Dover, DE.
A " Karr 1993'
A New Approach to Save America's River Ecosystems
The Pacific Rivers Council. Island Press. Washington, DC and
Covelo, CA.
Environmental Law Institute. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Banking
Washington, DC.
Inland Waterways Commissions. 1 908. Report to Congress of the
Inland Waterways Commission. Washington, DC.
Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. 1991. Long Range Plan
for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration
Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka, CA.
Moyle, P.B. 1992. Fishes, aquatic diversity management areas, and
biodiversity. California Policy Seminar, University of California
Berkeley, CA.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Systems •
Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washington, DC.
NCDEM (North Carolina Division of Environmental Management)
1 993. The Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Raleigh, NC.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Division and The Cadmus Group. Draft Basin Management Approach
Framework Document for the State of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE
5-1
-------
5. REFERENCES
•••••
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1994. Nutrient Modeling and
Management in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Draft report for the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
RTI. 1995. Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Nutrient
Reduction in the Tar-Pamlico Basin. Prepared for the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management. Research Triangle Park, NC.
South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control. 1993. Watershed
Water Quality Management Plan for the Savannah-Salkehatchie Basin.
Columbia, SC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. The Watershed
Protection Approach: An Overview. EPA 503/9-92-001. Office of
Water. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Final Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program Guidance. EPA100-R-93-001. Office of
Administration and Resources Management. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples.
EPA-841-B-93-001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Solutions Basinwide. Video prepared for the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds by RTI. Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Restoration as a Water Resource Management
Tool. Draft. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Watershed Protection: A Project Focus. EPA 841-
R-95-003. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
Washington, DC.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Watershed
Approach to Water Quality Management: A Strategy to Convert the
Washington Department of Ecology Wastewater Permit Function to an
Implementable Watershed Approach. Olympia, WA,
5-2
-------
Appendix A
How Does Ground Water Protection Fit?
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
HOW DOES GROUND WATER PROTECTION FIT?
A.1 Perspective
Considerable concern has been expressed by water resource
managers about how ground water protection is integrated with a
statewide basin approach. The need for integrating surface and
ground water is clear since the quality of ground water contributes to
the general condition of a watershed and may serve as a medium for
transporting pollutants to surface waters.
Furthermore, by coordinating the state's basin approach with its
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP), a
state may be able to leverage the authority and resources of programs
outside the normal surface water management arena. Starting in
1984, EPA began working with states to create ground water
protection strategies to coordinate efforts under some 20 federal
ground water programs. There are ground water provisions focusing
on hazardous substances impacts through programs under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act governing
waste disposal sites and remediation of Superfund sites. Initiatives
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act regulate
the use of agrichemicals. The Safe Drinking Water Act encourages
states to develop Wellhead Protection Plans and allows the
designation of Sole Source Aquifers to provide additional safeguards
from the impacts of various federally assisted projects.
The states' CSGWPPs integrate these various programs and activities.
Also, many states use surface water quality standards under their
CSGWPPs to provide site-specific ground water protection standards.
Thus, a state's CSGWPP and its basin management activities can
reinforce each other's goals. In fact, the effectiveness of the state's
basin approach may depend on how well these basin management
activities and the CSGWPP integrate important regional or site-specific
concerns.
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A
A.2 Surface/Ground Water Issues at the Basin and Watershed Levels
Basin management plans under a statewide basin approach should
identify surface/ground issues at both the basin and watershed level.
At the basin level, certain issues tend to be broad in scope,
sometimes extending across all or part of a basin, for example:
• Large areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia underlain with
limestone caverns where land disposal or direct pollution of
sinkholes can rapidly contaminate both surface and ground water
for many miles
• Parts of Florida with underlying coral and limestone formations and
underground streams
• The Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, where activities in the basin
(e.g., irrigation, Superfund sites) have the potential of
contaminating both the aquifer and the Snake River itself; the
aquifer is now designated as a Sole Source Aquifer
• Portions of Arizona and elsewhere in the arid west where activities
such as agriculture or mining tap into alluvial aquifers, draining
them and causing loss of critical riparian habitat
State basin management plans also identify watershed-specific issues
for special attention in future watershed projects. Examples of
watershed-level issues affecting surface and ground water include
localized problems with solid waste disposal in sinkholes, protection
of springs, pollution of surficial aquifers by land activities, and
localized sites where recreational activity in caverns has caused
damage to sensitive aquatic biota.
A.3 Challenges Specific to Ground Water Protection
There are many opportunities for integrating surface water and ground
water protection. This is particularly the case where shallow aquifers,
which are often highly susceptible to contamination, are directly
connected to surface waters. In other respects, however, ground
water protection presents challenges that differ in kind or scale from
those encountered in protecting surface waters. For example, given
the enormous costs and technical difficulties of ground water
remediation, considerable emphasis must be placed on pollution
prevention. In contrast, because surface waters are generally easier
to clean up, greater emphasis under surface water programs can be
given to restoring impaired waterbodies.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
Other ground water-specific concerns that should be considered when
designing broad protection approaches include ground water pollutant
fate and transport mechanisms, monitoring considerations and
resource boundaries, (e.g., aquifer boundaries may not coincide with
basin boundaries). Because ground water generally flows slowly,
there is often a long lag time (sometimes decades) between discharge
of pollutants at the land's surface and their transport through an
aquifer. This may make it difficult to locate sources of contamination
and has obvious implications for enforcement and for evaluating
environmental effectiveness of protection efforts. Ground water
problems thus are often treated as nonpoint source pollution or in-
place contaminant concerns.
