EPA841-R-97-011
September 1997
The Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series*
Statewide Watershed
Management Facilitation
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Water under support from Contract No. 68-C3-0303
with Tetra Tech, Inc. Trevor Clements, Clayton Creager and Kimberly
Brewer of Tetra Tech, Inc. are the document's primary authors, and
Douglas J. Norton of the EPA Office of Water is the project manager.
Acknowledgments
The authors and project manager express appreciation to the many
employees of state watershed programs who contributed to the state
summaries in this document and participated in document review.
Notice
This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency review and has been approved for publication. Publication does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency or of any other organization repre-
sented in this document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Statewide Watershed
Management Facilitation. EPA841-R-97-011. Office of Water (4503F),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 58 pp.
To obtain a copy free of charge, contact:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
Phone: (513) 489-8190
Fax: (513)489-8695
This report is available on the Internet for browsing or down-
load at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/its.html
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Foreword
The watershed approach has changed the way that the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal, tribal and state agencies
manage water resources programs. We now generally recognize that the
critical environmental issues facing society are so intertwined that a
comprehensive, ecosystem-based and community-based approach is
needed. We also recognize that solving environmental problems depends
increasingly on local governments and local citizens. Thus, the need to
integrate across traditional water program areas (e.g., flood-prone area
management, wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution control)
and to cooperate across levels of government (federal, state, tribal, local)
and across public and private sectors is leading toward a watershed
approach.
Public and private organizations, academic institutions, and citizens and
their governments in thousands of communities across the nation are
forming partnerships and learning new ways to manage their watersheds
together. These groups seek guidance and examples of watershed ap-
proach success stories after which to model their own activities. The EPA
Office of Water established the Watershed Academy to help address these
needs by providing training for watershed managers based on local, state,
tribal, and federal experiences in implementing watershed approaches
throughout the past decade.
The Watershed Academy provides technical watershed information and
outreach through live training courses, the Internet, watershed approach
facilitation support, and published documents. The Academy offers live
training courses on the basics of watershed management and maintains a
training catalogue about where to obtain more advanced training. The
Watershed Academy website can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/watershed/wacademy.html. This site includes an Internet
distance learning program, called Academy 2000, that is being developed
to help train those who cannot attend the courses. The Academy's water-
shed approach facilitation process has assisted several states in their
efforts to reorganize their water resources management programs on a
watershed basis. The Watershed Academy also provides watershed
references such as this document, through the Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series.
This document, number 8 in the Series, addresses statewide watershed
management and the process of facilitating the development or reorienta-
tion of these statewide watershed programs. In the past few years, many
states have decided to create new statewide watershed management
frameworks or reorient existing water programs along watershed lines.
Many states have done this with expert facilitation assistance from EPA.
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Part I of this document describes the facilitation process, and Part II
summarizes the experiences of 13 states in statewide watershed manage-
ment framework development and implementation.
The Information Transfer Series titles are:
no. 1: Watershed protection: a project focus (EPA841-R-95-003)
no. 2: Watershed protection: a statewide approach (EPA841-R
95-004)
no. 3: Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective means to
enhancing watershed data collection and analysis
(EPA841-R-97-006)
no. 4: Land cover digital data directory for the United States
(EPA841-B-97-005)
no. 5: Designing an information management system for
watersheds (EPA841-R-97-005)
no. 6: Information management for the watershed approach
in the Pacific Northwest (EPA841-R-97-004)
no. 7: Watershed Academy catalogue of watershed training
opportunities (EPA841-D-97-001)
no. 8: Statewide watershed management facilitation (EPA841-
R-97-011)
no. 9: Watershed approach framework (EPA840-S-96-001)
no. 10: Top 10 watershed lessons learned (EPA840-F-97-001)
no. 11: Catalog of federal funding sources for watershed pro-
tection (EPA841-B-97-008)
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Contents
Acknowledgments ii
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Executive Summary ix
Part 1 — The Watershed Management Facilitation Tool 1
1.0 Introduction: What Is Facilitation and Why Is It Being Used? 3
Growth of Statewide Watershed Management Frameworks in the United States 3
The Role of Facilitation 5
Benefits of Facilitation 9
2.0 Common Components of Facilitation: What's Involved? 12
Scoping 12
WorkGroup Formation 13
Framework Design and Development 14
Transition Planning 16
Framework Documentation 17
3.0 Considering Facilitation: How Do We Define Our Needs? 19
Common Themes 19
Special Considerations/Key Questions to Ask 20
Summary 24
Part 2 — State Experiences 25
Alaska 27
Scoping 27
Framework Design 28
Transition Planning 28
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 29
Arizona 30
Scoping 30
Framework Design 30
Transition Planning 31
Implementation 31
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Delaware 32
Scoping 32
Framework Design 32
Transition Planning 33
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 33
Georgia 34
Scoping 34
Framework Design and Transition Planning 34
Implementation 35
Kentucky 37
Scoping 37
Framework Design 37
Transition Planning 38
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 38
Nebraska 40
Scoping 40
Framework Design 41
Transition Planning 41
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 41
New Jersey 42
Scoping 42
Framework Design 43
Transition Planning 43
North Carolina | 44
Scoping 44
Framework Design 45
Transition Planning 45
Implementation 45
Tennessee 47
Scoping 47
Implementation 48
Texas 49
Scoping 49
Framework Design 49
Transition Planning 50
Implementation 50
Utah 51
Scoping 51
Framework Design 52
Transition Planning 52
vl
-------
Watershed Academy
fnfomiatfon Transfer Series
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 52
Washington 53
Scoping 53
Framework Design 53
Transition Planning 54
Implementation (Post-Facilitation) 54
West Virginia 55
Scoping 55
Framework Design 56
Transition 57
Implementation 58
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Emerging Watershed Management Framework 3
Figure 2. Example Stages in the Development of Statewide Watershed Management 4
Figure 3. Common Elements of Statewide Frameworks 4
Figure 4. Example Statewide Watershed Management Schedule 5
Figure 5. Alaska Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 27
Figure 6. Arizona Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 30
Figure 7. Delaware Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 32
Figure 8. Georgia Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 34
Figure 9. Kentucky Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 37
Figure 10. Nebraska Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 40
Figure 11. New Jersey Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 42
Figure 12. North Carolina Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 44
Figure 13. Tennessee Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 47
Figure 14. Texas Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 49
Figure 15. Utah Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 51
Figure 16. Washington Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 53
Figure 17. West Virginia Framework Development and Implementation Timeline 55
vii
-------
Wo. S
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Facilitation Services Provided to 13 States 7
v///
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Executive Summary
More than twenty states are known to be developing or implementing
management frameworks that use watersheds as the organizational basis
for integrating water resource protection and restoration activities. These
frameworks address the process and procedures for coordinating activi-
ties—from public outreach to strategic monitoring and assessment to
integrated management. Seventeen of these states have used, or are
currently using, technical expert facilitators to help design their frame-
works. This document focuses on thirteen of these states where facilita-
tion efforts have been completed and frameworks are being implemented:
Alaska
Arizona
Delaware
Georgia
Kentucky
Nebraska
North Carolina
New Jersey
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
The purpose of this document is to describe how facilitation has helped
these states, and to provide useful recommendations for states that are
considering the use of facilitation for framework development.
Facilitation can be used to guide states through a challenging process that
includes examining what is possible and beneficial in a statewide water-
shed approach (scoping), framework design and development, transition
planning, and framework documentation. This support often includes a
portion or all of the following:
• education on statewide watershed management and experiences
in other states
• consultation on approaches for organizing and developing a
statewide framework
• management of the process for designing and developing state-
wide frameworks
• neutral facilitation of discussion and consensus building
• mediation among framework development group members to
resolve differences
• documentation of the framework to provide a long-term refer-
ence for a state
• assistance in making the transition to the new framework
Facilitation services have varied for each state depending on its needs,
plans, perspectives, and available resources. States like Alaska, Nebraska,
;x
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington used facilitation
services for specific, short-term efforts aimed at "getting the ball rolling."
Other states such as Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, Utah
and West Virginia have used facilitation comprehensively to help initiate,
design, and establish a management framework.
According to these states, the basic attributes for a good watershed
management facilitator include being able to:
• communicate the issues involved in statewide watershed manage-
ment effectively
• encourage open discussion and build consensus
• provide structure and focus for the development process
• adapt facilitation styles from formal to informal as needed
A state's decision whether it could benefit from facilitation can be based
on several factors, but largely hinges on the experience and resources the
state has at its disposal and the number of agencies and organizations that
want to be a part of framework design. States that can devote significant
staff time to organizing, planning, mediating, and documenting tasks, or
that are designing a framework involving only one agency section or
division, may choose not to rely as heavily on facilitation. States that have
less available staff time and experience, or that have multiple potential
watershed partners, may find facilitation services vital to make progress in
developing or enhancing their approach.
-------
Part 1 The Watershed Management
Facilitation Tool
-------
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
1.0 Introduction: What Is Facilitation and
Why Is It Being Used?
Growth of Statewide
Watershed
Management
Frameworks in the
United States
GOAL: Watershed
Ecosystem Integrity
Environmental
Objectives
StahtSartls/ "
Conservation Goals
Coordination
Framework
Figure 1. The Emerging Watershed Management Framework
Over the last decade, more than 20 states have embarked on statewide
watershed management. Watershed management is not a new regulatory
program, but rather a way of coordinating existing programs and building
new partnerships to better achieve shared water resource management
goals and objectives (Figure 1). Success is measured in terms of improving
and maintaining environmental quality and protecting public health (i.e.,
watershed ecosystem integrity). The term watershed, in this context, is
broadly defined as the geographic delineation of an entire water body
system and the land that drains
into it. The topographical ridge
lines that define the boundaries of
a watershed provide a natural
basis for organizing stakeholders,
tying the people to the resource,
and helping them focus on solving
common problems. As a result, a
watershed serves as a convenient
tool for integrating water resource
protection and restoration
activities.
Integrated management doesn't
just happen. Because watershed
management activities frequently
involve many public and private
efforts, significant coordination is
essential to sound decision making and management. To make coordina-
tion easier and more effective many states have designed and documented
management frameworks, or a lasting process for partners working
together (Figure 2). These frameworks provide a support structure for
coordinating efforts, including operating procedures, time lines, and ways
to communicate.
Just What Are These
States Coordinating?
Generally, the statewide frameworks have three common elements (Fig-
ure 3):
(1) geographic management units, (2) stakeholder involvement, and (3) a
repeating, 5-year watershed management cycle. Although each state has
designed a unique management cycle, typically partners agree to key
watershed management activities and an operational time line for carrying
out these activities statewide. Activities usually include:
• Strategic data collection and monitoring
• Assessment by watershed
• A priority ranking and resource targeting system
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Figure 2. States Developing and Implementing Statewide Watershed
Management Frameworks
• Development of management
strategies
• Management plan documenta-
tion
• Plan implementation
These agreed-upon or common
management units, management
activities, and time lines make it
easier for watershed management
partners to work together on
common problems. Figure 4
illustrates how watershed manage-
ment activities can be scheduled
and sequenced throughout an
entire state using a 5-year cycle.
For illustration, activities have
been simplified into five catego-
ries, shown in the legend at the bottom of the figure. Activities are
sequenced through five watershed groupings, shown on the left.
The management cycle is a planning tool that improves the ability of
participating organizations to collaborate on complementary water quality
objectives. The cycle steps do not restrict participants from undertaking
activities other than those listed in an individual step. Rather, each cycle
step places an emphasis on a particular activity. For example, implementa-
tion of selected projects that do not require monitoring or assessment can
be initiated early in the management cycle before the focused implemen-
tation step. In addition, there are many circumstances where monitoring
and assessment activities will occur outside the intensive monitoring and
assessment periods. The statewide cycle can be especially accommodating
to local organizations that have completed steps ahead of the statewide
schedule. However, experience from statewide watershed states indicates
that local and state schedules often converge over time due to the im-
proved opportunities for coordination that are supported by the schedule.
Figure 3. Common Elements of Statewide Frameworks
Designing a watershed manage-
ment framework is hard work and
requires careful up-front planning.
For example, the management
cycle illustrates the interdepen-
dence of these management
activities and the importance and
complexity of timing and coordina-
tion even within a single program.
Adding to the complexity of
framework design is the number of
watershed partners at the table.
Although often initiated by state
water quality agencies, many
existing statewide watershed
management frameworks (particu-
larly those designed in recent
-------
Watershed Academy
fnformatfon Transfer Series
Basin
Groupings
Data Collection
Assessment and Prioritization
Management Strategy
Development
Figure 4. Example Statewide Watershed Management Schedule
years) include partnerships be-
tween multiple agencies covering
local, state, and federal scales.
For more specifics on elements of a
statewide watershed management
approach, refer to Watershed
Academy Information Transfer
Series Document No. 2, Watershed.
Protection: A Statewide Approach,
(EPA841-R-95-004). Also, two
courses on this topic are available
through the Academy: the 2-day
Watersheds 102: The Statewide
Approach to Watershed Manage-
ment and the half-day Watersheds
104: Executive Overview of the
Watershed Approach. For more
information on these courses, check EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/watershed/wacademy.htm.
Action Plan Review and Approval
Focused Implementation
The Role of
Facilitation
What Is a Facilitated
Approach?
Many states want to design and build a strong, durable, yet flexible
watershed management framework. However, just getting started can be
overwhelming for some because of the complexity of issues and number of
interested partners. Once the design process begins, keeping partners
involved, focused, productive, and unified requires substantial time and
skill. Facilitation can be used to organize and guide states through this
challenging process.
