THE STATEWIDE
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT COURSE
DRAFT
Presented by
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 4,1995
-------
Contacts
If you have questions regarding course content or would like additional
information, please contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or one of its designated instructors:
EPA Contact: GregCurrey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-1718
Instructors: J. Trevor Clements, Contractor
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Executive Park, Suite 100
1920 Highway 54
Durham, NC 27713
919/544-6639
Clayton S. Creager, Contractor
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
2436 Foothill Boulevard, Suite J
Calistoga,CA94515
707/942-6907
in
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MODULE 1: COURSE INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Training 1-1
Course Content 1-2
The Watershed Protection Approach: Historical Perspective 1-5
The Need for a Comprehensive Approach 1-9
The Emerging Water Quality Program 1-11
WPA Features 1-13
Using Geographic Management Units 1-15
How Do Watershed Management Units Apply to Other Media? .. 1-17
The Statewide BMA 1-18
Why Develop BMAs at the State Level’ 1-19
MODULE 2: OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Purpose of Module 24
Learning Objectives 2-2
Common Elements of a BMA 2-3
Element 1. Basin Management Units 2-5
Element 2. Stakeholder Involvement 2-6
Element 3. A Basin Management Cyde 2-8
Element 4. Strategic Monitoring 2-10
Element 5. Basin Assessment 2-13
Element 6. Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources 2-15
Element 7. Capability for Developing Management Strategies .... 2-18
Element 8. Basin Management Plans 2-19
Element 9. Basin Plan Implementation Component 2-21
Potential Benefits of the Basin Management Approach 2-23
Roles in Framework Development and Implementation 2-29
MODULE 3: GETFING STARTED
Purpose of Module 3-1
Learning Objectives 3-2
Establishing a Common Direction for the
Basin Management Initiative 3-3
Managing Framework Development 3-10
Identifying Impediments 3-13
Documenting the Approach: Statewide Framework Document ... 3-15
MODULE 4: DEFINING BASIN FOCUS ELEMEN
Purpose of Module 4-1
Learning Objectives 4-2
V
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Basin Plan Format Development 4-3
Basin Delineation 4-10
Basin Management Cyde Development 4-18
Appendix to Module 4: BMA Management Cyde for the
State of Nebraska
MODULE 5: DEFINING CORE ACrIVITY ELEMEN1S
Purpose of Module 5-1
Learning Objectives 5-2
Build Capability to Develop Integrated Management Strategies ... 5-3
Integrating Public Participation into the Stakeholder
Involvement Element 5-10
Refining Prioritization and Targeting Methods 5-16
Identifying Basin Assessment Methods 5-29
Developing the Strategic Monitoring Element 5-34
Preparing for Implementation 5-45
MODULE 6: MAKING THE TRANSITION TO A BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Purpose of Module 6-1
Learning Objectives 6-2
Evaluating Refinements to Organization 6-3
Evaluating Refinements to Operational Procedures 6-4
Refining Planning Procedures 6-5
Refining Budgeting Procedures 6-9
Refining Directing Procedures 6-13
Refining Technical Procedures 6-14
Refining Procedures for Measuring Success 6-19
Refining Information Management Procedures ... 6-21
Developing a Transition Plan 6-23
Implementing a BMA 6-26
MODULE 7: PUTFING A BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
Purpose of Module 7-1
Learning Objectives 7-2
Basin Management Cyde for Big River Basin .. 7-3
Step 1 - Outreach and Organization 7-5
Step 2 - Collect Relevant Basin Information ... 7-7
Step 3 - Analyze and Evaluate Information.... 7-9
Step 4 - Prioritize Concerns and Issues 7-11
vi
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Step 5 - Perform Detailed Assessments of Priority Issues 7-13
Step 6 - Develop Management Strategies 7-15
Step 7- Prepare Draft Basin and Watershed Plans 7-17
Step 8- Finalize and Distribute Basin and Watershed Plans 7-18
Step 9 - Implement Basin and Watershed Plans 7-19
Step 10 - Repeat the Cycle 7-21
Additional Considerations 7-22
MODuLE 8: ExAMPLE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Purpose of Module 8-i
Learning Objectives 8-2
Delaware 8-3
Idaho 8-12
Nebraska 8-22
North Carolina 8-32
EXERCISE 1: FORGING PARTNERSI-IIPS TO FoRM A DMA El-i
EXERCISE 2: INTEGRATING BASIN ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
AMONG STAKEHOLDERS E2-1
vi i
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
Exhibit 1-1.
Exhibit 1-2.
Relationship between BMA Development and this Course
EPA Edgewater Consensus
1-3
1-10
Exhibit 2-1.
Exhibit 2-2.
Example of North Carolina Assessment Documents and How
They Are Linked to Basin Plans
Assigning Priorities and Targeting to Allocate Resources for
Protection of Waterbody Integrity
2-14
2-17
Exhibit 3-1.
Exhibit 3-2.
Exhibit 3-3.
Exhibit 3-4.
Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-2.
Exhibit 4-3.
Exhibit 4-4.
Exhibit 4-5.
Exhibit 5-1.
Exhibit 5-2.
Exhibit 5-3.
Exhibit 5-4.
Exhibit 5-5.
Exhibit 5-6.
Exhibit 5-7.
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-16
4-6
4-12
4-20
4-22
4-26
5-5
5-20
5-21
5-23
5-24
5-36
5-39
Delaware’s Multi-Stakeholder Resource Protection Strategy
Mission Statement and Goals for the State of Georgia BMA
Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 10 and the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality
Table of Contents from the State of Nebraska’s
Draft Framework Document
The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska
State of Washington’s Water Quality Management Areas
A Basin Management Cycle
Criteria for Establishing a Basin Management Cycle from
the State of Washington
Steps in Nebraska’s Basin Management Cycle
BMA Organizational Structures in Georgia and Idaho
Numerical Approach Developed for Oregon
Decision Tree Approach Developed for New Mexico
Overlay Approach Applied in Ohio
Consensus-Based Ranking System Used in Washington
North Carolina NPDES Discharger Basin Monitoring Programs
Two States’ Approaches to Monitoring Under a BMA
ix
-------
THE STATEWIDE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COURSE
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(Continued)
Page
Exhibit 6-1. Synchronizing Permit Re-issuance with
a Basin Management Cycle 6-7
Exhibit 6-2. Targeting Funds to Priority Issues Using a
Consolidated Funding Process 6-12
Exhibit 6-3. Example Environmental Indicators 6-20
Exhibit 6-4. Phased BMA Implementation 6-24
Exhibit 7-1. Big River Basin Management Cycle 7-4
Exhibit 7-2. Goals and Objectives for Stakeholders in the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Project 7-25
x
-------
MoDULE 1
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
This workshop will provide training in the Statewide Basin Management Approach
(BMA), a leading form of the Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) that has emerged
for states. Training materials are written for state and EPA regional staff who are
responsible for overseeing the protection and restoration of aquatic resources.
Participants will be provided sufficient background in the BMA to evaluate its
application to and refinement for their home states or regions. The training will
emphasize key elements in the design and implementation of a BMA as a framework for
integrating a broad range of resource protection programs, rather than focus on program
requirements.
Considerations for tailoring key elements will be provided, along with examples for
specific states and programs. Additionally, participants will review how a BMA
typically impacts program functions and staff operations. Examples provided in the
course, however, are not all-encompassing; rather, they are intended to stimulate
workshop participants to identify and explore potential opportunities for and impacts on
their programs and responsibilities.
L
PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING
• Introduce the Statewide Basin Management
Approach (BMA) to watershed protedion
• Provide background for applying and refining
aBMA
• Familiarize participants with mplications of
implementing a BMA
1-1
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
The course format consists of a combination of slide and video presentations and
interaction among participants, including role playing exercises. Information has been
organized into the following eight modules:
• Module 1: Course Introduction
• Module 2: Overview of the Statewide Basin Management Approach
• Module 3: Getting Started
• Module 4: Defining Basin Focus Elements
• Module 5: Defining Core Activity Elements
• Module 6: Making the Transition to a Basin Management Approach
• Module 7: Putting a Basin Management Approach into Practice
• Module 8: Example Statewide Basin Management Approaches
The course materials are organized to follow the general progression of state and
regional actions taken to develop and implement a basin management approach (BMA).
This relationship is shown in Exhibit 1-i. The left-hand column of the exhibit lists
typical BMA framework development and implementation milestones under five linked
stages: Stage 1: Developing an Understanding of the WPA; Stage 2: Establishing a
Direction for BMA Development; Stage 3: Tailoring BMA Framework Elements; Stage 4:
Making the Transition to a BMA; and Stage 5: Operating Under a BMA. The right-hand
column lists the course training components that correspond to each stage and set of
mi )pctririec
-‘ COURSE CONTENT
• Mod 1 Course Introduction
• Mod 2 Overview of the Statewide Basin Management Approach
• Mod 3 Getting Started
• Mod 4 Defining Basin Focus Elements
• Mod 5 Defining Core Activity Elements
• Mod 6 Making the Transition to a Basin Management Approach
• Mod 7 Putting a Basin Management Approach into Practice
• Mod 8 E,cample Statewide Basin Management Approaches
1-2
-------
Exhibit 1-1. Relationship between BMA
Development and this Course
BMA Milestones
Developing an Understanding of the WPA
• Gain a general understanding of the Watershed
Protection Approach (WPA)
• Understand how the WPA serves as a
coon:linating framework for water programs,
tools, and finances
• Learn why the Statewide Basin Management
Approach (BMA) is emerging as a leading form
of the WPA for States
Establishing a Direction for BMA Development
• Determine leadership and recruit partners for
the framework development process
• Establish a common vision that includes the
purpose, goals and objectives, and elements
for the BMA
• Educate partners on the BMA framework needs
and development process
• Establish ground rules for the development
process
• Establish method(s) for communication among
partners
• Identify existing and potential impediments to
developing and implementing a BMA
• Develop a work plan for BMA development
Tailoring BMA Framework Elements
• Establish the purpose(s), intended audience(s),
and general contents of basin plans, along with
required level of approval
• Delineate basin management units
• Establish basin management cycle
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Training Component
Module 1: Course Introduction
• Describes the evolution of water quality
programs, needs addressed by the WPA, and
opportunities created through use of the WPA
• Introduces the BMA
Video: Partnership for Watersheds
Module 2: OvervIew of the Statewide Basin
Management Approach
• Discusses key elements and benefits of a
BMA
Video: Solutions Basinwide
Module 3: Getting Started
• Covers important steps that can be taken
early in the BMA development process to get
efforts off to a good start
• Discusses how to anticipate existing and
potential barriers to BMA development, and
identify potential solutions early in the
process
• Identifies the benefits of developing a BMA
framework document for participant and
public reference
• Discusses the importance of a work plan to
BMA framework development
Role Playing Exercise: Forging Partnerships
Module 4: Establishing Basin Focus
Elements
• Describes the rationale and example methods
for establishing three key BMA elements that
principally define the spatial, temporal, and
planning units for management focus:
— Basin management plans,
— Basin management units, and
— A basin management cycle
[ Continued on next page]
1-3
-------
Exhibit 1-1. Continued
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
BMA Milestones
Tailoring BMA Framework Elements
(continued)
• Build capability to develop integrated
management strategies
• Establish desired level and methods of public
participation
• Develop prioiitization and targeting criteria and
methods
• Select basin assessment methods and
environmental indicators
• Develop BMA strategic monitoring protocols
• Define key implementation methods and means
Making the Transition to a BMA
• Evaluate opportunities to improve
administrative efficiency and effectiveness
• Establish organizational structure(s) for
operating under the BMA
• Define key administrative procedures for
operating under a BMA
• Synchronize activities with basin management
cycle
• Define information management needs and
solutions
• Establish resource/technical support needs for
implementation
• Develop plan to facilitate transition to the BMA
. Use transition plan and framework document to
implement BMA
Training Component
Module 5: DefinIng Core Activity Elements
• Provides recommendations and examples
from several states for tailoring core activity
elements
• Identifies potential roles for EPA, states, and
other stakeholders in defining each element
• Lists potential impacts on program staff and
functions for each element
Module 6: Making the Transition to a Basin
Management Approach
• includes considerations and
recommendations for making a smooth
transition to the new operating framework
• Describes steps that can be taken to
establish or refine administrative structure
and standard operating procedures to take
advantage of opportunities provided by the
BMA
• Provides recommendations for preparing and
implementing a transition plan to guide BMA
implementation
Role Playing Exercise: Integrating
Responsibilities
0
•
p rating under a BMA
C’ nduct operations according to BMA
fraMework document and related work plans
and agreements
Module 7: Putting a Basin Management
Approach Into Practico
• Provides example of integrated operations
and stakeholder roles under a BMA
•
Perform outreach to increase stakeholder
• identifies additional considerations for BMA
awareness of the BMA
partners operating simultaneously in multiple
basins
1-4
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
I
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH:
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Early years focused on
flood control and navigation
Viewgraph 3: The Watershed Protection Approach: Historical Perspective
Watershed management is not a new idea. The concept of basin-level water resources
management originated as early as the 1 890s in the work of the U.S. Inland Waterways
Commission, with the backing of President Roosevelt. The Commission reported to
Congress in 1 908 that each river system from its headwaters in the mountains to its
mouth at the coast is an integrated system and must be treated as such. The focus of
water resource management throughout the first half of the century was wise and
efficient use of water resources for such purposes as energy production, navigation,
flood control, irrigation, and drinking water.
Environmental problems attributable to “dust bowls” in the midwest and massive
deforestation throughout the country increased public awareness of the need for
watershed protection. The Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) was created in 1935 in an effort to improve measures for
controlling runoff and reducing soil erosion.
1-5
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCFION
L
WPA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
Goal in 1 950s and 1 960s was improving ambient
water quality and protecting drinking water by
• Performing pollution studies
• Funding publicly owned treatment works
• Developing water quality standards for
interstate waters
• Forming some river basin compacts
Viewgraph 4: WPA Historical Perspective (continued)
The 1 950s and 1 960s saw increased emphasis on improving ambient water quality and
protecting the Nation’s drinking water, much of which comes from ground water. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 provided for pollution studies and initiated
large-scale funding of publicly owned treatment works.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 introduced a water quality-based approach to water
quality management. States were required to develop water quality standards for
interstate waters, and river basin compacts were formed to protect major systems such
as the Colorado and Delaware Rivers. Some state sanitation commissions adopted river
basin approaches, including the development of basin plans that classified individual
waterbodies according to their best uses.
1-6
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
WPA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 included
• Goal of physical, chemical, and biological integrity
• Basis for basin planning
• Technology-based effluent limitations
• Federal permitting program
• Massive funding for wastewater treatment
• Funding for state water quality programs
Viewgraph 5: WPA Historical Perspective (continued)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which comprised
comprehensive legislation protecting both interstate and intrastate waters, established
the national goal of restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters. Section 303 of this Clean Water Act (CWA) laid a
foundation for watershed protection with its provisions for intrastate water quality
standards, comprehensive basin planning, and establishment of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). Early implementation of the CWA, however, emphasized creation of a
federal permitting program (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or
NPDES) and technology-based effluent limitations. Massive funding was made available
through the CWA for construction and upgrade of publicly owned treatment works to
meet new federal requirements. The subsequent workload in handling NPDES permits
and construction grants overwhelmed many state water quality programs to the point
where primary focus became response to NPDES applications, establishment of point
source wasteload allocations, waste treatment construction project oversight, issuance of
NPDES permits, and NPDES permit enforcement. Program resources were rarely
allocated to evaluating the importance of nonpoint source loads, such as those from
overland runoff or contaminated ground water discharge to surface waters.
Comprehensive watershed protection planning was more of an exception than a rule
during the first two decades following CWA enactment.
1-7
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
I
WPA HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (CONTINUED)
CWA Amendments of 1987
• Required states to expand programs for
toxics, nonpoint sources, stormwater,
wetlands, and water quality standards
• Established National Estuary Program
SDWA adds protedion for ground and
surface water sources of drinking water
Viewgraph 6: WPA Historical Perspective (continued)
With the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress sought to address several gaps in
existing legislation. The amendments expanded state program requirements for
establishing water quality standards and for managing toxics, nonpoint sources,
stormwater, and wetlands. The amended CWA also authorized comprehensive
programs to protect ground water. These numerous requirements have strained state
budgets. Additionally, implementation has generally occurred on an individual program
and agency basis, which has made multi-agency programs more difficult to coordinate
effectively. The 1987 CWA amendments did establish the National Estuary Program
(NEP), however, which has resulted in several projects that have demonstrated success
at coordinating multiple agencies and programs effectively to implement needed
watershed protection measures.
Furthermore, the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its 1986 amendments
established state programs designed to protect surface and ground water sources of
drinking water. Under this act, EPA has established additional programs for preventing
contamination of drinking water sources, including wellhead protection, sole source
aquifer protection, and watershed control plans.
1-8
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
The 1994 National 305(b) report indicates that the Nation has not yet achieved its goal
of restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of aquatic
ecosystems. Problems remain, particularly nonpoint source pollution and habitat
degradation, despite the fact that federal, state, and local governments have spent
billions of dollars to establish criteria, tools, and programs for protecting surface and
ground water quality. Furthermore, by EPA’s own assessment, the Agency currently
cannot assure achievement of restoration and protection goals, even if there were
perfect compliance with all EPA authorities. (See Exhibit 1 -2, an excerpt from the EPA
Edgewater Consensus.) One reason cited for this inability is that most government
efforts have proceeded independent of one another, becoming program-specific and
program-centered.
The comprehensive perspective illustrated in the viewgraph demonstrates how
numerous activities within a watershed, even when separated by great distances, can
impact conditions and uses of many aquatic resources. Because environmental
problems often cut across media (i.e., land, water, and air), program purviews, and
political jurisdictions, an individual agency typically lacks the authority and means to
address problems fully. We now understand that critical environmental issues are so
intertwined that mitigation and protection require a comprehensive approach that
incorporates ecological principles and collaboration among agencies. Many agencies
and programs at the local, state, and federal levels are embracing the idea of using the
geographic boundaries of a watershed as the basis for coordinating and integrating
management efforts. This approach has come to be known as the Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA).