Monitoring ground water quality involves sampling existing or new
wells for pollutants of concern. Monitoring ground water can be very
expensive compared with monitoring surface water, especially if a
large network of new monitoring wells must be installed and
extensive laboratory analyses of ground water consistent with the
state's priorities and schedules are implemented.
CSGWPPs should be carefully coordinated with the state's general,
long term Watershed Protection Approach. For maximum
effectiveness in protecting water resources, states need to make
conscious decisions on how CSGWPPs and basin approaches can
most profitably align. The following highlight describes how Nebraska
deals with interrelated ground water and surface water pollution
issues.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Unking Surface and Ground Water Management in Nebraska
Nebraska's basin approach includes both surface water and ground water programs.
Although the approach is not designed specifically for ground water, various ground
water protection programs within the state are moving to a more basin-by-basin
approach. The state's Wellhead Protection Program annually targets communities in
selected basins to receive a more focused Wellhead Protection effort. Also,
educational activities in Nebraska's CWA Section 319 nonpoint source program are
coordinated with the state's basin approach. Furthermore, septic tank and
underground injection control program activities are targeted to different basins in
successive years.
In addition to these state-level activities, ground water management plans for dealing
with ground water supplies and nonpoint sources of contamination have been
developed and implemented by each of the 23 Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) that
cover the state. Basin plans wilt be coordinated with the ground water management
plan for each appropriate NRD. Since the Districts' boundaries generally follow basin
delineations, they provide a logical geographical management unit for coordinating
watershed protection activities at the local level. The NRDs already sponsor a large
number of CWA Section 319 nonpoint source implementation projects across the
state. Several NRDs have worked with the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality to develop and implement Special Protection Areas, while other NRDs have
independently developed and implemented their own Ground Water Quality
Management Areas. Both designations deal with the management of nonpoint source
ground water contamination. Consequently, although ground water activities in
Nebraska are not specifically included in the basin approach, in effect the state's high-
priority ground water concerns are being addressed basin by basin.
A-4
-------
Appendix B
Management Cycle for the
State of Nebraska
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
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 executive for each basin over the cycle,
ending with the promulgation and implementation of a management plan. These steps are
illustrated in Figure 1 and 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
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.
B-1
-------
( 2 Public Outreach
7 Public Outreach
APPENDIX B
YEAR 1
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 Problem Quantification
11 Prepare Draft Basin Plan
Public Outreach ) >- 12 Agency and Public Review
13 Complete Final Basin Plan
Public Outreach ) * 14 Basin Plan Implementation
10 Develop Management Strategies I
YEARS
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
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.
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.
Step 8. 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
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B
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 restoring, 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.
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.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B
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 programs, enforcement methods,
etc. Activities occurring during this period will include public notice
and issuance of NPDES individual and basin general permits,
distribution of state revolving fund (SRF) loans to prioritized entities,
and allocation of 319 funds to prioritized NPS 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 basinwide assessment to
measure the degree of success from plan implementation and to evaluate areas that were
not assessed during the previous cycle. After a 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 the 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
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B
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.
B-6
-------
o
z
0
M
<
->
->
Z
<
z
i "•
s»
0
•z.
0
(0
<
->
-»
z
<
z
t» u.
a
•z
o
M
<
-»
->
Z
<
z
8 "•
o>
O
1.
o
M
<
->
-,
Z
<
z
S "•
A
O
z
0
M
<
->
-,
Z
<
z
«- ->
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
u.
Of
Of
Of
of
Of
0
Q
CO
CO
O
cr
o
o
0
X
f
er
S
5
S
X
X
a.
<
<
<
<
5
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
*
9
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
S
o
o
o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
9
9
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
—
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
u.
OL
Of.
Of
Of.
Of.
0
O
CO
U)
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
a
f
S
S
X
X
f
f
f
a.
<
<
<
<
S
X
•
•
X
X
1
X
f
5
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
9
9
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
u.
Of
Of
Of
Of
Of
o
0
CO
CO
o
o
0
o
o
f
s
f
f
X
f
f
1
Q.
<
<
<
<
£
X
X
•
j
s
f
f
f
5
5
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
o
o
o
o
o
u
(J
0
o
o
9
9
_
_
_
_
_
_
u.
ct
cc
Of
Of
Of
0
0
CO
CO
o
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
o
cr
f
f
f
X
X
s
a.
a.
<
<
<
<
S
i
X
X
X
X
a.
ex
1
5
5
9
9
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
S
S
a
o
0
0
u
o
o
o
0
0
9
9
Of
Of
Of
Of
o
a
(0
CO
0
a
o
o
o
X
f
f
cr
f
f
f
f
a.
<
<
<
<
X
«
X
X
X
X
f
X
»
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
S
a
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
u
0
o
9
9
Q
Q
U)
(0
0
o
0
0
o
0
o
o
0
(T
f
f
f
o-
X
X
f
a.
<
<
<
<
X
5
5
X
5
M
f
f
a.
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
a
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
9
9
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
a
o
o
o
o
o
S
S
X
f
a1
J
X
S"
a
<
<
<
<
X
s
3
X
X
X
f
a.
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
a
0
a
a
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
9
9
0202O2
-------
CM
0)
O)
(0
a.
O
LJJ
-I
O
LLI
O
O
LLI
O
O
O
z
z
a.
z
(/)
<
CD
CQ
LU
111
_l
CQ
<
a -
J
o-
J-
<
T
-\~
»"
j
-------
-------
------- |