Many of us are familiar with the narrow definition of facilitation where a
neutral party focuses entirely on the process of a meeting and serves as a
moderator of discussion. In this document, however, the term facilitate is
used broadly to mean "to make things easy or easier" (Webster's), and it
includes a wide range of assistance and support. For example, a facili-
tated approach often includes a portion or all of the following:
• Education on statewide watershed management and experiences in
other states
• Consultation on approaches for organizing and developing a statewide
framework
• Management of the process for designing and developing statewide
frameworks
• Neutral facilitation of discussion and consensus building
• Mediation among framework development group members to resolve
differences
• Documentation of the framework to provide a long-term reference for
a state
• Assistance in making the transition to the new framework
The approach has varied for each state depending on its needs, perspec-
tives, and available resources. Some states have used facilitation services
only to "get the ball rolling" or for specific, short-term efforts. Other
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
states have used facilitation comprehensively to initiate, design, and
establish a management framework. The purpose of this document is to
describe how facilitation has helped many states progress in developing
and implementing watershed approaches. This document provides useful
recommendations for states that are considering the use of facilitation for
framework development.
Which States Have Used a
Facilitated Approach?
Seventeen states are known to have used (or are currently using) facilita-
tors to help design their watershed management frameworks. This
document focuses on 13 of these states where facilitation efforts have
been completed and frameworks are being implemented:
Alaska North Carolina
Arizona
Delaware
Georgia
Kentucky
Nebraska
New Jersey
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
How and Why Has
Facilitation Been Used?
The types of facilitation services received by each of the 13 states are
summarized in Table 1. We asked representatives from each state why
they sought facilitation assistance, and here are some of their responses:
Alaska: 'The objective of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) was to establish partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders.
DEC did not want primary responsibility for establishing or maintaining
the statewide watershed framework. The independent facilitator was a
logical extension of this strategy and was in fact necessary for develop-
ment of the broadly based Alaska Watershed Partnerships framework."
Arizona: "USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Region 9
sponsored an information session on the watershed approach. Participants
responded favorably to both the watershed approach concepts and the
workshop presenter (who later became our framework development
facilitator)."
Delaware: "The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Control is a comprehensive natural resources management
agency with divisions overseeing every conceivable aspect of the environ-
ment. We in the Surface Water Division realized that, if we were to
propose a watershed approach that involved the coordination and integra-
tion of activities with other divisions, an objective facilitator would be
necessary to guide the framework development process."
Georgia: "We were starting something new, and we wanted to learn from
somebody who had already gone through the framework development
process. We hoped to build on the good ideas generated by states who
pioneered the statewide approach, and avoid potential pitfalls where they
could be foreseen because of others' experiences."
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Table 1. Summary of Facilitation Services Provided to 13 States
Types of Assistance Provided
Identifying stakeholders to include in the frame-
work design
Educating staff and other stakeholders about the
concepts of the watershed approach
Developing or clarifying common goals and a
vision to guide framework design
Developing a work plan and milestones for
framework design
Planning workshops or work sessions, including
developing agenda
Writing work session summaries/minutes to
distribute to the group
Documenting the outcomes of group discussion
Presenting alternative options or strategies for
the group to consider in key decision areas
Providing neutral facilitation of group
discussion and consensus building
Actively mediating among group members to
identify areas of agreement and disagreement
and to resolve differences
Desgining detailed framework elements
Developing a watershed or basin management
framework
documentation
technical editing
production desgin
other
Making the transition
clarifying short-term actions
needed (e.g., next steps)
developing a transition plan
helping to set up forums
staff training
other
AZ
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
M ii
E I
i 1
s
s
'
'
s
s
'
D
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Hi
ill
Hi
y
V
V
V
m-
V
V
V
V
E
/•
^
^
/•
s
s
/
s
/
f
s
'
'
'
'
if
^
/*
S
s
G
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
'32
V
«
V
V
V
V
V
A
s
/
s
s
s
s
f
f
s
/
f
k
f
f
p
/•
^
^r
/•
/
AK
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
'
^
^
v^
^
^
^
KY
^
^
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^^^S^*V
'
^
^,
^
^
^
St(
NC
^
^
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
v^
^
^
K/^«
^
ites
NE
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
'
^
1
^
^
^
-- i
NJ
^
'
^
^
t 4
^
1 &
^
WA
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
'
^
TN
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
*
TX
^
^
^
'
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
v^
'
« *. ,
^
^
UT
^
^
^
'
v^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^-
'
^
^
^
wv
^
^
^
^
^
'
^
^
^
^
s
s
s
'
s
s
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Kentucky: "We were exposed to examples of facilitated statewide
frameworks at an EPA Watershed Academy training session, and wanted to
achieve similar results in Kentucky. Additionally, our previous experience
indicated that facilitated multi-stakeholder initiatives have been much
more successful than non-facilitated efforts."
Nebraska: "Our staff had very little previous experience with watershed
approaches, and no additional time to manage framework development
and document the results ourselves. We needed to learn from others'
experiences, and the support to design and document our statewide
framework."
New Jersey: "We [Office of Environmental Planning] had been promot-
ing the idea of a statewide watershed management framework for years,
and were frustrated at the lack of buy-in by other agency program heads.
We needed to bring in an outside party who could demonstrate to our
department's managers that a statewide framework is a valid idea, and
that other states have overcome issues similar to ours and are already
implementing frameworks."
North Carolina (first state to use facilitation to define and document a
framework): "In North Carolina we had a diverse set of water quality
agency staff with a wide range of ideas and concerns regarding a water-
shed approach. We knew that we needed a skilled consensus-builder to
help us clarify and document our vision of a statewide framework."
Tennessee: "We [Water Pollution Control Division] were in the midst of
developing our framework, and management was asking for more detail
on how the agency could continue to build its watershed approach. We
wanted someone with experience to share ideas on what other states were
doing and to help us think through useful next steps."
Texas: "We had been developing components of a watershed approach
for a considerable amount of time, and we knew we needed assistance to
help us focus our efforts and expedite the preparation of a written frame-
work document that could pull all of the pieces together into a coherent,
user-friendly reference."
Utah: "In the beginning, I was the only person advocating a watershed
approach. Also, I was not in an administrative or management position to
make the decision to develop a watershed approach. I needed a more
substantive presence to help educate staff and to help develop a common
vision for a watershed approach."
Washington: "Facilitation was offered as part of a lawsuit settlement
agreement between plaintiffs and USEPA Region 10. We [Washington
Department of Ecology] had already begun a design process for a water-
shed approach. Initially, our water quality programs were not enthusiastic
about outside assistance. However, after several facilitated work group
meetings, most participants fully supported the facilitation assistance."
West Virginia: "As discussion of the concept of the watershed approach
progressed [in the Office of Water Resources], it was clear that one agency
didn't have adequate authority to address the multiple issues that needed
8
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
to be considered. OWR assumed leadership, but knew that outside
assistance was needed to enhance the process of consensus building."
Benefits of
Facilitation
So how did the facilitation efforts turn out? Perspectives from states are
provided below, along with some additional observations from the facilita-
tors. (Note: More detailed descriptions of accomplishments and progress
in states are provided in Part 2.)
Reflections from States
Alaska: "Facilitation has given us the capability to have a statewide
watershed framework that can develop without relying on a single agency
as the sponsor. The exchange of ideas between work group partners
during the framework development process has raised the level of trust
and cooperation among many of those involved and affected by resource
management decisions in Alaska."
Arizona: "Facilitation led to a watershed approach that was better
thought out and had a higher degree of buy-in from participating pro-
grams, agencies, and citizen watershed organizations. Facilitation allowed
the agency to take the necessary time for head scratching and soul search-
ing all through periods of uncertainty within the agency. Facilitation
enabled us to take the brainstorming during the two-year development
period and turn it into a coherent strategy."
Delaware: "The process of developing a coordinated basin approach
helped to address other long standing issues between agency Divisions,
and led to improved teamwork and communication within the agency."
Georgia: "The knowledge and experiences of the facilitator provided a
base of ideas to work from and tailor to Georgia's needs. Importantly,
facilitation kept us moving forward and on schedule. Framework compo-
nents were completed during work group meetings, and the facilitator
quickly turned around written results. We simply didn't have the re-
sources to do this by ourselves. In the end, a more thorough framework
was designed and documented, and the facilitation process really helped
enhance working relationships among the framework development work
group members."
Kentucky: "Facilitation helped neutralize' our agency's leadership role in
developing the framework and we achieved much greater partner partici-
pation than we anticipated at the beginning. The facilitator's knowledge
of experiences in other states provided the diverse work group building
the framework with helpful insights and ideas. Facilitation also kept the
agenda moving and forced answers to questions we may have overlooked
or minimized. The end result was a very professional and complete
framework."
Nebraska: "Educating staff and other stakeholders about watershed
approaches by an expert gave credibility to our framework development
process. Neutral facilitation ensured that this was an open' process and
not perceived as a surface water effort. Planning work group sessions,
documenting outcomes of group discussions, and preparing the framework
document were the most helpful services. Without the assistance in
developing activity schedules and synchronizing permit reissuance, it is
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
likely that less coordination and extended deadlines would have oc-
curred."
New Jersey: "Information provided by the facilitator helped us move
forward by giving specific examples of how our management processes
and activities could be more efficient and effective through a statewide
watershed approach. Several of our framework's components were
modeled after ideas and materials shared by the facilitator."
North Carolina: "Neutral facilitation helped us to focus collectively on
what we wanted to achieve through a basinwide planning approach, and
on defining a coordinated approach to implement that vision. The process
led to greater understanding of one another's roles among participating
programs, and helped us to establish a management cycle of activities that
improved efficiency and generated products such as monitoring plans,
assessments, modeling analyses, and management plans to meet key
milestone dates on time."
Tennessee: "Providing more in-depth information on the principles and
elements of a statewide watershed approach helped us to better under-
stand the approach, and produced more internal and external support to
continue enhancing a watershed approach for Tennessee. In essence, we
believe the facilitation validated and expedited the process that we used
to develop our watershed initiative."
Texas: "The facilitator helped keep work sessions focused and promoted
innovative thinking. He also helped our staff articulate fairly complex
aspects of synchronizing individual program activities with the overall
statewide basin management cycle. This resulted in a higher quality
framework document than we originally anticipated, in a shorter amount
of time than we could have accomplished on our own, and with greater
buy-in by the programs participating in the framework."
Utah: "It made the process happen. Without the education, consensus
building, mediation, and physical support (e.g., documentation) the
watershed approach framework development process would not have
occurred in Utah. Facilitation definitely made our watershed approach
framework more comprehensive and inclusive."
Washington: "Facilitation helped us maintain the operational focus of
the agency during a process of change and transition to the watershed
approach. Facilitation allowed us to develop a realistic plan for integrat-
ing other agency program areas for example: permits, loan/grant, 303(d),
305(b), 303(e), NFS, water quantity, waste, toxics. These included
adaptations to the watershed approach to accommodate current agency
philosophy, guidance, and policies."
West Virginia: "The process of neutral facilitation was designed to
encourage multi-agency participation, not aimed at or driven by one
agency. The facilitator helped us develop a work plan and milestones, and
directed discussion toward achievable outcomes without being bogged
down with discussion. Some issues did require discussion and argument,
and the facilitator's mediation was helpful in resolving them. As the
_
10
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
More Observations From
Facilitators
process matured, it was clear that facilitation was essential to maintaining
and increasing involvement, interest, and ultimate commitment of the
multiple agencies. Now, the framework is statewide, includes more than
just the original players, has support from administration [from office
chiefs to agency directors to the Governor], and other agencies are lined
up to join."
Most of the benefits that we have witnessed in the states where facilita-
tion services have been provided are well covered by the reflections
provided by the state representatives. Clearly, the sharing and scrutinizing
of ideas among states has helped to refine and evolve good ideas into
more effective frameworks. From the facilitators' perspectives, some of
the key benefits of the process include:
• Providing types of technical support not typically available within
resource management agencies and organizations.
• Creating an open, focused, creative, productive, and challenging
environment where working relationships and partnerships that
will carry over into framework implementation can develop.
• Identifying concrete and common goals and objectives for frame-
work design. ("What's in this for my program, agency, or organi-
zation?")
• Presenting or generating alternative options for framework
development groups to consider in key decision areas.
• Helping to create a sense of group momentum and accomplish-
ment.
11
-------
No.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
2.0 Common Components of Facilitation:
What's Involved?
States use facilitation services to meet different needs. Some states, such
as Tennessee and New Jersey, bring facilitators in for short-term, targeted
assistance. Other states use facilitation for the entire process from organiz-
ing the initiative to implementing the watershed management framework.
Regardless of how comprehensive any one state's use of facilitation is, the
components of facilitation generally fall into one of five areas scoping,
work group formation, framework design and development, framework
documentation, and transition planning. This section describes each of
these areas in more detail.
Scoping
The term scoping is used to describe facilitation services that help a state
to learn more about a statewide watershed management approach and to
examine whether such an approach would be beneficial. It often involves
gathering agency and organization leaders together to share presentations
on components and benefits of management frameworks in other states,
and to discuss whether some or all of the management challenges they're
facing can be addressed better through a watershed approach. Facilitated
dialogue can help to identify common goals and objectives and to estab-
lish the scope and magnitude of interest for developing a framework. For
example, in Texas, the scoping process resulted in a decision to build the
first version of the framework internally within the Texas Natural Re-
sources Conservation Commission. In contrast, the scoping process in
Kentucky led a Division of Water internal work group to expand the
framework development team to include more than 30 agencies and
private organizations representing local, state, and federal interests.
The value of the scoping step should not be underestimated. In Washing-
ton state scoping was preempted by the conditions and schedule dictated
by a court ordered settlement agreement. Many of the logical partners for
the Washington framework were not included in the planning process.
The Department of Ecology and the Governor's office is currently working
to reopen the framework design process to better incorporate missing
partners into the framework.
In West Virginia, scoping produced a multiagency approach that linked
framework development with other initiatives, including strategic plan-
ning, permit reengineering, a performance partnership agreement with
EPA, and a TMDL lawsuit settlement.