Viewgraph 7: The Need for a Comprehensive Approach
1-9
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
‘hibit 1-2. EPA Edgewater Consensus
Recent national evaluations reveal the need for a comprehensive, coordinated
approach to environmental management. One such evaluation took place at a
meeting of senior EPA leaders at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
near Edgewater, MD, in March 1994. An excerpt from the meeting
documentation, referred to as the Edge water Consensus, is provided below:
To date, EPA has accomplished a great deal addressing many major
sources of pollution to the nation’s air, water, and land. Yet, even as
we resolve the more obvious problems, scientists discover other
environmental stresses that threaten our ecological resources and
genera! well-being. Evidence of these problems can be seen in the
decline of the salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest and the
oyster stock in the Chesapeake Bay, the decline in migratory bird
populations, and degraded coral reef systems.
The causes of these problems are as varied as human activity itself: the
way we farm, work, travel, and spend our leisure hours. Although
many federal, state, and local regulations address these problems, past
efforts have been as fragmented as our authorizing statutes. Because
EPA has concentrated on issuing permits, establishing pollutant limits,
and setting national standards, the Agency has not paid enough
attention to the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. In
short, EPA has been “program-driven” rather than “place-driven.”
Recently, we have realized that, even if we had perfect compliance
with all our authorities, we could not assure the reversal of disturbing
environmental trends. We must collaborate with other federal, state,
and local agencies, as well as private partners!,] to reverse those trends
and achieve our ultimate goal of healthy, sustainable ecosystems that
provide us with food, shelter, clean air, clean water, and a multitude of
other goods and services. We therefore should move toward the goal
of ecosystem protection.
1-10
-------
Viewgraph 8: The Emerging Water Quality Program
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
The WPA is not a new program, it is a coordination framework. The addition of the
WPA is a logical step in the evolution of water resource management. The WPA
establishes a framework for coordinating and integrating the multitude of programs and
resources that redirects their focus back to the original goal of aquatic ecosystem
integrity. The approach reflects the realization that attaining the goal may only be
possible through implementation of an integrated approach; a common information
base; and agreement on the roles, priorities, and responsibilities for managing a
watershed.
Although the basis for the WPA has existed for almost a century, several fundamental
problems historically have prevented this approach from receiving national attention
and support. For example, even though C\’VA Section 303 endorsed comprehensive
basin planning for states back in 1972, many states are just now reaching the point
where they can undertake a comprehensive approach. States first had to expand their
expertise in key areas such as standards development, monitoring, assessment,
modeling, nonpoint source management, toxics control, point source permitting,
enforcement, wetlands protection, wellhead protection, estuary management, and so
on. State and federal agencies had to build databases to support comprehensive
assessments that characterize water resources and help identify priority concerns.
Technology-based tools such as computerized data bases, water quality models, and
geographic information systems (GIS) necessary to support a comprehensive WPA are
only now becoming available. Thus, EPA and state water programs, in particular, spent
the last 20 years establishing regulations, guidelines, programs, tools, and data necessary
1-11
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCLION
to move management of the nation’s surface and ground water resources into a more
efficient, integrated approach.
The need to control varied, dispersed sources of pollution led to centralized collection
systems for sanitary and storm waters. The CWA and its predecessors progressively
improved treatment and reduced pollution from these sources, which once were the
primary cause of surface water degradation. In addressing this important need, the
nation focused on establishing technology-based effluent guidelines for many types of
discharges, along with a permitting system that required compliance with effluent
guidelines or limitations set to meet instream water quality standards. Although
significant improvements in the water quality of many waterbodies can be tied to point
source controls, national assessments indicate that a broader scope of management is
needed to achieve national water resource management objectives. The WPA is now
being recognized as a practical approach to integrating the multitude of programs, tools,
and financial resources aimed at protecting and restoring the nation’s aquatic ecosystem
integrity.
1-12
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCFION
The WPA is a geographically-based system for managing resources that
• Promotes Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders are all agencies, organizations,
and individuals that are involved in or affected by water resource management
decisions. The WPA groups stakeholders by watershed so that they can work
together to reach agreement on priority concerns, goals, and approaches for
addressing a particular watershed’s problems; specific actions for mitigating
problems; and how management activities will be coordinated and evaluated.
• Focuses on Environmental Objectives: The WPA helps stakeholders focus on
achieving ecological goals and water quality standards. Management success is
gauged by the progress made toward protecting or restoring specific waters from
threats to human health and aquatic life, rather than measurement of program
activities, such as the number of permits issued or samples collected. In other
words, the WPA is resource-centered, rather than program-centered. Concentrating
management activities within a watershed is an example of what EPA calls “place-
based” management.
• Targets Priority Concerns: The WPA places monitoring and assessment at the
forefront of the management process for better identification of priority concerns
within watersheds. Stakeholders can then direct their limited resources to address
priority concerns most efficiently and effectively.
• Facilitates Integrated Solutions: Stakeholder expertise and funds may be applied
more effectively when they are pooled to mitigate common problems. Under the
I
WPA FEATURES
• Stakeholder involvement
• Environmental objectives
• Priority concerns
• Integrated solutions
• Resource protection options
1-13
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
WPA, personnel and financial resources can be leveraged to achieve watershed
management goals and objectives in accordance with plans and roles established
through stakeholder agreement.
Broadens the Base of Resource Protection Options: The WPA is expansive
enough to consider all interacting sources of stressors/pollutants within a given
watershed simultaneously. Broadening the evaluation basis also tends to increase
the diversity of stakeholders involved in management, thereby increasing the
management capabilities available to address priority concerns. Additional
participants and capabilities also generate more opportunities for innovative
solutions, such as ecological restoration, wetland mitigation banking, and market-
based alternatives (e.g., pollutant trading), to address these often complex problems.
1-14
-------
Viewgraph 10: Using Geographic Management Units
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCI1ON
The WPA is based on the premise that water resource restoration and protection are best
addressed through integrated efforts within hydrologically defined, geographic
management units (i.e., watersheds and basins). Because of their readily identifiable
boundaries, watersheds provide a functional spatial unit for coordinating management
efforts. The term watershed, in this context, is broadly defined as the geographic
delineation of an entire waterbody system and the land that it drains above a specific
outlet point. A watershed also may include ground water aquifers and the areas that
recharge them. The watershed definition naturally groups anyone with a stake in
management of those waters.
Not every agency or individual involved in watershed management currently uses the
same set of watersheds. Because a watershed can be defined above any given point
along a waterbody, numerous delineations by a wide range of agencies have been used
over time for various purposes. One challenge for integrating programs and agency
efforts is to agree on a common set of watershed management units.
Using a common set of units greatly enhances opportunities for coordinating key
management activities such as planning, monitoring, assessment, data sharing
(particularly through GIS), prioritizing, and implementing management strategies. Not
everyone, however, is involved in these activities at the same watershed scale. Local
agencies are usually concerned with waters within their jurisdiction, whereas state
agency purviews extend beyond local jurisdictions, and federal jurisdictions cross state
boundaries. In the WPA, geographic management units are used to integrate water
quality management efforts across local, state, and federal levels of government.
USING GEOGRAPHIC MANAGEMENT UNITS
Small Watershed
(draining small
waterbody system)
Large Watershed
(sub.basin)
Ecorsgiont
(drooled by thadmi) River Basin
s Southeastern Plans
= M.d .Mbnl.c Coastal Plain
1-15
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Issues of scale can be addressed by using geographic management units that share
common borders and “nest” within or on top of one another allowing resource issues to
be addressed at several levels at the same time (see viewgraph). Nesting watersheds
allows individual stakeholders to scale their efforts up or down to address specific
concerns and still maintain consistency with other stakeholders. For example,
• Smaller watersheds can be targeted for specific management strategies and
activities where implementation relies heavily on participation at the local level.
• Larger watersheds (e.g., sub-basins, river basins) are an aggregation of smaller
watersheds and can be used to integrate efforts that cross political jurisdictions.
• Ecoregional information can be overlaid on watershed and river basin boundaries
to distinguish unique environmental features of the management units to be
considered when establishing management goals, criteria, and implementation
strategies.
1-16
-------
Viewgraph 11: How Do Watershed Management
Units Apply to Other Media?
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Geographic management units based on watersheds can be applied to surface water,
ground water, and other media as well. While watershed delineations for surface waters
may not coincide with the boundaries of groundwater aquifers and airsheds, they still
provide an excellent management unit for coordinating efforts when different media
issues overlap. For example, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, approximately
40 percent of the average annual streamflow nationwide is from ground water. Hence,
ground water contamination often translates into surface water contamination where the
two interface. Similarly, wet and dry deposition of air pollutants is readily assessed
using watershed management units to define deposition zones. Interfaces among media
occur within the boundaries of watersheds and can therefore be coordinated using the
same management units. In other words, the WPA provides opportunities for ecosystem
management within watershed boundaries.
How Do WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
UNITS APPLY TO OTHER MEDIA?
a
Surface Water
D rgeo
‘ o(dame ated CW
The WPA provides opportunities for ecosystem
management within watershed boundaries.
1-17
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUCTION
1 ’ THE STATEWIDE BMA
Individual Watershed 1 Statewide Basin
Protection Projects Management Approach
A method for integrating
National Estuary and coordinating watershed
Program Projects protection throughout a state
Viewgraph 12: The Statewide BMA
General aspects of the WPA are often refined to more specific frameworks that meet
individual needs of states and regions. These frameworks reflect how agencies and
other stakeholders operate together under a WPA on a daily basis. The Statewide Basin
Management Approach (BMA), which has emerged as a leading WPA framework, was
developed by states as a practical approach to resource management. In general, a
statewide BMA involves a framework for integrating and coordinating watershed
protection throughout a state. The BMA is not a new approach, rather it is a logical
extension of basin planning and area-wide waste management efforts performed during
the early years of CWA implementation, and more recent efforts such as the National
Estuary Program (NEP). Many common sense elements of the BMA provide numerous
benefits to state and federal agencies responsible for implementing water-related
legislative mandates. Also, the approach is very flexible in that it can be adapted to the
unic ue circumstances within a state or region.
The BMA is considered a large-scale WPA because it applies WPA concepts to water
resource management activities statewide. Many individual watershed protection
projects across the Nation represent multi-stakeholder efforts on a smaller scale. NEP
projects involve larger-scale watershed protection efforts for estuaries designated by EPA
as nationally significant. NEP and other individual watershed protection projects
typically rely on special government appropriations and whatever time key agencies and
institutions can make available to participate in management strategy development. The
BMA, on the other hand, incorporates the WPA into the daily operations of many
regulatory and nonregulatory agencies responsible for administering water program
activities. Additionally, the BMA provides an overall framework for coordinating and
implementing targeted watershed projects throughout the state.
1-18
-------
MODULE 1
COURSE INTRODUcTION
Viewgraph 13: Why Develop BMAs at the State Level?
The rationale for developing BMAs at the state level is based on a combination of
factors, including legal structure, efficiency, effectiveness, and practicality:
• Most water program management authorities are retained by state governments.
The BMA can therefore be implemented within the existing state governmental
infrastructure without changing federal statutes.
• From a governing standpoint, states are situated between the federal government,
which establishes national policy and regulations, and local governments, which
usually have responsibility to implement resulting programs. Thus, states are in a
position to broker solutions between federal and local interests.
• Resource efficiencies achievable under the WPA largely depend on coordination
at the statewide level. Prioritizing, scheduling, and coordinating activities often
hinge on the ability to cross local jurisdictions. Management at the federal level is
impractical because of the difficulty in dealing with legal and structural
differences from state to state.
• Although basin boundaries may cross state lines, many financial resources
allocated to address water quality management issues are channelled through
state agencies (e.g., CWA Section 104, 106, 205, 314, 319, and 604 grants; SRF
capitalization funds; and SDWA Section 1443 funds). Thus, although EPA and
other federal agencies can help resolve interstate issues, management strategies
are most commonly implemented through individual states.
L
WHY DEVELOP BMAs AT THE
STATE LEVEL?
• States haveprogram authority
• Position to broker solutions
• Effièiency
• Fundschannelled throughstate agencies
1-19
-------
MoDULE 2
-------
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE
BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH
MODULE 2
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
L
PURPOSE OF MODULE
Questions addressed in this module include:
• What are the basic principles and
elements of the I3MA?
• Why should states and regions implement
a BMA?
• What roles can states, regions, and other
stakeholders play in developing and
implementing a BMA?
&‘i [ ;4 1 t • . iiI u ii . I,1:f ;I,] & rii m ri
The purpose of this module is to address three questions that should be answered before
proceeding to a more detailed consideration of the Basin Management Approach (BMA):
• What are the basic principles and elements of the BMA?
• Why should states and regions implement a BMA?
• What roles can states, regions, and other stakeholders play in developing and
implementing a BMA?
This module describes common elements of a BMA and how each element translates
watershed protection objectives into a practical operating framework for states and
regions. The overview focuses on basic principles and how elements are interrelated.
Later modules examine each element in greater detail. Participants learn how each
element contributes to the overall resource protection strategy offered through the BMA
and how water resource management will likely change under this approach.
This module also addresses the question of why a state or region should consider
adopting or supporting a BMA, through discussion of potential benefits and describes
general roles that stakeholders can play in the development and implementation of a
BMA.
2-1
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to
• Identify and describe the nine common elements of a BMA.
• Understand how elements support and incorporate basic principles of the WPA
(i.e., risk assessment, geographic targeting, and stakeholder involvement) into a
coordinating framework.
• Understand how BMA coordinating features (i.e., basin management units and a
basin management cycle) provide spatial and temporal focus for management
activities, thereby promoting improved integration and coordination among
stakeho Iders.
• Identify concerns with existing water programs and evaluate benefits of
implementing a BMA.
L
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to
• Identify and describe common elements of a BMA
• Understand how BMA elements support basic
principles of the WPA
• Understand how BMA coordinating features
provide focus for management activities
• Identify concerns with existing water programs
and evaluate benefits of a BMA
2-2
-------
Viewgraph 3: Common Elements of
a Basin Management Approach
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Nine key elements are recommended for a comprehensive BMA:
• Basin management units
• Stakeholder involvement
• A basin management cycle
• Strategic monitoring
• Basin assessment
• A priority ranking and resource targeting system
• Capability to develop management strategies
• Basin management plans
An implementation component
All nine elements are interrelated and can be adapted to unique circumstances within
any state. Each element is related to the development and implementation of basin and
targeted watershed plans that satisfy environmental needs while ensuring adequate
participation by stakeholders. A synopsis of the conceptual model presented in the
viewgraph follows.
COMMON
ELEMENTS OF a BMA
Basin Management Cycle
2-3
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Basin management units are at the center of the model. Under the proposed
framework, a state is divided into large, hydrologically delineated geographic
management units called basins to provide a functional spatial unit for integrating
watershed management efforts for a given state. Next, stakeholders are defined as any
entity involved in or affected by watershed management activities within a basin
management unit. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities are identified and coordinated
for six core activities, represented by the “spoked” elements encircling stakeholder
involvement: strategic monitoring, basin assessment, prioritization and targeting,
developing management strategies, basin management plans, and implementation. A
fixed time schedule for sequencing activities across basins throughout the state, called
the basin management cycle, is determined by partners in the framework. The basin
management cycle balances workloads for all stakeholders while still maintaining
spatial focus. The cycle (depicted as the outermost ring of the model) is repeated for
each basin at fixed intervals (usually every five years) to ensure that management goals,
priorities, and strategies are routinely updated and progressively implemented. The
following viewgrapFis review each element separately.
2-4
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
ENT 1. BAsIN MANAGEMENT UNITS
01 Savannah-Salkehatchie
02 Saluda-Edisto
03 Catawba-Santee
04 Pee Dee
05 Broad
Viewgraph 4: Element 1. Basin Management Units
Under a statewide BMA, the state is divided into geographic management units drawn
around large river basins. The resultant basin management units are used by each
participating stakeholder as the geographic basis for coordinating their water resource
management activities. Thus, basin management units must be suitable for coordinating
monitoring, performing assessments, developing TMDLs, implementing point and
nonpoint source controls, and management planning for surface and ground waters.
Basin management units can be divided into smaller management units (e.g., sub-basins,
watersheds, waterbodies, or stream reaches) to provide greater flexibility and higher
resolution for targeting program resources to specific problems or support ongoing
activities. Basin units are the preferred basis for full-scale coordination among local,
state, and federal stakeholders because they afford an economy of scale. Operating
simultaneously in every local watershed across a state is impractical for state and federal
partners. Basin management units provide a practical and functional scale for these
stakeholders, while still allowing for integration of local efforts through the smaller-scale
watershed units nested within basins. Discussion of sequencing basins under Element 3
elaborates further on this attribute.
The viewgraph shows basins that were delineated for major rivers within the State of
South Carolina. Selected water program activities for South Carolina are coordinated
within each of the five basin management units.
South Carolrna Major
River Basin Delineation,
2-5
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
ENT 2. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
A well designed BMA creates
opportunities for stakeholders to
• Increase their awareness of water-
related issues
• Play meaningful roles
Viewgraph 5: Element 2. Stakeholder Involvement
Under a BMA, basin stakeholders are all agencies, organizations, and individuals that
are involved in or affected by water quality management decisions for a given basin.
They can include, but are not limited to,
• State water resource management agencies
• State agricultural, forestry, and wildlife agencies
• Local governmental agencies (e.g., city or county)
• Local and regional offices of federal agencies (e.g., EPA; USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service and Forest Service; and USD01 Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation)
• Industrial water users and NPDES dischargers
• Agriculture, forestry, and other private/individual nonpoint source contributors
and/or water users
• Public and private drinking water and wastewater utilities
• Trade associations
• Universities and research foundations
• Environmental groups
• General public
2-6
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
A BMA’s success depends on pooling the resources, energy, and regulatory authority of
multiple stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement in BMA development and
implementation is therefore critical. A well designed BMA creates numerous
opportunities for a broad range of stakeholders to increase their awareness of water-
related issues and play meaningful roles in water quality management.
Roles and responsibilities should therefore be defined for each element of the BMA
framework and could include the following activities, the order of which reflects typical
chronological order in a basin management cycle:
• Data and research sharing
• Joint monitoring
• Identification of waterbody stressors
• Priority setting
• Goal setting
• Management strategy development
• Basin plan development, review, and approval
• Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation
• Outreach
• Measuring success
Additionally, methods for engaging stakeholders should be clearly identified in the
framework. Many vehicles can be used to involve stakeholders in these activities,
including
• Public meetings
• Citizen advisory groups, boards, or committees
• Technical planning teams
• Monitoring consortiums
• Basin festivals
• Agency administrative agreements
Using these basinwide mechanisms for increasing public involvement is often an
efficient way to meet state and federal water program public participation requirements,
because they provide opportunities to examine TMDL priority waters, NPDES permit
requirements, etc. collectively within the basin.