The facilitator's role in the scoping process varies, but typically includes
services such as the following:
12
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Providing written and oral background information on watershed
management and statewide approaches through informal discus-
sions and formal presentations.
Working with a sponsor to plan and conduct seminars or work-
shops on the approach.
Facilitating identification of common goals and objectives to guide
framework development, and evaluation of current methods for
managing watershed resources for their effectiveness and poten-
tial gaps.
Facilitating discussion at seminars or workshops to examine
whether framework development or refinement should be further
pursued.
Documenting discussions and group consensus. (Is there a com-
mon vision?)
Work Group Formation
Most states have used a work group method to design and develop their
frameworks. As its name suggests, this method involves assembling a
work group from interested participants who are willing and able to spend
their time developing the framework.
In Alaska, scoping led to formation of a work group that included state-
wide partners from several federal, state, and local agencies, trade organi-
zations, environmental groups, and community-based citizen
organizations. Shared leadership among work group members has been
vital to the survival of the Alaska Watershed Partnerships framework.
In Utah, a work group was formed within the Division of Water Quality.
The work group included staff from all affected programs representing a
wide range of department experience and several grade levels (e.g.,
project staff, middle managers, and senior managers). In this sense, the
Utah Framework development workgroup resembled a typical Total
Quality Management Team that is designed to incorporate/represent as
many perspectives in the production process as possible. The facilitator
and work group ground rules encouraged the use of this diversity to create
a balanced and integrated framework.
Factors to consider when forming a work group include:
• Given the common vision of the framework, who should be in the
work group to develop an approach that meets expectations?
• How will the work group operate and what will be expected of its
members?
• Who can handle work group meeting logistics such as finding
meeting space, maintaining mailing lists and communicating
meeting times, taking meeting notes, and so forth?
• How can a work group that's inclusive and of manageable size be
formed?
—— —
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Framework Design
and Development
• How can a work group be initiated without seeming to encroach
on others' "turf"?
Facilitation is not required for this task, but can be used to assist in some
or all of these areas. For example, facilitators have:
• Helped leaders to develop a strategy for work group formation,
including advice on membership and methods for achieving
participation.
• Helped prospective work group members understand what the
framework development process will entail and what will be
expected of them (roles, time commitments, etc.).
• Assisted interested groups in brainstorming whether they have "at
the table" everyone who needs to be involved for an effective
framework.
• Provided examples of organizational structure and ground rules
for work group operation that have worked in other states, and
tailored them if needed.
• Helped to establish a work plan to initiate and guide the work
group through the framework development process.
In the framework development phase, facilitation is used to help partici-
pants reach a series of milestones established in their work plan. Typi-
cally, meeting agendas focus on specific framework components such that
by the end of the session the work group has completed its design or
reached an understanding of what needs to be completed at the next
meeting or through between-meeting assignments.
Facilitators frequently assist states by planning and preparing the agenda
for these meetings or workshops in accordance with the overall work plan.
Facilitators are often looked to by states to provide neutral leadership or
mediation of framework design work sessions. A variety of facilitation
techniques (e.g., round robin discussion, break-out groups, large-group
critique of "strawman" ideas) can be used to ensure opportunities for all
group members to stay actively involved and provide input to the frame-
work design. It is the role of the facilitator to make sure work group
members understand what outcome they're working toward, pose key
questions for the group to answer, and provide examples from other states
to aid in understanding and provide possible models to follow as needed.
In short, facilitators make it easier for the group to design and build its
framework, sometimes sharing options for how components could be
designed, but not "telling" them how components "should" be designed.
Occasionally, experienced facilitators are asked to play a strong advisory
role in the technical design of components because of their background in
a given area and their ability to share what has worked well or not
worked well elsewhere.
Sometimes state work groups use smaller subcommittees with experts
who work out framework component details for the larger group's consid-
eration. This can be effective where the work group is fairly large. For
_
14
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
example, Kentucky's work group was composed of more than 30 agencies
and organizations. It used five subcommittees to design the bulk of its
framework,, using a shorter period of time than that needed by states
where one work group designed all of the components.
One challenge posed by the multiple subcommittee approach, however, is
maintaining communication among subcommittees such that linkages
between components are understood or worked through. The facilitator
plays a strong role in ensuring that communication is maintained and
linkages are identified. Also, it is possible that the larger work group will
not agree with everything recommended by a subcommittee and some-
times components need further design work. West Virginia established
issue-oriented subcommittees on an as-needed basis. The subcommittees
reported progress or recommendations on a monthly basis to the full work
group.
Texas, which focused initial framework development within the state
water quality agency, used a facilitator and watershed coordinator team
for part of its development process to move around to each individual
program to work out their roles and responsibilities in the management
cycle. This method was combined with periodic meetings of a larger work
group, which focused on designing the overarching framework compo-
nents that supported coordination among the agency's programs.
Initial emphasis in the design stage is often placed on defining the primary
coordinating elements of the framework geographic management units for
coordinating over space, a watershed management cycle and statewide
schedule for coordinating over time, and forums for different levels of
stakeholder involvement (e.g., statewide steering committees, river basin
teams, local watershed task forces or associations, and partner networks).
Consensus in these areas is essential because they form the basis for
integrating efforts and drive the location and timing of daily operations
for several types of activities. Facilitation can help build consensus by
helping group members establish and apply criteria for making their
decisions. Where experience among group members making these deci-
sions is lacking, facilitators can provide examples of criteria and methods
used elsewhere.
Once the primary coordinating elements of the framework have been
designed, emphasis usually turns to detailing roles and responsibilities for
operating the framework and carrying out the cycle of management
activities. There are several types of roles to define including technical,
policy-making, coordination, communication, and support (e.g., informa-
tion management and administrative) roles. Experienced facilitators can
be used to provide examples of roles defined in other states for entities
such as basin coordinators, public information coordinators, statewide
steering committees, technical basin teams, local advisory groups, and
others. Additionally, some states (Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, and
West Virginia) have used facilitation to map out detailed activity guides
that communicate what each responsible entity will try to achieve at each
step in the management cycle. In this process, each participating agency,
organization, or program is asked to think through its actions, desired
outcomes, and timing for each step in the cycle. The facilitator helps the
groups think through the process, and then compiles the results into a
_
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Transition Planning
common reference guide so that each partner can see its own role and
how its efforts integrate with those of the other partners.
Throughout the design process, a trained facilitator can assist state work
groups by identifying issues or apparent gaps in the design that the group
should address, or implications of design decisions such as the need for
additional support or coordination to implement the design. In Nebraska,
for example, facilitation helped to identify and rectify workload imbal-
ances for certain key programs in the initial design of the statewide basin
management schedule. In Kentucky, where partners didn't want to create
another new coordination and communication forum to add to the many
that already exist, facilitation led to the idea for a partner network that
connected existing forums.
As is the case in any process where more than one person is involved,
framework design team members might not always see eye-to-eye on how
the approach should take place. Indeed, constructive debate often helps
work groups to think through framework components completely and
results in a stronger design.
Occasionally, however, there are issues where the work group can get
stuck because of lack of consensus. Facilitation is useful in these circum-
stances to mediate among the group members to identify areas of agree-
ment and disagreement, and to work to resolve differences by looking for
common ground and a win-win outcome or a satisfactory compromise.
Sometimes this process requires negotiations outside a group meeting.
Implementing a statewide framework involves more than reaching a
consensus on coordinating elements and a framework design. The great-
est challenge, perhaps, lies in translating the design concepts into routine
daily operations. Practical considerations include assembling technical
teams and advisory groups, hiring or appointing coordinators, maintaining
adequate funding of key activities, maintaining communication and
coordination, managing information, supporting and conducting outreach
and public participation, and monitoring implementation of the frame-
work and corresponding levels of success in meeting environmental goals
and objectives. As the saying goes, "this is where the rubber hits the
road," and good planning can help avoid pitfalls along the way.
Facilitation can play a significant role in helping partners plan for and
begin the transition from current operations to those under a statewide
watershed management framework. For example, experienced facilitators
can help framework partners to:
• Identify areas where standard operating procedures should be
updated or new guidance developed to support implementation
(including areas where revisions could capitalize on the frame-
work structure to improve efficiency or effectiveness).
• Clarify resource needs for implementation (including how leverag-
ing among partner resource bases will contribute to implementa-
tion).
_
16
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
• Establish outreach and training plans to see that participants
and the public are oriented to the new framework and under-
stand procedures, expectations, and opportunities.
• Identify legal or institutional barriers that could inhibit or block
implementation of any design components, and determine next
steps to address them.
• Outline keys to success and indicators to monitor to ensure that
efforts stay on the right track.
In West Virginia, the facilitator helped in the transition by planning and
conducting a kick-off meeting for the Interagency Steering Committee
that oriented new members to the new framework. She also helped
finalize a schedule for synchronizing all National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits with the watershed cycle and
developed a job description for the new basin coordinator position.
In Georgia, facilitation was used to guide basin team members through
the first set of basin plans for the Chattahoochee and Flint River basins.
The facilitators helped members identify and compile available informa-
tion on basin features and condition, clarify management priorities, and
prepare initial action plans to address priority issues. The process
helped team members establish their procedures to make it easier in the
next basin groups.
A facilitated transition planning workshop was used in Utah to develop
an activity guide for implementation of the watershed management
steps for a pilot watershed (Jordan River). Participants were asked to
provide their program's or organization's objectives, needs, and outputs
for each step of the watershed planning and management cycle. The
workshop identified many areas of redundant activity and opportunities
for increased levels of collaboration. It also helped to clarify specific
roles and responsibilities. This included an improved understanding of
how local conditions will influence changes in each program's roles and
responsibilities from one watershed management unit to the next. The
results of the workshop were used to initiate activities within the Jordan
River watershed.
Framework
Documentation
Documenting the progress and outcome of the framework development
process is a valuable service that can be provided by facilitation. Fre-
quently, the agencies or organizations participating in the framework
development process are limited in the amount of resources available
for documenting efforts. Staff are usually pressed for time, and writing
meeting summaries or framework component descriptions falls to the
bottom of the "to-do" list. Additionally, writing for a broad audience is
not always the strong point of the scientists and engineers who fre-
quently compose much of the framework development group. Facilita-
tion can therefore expedite the process by providing quick turnaround
on meeting summaries and offering strong writing skills that produce
documents that can communicate with a broad audience. When efforts
are documented along the way, work groups are often better able to see
their progress.
17
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Many states are compiling written summaries of their efforts into a single
framework document that can serve as a common reference for all in-
volved. The document can help participants understand and communicate
the framework by summarizing its vision, goals and objectives, core
components, and key roles and responsibilities, and the transition plan to
implement the framework. Some states use the framework document like
a memorandum of understanding among partners. Utah has included
specific framework evaluation procedures in its document to describe how
it intends to measure progress toward achieving its watershed approach
goals.
In addition to helping to write and prepare framework documents,
facilitators can play a key role in preparing states to use the documents.
For example, facilitation can be used to help determine the purpose of a
framework document. In Kentucky, facilitators helped the framework
development work group reach the conclusion that it needed a document
that not only would provide a reference for partners, but also would help
sell the idea. This affected the organization of the document (making sure
benefits were up front to achieve quick buy-in) and the format (designing
a document that people would want to pick up and would find easy to
read). In the end, the facilitators for Kentucky helped develop a brief flyer
for the public, an executive summary for directors and others who needed
a strong overview, and a detailed framework document for the practitio-
ners charged with carrying out the framework.
In Alaska, the Watershed Partnerships framework is currently being
documented in a series of short volumes. Each volume is focused on a
different set of topics related to the use of the Alaska Watershed Partner-
ships Framework. For example, a local organization may not have an
interest in working with agencies to develop a comprehensive watershed
management strategy. These groups would not have a need for the agency
maps and procedures that are described in Volume 4. However, they may
have use for a description for establishing a volunteer monitoring program
or a local information management and communication support network
that are described in Volume 3.
To signal their support for coordinating watershed management efforts in
West Virginia, 10 state and federal agencies and the Governor signed a
Resolution of Mutual Intent to carry out their roles and responsibilities
detailed in the West Virginia Watershed Management Framework Partners'
Guidance Manual and Program Activity Guide. Through this, the docu-
ment provided a commitment to and authority for implementing the
framework. To help publicize the state's new approach, partners hosted
an information session and signing ceremony in the Governor's office.
The Arizona framework document will be used for a series of agency wide
training workshops to promote the transition to and implementation of
the statewide watershed approach. Arizona, like several other states,
produced its framework document in a notebook format that will be easy
to update on a regular basis.
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
3.0 Considering a Facilitated Approach: How
Do We Define Our Needs?
Common Themes
How do you know when or if you need facilitation assistance and the skills
required to meet those needs? This section summarizes common themes
from all states that have used facilitation, as well as special considerations
or key questions to ask in tailoring the facilitation process to meet your
needs.
All states surveyed indicated that they used facilitation to:
• Learn from other states and spur innovative thinking. The states
were undertaking something new. They believed they could build
a stronger framework through learning about other states' suc-
cesses, failures, and approaches.
• Remove or prevent the perception that the process is driven by
one program, section, or agency. The staff believed they could
maximize buy-in through using a neutral facilitator to minimize
the sense of bias, control, or crossing onto others' "turf."
• Expedite the process. Some states were just getting started and
already felt overwhelmed by existing responsibilities or tight
framework development deadlines. Others had made progress in
framework development, but had reached an impasse and stalled.
All states said they used facilitation assistance to jump-start the
process and move it along more quickly.
What are the basic attributes you should look for in a facilitator? All
agreed that the person should be able to:
• Understand and effectively communicate the issues involved in
statewide watershed management.
• Encourage open discussion and consensus building.
• Provide structure for the group's efforts and keep the group
focused.
• Offer ideas and solutions that are based on the experience of
other states and that weave together points of work group mem-
bers.
• Adapt facilitation styles from structured to flexible, formal to
informal depending on the work session objectives and partici-
pants, timing constraints, and other factors. For example, facilita-
tors might need to use a structured, formal style in working with
19
-------
Wo.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Special
Considerations/Key
Questions to Ask
Do we have a basin
coordinator on staff who
can assist in the
framework development
process?
Are we designing a
multiagency or
single-agency
framework?
senior managers and policy makers during the scoping process
and briefing work sessions, but might need to use a blend of
structured and flexible, formal and informal styles in facilitating
the monthly meetings of the staff workgroup.
Yes. A basin coordinator can assist in the framework development
process by organizing efforts, including planning the facilitation process,
recruiting work group participants, and helping outline milestones to
achieve; helping educate staff about the concepts of statewide watershed
management; planning work sessions and documenting their outcomes;
compiling or writing components of the framework document; and
helping to keep framework development on track, including helping to
achieve meeting objectives and making progress between meetings.
Having a basin coordinator might allow a state to have a smaller facilita-
tion budget, targeting its facilitation assistance to specific issues or phases
of framework development. Or, through leveraging the hours of the basin
coordinator, the state could choose to redirect dollars otherwise spent on
administrative services (e.g., writing meeting summaries) to give more
in-depth attention to issues or to provide a more comprehensive range of
assistance.
No. If a staff person does not have assigned responsibilities in his or her
work plan for the tasks outlined above, the work will probably not be
done without outside facilitation assistance. In such a case, the facilitator's
key skills and attributes are (1) being organized and able to keep the
group organized, (2) being able to keep efforts focused, (3) having
experience with statewide watershed framework design, and (4) having
the ability to effectively communicate key concepts and issues to the group
and to communicate the group's framework design. These skills are
helpful when a facilitator is working in tandem with a basin coordinator;
they are crucial when he or she is operating without one.
Multiagency. States designing a multiagency framework face some
unique challenges:
Since how a multiagency process is initiated can greatly influence its out-
come, thoughtful planning up front with experienced facilitators can be
critical in answering sensitive questions such as "Who should be at the
table? How do we establish a common vision? How do we establish a
workgroup that has authority and direction?"
Although one agency might be able to initiate and help lead the process,
that agency lacks the authority to manage the discussion and activities
covering multiple resource management issues outside its jurisdiction.
Neutral facilitation is needed not only to build consensus but also to
design and manage a process that neutralizes the issue of control and
authority and provides a catalyst for partnership. This means the frame-
work development process originally envisioned might evolve or change as
new partners become active in the process.
20
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
• Multiple agencies have multiple missions, perspectives, and priori-
ties. Active mediation is needed to find common ground and
resolve differences.
? Multiagency frameworks add more opportunity for leveraging
expertise and resources to address common problems. At the same
time, establishing complementary roles and responsibilities within
an agreed-upon time line for multiple partners is more complex than
if operating within a single agency or section.
• Multiagency initiatives often require a larger, more diverse group
and involve a more complex group dynamic. This requires that a
facilitator use multiple large and small group techniques to help
maintain and increase partner involvement, interest, and commit-
ment. The tone that is set, and the way the group is managed
during framework development can determine the success of
framework implementation.
In short, if you are interested in designing a multiagency framework, you
should consider using an experienced facilitator to assist in developing an
outreach strategy, to resolve differences and find common ground through
neutral facilitation and mediation, and to manage complex group dynam-
ics.
Single-agency. States that have developed single-agency (or
single-section) watershed management frameworks have had a more
straightforward or predictable framework development process. These
states indicated that facilitation did not change the process that would
otherwise have been used to develop their watershed approach, but it did
expedite the process. Most important to these states was a facilitator's
ability to:
• Share experience from other states that have embarked on
statewide watershed management.
• Ensure that programs are adequately coordinating efforts.
• Develop realistic time schedules for watershed management
activities.
• Advise on synchronizing various program activities (e.g., NPDES
permit renewal) with the watershed management cycle.
Do we want (or need) to
link framework
development to other
initiatives?
Water resource agency staff often feel overwhelmed by existing duties and
pulled in many directions by government mandates or internal manage-
ment initiatives. Where this is the case, staff might view watershed
framework development as just one more initiative or trend. In recent
years, some states have directed facilitators to link framework develop-
ment to initiatives or mandates such as the following:
• Internal strategic planning
• Permit reengineering
• Performance partnership agreements with EPA
• TMDL legal settlements
—
-------
A/o. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
What is the time frame
for designing our
framework?
How much will facilitation
cost and how will we pay
for it?
In fact, some states have used framework development as an "umbrella"
process to ensure that initiatives complement one another and keep the
big picture in mind. It is important to clarify the need for these linkages
up front during the design of the facilitation process.
Setting a deadline for completing your framework is crucial to making
progress. Factors that influence that deadline will vary from state to state,
but could include:
• The scope of your watershed approach and how many partners
are involved. (Although wider scope and more partners might
lengthen the time required to develop the framework, they don't
necessarily have to lengthen the time frame; i.e., more work can
be compressed into the same time frame.)
• TMDL legal agreements, or other linkages listed above.
• Overall resources (staff time and support funds) available to pay
for facilitation services, including any time frame for grants.
• Degree to which a common vision for the framework already
exists.
• Current infrastructure. (Do some of the components of the
framework fully or partially exist already?)
States embarking on facilitation will need to commit significant staff time
to framework development as well as securing funds to pay for facilitation
services. Generally, the work group that is designing framework compo-
nents meets monthly over a 2-day period with the facilitator. Between
monthly work sessions, the staff will likely have four or more hours of
tasks to complete individually or in subcommittees. In other words, staff
that you assign to the workgroup will likely devote 20 or more hours a
month (or approximately 15 percent of their time) to framework develop-
ment. Depending on the scope of the framework design, the work group
might meet from 6 months to 2 years, with most processes taking 15 to 18
months. To signal commitment to the process, senior managers should not
only make appointments to the work group but also adjust responsibilities
of work group members and other staff to allow for meaningful participa-
tion in framework development.
The cost of facilitation services also depends on the scope of effort. To
date, facilitation services provided to states have ranged in cost from
about $15,000 to $125,000. States have funded facilitation services
through:
• USEPA Office of Water contractor support (made available
through the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds' Assess-
ment and Watershed Protection Division and the Office of Waste-
water Management"s Permits Division)
• USEPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
22
-------
Watershed Academy
fnfofmatfon Transfer Series
Federal Clean Water Act Section 104(b)(3) grants issued by EPA
State appropriation and grant funds
Do we have the executive
support to see the
process through?
Are the chief decision makers supportive of framework development?
Efforts in some states have bogged down from lack of support by key
executives Where efforts are initiated by staff other than the agency head,
staff should plan effective ways to explain the potential benefits of the
watershed approach and the importance of manager support and leader-
ship in other states that have developed frameworks. Scoping services
from an experienced facilitator can be used to help inform key executives
and to answer questions related to framework development and imple-
mentation based on experiences in other states.
How are we going to
prepare ourselves to
implement the
framework?
In addition to designing framework elements, it takes considerable effort
to plan for and make the transition to the new approach. Making the
transition involves conducting outreach and training on the new approach
to increase staff and stakeholder awareness and understanding, updating
work plans to synchronize activities with a management cycle where
appropriate, updating standard operating procedures and guidance to
reflect the new approach, organizing forums that will be used to coordi-
nate activities, and targeting resources to administer and implement the
framework. This equates to a change in the work paradigm for many
agencies and organizations, which can be intimidating and confusing for
some, especially the first time through the management cycle.
You might want to consider using facilitation services to help smooth this
transition. Experienced facilitators can offer tips to keep implementation
on course and can provide support in navigating through previously
uncharted waters.
23
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Summary
Many of the considerations described above are interrelated, and hinge on
the degree of experience and resources that a state has at its disposal.
Those agencies and organizations that can devote significant staff time to
organizing, planning, mediating, and documenting the tasks involved
might choose not to rely as heavily on facilitation. On the other hand,
states with less available staff time and experience may find facilitation
services vital to making progress in developing or enhancing their ap-
proach.
24
-------
Part 2 State Experiences
The remainder of the document contains summaries for 13 states
that have used facilitation services to varying degrees to help
develop and implement a statewide watershed management
framework. Each summary includes a description of how frame-
work development was initiated, a timeline for development and
implementation, and a summary of progress and accomplish-
ments to date.
-------
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Alaska
Scoping
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design W^^JIE
Scoping 3* *"
1 1
1995
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
' *'*'"*,*,*'''* ,\ ™ iXJ" A 2XX-V '•,
ajf-'^P^^:
*r:^*
i i
1996 1997
Figure 5. Alaska Framework Development and Implementation Timeline
(thru August 1997)
The Alaska Watershed Partnerships framework has not been finalized.
Several pilot projects that are using the elements described in the draft
framework document are under way. The vastness of the Alaskan land-
scape and the patterns of human settlement have been a significant test of
the flexibility of the common watershed elements in the framework
development process. The Alaska watershed framework is distinguished
by the commitment of a wide range of stakeholders to a process that does
not rely on any single agency as its primary sponsor.
Spring 1994. The USEPA Region 10 Nonpoint Source Program spon-
sored a meeting in Juneau, Alaska, to propose the use of a statewide
watershed approach as a framework for improved coordination among
state and federal agencies. The outcome of the 3-day convening meeting,
which included several state and federal natural resource management
agencies, was a general agreement that a watershed approach should
receive further consideration.
June 1995. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and USEPA Region 10 sponsored the "Alaska Statewide Resource
Management Coordination Workshop" in Anchorage, Alaska. The work-
shop used a contracted facilitator to conduct the meetings. The purpose
of the workshop was to include a wider range of stakeholders in evaluat-
ing the use of a statewide watershed approach for Alaska. In addition to
DEC and USEPA, participants also included representatives of local
governments, tribal corporations, industry groups, environmental organi-
zations, and other state and federal agencies. The workshop was com-
posed of several sessions designed to provide a common understanding of
the common elements of the watershed approach, identify challenges and
opportunities for an Alaska watershed approach, agree on a process to
develop the framework, and define a work plan for framework develop-
ment. Participants strongly supported the development of a statewide
watershed framework. A core
work group for proceeding with
the development process was
identified. Many in attendance
chose not to participate directly in
the work group, but those organi-
zations were included in a commu-
nication strategy that allowed
them to continue to have input
into the design process. Partici-
pants also agreed on the use of a
contracted facilitator to support
the core work group.
27
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Framework Design
Transition Planning
July 1995 to August 1996. The framework design process included
seven facilitated sessions of the Statewide Watershed Work Group. The
work group meetings were 2 days long and addressed a series of decision
topics agreed on by the work group. The purpose of the facilitated
discussion was to define the consensus position on the decision topic
under consideration (e.g., geographic management units, watershed plans
format and content, components of the planning and implementation
process in individual watersheds). For several decision topics the work
group decided to form task groups to develop more substantive recom-
mendations for review and approval by the entire work group. The task
groups included representatives from several different stakeholder groups,
and they addressed Mission Statement, Watershed/Environmental Indica-
tors, Partnership Communications, Information Management, and State-
wide Cycle and Targeting Criteria. Progress was evaluated at each work
group meeting, and each task group disbanded once it had reached
consensus on proposed recommendations.
The Statewide Watershed Strategy Work Group remained intact through-
out the entire design process with one exception. An industry association
decided after several work group meetings that its membership did not
support a watershed approach that included the coordinated activities of
regulatory agencies. Its concern was that the framework would subject
the association's constituency to another layer of regulatory approval in
the permitting process. The association expressed concern that the
framework would provide any watershed partner the opportunity to
review, comment, and potentially object to a permit application made by
one of its members. Other industry associations and regulated members
of the work group did not share this view and remain active in the design
and implementation of Alaska Watershed Partnerships.
Alaska Watershed Partnerships was selected as the tide for the emerging
framework. DEC was initially the primary sponsor for framework devel-
opment and implementation. Over time, however, other partners have
increased their level of commitment, and the framework is widely recog-
nized to exist outside any individual agency's jurisdiction. Alaska Water-
shed Partnerships does not include a statewide cycle for rotation through
the hydrological management units that were identified by the work
group. Rather, partner agencies working in close conjunction with local
agencies and stakeholders evaluate a specific set of criteria to determine if
a particular location would benefit from the participation of the Alaska
Watershed Partnerships (i.e., comprehensive watershed coordination of
agency and stakeholder activities). The partnership has adopted a com-
mon series of components to guide activities within designated water-
sheds. However, these components are tailored in response to progress
already made by local stakeholders.
Fall 1996. The final watershed work group meeting was held in October
1996 to adopt the compiled recommendations for the Alaska Watershed
Partnerships. Each member had circulated the recommendations within
its agency or organization for review and comment. Most participating
agencies agreed to use the forums and procedures described in the draft
framework document. The work group issued a request for candidate
watersheds to all participating organizations.
28
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Winter 1997. The draft Alaska Watershed Partnerships summary
framework document was released to the public. Formal adoption of the
framework document is still pending for some of the participating agen-
cies, most notably DEC. The final framework document, expected to be
completed before January 1998, will be composed of a series of volumes
that address different aspects of the Alaska Watershed Partnerships
program:
• Volume 1: Alaska's Watershed Framework - Summary Document
(completed).
• Volume 2: Alaska's Watershed Framework - Tools to Support Water-
shed Partners. Tools include integrated monitoring, watershed
education activities, watershed analysis, information management
and communication support, watershed teams, agency maps, and
training for watershed partners.