2-7
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Viewgraph 6: Element 3. A Basin Management Cycle
Basin management units provide a basis for coordinating activities geographically, but
activities must also be coordinated overtime. The BMA provides temporal focus for
stakeholders by implementing a basin management cycle that supports a long-term,
iterative program for restoring and protecting water resources.
The basin management cycle needs three features to create an orderly system for
focusing and coordinating watershed management activities on a continuous basis:
• A specified length of time is established for each complete iteration of the
management cycle and for each major activity (i.e., monitoring, environmental
assessment, priority-setting, management strategy development, basin plan
preparation, and basin plan implementation).
• A sequence for addressing basins balances workloads from year to year. For
instance, if the specified length of the management cycle is 5 years, the state could
group and sequence all basins such that during any given year, one-fifth of the
t The length of a basin management cycle may vary from state to state and should be defined by
stakeholders as they establish the BMA framework. Many states have selected a 5-year cycle to
coincide with the federal statutory requirement for NPDES permit renewal. Thus, a 5-year BMA
cycle ensures that an updated basin management plan will be available for each 5-year permitting
cycle. Additionally, a 5-year cycle has proved practical—including all activities in a shorter period
might create unreasonable workloads, and too much time may lapse between plan updates and
implementation during a much longer period. The 5-year cycle essentially translates into handling
one-fifth of a state’s waters each year for each activity category, which many states consider a
reasonabJe workload.
ENT 3. A BAsIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE
Burn
Croup I
Bairn
Croup 2
Bairn
Croup 3
Burn
Croup 4
Bairn
Cro u pS
Inteniuie MondorrnB
AiSOWTIrnII and P,iorthzat.on
U Managemrnd Sfralegy Developinint
Bairn Plan Rei.pw and A provaI
U impirmentatrnn
2-8
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
basins would be in the intensive monitoring phase, one-fifth in assessment and
prioritization, one-fifth in management strategy development, one-fifth in basin
plan development, and one-fifth in basin plan implementation. Although activities
are ongoing in each basin, sequencing the management cycle by basin group
minimizes the burden on any sing’e group at a given time, while still maximizing
overall the amount of information obtained and other work accomplished. In Year
6, for example, intensive monitoring is focused within Basin Group 1 only, while
other activities are carried out in Basin Groups 2 through 5.
• A schedule of management adivities is established for each basin for all
participating programs, agencies, public interest groups, and other stakeholders.
This schedule provides a long-term reference and coordinating tool for BMA
participants. Because many participants may have redundant requirements and
capabilities, a master schedule can streamline activities, eliminate duplication of
effort, and enhance the use of program resources to achieve basin objectives more
efficiently and effectively.
The viewgraph illustrates how water management activities can be scheduled and
sequenced using a 5-year cycle. For illustration, water management activities have
been simplified into five categories, shown in the legend at the bottom of the exhibit.
Activities are sequenced through five basin groupings, shown on the left. During the
first 5 years, the BMA schedule is phased in across an entire state. Thus, for Basin
Group 1, the 5-year cycle of activities begins in Year 1, is completed in Year 5, and
begins again in Year 6. Basin Group 2 begins its cycle in Year 2 and repeats the cycle
starting in Year 7; Basin Group 3 begins in Year 3, and so on. In this example, the
BMA is fully implemented after 5 years; that is, some category of BMA activities is
conducted in each basin group every year thereafter. Agreements between government
agencies determine how water management program requirements will be handled
during this transitional period. For example, administrative extensions for permit
renewal can be obtained to facilitate synchronization of permitting activities with the
basin management cycle.
2-9
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvn w OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Monitoring in the basin approach includes field collection of data to support a variety of
assessment activities. Monitoring is a critical part of a successful BMA, which relies
heavily on environmental data to identify stressors, estimate risk to waterbodies, develop
goals and objectives for waterbodies, assign priorities and target program resources,
develop management strategies, and measure the success of previous management
actions to assist with updating the basin plan.
Ongoing and new monitoring efforts are strategically coordinated by basin to address
many assessment needs, including
• Determining surface and ground water quality status and trends
• Evaluating use attainability
• Developing site-specific water quality standards, where needed
• Identifying stressors and their sources
• Targeting priority waters for action
• Applying models to support TMDL development, nonpoint source best management
practice decisions, and permit issuance
• Evaluating the effectiveness of management actions
ENT 4. STRATEGIC MONITORING
• Collection of data to support assessment
• Importance of environmental
information to effective management
• Strategic coordination of ambient,
compliance, and intensive monitoring by
basin
2-10
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Typically, up to three types of ongoing and new monitoring for surface and ground
water can be involved:
• Ambient monitoring involves periodic (e.g., once per month) sampling at
strategically located sites for the purpose of assessing water quality and/or quantity,
documenting trends, identifying problems, and evaluating the overall effectiveness
of management controls.
• Compliance monitoring pertains to inspection of permitted activities (e.g.,
discharge from wastewater treatment facilities and water supply withdrawals) to
determine whether permittees are meeting all permit conditions. These studies
usually continue for the life of the permit.
• Intensive surveys are special studies that evaluate specific water quality and/or
quantity issues. Surveys are frequently used to locate and quantify pollutant
sources, characterize hydrology, measure the effect and fate of pollutants, and
characterize the extent of environmental contamination or habitat loss. Such
studies typically last for 1 year or less.
The need for each type of monitoring can be determined through development of a
strategic plan that describes specific monitoring objectives for each basin in a given
year along with methods and means for achieving them. For example, a state may
maintain a fixed-station ambient network statewide that is sampled monthly, quarterly,
or annually for status and trend evaluations. The state may also establish a network of
“rotating basin” stations that are sampled one year during each basin management cycle
to augment the baseline network for basin assessments. Similarly, the monitoring plan
could focus intensive survey efforts in specific basins to fill identified data gaps in
support of basin planning activities (e.g., assessments before prioritization and model
calibration before TMDL development). Some portion of compliance monitoring may
be performed on a continuous basis regardless of the basin cycle. Special compliance
monitoring, however, can be focused on priority areas of the basin where impairment
attributable to permitted sources is suspected or unclear. The strategic plan should also
coordinate and set forth procedures for related activities such as laboratory analysis and
data management.
The strategic planning process can be used to coordinate and leverage stakeholder
monitoring resources. For example, EPA, USGS, NOAA, and NRCS (federal agencies
that may collect water quality data in a state) can compare their objectives with the
state’s CWA §106 monitoring program and locate stations to complement activities of
other stakeholders, when possib’e. Permittees and other stakeholders with ambient
monitoring requirements can form basin monitoring consortiums to pool resources and
coordinate with the state’s monitoring program in a given basin. Similarly, volunteer
monitoring groups can be included in the plan.
2-11
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Local monitoring consortiums and volunteer groups will focus on smaller watersheds;
state and federal monitoring programs can cover the basin as a whole and relate local
data to basinwide information. Collaboration among stakeholders is the key to
designing a monitoring program that makes the best use of each participants’ resources
and capabilities to support common environmental assessment objectives. The aim
here is to minimize the monitoring burden for any one stakeholder, while maximizing
the amount of useful information obtained about the basin overall.
2-12
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Early
Stage
Middle
Stage
Later
Stage
...
..
Assess water
quality and
identify causes
of impairment
Quantify
problems and
apply predictive
models
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
corrective measures
The term basin assessment is applied generally to a series of different types of
assessments that occur throughout a basin management cycle.
• In the early stages of the cycle, assessment involves determining severity of water
quality and ecosystem impairment and identifying sources and causes of
impairment, including those related to water quantity. Early assessments usually
evaluate compliance with water quality standards that reflect existing and
designated uses. Surface and ground water monitoring data are analyzed to
determine the status of water quality and whether uses are adequately protected.
Additionally, the historical records can be reviewed for changes that indicate
emerging problems or improvements. Results of preliminary assessments provide
essential input for assigning management priorities within a basin.
• Assessment procedures, including problem quantification (e.g., establishing the
correlation between pollutant loading and water quality) and predictive water
quality modeling, are used in the middle stages of the cycle to help establish TMDLs
and management goals.
• In the later phases of the cycle, or in the early phases of the succeeding cycle,
assessment (including measuring environmental indicators) can be used to evaluate
how well implemented management strategies met water resource goals.
Exhibit 2-1 highlights how North Carolina has fully integrated its assessment activities
within a BMA.
ENT 5. BASIN ASSESSMENT
Purposes change throughout cycle.
2-13
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Exhibit 2-1. Example of North Carolina Assessment
Documents and How They Are Linked to Basin Plans
The State of North Carolina has fully integrated its monitoring and
assessment programs within a 5-year basin management cycle.
Preliminary assessments using historical water quality data, the §303(d)
list, and input from other stakeholders help identify potential areas of
concern early in the first year of the cycle. Monitoring plans are then
updated as necessary to fill information gaps. The state spends Years 2
and 3 in a given basin monitoring water and sediment chemistry at
ambient sites selected to augment fixed network stations that are
monitored monthly or quarterly. Biological data (i.e., on benthic
macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, and fish) are collected in Year 3.
Intensive survey information (e.g., time of travel studies, NPS loading,
pollutant fate and transport studies) are also targeted for Year 3, although
study plans are developed by the end of Year 1 so that studies that depend
on specific instream conditions have a larger window of opportunity to be
performed when conditions match design criteria.
North Carolina summarizes physical, chemical, and biological assess-
ments by sub-basin in a single reference document that covers an entire
river basin. All basin assessment documents for the state are formatted
similarly for ease of reference. Each assessment document draws on a
fixed set of sub-basin maps for visual display of station locations and
assessment results; these maps are also used as templates by other
programs contributing to the basin plan and therefore provide consistency
for the overall basin management plan and other reporting documents.
Basin assessment documents contain considerable detail for each station,
including statistical analyses of data collected, and are therefore intended
for long-term technical reference rather than for public outreach. Sub-
basin summary information is taken directly from the assessment
documents, however, and used in the basin plans for communicating
assessment results. Predetermining formats that meet the needs for both
documents has made the process of preparing the basin plans highly
efficient. The information also serves to meet CWA §305(b) reporting
requirements.
2-14
-------
Viewgraph 9: Element 6. Assigning
Priorities and Targeting Resources
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
A priority ranking and resource targeting system ensures that stakeholder resources are
directed effectively and efficiently to priority concerns within a basin. All stakeholders
will have constraints on personnel and funds available for BMA activities. Additionally,
many resource management agencies are currently forced into a mode of crisis
management, having to react instantaneously to requests and complaints from a variety
of sources. Improving identification of priority concerns helps place individual requests
in the context of overall priorities and allows limited stakeholder resources to be
allocated more appropriately.
Assigning priorities and targeting are two related but separate steps: assigning priorities
is the process of ranking resource protection concerns within a basin, whereas targeting
is the process of deciding how resources should be allocated to address priority
concerns. Under the BMA, stakeholders agree on a common set of methods and
criteria for both assigning priorities and targeting program resources. Criteria typically
reflect broad public resource protection goals and can be updated and changed, as
appropriate, with each new iteration of the basin management cycle. Example criteria
are provided below:
ELEMENT 6. ASSIGNING PRIORITIES AND
TARGETING RESOURCES
iteration of the has
Tarketp prioritks with each
o highest priorities In cycle
rograni resources
II1
RanL basin concerns
by level of pruorit
lop methods
and criteria
2-15
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Prioritization
• Severity of risk to human health and the aquatic community
• Impairment to the waterbody (documented or potential)
• Resource value of the waterbody to the public
• Proximity to cultural preservation area
Targeting
• Ranking based on priorities established above
• Availability of staff and financial resources
• Re-evaluation of applicability to overall resource protection goals (e.g., statewide
or basinwide goals)
• Willingness of local stakeholders to support required and voluntary actions
Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the prioritization and targeting process. At the beginning of the
process for each basin, stakeholders collectively develop a methodology, including
criteria selection. Methods for priority ranking could include numeric indices, decision
trees, data layer overlays, and consensus-based decision-making, all of which are
documented in EPA’s Geographical Targeting: Selected State Examples (1993).
Stakeholders then input appropriate assessment data into the agreed-upon prioritization
system to rank concerns within the basin. Next, targeting criteria are applied to priority
concerns to evaluate the administrative and economic feasibility of taking management
actions. In many cases, resources needed to address all concerns will exceed available
resources, and stakeholders will have to choose how to allocate their personnel, funds,
and equipment for development and implementation of management strategies. If
funds are insufficient to address a high-priority problem during one cycle iteration,
funds may be targeted for mitigation during the subsequent iteration. The entire
prioritization and targeting process is repeated during the next iteration of the
management cycle to update methods and priorities, as appropriate.
2-16
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Exhibit 2-2. Assigning Priorities and Targeting to
Allocate Resources for Protection of Waterbody Integrity
(adapted from EPA’s Geographic Targeting: Selected State
Examples, 1993)
TECHNICAL!
PROFESSIONAL INPUT
Best Professional Judgme —.
Ambient chemical data
Best Professional Judgment
NPDES data
Biological/habitat data
Human health risk data
Groundwater data
Drinking water compliance
Priority Lists from other programs
Function and value of resource
Feasibility of controls
Degree of pollution reduction
Site.specific data
Watershed modeling
Develop Ranking Method
Target Selected Sub.basin
or Problemshed
Target Sites within a
Watershed for Controls
Criteria
update needed
for next
iteration?
OTHER INPUT
•f____ii erience in other States
Public input (public meetings,
committees, questionnaires)
Institutional strengths,
authority, interest of
local agencies
Private funding of controls
Public funding/incentives
Local regulations/support
•1_.
p.
I
C
4-
N
I .
0
I .
Data Gathering and Analysli
(including Assessment
of Use Support)
Wateibody Ranking!
Priority Lists
2-17
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
L
ELEMENT 7. CAPABILITY FOR DEVELOPING
MANAGEMENT STRATEGiES
• Extension of priority-setting and targeting
• Stakeholder coordination to achieve goals
• Strategies reflect unique basin concerns
Viewgraph 1 O Element 7. Capability
for Developng Management Strategies
Each BMA must have a capability for developing management strategies that are
logical extensions of the priority-setting and targeting steps. Mechanisms such as basin
technical planning teams and citizen advisory groups can bring stakeholders together
for this purpose. Stakeholders establish specific goals and objectives for targeted
watersheds, and then design strategies to achieve these goals and objectives. Strategies
include (but are not limited to) applicable controls for point and nonpoint sources that
reflect TMDLs for the basin or targeted smaller watersheds within the basin.
In general, management strategies should reflect
• Concerns unique to individual watersheds
• Constraining factors such as resources available for control measures, legal
authority, willingness of stakeholders to proceed
• Best available assessments for effectiveness of options
• Likelihood of success
Some considerations in developing management strategies are the same as those for
targeting. Targeting, however, is primarily an administrative and budgeting process,
whereas management strategies consider factors from a technical planning and
implementation standpoint. Whenever possible, strategies should build on existing
projects and management efforts (e.g., point and nonpoint source controls and
ecological restoration projects) with demonstrated value.
2-18
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
ELEMENT 8. BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS
Reference documents that present
assessment results, specific
management sfrategies, and
corresponding stakeholder roles
for implementation
Viewgraph 11: Element 8. Basin Management Plans
Basin management plans document the BMA process, selected management strategies,
and stakeholder roles. They also serve as reference points for future basin cycles. Basin
management plans are typically documented by state water program staff and include
useful background information on
• The basin (e.g., historical information on management, physical characteristics,
designated uses and water quality standards, and demographic trends)
• Status of water resources (i.e., quantity and quality)
• Listing of priority concerns
• Strategies for achieving goals (including point and nonpoint source controls)
• A recommended plan and schedule for implementation.
• Measures for evaluating management effectiveness
Local sub-basin or watershed plans, however, can be developed with a local agency
playing a leading role. Strategies in local plans are often the result of translating
broader, basinwide goals into local action plans. For example, water supply source
protection goals may require detailed land-use and storm water control ordinances at
the local level. Appropriate information from local plans can be incorporated into the
overall basin plan. Planning documents are updated with each iteration of the basin
management cycle.
2-19
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Prior to implementation, basin management plans provide focus for basin planning
activities (e.g., setting or revising water quality standards, surface and ground water
quality status assessment, priority setting, TMDL development, and management
strategy development). After implementation, the basin management plan serves as a
valuable reference for stakeholders and the general public on program management,
point and nonpoint source control requirements and recommendations, resource
allocations, and how plan performance is being measured. Well designed basin plans
should therefore document water quality management plans for the state’s continuing
planning process. Also, with appropriate formats, basin plans should contain enough
information collectively to meet many federal reporting requirements such as those
under CWA Sections 305(b) and 303(d).
2-20
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
L
ELEMENT 9. BASIN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
COMPON ENT
• NPDES permit issuance
• NPS BMPs
• Habitat restoration
• Monitoring effectiveness
Viewgraph 12: Element 9. Basin Plan Implementation Component
Implementation of the basin plan is the culmination of the basin management cycle. All
activities up to this point should have built a foundation for implementation. Methods
and means should already have been decided in the basin plan development and
documentation process. Implementation includes relevant stakeholder activities such
as:
• Support of ongoing projects and management efforts to achieve basin management
goals
• Issuance of NPDES permits with conditions reflecting plan provisions
• Voluntary or mandatory best management practices to control nonpoint source
pollutants
• Habitat restoration
• Pollutant prevention programs
• Outreach programs to educate the public on management goals and involve them
in implementation
• Continued development of phased TMDLs
• Allocation of funds to implementation activities through awards, grants, and other
appropriations
• A monitoring program to measure success and guide future basin management plan
rev is ions
2-21
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
By the time this stage is reached, all stakeholders that participated in the process should
be well aware of basin management plan implementation provisions. The implementa-
tion component has special significance, however, for local stakeholders who will have
key roles in implementing management strategies. In the most cases, success will likely
depend on local actions regarding land use and utilities. Implementation should
therefore reflect a truly integrated effort throughout the basin management planning
process, with assistance and commitment across all government levels, such that all
parties responsible for implementing the plans already endorse the basis and need for
their actions. Furthermore, sustaining cooperation will likely depend on demonstrating
accountability in carrying out the plan and showing progress toward resource
protection and restoration goals.