• Volume 3: Alaska Watershed Framework - Making Partnerships
Work at the Local Level. Creating stakeholder involvement forums
(public participation); volunteer monitoring; citizen actions;
working with the media; working with public officials; Water
Watch program guide; EPA citizen Monitoring Guide; and guide to
local, state, and federal agency contacts for environmental and
natural resource management issues/questions/suggestions.
• Volume 4: Alaska Watershed Framework - Watershed Approach
Procedures for Partners. Procedures for working with local water-
shed teams, defining and assigning agency watershed teams,
watershed team planning and implementation process, key
elements of written watershed agreements, organizational capa-
bilities to respond to watershed objectives, performance criteria
for watershed teams, priority setting and targeting tools, and
others.
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
July 1997-October 1997. DEC has not yet given formal approval to
the draft framework document. Partial implementation of the framework
is occurring within DEC. The Nonpoint Source Program (NPS) is using the
framework to develop and implement the statewide strategy for NPS
controls. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrological basins are used
to define sectors for outreach and priority setting. DEC has undertaken
three major pilot projects to evaluate the value of conducting its opera-
tions in a watershed framework. The three projects (Lower Chena River,
Mendenhall Valley, and Kenai River) are located in the major USGS
hydrological basins adopted by the watershed work group. The other
watershed partners represented in the work group have adopted Cook
Inlet as a pilot for the Watershed Partnerships framework. The Cook Inlet
project will be a featured component of "Watersheds 97: Water, People,
and Wildlife", a combined fair, conference, and symposium. One objec-
tive of the Cook Inlet Symposium component of Watersheds 97 is to
consolidate DEC's experience with its pilot projects and the experience of
other partners with the Cook Inlet project into a unified framework.
Consideration will then be given to other candidate partnership water-
sheds.
29
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Arizona
In 1994, as the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
began reorganizing its staff functions according to environmental media,
several members of its Division of Water Quality (DWQ) suggested explor-
ing the watershed approach as a means to integrate across both function
and media.
Scoping
May 1995 Session. DWQ hosted a briefing for the ADEQ Directors'
office to secure approval for setting up a DWQ watershed strategy work
group. The Directors approved the formation of a work group to organize
DWQ's (and, in limited cases, the Air and Hazardous Waste Divisions')
activities on a watershed basis. The Directors allowed for communication
with outside stakeholders but limited any direct involvement of other
agencies in the process. The objective of the limited mandate was to
make clear that ADEQ DWQ would welcome the voluntary participation of
any stakeholder in the watershed framework, but was not assuming
responsibility for directing comprehensive resource management for
Arizona.
Following up on this briefing, the facilitation team conducted a series of
small focus groups to both present educational materials regarding the
watershed approach and gather input on opportunities and barriers that
the approach should address. Through careful consideration of assign-
ments, the DWQ Director ensured that all programs and staff levels were
represented on the watershed strategy work group.
Framework Design
As described below, the work group met monthly to consider prearranged
decision topics.
June, July, and August 1995 Sessions. The work group first settled
its operating rules, procedures, and membership. It agreed to an aggres-
sive communication strategy
that included broad distribu-
tion of meeting notes and
briefings with many other
organizations to solicit input.
The statewide Natural
Resources Coordinating
Committee proved to be an
important forum for commu-
nication with federal, state,
and local agencies.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
1994
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
S?«Cn..V: -V.
"C"
B-T^- /*£.A ^ v
$£*- * * 1 * *
Bpr>* ( ( j
1995 1996 1997
Figure 6. Arizona Framework Development and Implementation Timeline
(thru August 1997)
30
-------
Watershed Academy
/nfofmatran Transfer Series
Transition Planning
Implementation
This first series of meetings focused on development of a mission state-
ment, delineation of watershed management zones, definition of proce-
dures and mechanisms for stakeholder involvement, and description of the
written product of the watershed management cycle (watershed manage-
ment zone plans).
September, October, November, December 1995 Sessions. Work
group meetings were used to define specific steps and procedures for
organizing ADEQ activities and stakeholder involvement within individual
watershed management zones. These included strategic monitoring and
assessment, setting priorities, and synchronizing NPDES permits.
January, February 1996 Sessions. The work group focused on the
roles and responsibilities of specific programs within ADEQ, including
identifying many areas of potential collaboration, redundancies that could
be eliminated, and potential gaps to be filled by other watershed partners.
It proposed an outline for the statewide framework document.
March, April, May 1996. The work group continued to refine steps
and procedures and to add definition to the framework document outline.
However, the most important work group activity during this period was
active outreach to potential watershed partners, including local agencies,
existing watershed associations, and state and federal agencies. Many
changes and refinements were made to the work group's watershed
strategy in response to the comments and needs of the potential water-
shed partners contacted as part of the outreach efforts.
August 1996-May 1997. A draft watershed document was completed
and went through three stages of review—internal work group, internal to
DWQ, and all watershed partners.
ADEQ is phasing the watershed approach into its activities. It is planning
a series of staff training and partnership-building workshops in Septem-
ber/October 1997 and is initiating a "roundtable" of ADEQ Section
Managers to make decisions on ADEQ staff assignments and budgets
based on the output of watershed management zone advisory committees.
The watershed approach strategy directs ADEQ to support existing part-
ners where they are fulfilling community involvement objectives, and to
serve as a catalyst or sponsor where there is no existing watershed group.
ADEQ is using the watershed framework as a tool to integrate its activities
with the Verde River Watershed efforts, which were ongoing before the
watershed framework was established. The framework is also being used
to help an Upper Gila River community-based advisory group to identify
nonpoint sources of pollution and to develop a broader watershed protec-
tion strategy that includes point-source, water supply, and infrastructure
needs. ADEQ is developing a community profile for a third watershed
management zone for the San Pedro-Wilcox Playa-Rio Yaqui. ADEQ
anticipates that the pace of implementation efforts for the remaining
seven watershed management zones will increase after the staff training
and partnership workshops.
31
-------
No.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Delaware
Scoping
Framework Design
In spring 1992, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Water Resources, Surface
Water Management Section, began exploring the statewide watershed
management approach. DNREC was spurred by a desire to improve
coordination between its natural resource management divisions, to find
more holistic solutions to aquatic ecosystem problems, and to improve
opportunities for local involvement.
September 1992 Session. DNREC hosted a workshop attended by a
broad spectrum of stakeholders, including county and city officials, local
conservation district representatives, other state agencies, federal agen-
cies, and all divisions within DNREC. Its purpose was to evaluate poten-
tial watershed approach objectives, opportunities, and concerns. The
participants adopted a framework development and implementation
strategy described as the "ripple approach": DNREC would take the plunge
in organizing its own activities according to basins; then, as DNREC's
watershed management activities became more established, the momen-
tum would create waves of voluntary partnerships. DNREC then formed
an internal work group with representatives from each division and
outlined a work plan for framework development.
January 1993 Session. The DNREC work group focused on the roles
and responsibilities of the participating divisions. Four teams were formed
to address issues not addressed at the workshop— Implementation,
Coordination, and Institutional Barriers; Management Units, Data Man-
agement, and Monitoring; Public Outreach and Education; and Briefing
for Department Secretary. These teams were charged with recommending
how to build the capabilities to implement the elements, and how to
ensure support from senior managers and stakeholders outside DNREC.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
1992
* Indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
| Draft Delaware Basin Approach framework document produced
| Basin Approach adopted as State Water Quality Management Plan (303(d) Continuous Planning Process)
Figure 7. Delaware Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
32
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Transition Planning
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
April 1993 Session. The teams presented progress reports at a facili-
tated meeting that was open to all DNREC staff and other stakeholders.
The Management Unit Review Team had delineated five planning basins
based on ecosystem characteristics as well as hydrological boundaries.
The Monitoring Review Team reported its progress in resolving problems
with the distribution of monitoring resources between DNREC's fixed
station network and the strategic monitoring needs of the basin approach.
The Implementation, Coordination, and Institutional Barriers Review
Team recommended forming basin teams with a cross section of program
representatives. One institutional issue highlighted as needing attention
was the impact of the basin: team approach on the traditional in-line
management structure that 'defined supervision, evaluation, and pay scale.
\
A new Secretary for DNREC was appointed as a result of the November
elections. He requested a review of the basin approach initiative before
proceeding with its development. This review process took approximately
5 months.
October 1993 Session. The workgroup developed a statewide schedule
for the basins, defined specific planning steps within a management cycle,
and recommended priority setting criteria. It also compiled a general
guide regarding Division and program roles and responsibilities. The
work group also described the format and content for integrated basin
plans.
July 1993-October 1993. The work group prepared the Nanticoke
River Watershed Pilot Project Plan. The pilot analysis addressed questions
such as what tasks needed to be accomplished and by whom, what would
be produced, and the cost for each division/program for accomplishing
each task in the basin cycle. One purpose of the pilot plan was to refine
thinking about how the framework would be implemented; another was
to demonstrated to senior managers that there was an adequate level of
understanding and support for the basin approach to proceed with imple-
mentation.
January 1995. A general, draft Delaware Basin Approach framework
document was produced.
December 1996. DNREC developed a more detailed draft framework
document. It plans to formally adopt the draft framework by incorporating
it into the Continuing Planning Process (GPP) Statewide Water Quality
Management Plan. The document is used as an internal reference guide
for DNREC and has been a valuable tool in communicating agency opera-
tions and procedures to the public.
Basin teams have been formed for the four planning units, as well as an
overall coordinating team that works on a statewide basis. Strategic
monitoring and information collection plans were not developed for the
first basin, but are now being developed for upcoming basins. An inte-
grated assessment involving all agency partners was completed for the
first basin and served as the basis for collaborative priority setting and
targeting. However, the coordinated assessment and priority setting have
not been documented in integrated management plans. DNREC continues
to hold the basin plans described in the framework document as a goal,
but has not achieved them in practice. DNREC believes that integrated
management plans will be realized in the near future.
33
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Georgia
Scoping
Framework Design
and Transition
Planning
The Georgia General Assembly adopted legislation in 1992 requiring the
state's Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to oversee development
of river basin management plans for the state's 14 major river basins. The
law mandates that plans be completed by the end of 1997 for the
Chattahoochee and Flint River basins, by the end of 1998 for the Coosa
and Oconee River basins, and one per year thereafter for the remaining
basins. Plans must include a description of the basin including land use
inventories, a description of plan goals, and a description of the strategies
and measures necessary to accomplish the goals. The law also requires
that a seven-person local advisory committee be appointed to provide
advice and council to EPD during the plan development.
In response to this law, EPD has adopted a River Basin Management
Planning (RBMP) approach to watershed protection. Local advisory
committees in the Chattahoochee, Flint, Coosa, and Oconee basins were
convened in 1993 to begin discussing the approach. In January 1994, the
four basin committees worked together in a facilitated meeting to finalize
the vision, mission, goals, and objectives for the RBMP framework. A
small EPD committee then outlined initial ideas for the framework design.
In October 1994, a larger work group, consisting of representatives of the
Water Protection and Water Resources Branches of EPD and the state's
Wildlife Resources Division, was convened to expedite framework design
and achieve broader buy-in by various program staff.
The framework development work group met seven times in 2-day
workshops between October 1994 and July 1995. Accomplishments for
these facilitated meetings are summarized below:
October 13-14, 1994. After reviewing frameworks established in other
states, the work group assessed framework needs and building blocks in
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
1992
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Figure 8. Georgia Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
34
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Implementation
Georgia. Specific tasks and barriers to address were identified, and a
preliminary work plan for framework development was developed.
November 16-17, 1994. The work group reached consensus on the
intended audiences, purposes, and contents for the basin plans and
developed a cycle of activities that would lead to basin plan development
and implementation, and updates every 5 years. Options for grouping
basins were established, along with an initial statewide schedule for
implementing the cycle of activities. Key roles and responsibilities were
outlined for EPD programs, and consensus was reached on how to ap-
proach partners outside the work group to seek their support and partici-
pation.
January 11-12, 1995. The work group hosted a meeting attended by
49 separate local, state, and federal agencies throughout Georgia and.
from adjacent states to discuss the developing RBMP approach and
opportunities for partnerships and complementary efforts. Additionally,
the work group evaluated detailed options for basin sequencing and
scheduling, and identified technical and administrative issues that re-
mained to be resolved.
February 27-28, 1995. The work group reached consensus on a
revised basin sequence and detailed statewide schedule for implementa-
tion. Strategic monitoring plan components and format were outlined.
An organizational structure including basin teams, basin coordinators, and
the local advisory committees was established, and corresponding roles
and linkages were identified. An overall activity reference guide was
developed to map out specific actions, desired outcomes or products,
responsible parties, and timing for each step of the basin cycle.
April 19-20, 1995. Methods and criteria for setting priorities within
the RBMP framework were conceptualized. Detailed technical and
administrative work plans were developed for EPD's Water Protection and
Water Resources Branches, synchronizing their program activities with the
basin cycle where determined to be more effective and efficient.
May 30-31, 1995. The work group continued developing methods and
criteria for the prioritization1 component of the framework. Additionally,
members established an inventory of key watershed management imple-
mentation tools including regulatory authorities and technical assistance
programs. Components of a transition plan for implementing the new
framework were outlined.
July 18-19, 1995. The work group continued developing the
prioritization component and outlining the transition plan. One day was
spent reviewing and planning a process for development of an information
management system to enhance framework implementation.
August-December 1995. The facilitator worked with EPD to draft a
framework document describing the RBMP mission, goals, objectives,
framework components, roles and responsibilities, and transition plan.
Because of the mandated deadlines for completing basin plans, Georgia
EPD began implementing framework components prior to completion of
the entire framework design and framework document. Early implemen-
tation efforts began in 1994 with conducting stakeholder and local
35
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
advisory committee meetings to discuss current management issues and
identify additional monitoring needs. Basin monitoring plans were
developed and implemented for the Chattahoochee and Flint basins in
1994; the Coosa, Oconee, and Tallapoosa basins in 1995, the Savannah
and Ogeechee basins in 1996, and the four basins in group 4 in 1997.
Assessments of the basin information for the Chattahoochee and Flint
were completed in 1996, along with a priority ranking for addressing
waters contained on the state's updated 303 (d) list. Staffing resource
shortages resulted in a delay in convening technical basin teams for
development of the basin plans for the Chattahoochee and Flint. Begin-
ning in January of 1997, EPD used a facilitated basin team process to
expedite development of these plans. Draft basin plans were completed in
July 1997 and will undergo public review and comment during August
and September, using stakeholder and local advisory committee meetings.
Final plans for these basins are scheduled for approval by the state's
Natural Resources Board in October or November 1997.
Currently, EPD is assembling basin teams for the remaining four basin
groups. As framework implementation continues, EPD plans to enhance
opportunities for additional and stronger partnerships to design and carry
out watershed management action plans and strategies in every basin.
Working with local governments and regional development centers, as
well as other partners at the local level, EPD hopes to achieve increased
commitment and action to enhance and protect the waters of the state.
36
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Kentucky
Scoping
Framework Design
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
1995
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
Figure 9. Kentucky Framework Development and Implementation Timeline
(thru August 1997)
Kentucky's effort to build a statewide watershed management approach
began in 1995 as the result of a permit program reengineering initiative.
As a part of its goals to improve agency effectiveness and efficiency, the
state's Division of Water (DOW) committed to the development of a
statewide watershed management approach. DOW hired a Watershed
Coordinator in February 1996 to lead its effort. An internal watershed
framework development work group was formed immediately, and it
began to study approaches in other states for potential application in
Kentucky. Additionally, a dialogue began with the Kentucky River Author-
ity to consider the Kentucky River Basin for a pilot watershed approach
application.
March-May 1996. DOW hosted an EPA-sponsored workshop, An
Executive Short Course in Statewide Watershed Management, in March 1996
for a large group of DOW managers and executives from approximately 25
other resource management-related agencies. Discussion during the
workshop led to the idea for an expanded, multiagency framework that
would coordinate much more than DOW water quality permit-related
activities. In May 1996, representatives of 12 state and federal agencies
met to define their shared mission. A facilitated series of discussions
helped to outline the opportunities and needs to be addressed by the
framework, identify existing efforts to build on and potential partner
contributions, and design a framework development process including
work group organization and operating rules.
July-November 1996. The newly constituted framework development
work group met in July and August 1996 and reached consensus on the
use of the state's 12 major river basins for organizing management
activities. A general sequence of management steps was developed for a
5-year management cycle, along
with an overall statewide schedule
for administering the cycle across
all 12 major basins and tributaries
to the Ohio River. By this time,
interest was increasing in the
approach and work group mem-
bership had increased to over 30
people representing more than 20
agencies anorganizations. To
increase focus and expedite design,
the work group formed five
subcommittees that would clarify
the actions and support needed
*''
1996
1997
37
-------
No. 8
Statevw'de Watershed Management Facilitation
Transition Planning
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
throughout the management cycle for the following areas: monitoring and
assessment; prioritization, planning, and implementation; public participa-
tion; data management; and funding.
A total of 12 subcommittee meetings were facilitated between August and
November 1996, with participation from more than 30 agencies and
organizations. The Public Participation subcommittee contributed by
identifying key audiences to involve in the framework, developing the
idea for a Partner Network that is built on existing associations and
forums, and establishing the need for a formal role in coordinating public
information material development and dissemination, along with means
for obtaining public input. The Monitoring and Assessment subcommittee
produced an extensive inventory of existing resources and capabilities to
drawn on, and refined the steps and responsibilities for developing and
implementing strategic data collection plans and carrying out information
assessment. The Prioritization, Planning, and Implementation subcommit-
tee developed a methodology for ranking watersheds for priority in
developing management action plans, outlined the purposes and compo-
nents of basin and watershed action plans, and designed the administra-
tive structure for operating the framework. The data management
subcommittee clarified framework support needs and outlined how
existing or developing capabilities would address those needs. The
Funding subcommittee did not meet during this period.
December 1996-June 1997. The facilitators compiled all of the work
group and subcommittee design ideas and recommendations into a rough
draft framework document that was distributed to and reviewed by the
entire work group in January 1997. Refinements in the framework design
were made over the next few months.
February 1997-June 1997. The framework development work group
met in February and May 1997 to plan for the transition to the new
approach. Obtaining funding to support Basin Coordinator and Public
Information Coordinator functions became a key concern, and the Fund-
ing Subcommittee met with budgeting experts from the executive and
legislative branches of state government to identify feasible options. The
work group also discussed methods and timing for achieving buy-in and
commitment to implement the framework, fulfilling outreach and training
needs, and establishing the Statewide Steering Committee and River Basin
Teams to oversee and coordinate implementation. The work group
determined that a polished, easy-to-use and easy-to-read framework
document was a must for achieving buy-in, conducting outreach, and
guiding implementation. Efforts through June 1997 focused on complet-
ing the polished framework document, and on developing specialized
education and guidance materials.
Full implementation will begin after all partner agencies and organiza-
tions have had sufficient opportunity to review the June 30, 1997, version
of the framework document and sign a Resolution of Intent to support and
implement the framework design. A formal signing ceremony is planned
for September 1998. In the interim, the framework development work
group will continue to meet in lieu of a Statewide Steering Committee.
Basin coordination functions were assigned to two people for the Kentucky
38
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
River Basin, and work group members have provided technical staff
support to complete a Basin Status Report for partner and public review
this fall. Once the official Steering Committee is in place, a Kentucky
River Basin Team will be officially assembled to carry out the basin
management cycle activities with facilitation and administration by the
basin coordinators.
Partnerships and more integrated management are already becoming
stronger in the Kentucky River Basin. The Kentucky Water Watch pro-
gram, an association of volunteers for more informed participation in
watershed management, is working with the Kentucky River Authority,
Kentucky Waterways Alliance, and DOW to conduct extensive stream
surveys and data collection. With the help of a scientific advisory team
and training workshops, volunteers will gather information to update the
status of water quality throughout the basin and help identify problem or
special protection areas. Roundtable meetings in the fall to discuss their
findings will occur at the same time that framework partners are soliciting
public feedback on their Basin Status Report and input on issues for
additional management action or study. The efforts are ensuring public
participation from the onset of the 5-year management cycle for the basin.
The Kentucky Watershed Management Framework's statewide schedule
calls for efforts in the next group of basins (Salt and Licking Rivers) to
begin in July 1998, and the remaining three basin groups in July 1999,
2000, and 2001, respectively.
39
-------
Wo. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Nebraska
Scoping
The Nebraska statewide watershed management approach was initiated in
1992 by the state's Water Quality Division, during its strategic budget and
long-term planning process. The Division had experienced significant
budget cuts and was searching for ways to make the most efficient and
effective use of its available resources. Exposure to a statewide basin
approach through presentations at a national association meeting led to
strong interest in exploring its applicability to Nebraska. After several
internal scoping sessions, the agency began a 9-month facilitation process
in August 1993 to bring in additional expertise and expedite the process of
developing a written framework document.
Nebraska used a work group composed of the Division of Water's Sections
for Surface Water, Ground Water, Permits and Compliance, Wastewater
Facilities, and Emergency Response. Facilitated meetings included one 2-
day workshop and six half-day work sessions. Facilitators also provided
off-site support in developing a permit renewal schedule synchronized
with a statewide basin management cycle, preparing for meetings and
documenting results, and producing a written framework document.
1992. The Department of Environmental Quality developed goals for
integrating and prioritizing activities and optimizing use of available agency
resources through comprehensive watershed management for the FY1993
. Strategic Budget Plan and Water Quality Division 5-year Strategic Plan.
January-July 1993. The Surface Water Section hosted discussions explor-
ing the watershed approach for organizing agency water quality monitoring.
The Surface Water, and Permits and Compliance Sections reached consensus
to establish a framework grouping the state's 13 major river basins into five
groups that would operate on a 5-year management cycle.
Implementation fe\t ;' l^'£Q^Si^~f;j?°t°ff?^-'~ "'••
Transition Planning
Framework Design •'C^rLl \
Scoping " #
( T 1 1 1
1992 1993 1994 1995
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
', ; .'sXj£;': -''• :,V,i'
I I
1996 1997
Figure 10. Nebraska Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
40
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Framework Design
Transition Planning
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
August 1993. The Division of Water held a 2-day workshop to educate
staff on statewide watershed management approaches taken by other
states, and to begin the facilitated work group framework development
process. The group documented its vision for the framework, along with
concerns that should be addressed, and established a work group process
and work plan.
October 1993-January 1994. The facilitator and work group con-
ducted six half-day work sessions to design statewide watershed frame-
work components. Accomplishments included establishing a detailed
basin management cycle and statewide schedule, defining a basin plan
format, developing criteria for setting management priorities and target-
ing agency efforts, and documenting program roles and responsibilities.
January 1994. The schedule for synchronizing NPDES permit renewal
with the proposed statewide basin management schedule was completed.
January-April 1994. A facilitator worked with work group members to
establish keys to success and important next steps for implementing the
framework. A framework document was completed to provide a long-
term reference of the Division's vision, framework components, roles and
responsibilities, and considerations for transition and implementation.
Implementation of the new approach by the Nebraska Division of Water
Quality began in May 1994 with the completion and implementation of a
strategic monitoring plan for the Lower Platte and Nemaha River basins.
The Division has developed partnerships with several agencies and
organizations, including the university system and USGS, to leverage
monitoring efforts.
In October of 1994, the Surface Water Section obtained the services of a
technical staff person from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) agreement. This led to
better coordination of nonpoint source management activities under the
statewide framework.
Another framework enhancement occurred with the development of
Stream Management Teams under the leadership of the Nebraska Game
and Parks Commission. The teams provide expertise to establish manage-
ment needs and strategies at a local level, complementing and expanding
the basin management plans established by the Division of Water.
Overall, the state is a little behind in carrying out its rotating basin
schedule. The statewide schedule calls for basin plans to be completed for
the Lower Platte and Nemaha Basins in February and June 1997, respec-
tively. The final plan for the Lower Platte is now scheduled for September
1997 (a draft was distributed in June), and a schedule for completing the
Nemaha plan is still being worked out. Part of the reason for the delay
was a substantial change in the format for the plan (reducing it from a
300-page inventory to a 60-page user-friendly document). The new
format will serve as a template, and its simplified form will help to
expedite efforts in other basins, which the Division hopes to have back on
schedule within the next year. Expectations are to have completed the
first iteration of the basin cycle for all 13 basins by early 2002.
41
-------
A/o.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
New Jersey
Scoping
As early as 1991, the Office of Environmental Planning (OEP) within the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began exam-
ining use of a watershed approach to achieve agency goals more cost-
effectively. In March of 1993, OEP published a "Working Paper on Water
Quality Management Planning Reform," which promoted a watershed
approach to integrate and coordinate existing water resources programs.
Public support was strong, but many program managers within DEP were
concerned about the changes that would be brought about by the ap-
proach, and whether barriers to building and implementing such a frame-
work could be overcome. To make further progress, DEP initiated the
Whippany River Watershed Project. The project helped to begin a partner-
ship among a very diverse group of stakeholders within the watershed and
to pilot a management planning process.
July 1994. After learning that several other states had overcome similar
challenges successfully to implement statewide watershed management
frameworks, the OEP Administrator decided to bring in an experienced
facilitator to brief other office directors and the DEP Commissioner's
Office. The briefing provided DEP with specific examples of how to
design statewide framework elements, adding validation to the ideas
being promoted by OEE Several of the elements covered later became
templates for components of New Jersey's framework.
Fall 1994-Summer 1995. OEP staff worked closely with several other
DEP offices to examine specific agency operations for opportunities for
integrated efforts under a watershed approach. Simultaneously, DEP
worked with the Governor's office to find ways of carrying out operations
more effectively and efficiently. The watershed approach was viewed as
the key to more cost-effective, environmentally sound management.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
¥'•
»„.:.:..„..
1992
* indicates facilitated rneeting(s)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Figure 11. New Jersey Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
42
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Framework Design
Transition Planning
Fall 1995. A new Administrator was appointed to OEP with the specific
directive to develop a statewide watershed management framework.
Fall 1995-September 1996. Numerous forums were held to obtain
input on and discuss ideas and issues related to framework design. The
experienced facilitator was brought in again to a task force workshop to
cover statewide approach development in more detail. Materials provided
by the facilitator, including draft framework documents from other states,
helped add focus and provide templates that DEP tailored and added to
for framework design.
A Watershed Steering Committee was formed to oversee framework
design and development. The Committee, with technical input from a
Statewide Watershed Characterization and Assessment Team, designed
key components, including watershed management areas and a watershed
management cycle. Actions for each step were outlined, along with roles
and responsibilities for key programs within DEE Public outreach was
conducted between May and August 1996 to raise awareness of prelimi-
nary designs and obtain input on refining the framework design. A draft
framework document was completed in September 1996 and was widely
distributed for review and comment.
April 1997. More than 240 stakeholders attended a DEP meeting to
discuss revisions to the draft framework. Based on public input, activities
and forums within the framework will be expanded beyond DEP programs
to include other stakeholder efforts.
July 1997. A revised framework document was completed incorporating
stakeholder input.
New Jersey is currently in the transition phase. Staff are working on
updates to the state rules to reflect the new framework. Additionally, the
agency is overhauling its information management system to better
support watershed analysis. Fourteen new positions are being added to
the agency to conduct watershed monitoring, modeling, and TMDL
development. Some staff have already begun to develop preliminary
watershed characterizations to support early steps within the watershed
management cycle. A unique funding mechanism should be in place
within the next year to support watershed efforts. A 4 percent corporate
income tax has been levied by the state to fund environmental manage-
ment. This will translate to approximately $5 million per year for water-
shed management. The first watershed management area plans are
scheduled to be drafted by 1999, and the entire state should have initial
plans by the year 2004.