2-22
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
NTIAL BENEFITS OF THE BASIN
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
• More direct focus on resource protection
• Improved basis for management decisions
• Enhancement of program efficiency
Viewgraph 1 3 Potential Benefits of
the Basin Management Approach
Theory and state experience to date indicate that BMA implementation can provide the
following substantial benefits:
• More Direct Focus on Resource Protection: Traditionally, water programs focus
on discrete activities such as standard setting, permitting, monitoring, enforcement,
and nonpoint source control. Program success has been defined quantitatively in
terms of program activities (i.e., number of permits issued, samples taken,
compliance orders, and inspections). Individual program goals and activities can
more effectively protect and restore resources through a BMA process. Programs
are less isolated under a BMA because activities of many programs are made
complementary to achieve basinwide goals.
• Improved Basis for Management Decisions: A statewide BMA can improve the
scientific basis for management decision-making in three ways:
— Focusing on basins and watersheds encourages agencies to seek information
on all significant stressors, including those often overlooked by traditional
programs (e.g., ecosystem degradation attributable to habitat loss).
— Pooling resources and data of multiple stakeholders tends to increase the
amount and types of data available for assessment and prioritization.
— Basin-oriented monitoring may yield more detailed information because of the
intensive focus on a specific geographic region each year.
2-23
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Enhancement of Program Efficiency: Focusing on individual basins can improve
the efficiency of a state water program by facilitating consolidation of activities
such as monitoring programs, modeling studies, NPDES permit public notices, and
public meetings within each basin. Basin management plans also can be an
efficient means for meeting CWA reporting mandates such as §305(b) assessment
and §303(d) listing of waterbodies needing TMDLs, as well as for monitoring
performance against §106 Work Program agreements.
2-24
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
NTIAL BENEFITS OF THE BASIN
MANAGEMENT APPROACH (CONTINUED)
• Improved coordination among programs
and agencies
• Allocation of resources to priority issues
• Consistency and continuity
Viewgraph 14: Potential Benefits of the BMA (continued)
• Coordination Among Programs and Agencies Can Be improved: By design, the
three core basin focus elements (basin management units, the basin management
cycle, and basin plans) provide the foundation for coordinating the core activity
elements (stakeholder involvement, monitoring, assessment, prioritization and
targeting, developing management strategies, and implementation). Each BMA
framework therefore provides the means for communicating and working in tandem
with other partners. With each partner working under the same schedules, activities
can be synchronized in advance and made to complement one another. In
particular, a basin approach can help clarify the role of the state water quality
agency in relation to other natural resource agencies—those in state and local
governments as well as federal agencies that have state and local offices. Some
tasks require site-specific knowledge and close local contact, while others require
state-level authority or can be more cost effective at that scale.
— For instance, the state water quality agency often is well equipped to conduct
laboratory analysis and monitoring and to provide oversight for water quality
standards and discharge permitting. This agency can play a coordinating role
to secure support from other state and federal agencies and leverage resources
for multi-stakeholder efforts.
— The basin approach provides an umbrella under which local programs can be
reinforced and their consistency with state- and basin-level objectives ensured.
local agencies and organizations may be in the best position to develop
detailed land-use inventories; organize workshops and educational programs;
and implement BMPs, habitat restoration and protection, or land-use controls.
2-25
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
Program Resources Are Better Directed to Priority issues: A state is better able to
geographically focus its water quality program resources where they are most
needed, because the BMA:
— Assigns priorities to water quality issues and water resource concerns to target
program resources and optimize management efforts
— Sequences basins to allow for comprehensive review of within-basin needs as
well as comparison of resource needs among basins
— Improves coordination among stakeholders through the BMA framework to
produce common management priorities and promote resource leveraging
Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged: By focusing on goals to be achieved
over several basin cycles, the approach reduces the tendency to operate in a
reactive or crisis mode. Issues can be evaluated for their relative priority, and
efforts can be synchronized with the overall basin cycle schedule. The basin
management cycle, because of its iterative structure, also ensures periodic update
of priorities and management strategies. Successive updates of management plans
can build on efforts in preceding iterations, adding continuity that may have been
lacking prior to the BMA. Such continuity provides stakeholders with a stronger
foundation for long-term planning. Utility directors, for example, can better plan
their long-term water supply and wastewater treatment needs.
Improved consistency is possible because pollution sources across a basin are
evaluated within the same time frame, and because management actions are
subject to broad scrutiny during the planning process. Thus, for example, animal
producers across a basin are likely to be subject to consistent impact analysis and
management measures under a BMA. Similarly, a state may study all NPDES
permittees along a major river at the same time using the same water quality
model; the fact that these stakeholders will be aware of the process and each
other’s discharge limits tends to promote consistent and equitable permits and may
reduce the number of grievances filed by permittees. Implementing strategies at
the same time throughout a basin also promotes consistency.
2-26
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
L
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE BASIN
MANAGEMENT APPROACH (CONTINUED)
• Opportunities for data sharing
• Increased public involvement
• Innovative solutions
Viewgraph 15: Potential Benefits of the BMA (continued)
• Opportunities for Data Sharing Are Enhanced
— Increased data sharing is an important benefit of any process in which
stakeholders from different organizations work toward common goals. Most
state and local agencies have records and information systems unique to their
individual function. In many states, for example, data on nonpoint sources are
housed in several agencies and not readily accessible to outside parties.
Inaccessible data on land use and BMPs significantly limit some state’s
non point source efforts. The BMA’s use of common geographic management
units and emphasis on joint planning increase opportunities for data exchange.
— A BMA can promote sharing of new computer technology among agencies.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be used to analyze spatial data from
several agencies for entire basins, for example, to show the relationship
between land use and predicted nonpoint source loadings. GIS buffering
techniques are being used to assess the need for riparian habitat protection,
design greenway systems, analyze biodiversity, and plan wetland banking
programs, among other purposes.
• Public Involvement Is Enhanced: A BMA focuses on a discrete resource (the basin)
around which citizens can rally. The approach promotes citizen awareness of
water-related issues and encourages agencies to respond to their concerns.
Opportunities for this interaction occur during basin plan development and
activities such as workshops, hearings, and citizen monitoring. Scheduling
activities throughout a management cycle lets the public know well in advance
2-27
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
when certain activities will occur such that interested parties can plan their
participation. A secondary benefit of public involvement is that a better informed
public can lead to increased citizen and legislative support for water quality
programs.
Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged: Some problems in a basin, such as habitat
destruction, inadequate stream flow, wetland loss, atmospheric deposition, and
introduced aquatic species, are difficult for traditional water quality programs to
address. A BMA can provide a strong framework for identifying and solving such
problems. Problem identification is made easier by involving technical experts
from many fields during the environmental assessment portion of the basin cycle—
aquatic biologists working side by side with water resource engineers and
agricultural specialists, for example, can share data and perspectives on a basin’s
stressors. Solutions are not limited by the authority or expertise of a single agency,
but rather encompass the range of stakeholders.
2-28
-------
MODULE 2
OVERVIEW OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
IN FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION
• Shaped by authorities and capabilities of
participants
• Stages for discussion
• Establishing a direction for BMA development
• Tailoring BMA framework elements
• Making the transition to a BMA
• Operating under a BMA
Viewgraph 16: Roles in Framework
Development and Implementation
The remainder of this training course will focus on how BMA frameworks can be
developed and implemented. Integration and coordination of activities require
planning. A formal process for framework development helps to ensure that BMA
components are well considered and that a common understanding exists among
participants before integration of activities is attempted.
State and EPA regional water quality agencies, as well as other stakeholders that
participate in the process, will need to accept certain roles in order for BMA
development and implementation to occur. Roles will be shaped by the type of
authority and capabilities that each participant brings to the process.
For example, where the state has retained complete water quality program authority,
the appropriate state agency will probably take the lead in BMA framework
development. A lead role will include duties such as procuring resources for the
development process, educating participants regarding the approach, recruiting
stakeholders, and managing the process to develop each BMA component. In this
situation, EPA’s role may be to gain a thorough understanding of the state’s BMA
interests and needs to be better positioned to facilitate and support the process for the
state. Support could include actions ranging from direct funding and technical
assistance to participation as a stakeholder in the development process. When EPA has
assumed certain program authorities for a given state, the agency may have a
2-29
-------
MODULE 2
OvERvIEw OF THE STATEWIDE BMA
leadership role in the development of specific BMA components. Roles of other
federal, state, and local agencies and nongovernmental stakeholders will depend on
circumstances that arise in each state.
Throughout the remaining course modules, specific roles and opportunities will be
discussed for EPA, state, and additional stakeholders. Because the BMA development
and implementation process is fairly complex, these roles will be discussed in stages:
• Establishing a Direction for BMA Development (Module 3: Getting Started)
• Tailoring BMA Framework Elements (Module 4: Establishing Basin Focus Elements;
Module 5: Defining Core Activity Elements)
• Making the Transition to a BMA (Module 6: Making the Transition to a Basin
Management Approach)
• Operating Under a BMA (Module 7: Putting a Basin Management Approach into
Practice)
2-30
-------
MODULE 3
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
-------
MODULE 3
GETr1NG STARTED
‘ ‘ ‘ PURPOSE OF MODULE
• To present important steps that
will serve as a springboard for
BMA development
• To help participants identify key
issues and potential solutions for
their states and regions
I!AIr.W& 1 J
The purpose of this module is to provide participants with an understanding of
important steps that can be taken early in the BMA development process to get the effort
off to a good start. This module relies heavily on the experience of states that have
completed the planning process and changed functional relationships among
individuals and programs as needed to implement a BMA. Their efforts have revealed
several issues stemming from the fundamental shift from a program-centered to a basin-
centered management approach. This module is designed to help participants
anticipate such issues and identify potential solutions for their own states and regions.
3-1
-------
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
• Identify key steps for establishing a common direction for the basin management
initiative, including developing a mission statement, identifying and recruiting
stakeholders for the basin management initiative, and building partnerships.
• Describe a process for managing the transition from an existing program to a BMA,
including identifying a Director or Coordinator for the BMA process, establishing
ground rules for the development process, establishing a resource base for BMA
development, educating participants on basinwide management, establishing a
means of communication among participants and stakeholders, and developing a
work plan for BMA development.
• Identify existing and potential barriers to developing and implementing a BMA,
including institutional barriers such as the grant allocation process, staff concerns
with change, and resource constraints.
• Describe a rationale for the BMA and means of documenting the approach through
a statewide framework document.
NING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to
• Identify steps for establishing a common direction
for stakeholders
• Describe the process for managing BMA framework
development
• identify impediments
• Describe a rationale for the BMA
• Explain the importance of preparing a framework
document
3-2
-------
MODULE 3
GETFING STARTED
ESTABLISHING A COMMON DIRECTION FOR
THE BASIN MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
- S-S
5-
• Championing development - -
• Identifying and recruiting stakeholders
• Achieving a Common Vision
Viewgraph 3: Establishing a Common Direction
for the Basin Management Initiative
Starting the BMA development process involves establishing goals, components,
participant roles, and methods for development. Establishing a common direction
among participants in the basin management initiative is important because a consensus
on purpose, goals, objectives, and components will facilitate BMA framework
development and implementation. The following tasks can expedite early efforts.
Championing Development: In most cases, development of a BMA will
fundamentally change the way participants operate from an independent, program-
centered approach to an integrated, resource-centered approach. Such a change
requires a champion, or champions, to ensure implementation. For example, there
have been several cases where champions emerged from a state-level water quality
agency, a pattern attributable to the degree of state responsibility for administering
programs related to watershed management and the corresponding pressure to
make these programs more efficient and effective. State agencies are not the only
parties with a stake in watershed management, however, and other champions can
arise. The champion takes on the job of recruiting other partners and initiating the
BMA development process.
• Identifying and Recruiting Partners: The champion(s) will need to determine what
resources, agencies, and programs should be recruited for the BMA initiative. It is
important to be as comprehensive as possible—an integrated approach requires
commitment from diverse stakeholders that possess authority and resources for
development and implementation of integrated solutions. Several states have
3-3
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
defined the BMA as a broad natural resources management initiative; other states
have targeted specific programs within water quality as the basis for an integrated
approach. States that are developing a broader approach have included many
programs and agencies beyond water quality, such as water resources (quantity),
soil conservation and other agricultural extension services, fish and wildlife,
drinking water, hazardous waste cleanup, and parks and recreation, among others
(Exhibit 3-1). If the basin management approach is to be restricted to a set of core
programs, phased involvement for other interested agencies or programs may be the
best strategy.
Developing a plan for recruiting and involving other programs and agencies that are
eligible to be partners within your basin management approach mandate is critical.
Perhaps the most difficult question for the lead agency is timing. For example, do
you notify other groups before you have a clearly defined proposal, or do you wait
until the concept is more fully developed, risking the possibility of offending
potential partners?
Clearly describing the legislative, administrative, and ecological rationales for
recruiting each partner for participation in the BMA initiative is also helpful. The
level and extent of involvement in the BMA initiative is flexible and can easily be
defined for each partner.
Achieving a Common Vision: Achieving a common vision among partners of what
will constitute the BMA is recommended before attempting to build the framework.
Early efforts should involve identifying complementary and supporting objectives,
roles, and benefits for programs and agencies participating in the BMA. Allowing
each partner to define their own level of commitment and involvement greatly
enhances this envisioning process. Each partner should have a substantive role
(commensurate with its level of responsibility) in designing the BMA framework.
The six core activity elements (i.e., monitoring, assessment, prioritization, strategy
development, plan documentation, and implementation) can be used as a guide to
encourage and categorize responses. Discussion should center around general
capabilities and resources that each partner can and is willing to bring to the BMA.
A unified mission statement agreeable to all partners can document the comnion
vision and provide a mandate for completion of the framework. The mission
statement should
— Demonstrate a long-term commitment to the approach,
— Specify program components to be included, and
— Describe specific goals and objectives for a BMA.
3-4
-------
MODULE 3
GETrING STARTED
In many cases, the mission statement will need to reflect commitment from multiple
programs and agencies. An interagency mission statement ensures a common set of
goals and objectives that reflect some or all mandates of each participant (Exhibit
3-2). Collaboration on targeting program resources and the elimination of redun-
dancy stem from joint commitment and action on the part of agencies and programs
that have established complementary missions. Consensus objectives and goals can
be articulated in a mission statement that explicitly outlines a process to support the
development of a coordinating framework. The mission statement can overcome a
debilitating sense of cynicism regarding the ability of programs and agencies to
work together to address resource protection issues.
Some agencies may find it beneficial to run short-term pilot projects to demonstrate
success with each new partnership. Critical, long-term partnerships are best
maintained through memoranda of understanding and other agreements that clarify
and define the partnership roles within the BMA framework. Exhibit 3-3 displays
the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 10 and the State of Idaho
documenting their mutual intent to work together to develop a statewide WPA for
Idaho.
3-5
-------
MODULE 3
GETrING STARTED
‘ Exhibit 3-1. Delaware’s Multi-Stakeholder Resource
Protection Strategy
Initial planning for a statewide WPA in Delaware started with a small work group
within the Water Resources Division, where most of the traditional water quality
programs reside. A primary goal identified by the work group was the restoration
of wetlands and estuaries that have been impacted by the extensive use of
drainage ditches by agricultural operations. The Division of Water Resources
realized that a comprehensive watershed approach would require new
partnerships with other resource management agencies. Therefore, a large
number of potential stakeholders were invited to the Delaware Whole Basin
Planning Workshop held in January 1993, including Parks and Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife, Soil and Water (nonpoint source programs and agricultural
extension services), Air and Waste Management (Superfund), and New Castle
County Planning.
Workshop participants identified several complementary goals and objectives
that could be achieved through increased integration and coordination of
activities within basins. This consensus was summarized in the “Beachhead
Strategy—Ripple Model,” which identified Water Resources as the primary
planning lead for watershed approaches in Delaware because of its base of
support through the Clean Water Act and associated programs. The strategy
proposed incremental implementation by Water Resources and gradual
involvement (ripple model) of other stakeholders (e.g., Fish and Wildlife).
The initial model for stakeholder involvement, however, was quickly superseded
through increased interest on the part of planning workshop participants to serve
as equal partners in the planning and implementation process. Exercises were
conducted to identify areas of constructive interaction for each basin planning
component (e.g., strategic monitoring, environmental assessments, priority-seth ng
and targeting, development of management options, and implementation). The
draft outline for basin plans was amended to incorporate the expanded resource
protection strategy. A basin team comprised of representatives from each
division prepared and presented a proposal to the Department Secretary for
development of a statewide BMA framework document. The Department
Secretary and Division Chiefs endorsed the concept and approved resource
allocations for completion of the Delaware BMA framework document.
3-6
-------
MODULE 3
GETFING STARTED
Exhibit 3-2. Mission Statement and Goals for the
State of Georgia BMA
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division facilitated a process among
selected basin stakeholders within the state to establish the following mission
statement and goals for developing the state’s BMA.
Mission
To develop and implement a river basin planning program to protect,
enhance, and restore the waters of the State of Georgia that will
provide for effective monitoring, allocation, use, regulation, and
management of water resources.
Goals
1. To meet or exceed local, state, federal laws, rules, and regulations and be
consistent with other applicable plans
2. To identify existing and future water quality issues, emphasizing nonpoint
source pollution
3. To propose water quality improvement practices encouraging local
involvement to reduce pollution and monitor and protect water quality
4. To involve all interested citizens and appropriate organizations in plan
development and implementation
5. To coordinate with other river plans and regional planning
6. To facilitate local, state, and federal activities to monitor and protect water
quality
7. To identify existing and potential water availability problems and to
coordinate development of alternatives
8. To provide for education of the general public on matters involving the
environment and ecological concerns specific to each river basin
9. To provide for improving aquatic habitat and exploring the feasibility of
re-establishing native species of fish
10. To provide for restoring and protecting wildlife habitat
11. To provide for recreational benefits
12. To identify and protect flood prone areas within each river basin and
encourage Local and state compliance with federal floodplain management
guidelines.
3-7
-------
MODULE 3
GEl-rING STARTED
Exhibit 3-3. Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA Region 10 and the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality
Introdudion
EPA and the IDHW Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) enter into this
agreement with the mutual intent of developing a Watershed Approach for the
State of Idaho.
Mission Statement
The EPA and DEQ agree to develop a comprehensive “Watershed Protection
Approach” for Idaho that restructures and expands existing water quality
efforts on a geographical basis.
Goals of a Watershed Approach
• Improve arid enhance environmental quality
• Focus all funding sources on environmental problems in a consolidated
manner
• Develop a schedule for basin-oriented problem solving that coordinates
all water quality activities
• Improve public involvement by bringing all stakeholders together as
problem solvers
• Satisfy state and federal regulatory requirements wherever possible
• Improve water quality reporting processes as well as our understanding of
existing data
Outline
it is the state’s intent to develop a watershed approach that is similar to the
North Carolina model. This template calls for a suitable planning period and
then launching a five-year program that coordinates data acquisition, pollutant
load assessment, and permit issuance on watershed basis for the State of
Idaho. DEQ plans to construct a framework for the watershed approach and
have each of their five regional offices undertake the watershed prioritization
and implementation process simultaneously.
3-8
-------
MODULE 3
GETFING STARTED
Exhibit 3-3. Continued
Roles
It is understood that during the process of conversion to a Watershed
Approach and later when watershed activities are underway, the respective
roles for the two organizations will vary. It is envisioned that during the
scoping phase of the conversion process, EPA and the state will share the lead.
Following completion of the basic plan called the “Framework” document,
EPA will assist and partner with DEQ as the state begins the watershed
delineation and prioritization process. Once activity begins on specific
watersheds, EPA’s role will be determined on a watershed basis.
EPA and DEQ agree that there is a strong need to involve as many other
organizations, agencies, tribal nations, and individuals with an interest in
Idaho natural resources in the watershed planning and conversion process as
possible.
Timelines
The following are general progress indicators with approximate target dates. It
is understood that these dates are for planning only.
October 1993 DEQ prepares a draft outline of the “Framework” document
November 1993 DEQ gains consensus within the agency on internal roles
and process for conversion
DEQ begins the delineation of watersheds within DEQ
regions
EPA and DEQ undertake internal education and briefings
for staff involved in conversion
February 1994 Outreach activities to other stakeholders well underway
Draft “Framework” document completed
Final watershed delineation completed
March 1994 Regional offices developing region specific conversion
plans where prioritization is complete
July 1994 Watershed planning process is complete
Implementation begins
P
I
3-9
-------
Viewgraph 4: Managing Framework Development
MODULE 3
GEl-rING STARTED
State and EPA agency staff, and other partners, will be very interested in how the
operation of programs will change to accommodate basin management. Several steps
can be taken to manage framework development and assure partners that the transition
will be relatively smooth.
• Identify a Director or Coordinator for BMA Framework Development: The BMA is
unusual because it is not a program, nor is it developed in response to federal
mandates or other requirements. In the absence of program-based incentives and
until the BMA coordinating framework is established, effective collaboration among
participants during the development process will be difficult without clear
leadership. Therefore, a Director or Coordinator with strong communication skills
should be appointed to facilitate open discussion and networking, and encourage
commitment among participants (e.g., programs, agencies, and public interest
groups).
• Establish Ground Rules for BMA Development: Consensus needs to be reached on
how the process of building a BMA will move forward. Roles of partners should be
clarified along with the format for obtaining input and reaching consensus.
Experience to date has shown that a facilitated workgroup with one or two
representatives from each key organization provides optimal size and structure for
making progress. Results of the workgroup can always be reviewed by a larger
audience and input fed back through appropriate representatives. Establishing
clearly understood methods and strong lines of communication can be very
important to the process.
MANAGING FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
Steps for a
smooth transition
DEV OP A
WORK PlAN
ESTABliSH
EDUCA1
- pARJ ICIPANIS
(ROU COMMUNICAI ION
R [ SOURC BASE
SrA BLISH
‘.t) RUU.S
IDENIIFY A
I)IRFC bR
3-10
-------
MODULE 3
GETFING STARTED
Deciding what level of consensus is required for adopting recommendations (e.g.,
agreement among two-thirds of partners) and how conflicts c ’ill be resolved may
also help the process move along more smoothly. Workgroup members may want
a tiered approach that distinguishes between voting members and other interested
parties. Criteria for being a voting member could include degree of regulatory
authority and investment (i.e., people, funds, and equipment) in implementing
management actions.
• Establish a Resource Base for BMA Development: BMA development is a planning
activity that will require staff time and resources. Most states have adopted a BMA
on the basis of no net change to overall agency and program budgets after
implementation. Initial planning efforts, however, require staff time for workshops,
administrative support, framework development, and a few other training and
preparation tasks. Partners should identify program resources that will be made
available from the outset to support framework development. Such an allocation is
a clear signal to participants that the BMA framework development process is
important and worthy of their best effort. In many cases, this may mean giving up
allocations of resources for other tasks in order to use them for BMA development.
• Educate Participants on Basinwide Management: For BMA partners to participate
effectively in BMA development and implementation, they must first understand the
fundamentals of the approach. BMA workshops are effective tools for providing a
baseline understanding among participants and a good starting point for building
the framework. Also, a broad range of technical documentation and professional
expertise is available through EPA and other federal agencies, as well as from states
with experience from implementing this approach.
• Establish a Means of Communication among Participants and Stakeholders: Many
participants in a BMA development initiative will have no established lines of
communication. Improved communication among stakeholders is critical to the
success of the BMA. Progress toward specific milestones, for example, needs to be
described to all partners as BMA framework development proceeds. Ultimate buy-
in to the BMA likely will depend on how well partners understand each framework
element and its impact on their operations. An effective means of communication,
such as a newsletter or electronic bulletin board, is necessary for both the BMA
development process and its eventual implementation. As mentioned above, the
Coordinator for the BMA development process should be someone who has a
strong interest in facilitating communication among participants.
• Develop a Work Plan for Framework Development: The Director of the BMA
framework development effort should coordinate with the other partners to develop
a work plan for framework development. The work plan should outline
tasks/milestones, and indicate who will be responsible for carrying them out (e.g.,
workgroup, committees, individual programs, or a facilitator). Time frames for
3-11
-------
MODULE 3
GETrING STARTED
completion should be estimated, with consideration given to tasks that are
contingent on the outcome of other tasks. Although the work plan will most likely
require revision throughout the development process, use of a work plan will
provide a guide and a schedule for measuring progress. Also, participants will be
better able to see how individual tasks relate to overall framework development.
3-12
-------
MODULE 3
GETFING STARTED
W A I & 1 j s1i1 [ I [ iUI ji Ij .Uj sI 1i II u N II
Participants in the BMA development process wilt almost certainly encounter
impediments along the way. Impediments, existing or potential, should be identified
early in the process, and steps should be taken to eliminate or minimize them, as
deemed necessary. States developing a BMA can take advantage of the experience
other states have had in identifying and overcoming a broad range of barriers.
Identification is the first step in overcoming barriers, several of which are described
below.
• Legal Impediments: In some cases, state statutes and regulations can impede BMA
development and implementation. Laws that separate agency functions, prohibit
interaction, or place constraints on the use of program resources may need to be
revised to facilitate or enhance the BMA.
• Institutional Impediments: Organizational structures often make stakeholder
coordination and joint decisions difficult. For example, if the monitoring and water
quality programs have vastly different organizational structures, coordinating special
studies and TMDL development may be difficult. Additionally, agencies may need
to reformulate or eliminate policies that conflict with the proposed BMA.
• Financial Barriers: Current constraints on the use of program funds may not allow
the flexibility that the basin management approach requires for success (e.g., the
formation of Basin Teams and allocation of resources to priority issues).
Additionally, resource and infrastructural constraints may pose a barrier to BMA
development and implementation (e.g., limited monitoring systems, GIS
capabilities, communication resources, computer hardware and software, and
expertise for water quality modeling).
IDENTIFYING IMPEDIMENTS
Legal
II I
Institutional
3-13
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
Staff Concerns with Change: Agency staff often question how new approaches will
impact their position and function. Their concerns may cover a wide spectrum,
including
— How will changes introduced by the BMA affect my current position, title, and
grade?
— Will I still supervise the same number of people?
— Who will be my supervisor?
— Will I have to move?
— Will my position be eliminated? If so, will I be moved into a new position?
— Will I need to be retrained to perform my duties under the new approach?
— Will performance evaluation criteria be revised to be consistent with new
functional relationships?
— What career and promotion opportunities are available within the new
approach?
For some agencies, staff changes may be minimal, whereas they may be substantial
for others. Whatever the case, planning ahead helps diffuse unnecessary and
disruptive staff tension.
Uncooperative Stakeholders: Changing water management programs to follow a
BMA may not be favored by all stakeholders, particularly those who fear losing
complete control over what they consider to be their “turf.” Partners in the BMA
should work to broaden the view of reluctant or uncooperative stakeholders to help
them recognize how their individual goals might be achieved through a BMA, and
how their constructive participation in the BMA may help achieve water resource
goals more effectively and efficiently.
• Transitional Issues: Transition to a BMA may disrupt existing operational
relationships among agencies or other stakeholders. Program performance criteria
(e.g., the number of permits issued or revised and samples collected) may need to
be renegotiated to free up agency resources for the period of BMA development.
Participant agreements should address these issues early in the process to avoid
misunderstandings or unrealistic expectations down the road.
3-14
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
UMENTING THE APPROACH: STATEWIDE
FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT
A reference document that
describes how basin
management will function for.
agivenstate.
Viewgraph 6: Documenting the Approach:
Statewide Framework Document
Each state should prepare a document that describes BMA elements and features for that
state and serves as a reference for the public and participating agencies and programs.
This document, often referred to as a framework document, can
• Include overall goals and objectives
• Delineate basin management units
• Provide a schedule for sequencing the basins
• Describe the basin planning cycle
• Identify roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
• Define procedures for key activities such as strategic monitoring, assessment,
prioritization, and developing and implementing strategies
• Explain recommended basin plan formats
• Address other topics necessary for BMA implementation
In addition to being an agency reference and public information document, the
framework document promotes consistency in management across all basins of the state
through inclusion of operational agreements between agencies and programs.
Participants should establish the means at the outset, therefore, for preparing a
framework document.
Exhibit 3-4 provides the table of contents for the State of Nebraska’s draft framework
document.
3-15
-------
MODULE 3
GETrING STARTED
Exhibit 3-4. Table of Contents from the State of
Nebraska’s Draft Framework Document
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 .1 NDEQ’s Commitment to Protection of Natural Resources
1 .2 NDEQ’s Decision to Implement a Basinwide Management Approach
1 .2.1 What is Basin Management?
1 .2.2 Why is NDEQ Adopting a Basinwide Management Approach?
1 .2.3 How is NDEQ Developing the Framework?
Chapter 2: NDEQ Basinwide Management Framework
2.1 Nebraska Basin Management Units
2.2 The Basin Management Cycle: Steps to Basin Planning
2.3 NDEQ’s General Basin Plan Outline
2.3.1 Audience and Purpose
2.3.2 Basin Plan Format
2.4 Prioritization and Targeting Methods
2.4.1 Prioritization Criteria
2.4.2 Targeting Criteria
2.5 Strategic Monitoring
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities
3.1 General Program Administration
3.2 BMA Roles and Responsibilities
3.2.1 Surface Water Section
3.2.2 Permits and Compliance Section
3.2.3 Wastewater Facilities Section
3.2.4 Ground Water Section
3.2.5 Leaking Underground Storage Tank and Emergency Response Section
(Continued)
3-16
-------
MODULE 3
GETTING STARTED
—
Exhibit 3-4. Continued
Chapter 4: The Keys to Success
4.1 Agency Support
4.2 Effective Outreach
4.2.1 Providing Outreach Opportunities
4.2.2 Communicating Effectively with Stakeholders
4.3 Program Coordination
4.3.1 Internal NDEQ Coordination
4.3.2 Coordination among federal, state, and Local Partners
4.4 Staying on Schedule
4.4.1 Adherence to Priorities
4.4.2 Evolution of Plans
Chapter 5: Transition to the BMA
5.1 Progressive Framework Implementation
5.2 Interim Tasks and Workload Considerations
5.2.1 Initial Outreach to Explain the New BMA Framework
5.2.2 Completion of Methods for Assigning Priorities
5.2.3 Synchronizing Permit Expiration Dates with the BMA Cycle
5.3 Work Plan Agreements with EPA Region 7
5.4 Technical Resource and Research Needs
5.4.1 Refinement of Assessment Standard Operating Procedures
5.4.2 Development of GIS Data Layers to Support Basin Planning
5.4.3 Integration of Surface and Ground Water Priorities
5.4.4 Development of Assessment Methods for Ground Water
Assimilative Capacity
5.5 Issues Still to Be Addressed
Chapter 6: Adding to the Framework: Future Building Blocks
6.1 NDEQ Integrated Information System
6.2 Expansion of BMA Program Coverage
6.3 Strengthening Partnerships
Appendix A: NPDES Permit Reissuance Schedule Synchronized with the BMA Cycle
3-17
-------
MODULE 4
-------
DEFINING BASIN
Focus ELEMENTS
I
MODULE 4
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
I Yi1 1. J I] ‘ : ii
Module 4 is the first of the two modules that describe how to tailor common BMA
elements to meet needs of a specific state. The purpose of this module is to describe
how basin management units, the basin management cycle, and basin plans, three of
the nine common basin management elements, establish baseline conditions for
organizing activities within the statewide BMA. (Note that the basin wheel diagram has
been modified to highlight the three elements under discussion.) These three elements
provide spatial focus (basin management units), temporal focus (basin management
cycle), and a reference document for each basin (basin management plans). Together,
these three elements establish a basin focus for participating stakeholders.
This module outlines the objectives and tasks that partners will need to address to define
and tailor these three elements for their statewide BMAs. Basin plans will be addressed
first. Experience to date demonstrates that it is helpful to define a general basin plan
format before tailoring any other element. This task further defines the common vision
by developing a detailed outline of what BMA partners will collectively produce and
implement. Basin plan definition, therefore, can strongly influence how remaining
elements are tailored.
OSE OF MODULE
To learn how to establish a
basin focus through
development of three
of the nine common basin
management elements
4-1
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to
• Identify the primary objective in establishing a basin plan format and how to reach
that objective
• Understand objectives and options for delineating basin management units
• Identify the three components of a basin management cycle
• List potential stakeholder roles for developing each basin focus element
LEARNING OBjEclivEs
This module should enable participants to
• Identify the primary objective in establishing a
basin plan format
• Understand delineation of basin management units
• Identify components of a basin management cycle
• List potential stakeholder roles for developing each
basin focus element
4-2
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
PLAN FORMAT DEVELOPMENT
The primary objective
is to determine the
desired type and
level of information
for communicating
with stakeholders.
Objedive in Establishing a Basin Plan Format: The primary objective in establishing a
basin plan format is to determine the desired type and level of information that will be
used to communicate basin management goals, priorities, and corresponding
management strategies to stakeholders that will be responsible for implementation.
Efforts under this task generally involve outlining plan components to provide BMA
partners with a common understanding of the product they will develop, implement,
and update collectively. Prior to outlining components, however, partners should reach
consensus on the basin plan’s audience, purposes, intended uses, and corresponding
level of approval.
4-3
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
BASIN PLAN FORMAT (CONTINUED)
Establish consensus on
• Audience and purpose
• Intended use
• Level of approval
Viewgraph 4: Basin Plan Format (continued)
The following factors should be considered when trying to reach consensus on audience
and purpose, intended use, and level of approval for basin plans:
The audience and purpose of the basin plan will influence the content of basin plan
components. Basin plans can be written for the general public, the regulated
community, other resource management agencies, or all of the above. For
example, a consistent format for all basin plans in a state will help in fulfilling the
state’s reporting requirements and applying for grants. If the basin plan is written to
promote public stewardship, however, language and technical detail must be
understandable to the lay reader.
• The intended use of basin plans and corresponding level of plan approval should
be specified early in the process, because plan contents may be constrained by
approval requirements. For instance, using basin plans as CWA §303(e) plans to
support continuing planning requires approval by EPA and signature of the
Governor of the state. Both EPA and the Governor’s Office will expect specific
criteria to be met before approving such plans; basin plan formats should therefore
reflect such criteria. Similarly, using plans to fulfill other federal mandates such as
§303(d) and §305(b) listing and reporting requirements will require that plans meet
specified criteria. Furthermore, if the implementation component of a plan is to be
binding for all participating agencies and programs, then signatures of senior agency
management will be needed; early input from those agencies on plan format may
4-4
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
prevent misunderstandings and confrontations later on. Basin plans, however, that
are used simply as a public information document on agency activities and resource
conditions will likely require minimal approval.
Exhibit 4-1 highlights the role of basin plans in Nebraska.
4-5
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
“ Exhibit 4 -1. The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) held a workshop
to reach consensus on the required level of approval, purpose, and audience
for basin plans, with the following results:
Level of Approval
• Long Range—Plans should be officially adopted as CWA Section 303(e)
plans, which require signature of the Governor and approval by EPA.
• Short Range—Initial plans should be prepared for approval by the Water
Quality Division Director.
Audience Purpose
NDEQ Coordination and direction
EPA Address state work program requirements; expedite
required approvals; indicate resource needs;
coordination and direction
General Public Education; communication and outreach; facilitate
participation
Legislature Communication; raise awareness of process and
resource needs/legislative needs
Other State and
Federal Agencies
Regulated
Community
Communication and outreach; coordination and
direction
Education; communication and outreach; aid long-
range planning
Audience and Purpose
4-6
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
BASIN PLAN FORMAT (CONTINUED)
North Carolina Example
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Chapter 2 General Basin Description
• Chapter 3’ Causes and Sources of Water Pqllution
• Chapter 4 Status of Water Quality
• Chapter 5 General Management Strategies
•Chapter 6” ‘Major Water Quality Concerns and
£. Recommended Management Activities
• Chapter 7 Fufure Initiatives
Viewgraph 5: Basin Plan Format (continued)
North Carolina Example
Based on the established audience, purpose, intended use, and level of plan approval,
participants will need to specify what information should be contained in the basin
plans. This is a task well-suited to workgroups. To date, basin plans generally have
included a combination of physical basin description, historical management
information, and summaries and results of core BMA activities relating to basin plan
development and implementation. The viewgraph displays a typical basin plan outline
for the State of North Carolina:
• The Introdudion (Chapter 1) provides a purpose statement, introduction to the
state’s BMA, and a summary of program responsibilities and legislative authorities.
• The General Basin Description (Chapter 2) describes the basin hydrology, land
cover, population and growth trends, and water quality-use classifications for the
basin.