43
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
North Carolina
Scoping
The idea for a statewide watershed management framework was first
conceived within the North Carolina Water Quality Section in the late
1980s. The approach initially focused on organizing the Section's surface
water quality modeling and NPDES permitting programs. At the time,
many of the agency activities for these programs were driven primarily by
permit renewal applications. Because the permit expiration dates were
not organized by geographic area, staff believed that agency resources
were not being used as effectively and efficiently as possible. The effort to
streamline a few agency activities eventually turned into the first state-
wide watershed management approach.
1987-1990. A plan for organizing permit expiration dates by basin and
subbasin was developed, but implementation of the plan was stymied
temporarily by several barriers. Chief among these barriers was finding a
way to change permit expiration dates without imposing unbearable
workloads on the permit writing staff while meeting all legal mandates.
While negotiations on methods were carried out with the EPA Regional
Office, North Carolina spent considerable time and funds on automating
its permit writing process. By 1990, an approach had been worked out for
synchronizing permit renewal by basin.
Early 1990. About that same time, however, focus in North Carolina and
around the nation was turning to management of nonpoint sources of
pollution and development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Agency
staff began to see promise in organizing several more of its management
activities within basin management units, including monitoring, assessment,
and the nonpoint source program. Many different ideas were put forth, and
with the help of EPA, North Carolina obtained the services of a facilitator to
help clarify and document the evolving framework.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping JP"~
1987
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
irr»r* *" >
I
1990
1991
1992
1993
-Wr
1997
Figure 12. North Carolina Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
44
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Framework Design
Transition Planning
Implementation
Summer 1990-Summer 1991. Two workshops and several smaller
meetings with representatives from all four branches within the Water
Quality Section were facilitated to design the framework. Using the
statewide schedule developed for basin-synchronized permitting, staff
developed a cycle of watershed activities that would produce a manage-
ment plan for each basin that would guide implementation activities,
including development of NPDES permit wasteload allocations and permit
limitations and targeting of nonpoint source control project grants and
assistance. Basin management plans would include descriptions of basin
resources and ongoing management efforts, assessments of water quality
conditions and sources of stress, summaries of key management concerns,
TMDLs, and management recommendations.
Section staff and the facilitator spent considerable time clarifying what
each branch's roles and responsibilities would be within the framework. It
soon became clear that the framework would evolve over time, and the
agency distinguished near-term from long-term objectives. Data manage-
ment, in particular, was identified as an area where continued technologi-
cal advancements and process improvements by the Section would
enhance framework implementation and effectiveness. These and other
technical and administrative support needs were outlined in the frame-
work document completed in August 1991.
Fall 1991-Spring 1992. The Water Quality Section hired a Basin
Coordinator to conduct the bulk of public outreach on the approach and
manage the development of the basin plans. The Coordinator worked
with each participating program to develop more detailed work schedules
that mapped out when specific activities would need to occur in each
basin to stay on schedule for development and implementation of plans.
This allowed staff to work out timing of activities where efforts of one
program depended on the results of another program activity. Standard
operating procedures were also updated for a number of programs. One of
the most challenging tasks was deciding who would write each section of
the basin plan, and how the individual sections would be compiled into a
single document that would communicate effectively with agency staff
and other stakeholders. Additionally, the Section began to develop base
maps and other templates for items that would be routinely used and
where consistency from program to program was needed. Efforts were set
in motion to improve data management systems and computerized
watershed analysis capability (e.g., GIS and computer modeling).
Implementation efforts began in 1991 with basin-oriented monitoring in
the Tar-Pamlico and Lumber River Basins, and basinwide assessment of
the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse was selected for development of the
first basin plan because of the high degree of attention it was receiving
over several water quality issues. The relatively large amount of monitor-
ing and analysis already conducted in the preceding few years allowed
staff to jump immediately into the year 2 assessment phase. Although
North Carolina's basin management cycle is 5 years in length, with the
draft basin plan scheduled for completion about 3.5 years into the cycle,
proceeding with assessment allowed the state to complete the Neuse Plan
one year early.
45
-------
A/0.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Since the first Neuse River Basin plan was finalized in March 1993, North
Carolina has systematically followed its statewide schedule and produced
initial plans in 14 other basins. Plans in the remaining two basins are
scheduled for 1998, which marks the end of the first complete iteration of
the management cycle for all basins throughout the state. State agency
staff indicate, however, that implementation has not been without its
challenges. Increasing workload demands for basin coordination have led
to creation of two additional Basin Coordinator positions. More resources
have also been devoted to data management and computer-based water-
shed analysis, and the nonpoint source program. The agency is now
administering nonpoint source teams to develop integrated action plans
for controlling nonpoint source contamination in areas designated for
restoration or special protection.
The establishment of several large basin and watershed associations is
another outgrowth of the basin approach in North Carolina. Some are
associations of NPDES dischargers, some are associations of local govern-
ments, and others include significant citizen participation. These associa-
tions are helping to define management issues and objectives at the local
level, often providing substantial amounts of monitoring information to
supplement the Water Quality Section's databases. These bridges between
the Water Quality Section's statewide basin planning and local watershed
management will likely constitute the next generation of the watershed
management framework for North Carolina.
46
-------
Watershed Academy
fnformation Transfer Series
Tennessee
Scoping
In 1995, the Division of Water Pollution Control (WPG) formed a core
group of program managers to develop a statewide watershed approach to
monitoring, assessment, and NPDES permitting. The group visited Georgia
and reviewed the North and South Carolina statewide watershed ap-
proaches to share lessons learned and glean ideas to use in Tennessee.
Since regional offices of WPC would play a strong role, the group delin-
eated watershed boundaries and groupings of watersheds that would
balance regional workloads. Next, it designed a schedule for monitoring
and assessing water quality and issuing NPDES permits on a watershed
basis. To help implement this watershed approach, the Division reorga-
nized its structure to create a new Watershed Management Section with
five staff. The staff included three Basin Coordinators (each covering a
region of the state), a GIS staff person, and a supervisor who was also in
charge of TMDL development.
February 5-6, 1996 Session. Facilitators met individually and as a
group with WPC staff who had designed the watershed approach and the
staff of the Watershed Management Section. They discussed facilitation
needs and staff concerns about implementing a more comprehensive
watershed approach. The next day a Statewide Watershed Management
Workshop was held for program and senior managers in WPC to review
the functions and components of a comprehensive statewide watershed
management framework; to assist staff in defining short- and long-term
management objectives, as well as important activities and partners
needed to meet those objectives; and to identify important next steps in
implementing Tennessee's watershed approach.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping :
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1995
1996
1997
Figure 13. Tennessee Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
47
-------
A/0.8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
May 9-10, 1996 Session. The facilitators met with WPG staff to share
information about how other states incorporate public involvement and
coordinate partner activities in their watershed management cycles to
enable WPG to gauge its approach with other state approaches. The
second day, approximately 30 representatives from state and federal
agencies attended a WPG Watershed Initiative Workshop, primarily to
learn more about WPC's current watershed approach and to explore new
opportunities for coordinating efforts. WPG staff agreed to follow up the
workshop with calls to participants to discuss cooperative efforts in more
detail.
Implementation
WPG plans to initiate its watershed management activities in all water-
sheds across the state by the year 2000. It has begun synchronizing
municipal and industrial permits, and it is on schedule in conducting
public outreach and strategic monitoring in its group 1 and group 2
watersheds. In the coming year (1998), it is scheduled to conduct inte-
grated assessment and begin TMDL development for its group 1 water-
sheds.
48
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Scoping
Framework Design
Serious consideration for developing a comprehensive statewide watershed
management framework in Texas began in 1993. The state was already using
a basin approach for monitoring and assessment based on the Clean Rivers
Act adopted in 1991. Agency directors within the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) were interested in how a statewide
approach would help them to coordinate management decision-making and
implementation activities with the basin monitoring and assessment efforts.
1993-1994. In early 1993, TNRCC invited a representative of North
Carolina to come and give a presentation on North Carolina's statewide basin
management approach. As interest increased, the Commission hired a
facilitator to help the agency further explore application potential for Texas.
After a series of internal discussion meetings, TNRCC held a 2-day workshop
in July 1993 for a large portion of its staff. The concerns of some of the staff
led to identification of key issues to be resolved and formation of several work
groups to resolve the issues before moving ahead. The work groups met on
their own (i.e., without a facilitator) throughout 1994 and addressed most of
the outstanding concerns. In late 1994, TNRCC established a Watershed
Coordinator position to help expedite development of a comprehensive
statewide framework.
1995. During the early part of 1995, the Watershed Coordinator compiled
the results of the scoping work groups and met with key staff to determine
next steps. In May 1995, TNRCC contracted an experienced facilitator to
assist me Watershed Coordinator in identifying gaps in the state's proposed
approach and preparing a framework document that the agency could use as
guidance for implementation. An internal work group was formed and an
initial vision for the framework was established, including the idea that the
framework would be developed and supported by a broad range of agencies
and organizations involved in water quantity and quality management.
Preliminary designs of the core framework elements were documented to
provide a basis for discussion with potential partners.
Implementation
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
>Y '.Of^. Jfct**^ ' '-ttVi''1'' rltr ~^&?_^ * «•
?roJ5Tc *»'/% *•££;„& 'Svs ,s-'t
1992
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
igure 14. Texas Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
49
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Transition Planning
Implementation
Representatives of the TNRCC work group hosted a meeting in September
1995 with potential partners from many different agencies and organiza-
tions. The degree of interest in a multipartner watershed framework was
not at the level hoped for by TNRCC. Some attendees were concerned
that the approach would constitute a new bureaucratic layer and were
skeptical that an integrated effort of the magnitude envisioned could be
accomplished. At approximately the same time, changes in the Executive
Director and Commissioner positions occurred. After discussion with the
new leadership, TNRCC decided to complete design of its framework at a
reduced scale.
January-August 1996. The Watershed Coordinator and facilitator
used a team approach to complete framework design and documentation.
Meeting with individuals and groups within TNRCC's Office of Water
Resource Management, they worked out detailed activity guides for each
participating program and designed a combination of organizational
forums for conducting coordinated efforts at three scales—local water-
shed, river basin, and statewide. With the help of the facilitator, TNRCC
completed a draft framework document in August 1996.
May-August 1996. The facilitator helped TNRCC identify next steps
that should be taken to support implementation and incorporated these
recommendations into the draft framework document.
September 1996-June 1997. The Watershed Coordinator produced
and distributed the draft framework document among agency staff, and
then managed the review and refinement process. Simultaneously, the
Watershed Coordinator helped key program staff and managers to begin
developing work plans and budgets that reflected the new framework
design. A refined framework document was published and distributed
both inside and outside TNRCC in March 1997. Work continued with the
Coordinator and key program staff to develop work plans, budgets, and
supplemental guidance, and to update standard operating procedures as
needed. Renewal of the Clean Rivers Programs with continuing appro-
priations by the state legislature, also resulted in agency staff's working
with River Authorities and other program contractors in updating opera-
tional agreements and guidance.
TNRCC's framework calls for phased implementation, beginning in fiscal
year 1997, with scoping and data collection plan development in two of
the state's five basin groups. The Surface Water Quality Monitoring Team
worked with the River Authorities and other Clean Rivers Program
contractors to successfully scope priority issues and develop strategic data
collection plans for these basin groups. Continually increasing pressures
for TMDL development is having a strong influence on where data collec-
tion and strategy development efforts are targeted. Consequently, the first
set of priority watershed action plans, with accompanying TMDLs, is
scheduled for the year 2000 in Basin Group E. For the remaining four
basin groups (A, B, C, D), action plans for the first set of priority water-
sheds are scheduled for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. In the
interim, TNRCC is encouraging stakeholders within each basin to maintain
ongoing management efforts and initiatives to add to the foundation for
future integrated efforts.
50
-------
Watershed Academy
fnformatfon Transfer Series
Utah
Scoping
While working on the Bear River Project with colleagues from several
federal natural resource management agencies, state agencies from three
states (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming), local agencies and stakeholder
groups, a staff person from Utah's Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
recognized the potential for providing stability and long-term support for
this successful effort through the watershed approach. He also saw the
potential for replicating this success statewide.
May 1994. At the USEPA Region 8 Denver watershed workshop,
participating DWQ staff members identified three primary objectives that
a watershed approach could address in Utah. The staff provided a
briefing for the DWQ Director on the watershed approach.
November 1994 Session. The DWQ Director approved the formation
of a watershed approach work group that included members of all
participating programs within DWQ. The mandate was for a watershed
framework to organize DWQ activities only and to include only DWQ
staff. However, DWQ staff were directed to develop a framework that
allowed voluntary participation of other agencies and citizen stakehold-
ers and included a comprehensive communication strategy to identify
and address issues raised by potential partners.
The purposes of the first work group meeting were to educate partici-
pants on the statewide watershed approach, to establish a common
mission statement, and to define the process for developing Utah's
watershed approach. The work group chose to adopt the nine common
elements of the watershed approach as design tools for the framework
development process. The work group used the elements to identify
milestones for the framework development process and to establish a
schedule.
Implementation :;^
Transition Planning
Framework Design
Scoping
1992
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1'.Z~S<*'S '»''-"»'-°*-T '•'•Sif"" '6VV<..vJ' '/"'"'''"^ISSS-J,"; '->*£%*" U^H-"' "" >'Y"-;v^<"i-w'V'x*
i r ^ '
i*t!~
I I T I I I
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 15. Utah Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
51
-------
A/o. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Framework Design
Transition Planning
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
January-September 1995 Sessions. Approximately six facilitated
work group sessions were held during this time period to design the
statewide watershed approach. In addition to the facilitated work ses-
sions, assignments were given to individual work group members. Ex-
ample assignments included:
• Developing a description of statewide monitoring procedures for
conducting the strategic monitoring component for the watershed
management units.