• Chapter 3 identifies the major Causes and Sources of Water Pollution in the basin,
emphasizing both point and nonpoint sources.
• Chapter 4 describes the Status of Water Quality in the basin. Types and locations
of monitoring are identified, and assessment results are summarized.
4-7
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
• Chapter 5 provides General Management Strategies for the basin, with descriptions
of statewide point and non point source control programs that apply generally to the
basin.
• Chapter 6 specifically describes Major Water Quality Concerns and Recommended
Management Actions. Basin management goals and priority issues are outlined as
the basis for the recommended management strategies and corresponding
implementation activities.
• Chapter 7 lists Future Initiatives including monitoring and modeling priorities and
future programmatic concerns of high priority to be addressed in the next iteration
of the basin management cycle.
The spatial scale of the basin plan may be inappropriate for many smaller watershed
management objectives. Although the basin plan may address many resource
management issues within constituent watersheds, it often will not provide sufficient
detail for implementation at the local watershed level. The BMA development process
should therefore distinguish between the development of basin plans and watershed
plans.
The watershed planning process is an extension of the basin planning process at a
higher level of spatial resolution. The general outline of watershed plans might be
similar to the basin plan outline shown in the viewgraph, but contents of each chapter
would be more specific to local conditions. For example, a General Watershed
Description would focus on local land use, significant resources, economics, and
growth projections. Causes and Sources of Water Pollution and Status of Water
Quality would include more detail on local waters than the basin plan, and Major
Water Quality Concerns and Recommended Management Activities would address
local concerns and measures such as development restrictions, storm water and erosion
controls, and restoration projects.
Hence, in developing general outlines at the beginning of the BMA development
process, partners should keep the need for spatial flexibility in mind and create a
framework that allows for complementary efforts at basin and watershed scales.
4-8
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
L
BASIN PLAN Foi tAT (CONTINUED)
[ PA
Distribute technical information, provide funding, and
estabhshrmnimumrequirernentsto meet mandates
STATE
Lead process, procure resources, ensure
participation, and establish format
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS
Provide input
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 6: Basin Plan Format (continued)
Example Roles for Development
EPA
• Provide technical transfer on the process and examples from other states
• Fund the development process
• Establish minimum plan requirements for compliance with federal mandates and
reporting requirements (e.g., §3O3 [ d and §305 [ b]).
State
• Choose a leader and method for establishing basin plan format
• Procure resources for format development (e.g., make staff time available, arrange
for facilitation, procure meeting space and supplies, and provide for documentation
of results)
• Discuss how the state intends to use plans to fulfill federal mandates
• Ensure that appropriate stakeholders participate in the format development process
• Establish the basin plan format.
Additional Partners
• Participate as stakeholders in the development process
• Relay recommendations to state on general areas that should be included in plans.
4-9
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
After tailoring a basin plan format, partners should delineate basin management units
(Element 1) for the BMA.
The Objectives of Basin Delineation: The primary objective of basin delineation is to
divide a state into a single set of hydrologically defined management units (e.g., basins
and watersheds) that establishes a geographic basis for focusing and coordinating
watershed protection efforts and activities, including development and implementation
of basin management plans. A broad range of basin delineation criteria can be
developed for the definition of management units that promote management efficacy.
The key is to define a logical geographic area (i.e., basin) that facilitates “place-based”
management.
Stakeholders can contribute to selecting basin delineation criteria, which may include
ecoregional considerations, the complexity of the system, ground water aquifer
configurations, common stressors, and common management strategies, among others.
The essential consideration in selecting basin delineation criteria is delineating
geographic areas around which resource management activities can be effectively
coordinated. An example of basin delineation criteria from the State of Washington is
included in Exhibit 4-2.
Local, state, and federal resource management agencies may already be using a variety
of hydrologic management units. EPA’s Nonpoint Source Program ( 31 9) and
assessments conducted to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads ( 303 [ d]) and in
support of the Waterbody System program ( 3O5 [ b]) may provide useful information for
L
BASIN DELINEATIoN
Basin Management Cycle
Objectives of Basin Delineation
• Divide state into single
set of geographic units
that all stakeholders
can agree to use
• Facilitate integrated planning
and information management
4-10
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
basin delineation. A consensus from major stakeholders is needed, however, before
establishing a common set of management units to
• Facilitate integrated planning (e.g., environmental assessments, priority setting,
workload and program resource allocations, and management strategies)
• Assist information management efforts, particularly where data are maintained in
Geographic Information System (GIS) format
4-11
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Exhibit 4-2. State of Washington’s Water Quality
Management Areas
The Washington Department of Ecology divided the state into twenty-three water
quality management areas, which are groupings of several Water Resource Inventory
Areas (WRIAs) established to respond to the State Water Resources Act of 1971 and
as sewage drainage basins to respond to the State Water Pollution Control Act.
Participating programs within the Washington Department of Ecology submitted the
following criteria for aggregating WRIAs into basin planning units. Similarity among
criteria recommended by different programs was strong. (There is no priority
associated with the order in which criteria are listed.)
• Common receiving waters and
aquifers (where known)
• Complexity of the system and pol-
lution sources
• Available staff resources
• Regional office boundaries
• Water availability
• Water use, including groundwater
supply
• Geography
• Demographics (current and projected)
• Loading from septic systems and sewers
• Ratio of unpermitted to permitted
activities
• Water quality condition
4-12
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN FOCUS ELEMENTS
BASIN DELINEATION (CONTINUED)
South Carolina
Catawba-Santee
Sub-Basins
0301 Catawba
0302 Santee
Savannâ -SaItahatdue 0303 Ashley-Cooper
0101 Seneca
0102 UpperSavannah Pee Dee
0103 Lower Savannah 0401 Lynches
0104 Salkehatchie 0402 Crest Pee Dee
0403 Waccamaw
Saksda.Edialo
0201 Upper Saluda Broad
0202 Lower Saluda-Congaree 0501 Tyger-Enoree
0203 Edi o 0502 Broad
The number and scale of basin management
units often reflect program administration
Viewgraph 8: Basin Delineation (continued)
Establishing the number and size of basins for a given state is usually a function of
determining a reasonable scale for statewide coordination. For example, the number of
river basin units into which the state is divided could be influenced by the number of
basin management plans that the state is willing to develop and capable of
administering. Washington State used basin delineation criteria to consolidate sixty-four
Water Resource Inventory Areas into twenty-three planning basins such that its four
Regional water quality offices are each responsible for producing and implementing
approximately one basin plan per year.
The viewgraph illustrates how South Carolina sub-divided their five major basins into
smaller sub-basins. Statewide program activity and workload are coordinated using the
five major river basins, while smaller sub-basins are used for finer detail coordination
and plan documentation purposes. North Carolina uses a similar approach that
includes seventeen river basins and approximately one hundred and ten sub-basins.
Nebraska uses thirteen river basins and thirty-six sub-basins.
4-13
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN FOCUS ELEMENTS
L
BASIN DELINEATION (CONTINUED)
Some states use a nested hierarchy of watersheds
Viewgraph 9: Basin Delineation (continued)
A comprehensive delineation approach is needed to address varied needs among
multiple stakeholders. The viewgraph shows a nested hierarchy of watersheds,
including a river basin, USGS Cataloging Units, and new “1 4-digit watersheds.” (NRCS
has begun a nationwide initiative to delineate 14-digit watersheds for natural resource
management. These small watersheds are subsets of both the USGS Cataloging Units
and watersheds previously delineated by NRCS.)
• The “waterbody” may be the scale of choice for local assessment and reporting.
(The term “waterbody” refers to individually defined units of water such as a stream
reach, pond, wetland, lake, river, estuary, etc.)
• The “1 4-digit NRCS watershed” reflects the scale at which many agricultural
operations and BMP records are kept.
• USGS “8-digit Cataloging Units” have been used by many agencies.
• State “River Basin” units provide large hydrologic units for coordination at a macro-
level scale.
Delineation of each level should ensure a common set of boundaries. That is, one or
more waterbodies constitute an NRCS watershed, one or more NRCS watersheds nest
within a USGS Cataloging Unit, and so on. This allows aggregation of information from
the most detailed level to the macro-level. For example, if a state water quality agency
USGS
Cataloging
Unit
14-Digit NRCS
Watershed
Str..m
Wateibody
River Basin
Watetbody
4-14
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
were developing a nutrient loading budget at the basin level, agricultural management
practice information at the NRCS watershed level may be integral to accurate estimates
and distinguishing important loading sources. The State of North Carolina established a
committee comprised of NRCS and state water quality agency staff to determine
guidelines for establishing common boundaries and resolving discrepancies.
4-15
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
L
BASIN DELINEATION (CONTINUED)
—----
EPA
Distribute technical information, provide
funding, and help coordinate federal agencies
--
STATE
Lead process, procure resources, perform
delineation, arid coordinate with other stakeholders
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS
Provide input and assist in
• delineation of nested unit;
/
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 10: Basin Delineation (continued)
Example Roles for Development
EPA
• Provide technical transfer of methods and examples from other states
• Fund basin boundary delineation and digitization within G1S
• Assist in coordination with other federal agencies
• Provide input on how appropriate delineation can make maximum use of tools such
as the waterbody system and the “the Reach File” components of STORET
State
• Choose leader and method for delineation process
• Procure resources for process (e.g., make staff time available, arrange for
facilitation, procure meeting space and supplies, and document results)
• Perform delineation of river basin and waterbody units
• Coordinate with other agencies regarding correlation of basin boundaries and other
nested management units
• Ensure that appropriate stakeholders participate in the process
4-16
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Additional Partners
• Other interested agencies such as USGS and NRCS could work with states to
establish common set of nested hydrologic management units.
• A public review of preliminary delineations cou’d be used to obtain input from the
general public and other interested stakeholders. For instance, local government
representatives can offer input on how delineations will impact local activities such
as land-use zoning, stormwater planning, and municipal point source discharge
operations
4-17
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 11: Basin Management Cycle Development
The third element helping to create a basin focus is the basin management cycle. Initial
development of the cycle at this stage (i.e., after establishing a basin plan format and
delineating basin management units) will greatly increase each partner’s understanding
of activities to be integrated under the BMA. Partners collectively may choose to refine
the cycle, however, throughout the development stage as activity elements are tailored
(covered in Module 5).
Objectives in Establishing a Cycle: Establishing a basin management cycle requires
decisions on three components: cycle length, basin sequence, and schedule for basin
management activities. Together these three components provide participating
programs with a temporal focus for their activities. Management cycles will be state-
specific, however, as scope and structure depend largely on goals, objectives, and
activities of stakeholders that participate in the process. Considerations in developing
cycle components are discussed in the following viewgraphs.
L
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE DEVELOPMENT
Objectives in Establishing
a Cycle
• Establish cycle length
• Choose basin sequence
• Schedule activities
4-18
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
Cycle Length Considerations
• Fixed versus variable length
• Balancing workloads over the long term
Viewgrapli 12: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Cycle Length Considerations
Cycle length establishes the duration of a complete cycle of management activities
within a basin (e.g., monitoring, assessment, prioritization, management strategy
development, plan preparation, and plan implementation). Some states choose a
specified period that correlates with other cyclical program requirements (e.g., permit
renewals and program reporting requirements) and then adapt program activity
schedules to fit within that period. For example, several states including Delaware,
Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, and South Carolina have each
chosen a 5-year cycle. Besides correlating to 5-year NPDES permit renewal cycles,
most of these states have determined that a 5-year basin management cycle length
translates into a reasonable annual workload for each management activity and still
covers the entire state in a timely manner.
Other states (e.g., Idaho and Texas) are exploring the use of varying cycle lengths.
These states may use different cycle lengths for each basin to account for differences in
size, complexity, goals, and resources. Idaho is obtaining input for its decision on cycle
length from the public through citizen task forces and watershed advisory groups.
Choosing either a fixed or variable cycle length has trade-offs. A fixed cycle length
maintains consistency and, because every basin has the same cycle length, stakeholders
can learn and track the system more easily. Consistency helps build a stable, long-term
planning structure and promotes stakeholder participation. Exhibit 4-3 provides an
example for a 5-year fixed cycle in which the fixed pattern of activities is readily
apparent. Fixed cycle lengths, however, may be difficult to maintain in complex basins.
4-19
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Variable cycle lengths, on the other hand, can be tailored to the relative complexity of
each basin. This flexibility can pose an additional administrative burden, however,
because administrators and stakeholders have more difficulty tracking the system.
Activities must be planned carefully to prevent overlaps that impose excessive
workloads in a given year.
States should be cautious if considering completely open schedules, because lack of a
set time for plan implementation can lead to an endless period of planning. Maintaining
the cycle, whatever its length, ensures timely transition from planning to
implementation. Some states are concerned about maintaining set schedules because
they fear that unforeseen circumstances may cause a “backlog” in developing or
implementing basin plans. A basic principle of the BMA, however, is that management
actions are scaled and targeted to available data and resources. The iterative nature of
the cycle ensures progressive implementation of strategies; issues that are not addressed
during the first iteration of the cycle can be top priorities for the next.
r
Exhibit 4-3. A Basin Management Cycle
Year Year Year Year
1 2 3 4
Year Year Year Year Year Year
5 6 7 8 9 10
Basin
Group 1
Basin
Group 2
Basin
Group 3
Basin
Group 4
Basin
Group 5
O Intensive Monitoring
Assessment and Prioritization
0 Management Strategy Development
U Basin Plan Review and Approval
U Implementation
4 2O
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
Basin Sequence Considerations
• Workload balance
• Level of ongoing initiatives
• Environmental risk
• Data availability for first iteration
• Stakeholder support
Viewgraph 13: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Basin Sequence Considerations
A basin sequence establishes the order for implementing basin management activities
throughout a state. Several states group basin management units to balance workloads
for key BMA element activities such as monitoring and permit issuance. To some states,
the order in which groupings were sequenced was not of importance as long as
workloads were relatively balanced from year to year. Other states, such as North
Carolina, began their sequence where ongoing initiatives (e.g., special monitoring
studies and specific management strategies) provided a strong foundation for preparing
initial basin plans and increased the likelihood for early success. Other considerations
for choosing a particular sequence include relative degree of environmental risk, data
availability, and stakeholder support. Exhibit 4-4 highlights criteria used by the State of
Washington.
4-21
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Exhibit 4-4 . Criteria for Establishing a Basin
Management Cycle from the State of Washington
Participating programs within the Washington Department of Ecology
(WDE) developed the following criteria to determine how basins would
be sequenced within the basin management cycle. (There is no priority
associated with the order in which the criteria are listed.)
• Number of currently permitted dischargers (This criterion ensures
that resources allocated for controlling point sources match
workload.)
• Number of “prospective” dischargers to be permitted
— Stormwater dischargers
— Dairies
— Other general permitted entities
• Waters listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d)
• TMDLs for which research is complete
• Availability of ambient monitoring data
• Threats to beneficial waters
— Population growth
— Commercial uses for fish or shellfish
— Changes in actual or potential land use
• Political likelihood of success
— Degree of consensus
— Local organizational commitments (e.g., stormwater utilities)
• Historical water quality initiatives (e.g., nonpoint source watershed
plans and initiatives of other agencies and WDE programs, including
ground water)
• Existing and potential funding, including grants
• Workload balance through phased approach
4-22
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Activity Schedule Considerations
• Defining steps and associated activities for
developing and-implementing basin plans
• Estimating time required to complete each
activity -
• Back-calculating versus applyjng geriiç
schedule
Viewgraph 14: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Activity Schedule Considerations
The schedule for basin management activities specifies when particular activities will
occur within each basin management unit. States generally define a series of steps for
developing and implementing basin plans. Programs then identify corresponding
activities for each step and estimate the amount of time needed to perform those
activities. To establish a steady stream of activities throughout a cycle, several states
identified the point in the cycle at which basin plans should be implemented and then
“back-calculated” the amount of time required to complete each task leading up to
implementation. This process can be complicated if many programs are involved and
often takes more than one iteration of planning sessions to reach consensus. In
Delaware, for example, the time required for the Fish and Wildlife Division to determine
fish population status in certain waterbodies exceeded the time needed for sampling by
the Water Quality Division monitoring team. The time allocated for strategic monitoring
was therefore increased to accommodate sampling for fish populations.
Several states first developed a “generic” schedule for one basin and then applied the
schedule to all basins by staggering starting dates to match the chosen basin sequence.
Nebraska, for example, initiates early activities (e.g., public outreach, monitoring plan
development and implementation, and assessment) at the same time for all basins in the
same group. (Note: Nebraska has thirteen basins divided into five groups of two or
three.) Activities in the middle of Nebraska’s basin cycle (e.g., management strategy
4-23
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
development, drafting and publicly noticing basin plans, and basin plan
implementation) were staggered for each group to enable the state to focus on one basin
at a time for those activities.
It took several iterations for Nebraska’s BMA development workgroup to fine-tune the
statewide basin management activity schedule to meet each program’s needs. The
following viewgraph and the appendix to this module describe Nebraska’s approach to
developing a basin management cycle in greater detail.
4-24
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
B si MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTiNUED)
ExampkApproach: hrthe State ofNebraska,
a workgroup of agency staff
• Outlined management steps for cycle ,
• Developed generic schedule for single basin
L..Sequenced basins and applied generic
schedule to each basin
• Refined and finalized schedule
Viewgraph 15: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Example Approach: The State of Nebraska
The following approach was used the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in
basin management cycle development:
• The state established a workgroup with representatives from each core program to
develop the management cycle through facilitated brainstorming sessions.
• The workgroup established a series of steps to basin management applicable to all
basins in the state (Exhibit 4-5).
• A generic schedule for conducting steps was outlined for a single basin. Timing of
certain activities, such as seasonal constraints of monitoring, was a factor in
choosing specific months within the cycle.
• Thirteen river basins were divided into groups by geographic region, and groups
were sequenced within a 5-year cycle. To accommodate ongoing initiatives, some
basins were addressed earlier in the cycle than others.
• The generic schedule was applied to each basin. Activities for basins grouped
within the same year of the 5-year cycle are scheduled to begin at the same time.
Starting dates for drafting basin plans are staggered, however, so that stakeholders
can focus on writing, reviewing, and implementing one basin plan at a time.
• The workgroup examined representative months of the 5-year cycle to evaluate
whether workloads for various programs were balanced and within resource
constraints. Necessary adjustments were made (i.e., lengthening or shortening
period for a specified activity), and a final schedule was developed.
4-25
-------
I Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan
4f
3
Implement Strategic Mo
1
nitoring Plan
4
Canvas for Information
I
1
5
Analyze Information
1
I
6
Prioritize Problems and
Critical Issues
-i
8 Implement Updates to Strategic
Monitoring Plan
1
[ 9 Quantify Problems and Issues I
1:
10 Develop Management Strategies I
1
11 Prepare Draft Basin Plan
1
12 Perform Agency and Public Review
I
13 Finalize Basin Plan
14 Implement Basin Plan I
YEAR I
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Exhibit 4-5. Steps in Nebraska’s Basin
Management Cycle
cjOutreac —- _
icOu eac
Ou eac H__
YEAR 5
I
4-26
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN FOCUS ELEMENTS
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE (CONTINUED)
EPA
Distribute technical information and
/ - provide funding and input
STATE
Lead process, procure resources,
develop cycle, and ensure participation
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS
Provide input
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 16: Basin Management Cycle Development (continued)
Example Roles for Development
EPA
• Provide technical transfer of potential methods and examples from other states
• Fund the development process
• Participate as a stakeholder in the development process by providing input on items
such as how cycle length and basin sequence may impact oversight and
implementation activities, and what EPA activities should be included in the
schedule component.
State
• Choose a leader and method for establishing the cycle
• Procure resources for cycle development (e.g., make staff time available, arrange for
facilitation, procure meeting space and supplies, and document results)
• Ensure that appropriate stakeholders participate in the cycle development process.
Additional Partners
• Participate as stakeholders in the development process by providing input on how
cycle length and basin sequence may impact activities, and what activities should
be included in the schedule component. The following are examples of input from
other stakeholders that could impact decisions on BMA cycle length, basin
sequence, and activity scheduling within the cycle:
4-27
-------
MODULE 4
DEFINING BASIN Focus ELEMENTS
Cycle Length
— Timing of local water management planning cycles
— Time associated with program activities of other federal partners, including Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.
— Time involved with water conservation plan development required by some state
and local governments, particularly in the western United States
Basin Sequence
— Level of environmental risk associated with municipal stormwater control needs, rate
of land-use changes, etc.
— Need for assessments and plans to support important economic development
initiatives (e.g., major new industrial operation)
— Need for quick action to protect endangered species, outstanding resources,
biological hot spots, etc.
— Timber harvesting and grazing schedules for federal lands
— Needs made apparent through ongoing citizen watershed initiatives
Activity Scheduling
— Coordination with local monitoring initiatives
— Coordination with federal monitoring initiatives, including Fish and Wildlife species
management plans and USGS National Water Quality Assessment studies
— Agricultural nonpoint source control project planning and implementation schedules
— Local watershed planning schedules
4-28
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
BMA MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR
TilE STATE OF NEBRASKA
-------
BMA MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Management activities within Nebraska’s thirteen delineated basins will be coordinated around a live-year
cycle. A series of steps are executed for each basin over the cycle, ending with the promulgation and
implementation of a management plan. These steps were illustrated in Exhibit 4—4 and are described
below in more detail.
Step 1. Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan: A strategic plan will be drafted that specifies
monitoring to support basinwide assessment. Details shall include monitoring objectives,
station locations, parameter coverage, sampling frequency, and monitoring plan rationale.
Step 2. Initial Public Outreach: As resources allow, NDEQ will hold public meetings at
appropriate sites within the basin to acquaint stakeholders with the overall DMA framework
and help identify management concerns specific to that basin. It is anticipated that the
format of the meetings will generally follow that used for Nebraska Wetlands Conservation
Plans, which includes Open House sessions, large group presentation, and small group
discussions. Relevant portions of the NDEQ strategic monitoring plan will be presented
with an explanation of how the resulting data will be used for assessing water quality and
prioritizing management needs. This initial outreach will provide stakeholders with
opportunities early in the basin planning process to submit relevant information, identify
potential gaps in the monitoring strategy, participate in data collection wheie appropriate,
or provide other feedback.
Step 3. Implement Strategic Monitoring Plan: The strategic monitoring plan for basinwide
assessment will be implemented following any modification resulting from feedback
received during initial outreach activities.
Step 4. Canvas for Information: NDEQ will make direct contact with key agencies and other
entities to obtain additional relevant information for use in basin planning. In particular,
data will be sought for characterizing the basin (e.g., hydrology, land-use, population
demographics, economic base, etc.) and for evaluating water quality. Stakeholder
information will also be used where appropriate in the prioritization and management
strategy development process.
Step 5. Analyze Infonnation: Initial analyses of basinwide monitoring data and supplemental
stakeholder information will focus on determining use support status, identifying problems
and areas of special ecological value, and assessing information gaps. Limitations in data
coverage should be specified so that initial findings can be appropriately qualified Some
quantification of problems may occur to clarify causes and sources, estimate loading, and
quantify assimilative capacity. Further analysis and more detailed quantification of
problems will continue for waters that are prioritized in the next step. Known gaps in field
data will be addressed during updates of the strategic monitoring plan.
Step 6. Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues: NDEQ will apply a standardized set of criteria
and procedures to prioritize waterbodies in need of management or additional assessment
so that resources can be targeted to address the concerns in an efficient and effective
manner.
4A-l
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
Step 7. Continue Public Outreach: NDEQ will present potential stakeholders with a summary
of the initial water quality assessments and recommended management priorities. Areas
in need of further problem quantification will be identified. NDEQ will attempt to match
stakeholders to corresponding priority waterbadies. in some cases, “Focus Groups” may
be formed among stakeholders to help clarify matters. Stakeliokier and Focus Groups will
form the basis for stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of management options and
development of basin management plans.
Step 8. Implement Updates to Strategic Monitoring Plan: Based on the results of initial
assessment and prioritization, along with feedback from public outreach activities, NDEQ
will update and implement its strategic monitoring plan to gather data for further problem
quantification. This will include data for model development or other tools necessary to
evaluate management options.
Step 9. Problem Quantification: Additional problem quantification will be performed where
required to establish the magnitude of a problem, determine assimilative capacity, calculate
loads for contributing sources of pollutants of concern, or otherwise further assess the
problem such that sufficient information is available for management strategy development.
This includes field calibration of models and development of total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs).
Step 10. Develop Management Strategies: NDEQ will work with other stakeholders to arrive at
a consensus on management goals, such as specific waterbody segments to be restored or
protected. This will include loading reductions that should be achieved, or the amount of
habitat that needs restoring, etc. Input will also be solicited from stakeliolders to establish
feasible combinations of point and nonpoint source control measures and management
actions to achieve goals. Management options will be evaluated via predictive modeling,
or by other methods where appropriate, for (heir relative effectiveness at achieving
environmental objectives. Regulatory constraints and procedures will be considered, and
stakeholder consensus will be sought where voluntary efforts are needed to meet
environmental objectives. Selected management strategies will outline mechanisms for
implementing controls, time frames, arm(icipated costs, sources of funding, monitoring
strategies, compliance tracking and enforcement methods, etc.
Step 11. Prepare Draft Basin Plan: NDEQ will prepare a draft basin plan which documents the
results of the basin planning process including assessment, priorities, goals, selected
management alternatives, and the implementation strategy. (See section 2.3 for more
details on the components of a basin plan).
Step 12. Agency and Public Review: An internal review of the draft basin plan will be performed
to ensure that it is ready for public distribution, Upon agency approval, the plan will be
made available for public review and comment. Outreach will be provided to explain
provisions and implications of the plan.
Step 13. Complete Final Basin Plan: Modifications will be made to the plan, as necessary, based
on comments and input received through the review process, to complete a final basin
plan.
Step 14. Basimi Plan hnplementatlon: Each cycle ends with a basin plan implementation period.
The implementation strategy outlined iii time plan will be followed, taking such steps as
necessary to implement pollutant source controls, best management practices, monitoring
4A-2
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 4
programs, enforcement methods, etc. Activities occurring during this period will include
public notice and issuance of NPDES individual and basin general permits, distribution of
state revolving fund (SRF) loans to prioritized entities, and allocation of 319 funds to
prioritized NPS problem areas. In addition, implementation will include an outreach
component to communicate the goals and selected management strategies of the lunal plan
Outreach will also be used to educate stakeholders on implementation schedules,
milestones, and where regulatory and voluntary efforts are required to meet envirotunental
objectives.
The final basin plan contains recommendations for follow-up basinwide assessment to measure the degree
of success from plan implementation and to evaluate areas that were not assessed during the previous
cycle. After a specified period of time for plan implementation, NDEQ will implement the updated
strategic monitoring plan and the basin management cycle will be repeated.
The basin management cycle will not be initiated in all basins at the same time for practical reasons.
Activities within the thirteen basins will be sequenced so that steps are performed incrementally across
the state. This helps to balance program workloads. Focusing on the same steps at one time in a small
segment of (he state creates a more efficient and effective operating framework.
Table 1 shows (lie sequence and scheduling of steps for Nebraska’s thirteen river basins. The order in
which river basins will be addressed is shown along the left hand column of the table. Corresponding
schedules for performance of each step of the basin management cycle are shown to the right of the
column of basins. Two lines of symbols are used for each basin to better depict simultaneous activities
(Note: symbols are defined in the legend at the bottom of the table). The table shows how steps are
phased in across the state over the first five year cycle from 1994 to 1998. Basinwide management
activities will be ongoing in all basins across the state by 1998, and basin management plans will be
implemented for all basins by the end of 2001.
Specific scheduling patterns have been incorporated within the basin cycle. For instance, the vast
majority of field monitoring activities for NDEQ’s Water Quality Division are performed between May
and November for scientific reasons. Therefore, strategic monitoring plans will need to be finalized by
the end of April each year so that actual sample collection can begin in May.
Data analysis (A) and problem quantification (Q) are shown in the table under the months of November
through February following the first year of monitoring and information collection. However, this does
not mean that analysis and quantification are restricted to that period. Rather, this is the period where
data are screened and assessed for watershed prioritization purposes. It is recognized that analysis and
quantification for purposes of evaluating management options will continue on in some prioritized
watersheds up until development of management strategies and written plans. This is illustrated in the
table by the series of months with a Q following the Mq period.
Finally, it should be noted that the length of time scheduled for follow-up problem quantification and
management strategy development differs across basins that are grouped in the same year of the cycle.
The times have been staggered so that only one basin plan is being drafted at a time. For example, plan
drafting will occur in July-August of 1996 for the Lower Platte whereas the basin plan for the Nemaha
will be written in November-December, 1996. This same type of pattern is repeated for each year of the
basin cycle.
4A-3
-------
TABLE I NEBRASKA BASIN PLANNING CYCLE ACTiViTY SCHEDULE
North Platte
South Platte
Middle Platte
Big Blue
UtIle Blue
Republican
Loup
Nlobrara
White-Hat
i
J P MA NJ .1 A S 0 N
0
i s i s
J F MA NJ 3 A SO NO
IsiS
J F MA NJ 3 A 30 M D
1997 l e ss
J F MA NJ 3 A 1 CM 03 F MA NJ 3 A SON 0
NaNaNa NaNaA
A
A A P . NqNqNq NqQ
00 00$ 800 RR ft R
ft F I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
a a C CCC CC 0
0
00 a N N N N PIN N N
N N MN N N
NaNaNaNaNaNaA
A
A A P
Go a oa 00 OS 800
ft ft ft ft ft F I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
a 00 ccc cc a
a
a a a N N N N N N N N
N N NH N N N N N H
or
NaNaNaNaNaNaNaAA
AAP e N NqeNqNq0
0300SSO ORRNR
RFI 111111111
a a CCC CCC 00
00 N N N N N N N
N N N N NH
Na NaNaNaNaNaNaAA
AAPNa Nu0
0000000assOo
RftRRRFIIIII I
a a C C C C C COO
0 0 N N N N N N N
N N N N N H N N N N
or or
NaNa NaNaNaA A
A A P NaNaNaNqNqNuNa 0
0000 S S 0 0 ft ft ft ft
OOCCCCCCOO
QQ NNNNNNP4N
NNNNNN
Na NaNaNaNaNaNaNmA A
A A P
0 000 0000 5 S 0 0
a a C C CC CC 00
00 H NM N N N N
N N N N N N N N N H
Na NaNaNaNaNaNaA A
A A P NNaNaNq Q
000000 00000 0
a a C C C C C C 0 0
0 0 N N Pt N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N P4
NaNaNaNaNaNaNaA A
A A P
a a C C C C C C a a
a a H N N N N N N
Na NaNaNaNaNaNaAA
AAP qNqN Nu NqN 0
a a C C C C C C 00
00 P1 N N N N N H
Na NaNaNaNaNaNaAA
AAPNaNq NqNqNqNqN Q
a a C C C C C C 0 0
0 0 N N N N N N N
IN Na IN Na Na Na Na Na A A
OOC CCC C coo
Np NpINNaNaNaN.NaNaA A
O OCCCCCCQQ
Np Np IN Na Na Na Na Na Na A A
aOCC CCCCQQ
Mialyiis of data to determine use support status, Identity problems. assess information gaps, etc.
Canvassing for information to use ri assessment. prioritizatlon, and management strategy development process.
Prepare Draft basin management plan (I.e., put In public document form).
Finalize the basin plan, making modifications to the draft as needed based on reviewer comment
boplemerit the basin plan; ready NPOES permits for public notice and subsequent issuance, imp lement NPS programs, etc.
Monitoring Is performed for comprehensiv, basin Assessment
MonitorIng Plans are updated each year and Include monitoring obtectives, sampling locations, parameters, frequencies, etc.
Monitoring Is performed per priorities for problem Quantification,
Negotiations are canted out with stakeholders to arrive at consensus on goals and feasible management options.
Outreach for Final basin plan lrnplernentatlon; explain changes from draft, direct actions or educate where votuntasy efforts needed.
initial Outreach; explanation to stakeholders about process and initial solicitation for Information and monitoring needs.
Outreach to begin Negotiations: explain basis of priorities, quantification needs, and begin negotiations with stakeholders as loading targets are established.
Outreach for stakeholder Review of draft basin plan; explain provisions of plan arid solicit comments.
Prlorltlzatlon of waterbodles to reflect most Important concerns (Includes both protection and restoration needs).
QuantIfIcatIon of problems: clarity causes arid sources, estimate loading where appropriate, quantity capacity or loading reductions (e.g., TMDL).
The draft plan Is distributed for Review.
A Strategy for management of the prioritized waters is selected based on stakeholder negotiation..
Lower Platte
Nemaha
Elkhom
Mlssourt Tribs
>
£
>
0
‘0
m
z
- I
0
C
C
C-
m
A.
C.
0.
F.
Is
Ma.
Mp.
Mqs
Na
Of.
01.
On.
Or.
P.
Q.
R .
S.
-------
TABLE I NEBRASKA BASIN PLANNING CYCLE ACTMTY SCHEDULE (continued, page 2)
Lower Platte
Nemaha
Eikhom
Missouri Tribs
North Platte
South Platte
Middle Platte
Big Blue
Utile Blue
Republican
Loup
Nlobrara
White-Hat
Analysis of dali to determine use support status, Identity problems, assess information gaps, etc.
Canvassing for lntoniwtlan to us. in assessment • prlontlzatlon, and management strategy development process.
Prepare Drift basin management plan (i.e., put In public document form).
Finalize the basin plan, making modifications to the draft as needed based on reviewer comment.
Implement the basin plan; ready NPOES p.nmts for public notice and subsequent Issuance, Implement NPS programs, perform follow-up inonitonng. etc.
Monitoring Is performed for comprehensive basin Assessment.
MOnitOting Plans are updated each year and Include monitoring objectives, sampling locations, parameters, frequencies. etc.
Monitoring Is performed per priorities for problem Quantification.
NegotIations are canted out with stakeholders to anlve at consensus on goals and feasible management options.
Outreach for Final basin plan Implementation; explain changes from draft, direct actions or educate where voluntary efforts needed.
Initial Outreach; explanation to stakeholders about process and Initial solicitation for information and monitoring needs.
Outreach to begin NegotIations; explain basis of priorities, quantification needs, and begin negotiations with stakeholders as loading targets are established.
Outreach (or stakeholder Review of draft basin plan; explain provisions of plan and solicit comments.
Prlontlzatlon of waterbodles to reflect most Important concerns (includes both protection and restoration needs).
Quantification of problems; clarify causes and sources, estimate loading where appropriate, quantify capacity or loading reductions (e.g.. IMDL).
The draft plan Is distributed for Review.
A Strategy fo management of th. prioritIzed waters Is selected based on stakeholder negotiations.
>
U’
im oa
I P MA NJ J A SO NO J F MA NJ .1 A SaND JIMA NJ JASON 0 J P MA NJ JASON D J P N A NJ J A 30 N
I A A A P S SOD H HR RH F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00 CCC CC CO 000 or N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I 1 I I I I I II I I I I I III
OOC C C C C C 0 00 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N or or or or or
I I I I I I I I I I I I A A A P a eNq OQOOQS 50 DR R RH HF I I I I I I I I I I
a C CCC CC 0000 ororN N N P4 N N P4 H H N N N N N or or or 33
1111111111111 11111
a CCC CCC 0000 N N N N N N NH N N N N H N N N N 3330 (0 1
HF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A A A P N N NqMq NqNq0 0000$ SOD ft ft R ft
301 oC CCC 000000 O. H i N N N NH N N NM NH H 33
HR HR HF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A A A P NeNr NuNq0 00000000$ SOD
03330 006CC CCC 000 a 33H N NH N N N N N NH H N N NH MN
$SOORRRRRFI I I I 1111111111
PIN 3 3 00C l
00003 $00 R RH R ft F I I I I I I I I I I
N N N MN N 333001
000000005 300 RH HR H F I I I I I I
P4 N N N H N N N H N or 3 or or
000000000000 S $00 H H H HR Ft I
MN N N NH N N NH NH N N ooro.or
A A P qNm mQ0 000$ SOD R RH R
00 3 . 0 mM N H N N N H N H N N N H N 33
A A P 0003 S DO
00 33H N N NH NH NH NH NH N NH NH
A A P . qNms,aq .q0 000000000000
pp 30mM N N N MN Mid N N N N NM NM N N N P4
00CC CCC COO
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
HF I I I I I I I I I I
3
H H RH HF I I I I I I
333010
S SOD RH RH HF I I
N N 3330(3
00 o N NH N N N N NH NH (INN NH N NH N
I A A A P I qqeq NqQ
03 CCC CCC 000030mM N NH N N NM
I A A A P
C C C C C C 0 0 0 030mM N N H N N N P4
I A A A P Nq 5 INU Q
o oC CCC CC 0000 33N N NH N NH N
I I I I I I I I I I I I I A
oa C C CC C C 00
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
a OC CCC CC 00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I A
aCC C CCC 00
A.