• Serving as liaison with partner agencies to present the watershed
management unit delineation decisions and to compile partner
comments for further consideration by the work group.
• Compiling a permit map and schedule to use as criteria for
sequencing the watershed management units.
• Preparing a description of program outputs for each step in the
watershed management cycle.
The work group used a pilot watershed (Jordan River) management plan
to develop watershed management cycle steps, length of schedule, roles
and responsibilities, and priority setting and targeting criteria. Also, the
work group developed an annotated framework document outline.
October 1995-May 1996. The facilitator used the annotated outline
and the meeting notes to compile a draft watershed management frame-
work document. A review draft of the framework document was com-
pleted in February 1996. The final draft included guidance on DWQ job
performance criteria for watershed teams and individual staff. The job
performance criteria are keyed to the watershed management cycle steps
and help to clarify how program managers can track assignments within
the watershed approach matrix.
May-July 1996. USEPA's Office of Water sponsored a Watershed
Academy - Executive Short Course to provide training to the Jordan River
Watershed Team for assessment, priority setting, and targeting procedures.
DWQ staff and watershed partners have identified additional transition
and training support as an ongoing area of need.
Six of the ten watershed management units have begun the watershed
management cycle. The first step for each of the six units was the comple-
tion of a strategic information collection and monitoring plan. Collabora-
tive information collection and monitoring are being guided through these
strategic plans. Each of the six active watershed management units is
using the stakeholder involvement forums (Stakeholder and Technical
Advisory Committees) and procedures described in the framework docu-
ment. The remaining four watershed management unit cycles will be
initiated in the next 2 years.
The only component lagging in the implementation of the approach is the
development of integrated management plans. Those interviewed for this
background analysis describe the status of integrated plans as pending.
DWQ staff expect that some form of documentation of watershed condi-
tions and management strategies will be undertaken in the near future.
52
-------
Watershed Academy
fnfomiation Transfer Series
Washington
Scoping
Framework Design
Two outside factors drove the Department of Ecology - Water Quality
Program (WQP) to develop a watershed approach. First, the state legisla-
ture sponsored a review of the Department's efficiency within permitting
programs. Second, a settlement agreement between USEPA Region 10 and
Northwest Environmental Advocates called for the development of a
"North Carolina" style basin approach with third- party facilitation and a
6-month deadline for completion. Because of the tight deadline and the
need to have a product to satisfy these outside parties, Washington's
original initiative focused on completing a framework document address-
ing only permitting functions; it gave less attention to internal team
building and external partnerships than had characterized other frame-
work development projects.
August 1992 Session. The scoping meetings with WQP staff were, at
the outset, greatly constrained by conditions of the settlement agreement.
For example, although many participants wanted to make the process
more inclusive of other programs and agencies, the agreement made this
problematic. Therefore, during scoping, short- and long-term visions were
developed with a strategy for phased implementation that allowed for
including a broader range of programs and issues at a later time.
The facilitation team met with small groups, and with individuals both in
headquarters (Olympia) and in the regional offices to review the North
Carolina Basin Approach framework and determine how it could be
applied to increase efficiency within the WQP program.
October 1992 Session. The work group delineated 32 Water Quality
Management Areas (WQMAs) divided approximately equally among the
four regional offices. Water quality management activities were organized
into four steps (Scoping, Data Collection/Analysis, Technical Report, and
Implementation "ii\" "• ,-"'vT'': T:- '"?•?•'*• •"•\™cy<'"-'^:- • SSrS-""''- 'A-^y,'."<,x
Transition Planning £xjyz<. -^f], ;
Framework Design :*:-;* *"
Scoping »%^ ....
1 1 1 1 I
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
•Mi£f '-Sv"
I I
1997
Figure 16. Washington Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
53
-------
No. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Transition Planning
Implementation (Post-
Facilitation)
Implementation) completed on a repeating 5-year cycle. The group
developed a strategic monitoring program that could address the initial
permitting focus of the program as well as the more substantial monitor-
ing requirements for TMDLs and the storm water program.
November 1992-March 1993 Sessions. The work group developed
the framework document outline. The first internal review draft frame-
work was distributed in January 1993 and reviewed by Ecology staff at a
workshop that month. The draft framework was distributed to regional
offices in February. The work group responded to comments on the
internal review draft and completed the public review draft in early
March.
January-July 1993 Sessions. A workshop was held for internal
review of the draft framework document. It was the first opportunity for
many of the staff to participate in development of the framework; and,
while there was general support for the initiative and the draft frame-
work, many staff felt that the scope was too narrow. Following the
workshop, the work group assumed responsibility for many small group
meetings (e.g., brown bag lunch information sessions) to explain the
framework and to receive additional comment. The draft final frame-
work was produced in July 1993.
The WQP has used the watershed framework since 1993 to geographically
coordinate the activities of its permitting teams for NPDES, the State
Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48.RCW), and the State Waste
Discharge Permitting Program (Chapter 173-216 WAG). A Watershed
Coordinator position has been added to track the implementation of the
watershed framework statewide and to recruit the involvement of other
programs and agencies. More recently, the activities of the nonpoint
source planning team and others have been added to the framework. The
approach now encompasses most of Ecology's Clean Water Act planning
and implementation activities.
The Governor's office and senior Ecology management have recently
decided that the WQP 5-year cycle (i.e., Scoping, Data Collection/Analy-
sis, Technical Report, and Implementation) and the WQMAs can provide
the basis for integrating and coordinating other watershed initiatives
within the state. An example of the expanded scope includes coordination
of the Water Resources program with WQMA teams to conduct watershed-
level water allocation assessments before issuing new or revised water
rights permits. Several agencies are using the framework to begin coordi-
nating efforts in response to Endangered Species Act concerns. To date
the Technical Report has not followed the format and content recommen-
dations presented in the framework document. However, the increased
involvement of other programs and agencies is likely to lead to more
substantive watershed documents. The focus of many watershed partner-
ships within the WQMA framework has been on the development of
information management and communication support clearinghouses
(e.g., Yakima, Nooksack). It appears that the WQMA clearinghouse will be
an increasingly common feature of the Washington watershed approach.
54
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
West Virginia
Scoping
In early 1996, the West Virginia Office of Water Resources (OWR) was in
the midst of four major initiatives that would significantly shape its way of
doing business for years to come. Three internal initiatives—strategic
planning, permit reengineering, and statewide watershed monitoring and
assessment—were driven by the Office's desire to become more effective
and efficient in protecting water quality and to strengthen its working
relationship with citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders. The fourth
initiative—outlining how Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) would be
developed in a sound and timely way—was to provide an integral part of
a legal settlement between EPA and various environmental groups. As the
TMDL settlement was being crafted, it was clear that OWR had regulatory
purview over only a small percentage of the waters that would need a
TMDL and that any legal settlement and its implementation would have
major implications for other state and federal agencies. These four
initiatives converged on the need for a more integrated approach to water
quality management, including connecting the efforts of the various
internal initiatives as well as building partnerships with numerous exter-
nal offices and agencies.
April 30, 1996, Session. To help meet this need for integration,
program directors and executive managers within West Virginia Division
of Environmental Protection (DEP) met to begin scoping the benefits of
developing a statewide watershed management framework. The DEP
Secretary expressed strong support for the watershed approach and
indicated his intent to use it to coordinate the water quality protection
activities of multiple offices in DER DEP's Office of Water Resources
assumed the lead role.
May 29-30, 1996, Session. Thirty state and federal agency and
division directors attended a Statewide Watershed Management Workshop
Implementation SW\'\
Transition Planning ;WT- :^,#^2§; *'.
Framework Design i|lC-*i*H^''^*1
i
Scoping ;vi:*>,*v, ' .
i 1 i
1995 1996
* indicates facilitated meeting(s)
1997
Figure 17. West Virginia Framework Development and Implementation Timeline (thru August 1997)
55
-------
A/0. 8
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Framework Design
to learn about the statewide watershed approach and discuss how it could
address future challenges they faced. They agreed to explore developing
an interagency management framework. The following day, 50 DEP Office
of Water Resources staff attended a workshop, Implementing a Statewide
Watershed Framework for West Virginia, where they learned about and
discussed the watershed approach, opportunities and concerns it poses,
how staff should be involved in designing the framework, and who should
be in the workgroup. OWR asked the facilitators to coordinate and inte-
grate a number of initiatives with watershed framework development—
internal strategic planning, permit reengineering, performance partnership
agreement, and the TMDL lawsuit.
August 15-16, 1996, Session. Formal appointments were made to an
interagency work group charged with designing the watershed framework.
The group agreed to a work plan and key milestones to reach in building a
watershed management framework by February 1997, goals and objec-
tives for the framework, and main activities that should be included in a
management cycle. It discussed how activities could be synchronized
within hydrologic regions to balance workloads and reviewed a draft
grouping of West Virginia's 32 hydrologic regions.
September 24-25, 1996, Session. The work group developed compo-
nents for a program activity guide, identifying which partner programs
and agencies are needed for each of the 10 watershed management
activities, lead and support roles, products produced, and time require-
ments. The group set a 4-week deadline for members to get feedback from
their program staff on proposed roles and responsibilities.
October 31-November 1, 1996, Session. The work group reviewed
and discussed the Draft Watershed Management Program Activity Guide. It
outlined ways to promote and support stakeholder involvement (including
partner agencies, interest groups, and citizens) and developed a recom-
mended organizational structure to support coordinated watershed
management. It identified additional workload needs and recommenda-
tions for meeting these needs. A subcommittee presented a draft tem-
plate/outline for future Hydrologic Region Status Reports and Priority
Watershed Management Plans. The work group set a target date of
November 15 for all members to brief their senior managers regarding the
progress of framework development and its management implications. A
new Governor was elected.
January 13-14, 1997, Session. A subcommittee presented draft
strategic monitoring and assessment plan outlines. The primary focus was
on the presentation and discussion of alternative prioritization methods
and criteria that should guide development of West Virginia's
prioritization and targeting approaches. A subcommittee was formed to
refine the method outlined by the work group. The group reviewed and
revised a draft outline for the West Virginia Watershed Management
Framework document. It finalized the Watershed Management Program
Activity Guide, the recommended administrative structure, and the
grouping of hydrologic regions. The work group proposed that partner
agencies sign a Resolution of Mutual Intent to implement the watershed
management framework. Members agreed to float the idea with senior
managers before the next meeting.
56
-------
Watershed Academy
Information Transfer Series
Transition
February 20-21, 1997, Session. The work group reviewed the
municipal and industrial NPDES permit synchronization schedule; the
Office of Mining and Reclamation indicated a desire to synchronize its
permits if hydrologic groupings can be refined to balance the workload of
all programs. The group reviewed and discussed the subcommittee's draft
proposed prioritization method and outlined revisions that would be
needed before sending its out for review by TMDL litigants. A major focus
was detailed review and revision of the West Virginia Watershed Manage-
ment Framework document. The work group reviewed and discussed the
draft Resolution of Mutual Intent; all members said their managers indi-
cated support of such a resolution. The work group set a target date for
briefing agency directors and senior managers on latest draft of the West
Virginia Watershed Management Framework and the Draft Resolution of
Mutual Intent. It planned a signing ceremony for watershed management
partners (targeted for mid-April).
February 21, 1997, Session. The group discussed key next steps in
implementation. Two partner agencies dedicated funding for a new Basin
Coordinator position.
March-April Briefings and Finalizing Framework Document.
Work group members briefed senior managers. The new DEP Secretary
was appointed and briefed on framework development; he indicated
strong support. The new Governor, after being briefed on the watershed
management framework document, expressed strong support and a desire
to host the signing ceremony in the Governor's office. Legislative commit-
tees were also briefed. Three new agencies, who had indicated earlier they
did not wish to be part of the framework design, said they would like to
be signature parties to the Resolution of Mutual Intent. The Workgroup
finalized groupings of hydrologic regions and the schedule for synchroniz-
ing all municipal, industrial, and mining NPDES permits. The Framework
document and Resolution were finalized.
May 29-30, 1997, Session. The Partners'Information Session provided
an overview of the Watershed Management Framework, the responsibili-
ties of the Interagency Steering Committee, and anticipated benefits of
this partnership. Those invited to the session included senior agency
management, members of the staff work group that had designed the
framework, media representatives, and environmental and business
associations. After a reception, the group attended a ceremony at the
Governor's office where partner agencies and the Governor signed the
Partnership for Statewide Watershed Management Resolution of Mutual
Intent. Signatory agencies included the West Virginia Division of Environ-
mental Protection, West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency, West Virginia
Division of Forestry, West Virginia Bureau of Public Health, West Virginia
Bureau of Commerce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Forest Service-
Monongahela National Forest, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. On May 30, transition issues were discussed.
June 1997. Members of the Interagency Steering Committee were
appointed by the agency directors. An orientation work session was held
for new Steering Committee members. A draft job description for the
Basin Coordinator position was developed, along with a schedule for
hiring the Coordinator.
57
-------
A/o.S
Statewide Watershed Management Facilitation
Implementation
July 1, 1997, Session. The Interagency Steering Committee held a
kick-off meeting to assign responsibilities for completing the first hydro-
logic region status report for the Upper Ohio and to plan coordinated
public outreach for the first grouping of watersheds. The Office of Water
Resources began synchronizing all NPDES permits.
West Virginia has five groupings of watersheds across the state, with five
to six watersheds per grouping. Over the next 6 months, the watershed
partners will complete the Upper Ohio pilot project status report. They
will also initiate public outreach and screening-level monitoring and write
watershed status reports in the remaining five watersheds of group 1.
Partners plan to initiate watershed planning and management in all five
groupings by the year 2000.
58
------- |