Ca
O-
F.
1.
Ma.
Mpa
Mq.
N.
Of a
01
On -
Or a
a.
R.
S.
‘0
‘0
z
- I
0
0
0
C
r
fri
-------
MODULE 5
-------
DEFINING CORE
Acnvirv ELEMENTS
MODULE 5
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcrIvITY ELEMENTS
Module 5 provides recommendations for tailoring core activity elements to address
unique circumstances in a given state. Core activity elements are discussed in the
following order:
Developing Management Strategies (Element 7)
• Stakeholder Involvement (Element 2)
• Prioritization and Targeting (Element 6)
• Basin Assessment (Element 5)
• Strategic Monitoring (Element 4)
• Implementation (Element 9)
These elements involve the primary activities recommended for integration, leading to
development and implementation of basin management plans that meet water resource
goals and objectives.
Information on tailoring activity elements is presented in the order recommended for
building a BMA framework. Decisions made regarding some elements will influence
refinement of others; the order for element tailoring presented in Module 5 reflects
experience to date. Additionally, example roles and potential impacts on program
functions are discussed for each activity.
OSE OF MODULE
To provide
recommendations
for tailoring core
activity elements to
address circumstances
for a given state
Basin Management Cycle
5 -1
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
After completing this module, workshop participants should be able to
• Identify forums for developing integrated management strategies
• List areas in the BMA to which the public can contribute, along with methods for
securing public participation
• Describe methods for developing and applying prioritization and targeting criteria
• List ways of identifying assessment needs, along with considerations for
establishing assessment protocols
• Describe the purposes of strategic monitoring and potential components of a
strategic monitoring plan
• List example implementation tools that can be defined and compiled into a
“toolbox” for operation under a BMA
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to
• Identify forums for developing integrated
management strategies
• List areas of public contribution
• Describe methods for developing and
applying prioritization and targeting criteria
• List considerations for assessment protocols
• Describe purposes of strategic monitoring
• List example implementation tools
5-2
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 3: Build Capability to Develop Integrated
Management strategies
The capability to develop integrated management strategies (Element 7) is an important
feature and benefit of the BMA framework. Partners must establish a forum that
promotes stakeholder coordination and cooperation within basins and facilitates
consensus on management goals, priorities, strategies, and means of implementation. As
a part of the strategy development process, basin stakeholders will need an
administrative structure that supports identifying, evaluating, and selecting management
strategies collectively.
CAPABILITY TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The primary purpose is to
establish a forum for goal
setting and identifying,
evaluating, and selecting
management strategies
5-3
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
Demonstrated -Solutions.—--
• Basin coordinator
• Basin and watershedtearns\
Citizènadvisôr’y committè s
• Basin plan authorization bOard
Viewgraph 4: Build Capability (continued)
Demonstrated Solutions
Experience to date suggests the following solutions for supporting integrated
management plan development:
• A basin coordinator whose primary responsibilities are maintaining clear, frequent
communication on logistics for basin activities and ensuring progress on basin
planning commitments.
• Basin and watershed teams comprised of technical experts representing key
stakeholder groups who work together through the sequence of activities to develop
and implement basin and watershed plans.
• Citizen advisory committees as a forum for people outside core water quality
agencies to provide input to basin and watershed teams on various issues such as
problem identification, goal setting, priority ranking, management options,
implementation, and citizen monitoring.
• Basin plan authorization board to approve plans and authorize implementation.
Exhibit 5-1 describes organizational structures used for basin planning in Georgia and
Idaho.
5-4
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrry ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-1. BMA Organizational Structures in Georgia
and Idaho
Georgia: The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) is required under Georgia Senate Bill 637 to
lead and carry out a river basin planning process. To implement the law, EPD is developing an
organizational framework that integrates agency partners and stakeholders. EPD has created Basin
Coordinator positions to facilitate coordination and Basin Teams composed of appointed EPD
program staff and technical representatives from selected partner agencies. The Basin Teams carry
out core activity steps within the state’s basin management cycle, including development of
management strategies and preparation of basin plans. As required by SB 637, EPD also relies on
input from River Basin Advisory Committees consisting of local representatives from several key
interest groups who are appointed by the EPD Director. The committees act as a sounding board for
basin planning decisions, providing advice to EPD at strategic points in the planning process.
Stake holder Meetings are also conducted by EPD for each basin throughout the management cycle
to raise public awareness and provide opportunities for input and participation.
Idaho: The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is voluntarily leading development of a
comprehensive watershed management approach for the State of Idaho. DEQ has divided the state
into six regions. For each region, IDEQ is forming a Citizens’ Watershed Task Force whose function
is to set watershed management priorities, target watersheds for management plan development,
resolve conflicts in the region, and assist in procuring funding. A Watershed Advisory Group, open
to the public living or working in the watershed, is formed for each targeted watershed. The
Watershed Advisory Group is responsible for developing and implementing the basin plan, with
assistance from a Technical Planning Team established from interested agencies including IDEQ.
Central office staff from IDEQ’s Planning and Evaluation branch assist regional offices in organizing,
advertising, and conducting task force and advisory group meetings.
Organizational Structure for Statewide
Watershed Approach in Idaho
LEVEL OF
COORDINATiON
ADMINISTRATIVE
UNIT
Stalewide
COMPOSITION
R .on ii
Agency Stiff
Watershed
Cdizeni Appomted by
R ionai
Ath r iIo,
Inter ted Pthhc
LIVmZ or Workmg
Watenbed
Waierthrd
Inte, ted
Agena
5-5
-------
‘ BUILD CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
Viewgraph 5: Build Capability (continued)
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIv iTY ELEMENTS
Recommended Steps for Building Capacity
Participants in the BMA development process should collectively define means for
developing and implementing integrated management strategies that are best for their
state. The following steps for building capability are recommended based on state
experience to date:
Identify Entities, Functions, and Relationships: By this phase of the development
process, partners will likely have a clear idea of what structure will provide strategy
development and implementation capabilities. All entities (e.g., coordinator, basin
team, advisory committee, and approval board) should be clearly identified, along
with their intended functions and relationships to one another.
• Establish Organizational Structures: Partners should decide how each entity will be
organized. Where multiple persons are involved (e.g., teams, committees, and
boards), decisions should be reached on leadership and membership (i.e., who and
how selected or appointed?). Partners may even want to specify qualifications for
technical or advisory positions. Additionally, partners should decide who will
handle administrative tasks such as meeting logistics (i.e., facility arrangements,
meeting announcements, notes, and information distribution).
• Define operating protocols: For each entity, partners should reach consensus on
operating protocols that address such issues as:
— Will orientation or training be required? If so, what type and who will conduct?
Idr ntiiy per1or .iurc
esiilu.itron ns
khhlich support
iner
Fneo’,er.ti
ijrotocoich rnrs c etho s
structures
tify entities. hrrsc-
EEIIsIror niF. IionII
tions, m d rel.-rtionchips
Recommended Steps
for Building Capability
5-6
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
— How will areas such as communication, information management, and
consensus building be coordinated among entities and members?
— How will conflicts be resolved?
— How will responsibilities be assigned?
• Establish Support Mechanisms: Consensus should be reached on how resources
will be budgeted and appropriated to keep each entity functioning. For examp’e, a
statewide BMA coordinator position could be funded and maintained by a single
agency (presumably the champion or lead agency) or by BMA partners collectively.
Similarly, sources and amounts of funding to support members of teams, boards,
committees, etc. should be clearly delineated.
• Identify Performance Evaluation Methods: To the extent possible at this phase of
the development process, partners should outline how performance and
effectiveness of each entity will be evaluated. Partners and other stakeholders will
want to know whether each entity is carrying out its function and whether actions
are helping to achieve resource management goals. Hence, performance standards
should be identified, along with methods for managing performance. Respon-
sibilities for overseeing corrective action should also be delineated.
5-7
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrry ELEMENTS
CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
EPA Distribute technical information
and provide support and input
SlATE: Lead process, procure resources,
ensure participation, and document results
/
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Help define
organizational structure and function and
identify resources to support forums
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 6: Build Capability (continued)
Example Roles for Development
• EPA: Provide information transfer on solutions applied in existing BMAs; provide
technical support for carrying out steps to buiLd capability; fund element
development; participate in process.
• State: Lead element development; procure resources to support element
development; ensure participation by other partners; document results.
• Additional Partners: Participate in defining technical and administrative entities,
roles, functions, and protocols; identify resources that can be provided to support
entity operations.
5-8
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acr iviTY ELEMENTS
CAPABILITY (CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased interaction with external advisory groups
• Increased time for consensus building
• Better solutions to complex problems
• Increased ability to complement partner efforts
• Improved working relationships
Viewgraph 7: Build Capability (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased Interaction with External Advisory Groups: Networking with basin team
members and advisory committee members will change the way that some
programs are accustomed to operating.
• Increased Time for Consensus Building: Integrated strategies require consensus
among participants, which typically takes more time to achieve.
• Better Solutions to Complex Problems: Integrated strategies often include actions
that extend beyond the scope and authority of any single partner. Programs may no
longer feel limited to solving problems by means under their direct control. Issues
that previously seemed overwhelming to any one agency because of complexity
and cross jurisdictions may now be resolvable through integrated efforts of partners.
• Increased Ability to Complement Partner Efforts: Partners can better complement
each other’s activities to achieve resource goals and objectives, because forums will
raise awareness of one another’s program requirements and resource allocations.
• Improved Working Relationships: Coordination forums often improve working
relationships with partners and the general public.
5-9
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTiv iTy ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 8: Integrating Public Participation into the
Stakeholder Involvement Element
Stakeholder involvement (Element 2) covers a wide range of participation, including
government agencies, private institutions, and the general public. Most stakeholders
that participate in technical planning and implementation activities will contribute
through the forums described previously. This section focuses specifically on
participation of the general public, a desired component of any WPA that hopes to
achieve public buy-in for resource management plans and implementation strategies.
Public participation can be integrated by creating opportunities for public outreach,
input, and constructive action.
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INTO
THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ELEMENT
The primary objective for
integrating public
participation is to
create opportunities
for public outreach, input,
and constructive action
5-10
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 9: Integrating Public Participation (continued)•
Areas and Levels of Public Participation
Anticipated public roles should be clarified in the BMA framework development
process, including choices on where and how the public will be involved in the BMA
process. The challenge lies in balancing participation with the need to proceed on
schedule. Potential areas for participation include:
• Data and information collection
• Prioritization of basin concerns
• Development of management goals and strategies
• Input to allocation of resources
• Review of management plans and implementation strategies
• Identification of measures of success for documenting environmental improvements
• Plan implementation (e.g., by NPS agencies and local governments)
Levels of participation often are governed by the extent of access; that is, will the public
have open access to participating agencies at all times or be limited to specific windows
of opportunity? Balance can be achieved by clearly communicated, well defined time
frames for participation. For example, states can build basin meeting schedules into the
management cycle so that the public knows well in advance when opportunities will be
available to obtain information on, provide input to, or help implement management
plans for a given basin.
I NTEGRATI NC PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTINUED)
Public
Participation
Management
Progress
Balance participation with the need to proceed
on schedule through clearly communicated,
well defined time frames for participation
5-11
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Ac’rlvrrY ELEMENTS
L
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTI NU ED)
Methods of Public Participation
• Basin Meetings
• Basin Festivals
• Volunteer Monitoring
• Advisory Committees
• Regulatory Notices/Meetings
Viewgraph 10: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Means of Public Participation
Basin Public Meetings: Basin public meetings are essentially open forums at strategic
locations within the basin to share information with the public and receive feedback.
Basin meetings can be used effectively to discuss prioritization criteria, program
resource allocations, goals, strategies, NPS projects, NPDES permit conditions, etc.
Basin Festivals: Festivals may attract the public to events where outreach activities
occur. Events often include unique ways of conveying information such as movies,
games, and theater performances. A more informed public may result in more realistic
expectations regarding resource management and greater support for state-sponsored
initiatives.
Adopt-A-Waterbody and Volunteer Monitoring Groups: Citizen groups can collect
information through coordinated monitoring programs. Information from such efforts
often facilitates identification of existing or emerging problems as well as providing
feedback on management effectiveness.
Citizen Advisory Committees or Groups: Committees or groups of citizens can be used
effectively to involve the public and may be particularly useful when help and
coordination are needed from several agencies or when gray areas of jurisdiction arise
in which no agency has clear authority. Also, important restoration and protection
strategies may rely on voluntary programs or may require mobilization of broad public
support to secure funding.
5-12
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Regulatory Notices/Meetings: Traditional regulatory mechanisms for public outreach
and participation, such as public notices and hearings for NPDES permits and revisions
to water quality standards and rules, can be used to elicit information from the general
public that may have a bearing on basin management. Similarly, these mechanisms can
be used to increase public awareness of the BMA by providing educational information
in notices or meeting presentations.
U / c -c ‘7’
-€ - : c/ 7 _
5-13
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvIrY ELEMENTS
L
INTEGRATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTINUED)
EPA: Distnbute information on process, provide
funding, and participate in development process
STATE: Establish forum for public participation,
procure resources for framework development,
ensure participation, and document results )
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Participate as
stakeholders in process and provide input on
methods for integrating public participation
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 11: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Example Roles for Development
• EPA: Provide technical transfer on the process and examples from other states;
provide funding to support element development; participate in development
process.
• State: Establish a forum to integrate public participation within the BMA; procure
resources to support framework development activities; ensure partners participate
in development process; document results of development process.
• Additional Partners: Participate as stakeholder in process; provide input on
methods for integrating public participation.
5-14
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
INTEGRATING PuBLIC PARTICIPATION
(CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased time required for outreach
• Expanded scope of problem solving to
include broad public concerns
• Increased agency openness and flexibility
Viewgraph 12: Integrating Public Participation (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased Time Required for Outreach: Many programs can expect to spend more
time providing outreach to the public and other stakeholders. As a return on staff
investment, programs can expect an improved public understanding of respective
roles in the BMA process, greater cooperation and support from stakeholders in
assisting implementation (for example, lobbying for additional funding and
volunteering to assist with NPS control measures), and perhaps fewer challenges to
management decisions made with stakeholder input.
• Expanded Scope: Program planners may be involved more frequently in
comprehensive problem-solving efforts that address broad public concerns rather
than focusing on more narrowly scoped program concerns.
• Increased Agency Openness and Flexibility: Developing a strong rapport with the
public likely will require demonstration of openness to public input and flexibility
in approach to problem-solving and management implementation.
5-15
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTivrn’ ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 13: Refining Prioritization and Targeting Methods
BMA development includes stakeholder consideration of methods and criteria for
priority-setting and targeting—proactive means of dealing with constraints on the
number of environmental concerns that can be effectively addressed. This section
covers recommendations for tailoring a prioritization and targeting system (Element 6) to
meet the needs in a given state.
Recommendations for Establishing Criteria
The objective of prioritization is to rank watershed concerns in order of their importance
so that resources can be targeted to address the most important issues. Assigning
priorities that can be followed by all stakeholders participating in the BMA requires a
consensus on criteria and methods for establishing priorities and targeting resources.
The following recommendations for establishing criteria are adapted from Geographic
Targeting: Selected State Examples (EPA 1993):
1. Distinguish between prioritization and targeting criteria:
— Prioritization criteria should reflect importance of concern (e.g., resource value,
severity of risk, and degree of impairment).
— Targeting criteria help direct program and private resources to prioritized
concerns where they will do the most good and usually reflect factors such as
management feasibility, cost effectiveness, and willingness to proceed on the
part of stakeholders.
c” REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
METHODS
The objective of prioritization
is to rank watershed concerns
in order of their importance
so that resources can be
targeted to address the
most important issues
5-16
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
2. Choose overarching factors that apply to the full range of management programs
involved in the BMA. For example, ecological value may have little meaning for
groundwater concerns, just as wetlands may not be fairly considered if a public-
use factor is emphasized. An overarching factor, however, such as resource value
may be defined for each type of resource.
3. Choose a set of criteria that strike a balance between resource protection and
restoration. If criteria place too much emphasis on existing waterbody impairment,
then remaining program resources may be insufficient to prevent other waters from
becoming impaired.
4. Some criteria may need to be specific to a given basin. Stakeholder meetings can
be used to establish special value considerations for that basin. Broad resource
protection goals can be translated into specific prioritization and targeting criteria
applicable to individual basins.
5-17
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvITY ELEMENTS
L
REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
METHODS (CONTINUED)
Choosing a Method for Applying Criteria
1. Select participants
2. Review candidate approaches
3. Select/develop approach
4. Test and adjust approach
5. Seek approval
Viewgraph 14: Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued)
Choosing a Method for Applying Criteria
Developers of a BMA should use existing methodologies for ranking watershed concerns
whenever possible. Some states, however, do not have such a method, and others
could benefit from a re-evaluation of their methods (e.g., placing their approaches into a
watershed perspective). For instance, some existing ranking systems may have been
created for specific program purposes (e.g., funding upgrades for publicly owned
treatment works or developing water quality standards). Such systems may fail to give
adequate emphasis to overarching environmental factors, including such issues as
habitat and riparian protection and restoration.
In general, a ranking and targeting approach can be developed using the following steps
(adapted from EPA’s Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples, 1993):
1. Select participants for the development process 6 ’ ’
2. Review potential ranking and targeting approaches 0
3. Select an existing method (or combination of methods) or develop a new approach
that incorporates chosen criteria
4. Test the approach and adjust as necessary
5. Seek approval of the method from appropriate stakeholders
5-18
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acnvrr ELEMENTS
EPA’s document on geographic targeting describes several approaches to priority
ranking including the following:
• The Numerical Index Approach applies a weighted numeric index to each water
resource unit (e.g., waterbody). The index is usually comprised of several factors
(e.g., resource value and environmental risk) that are each assigned a range of
numeric values to provide a measurement scale. A numerical index score is usually
obtained by choosing representative values for a specific waterbody from each
factor measurement scale, weighting each factor value by its predetermined
importance to the index, and summing or multiplying factor values to compute a
total index score. Numerical indices are popular because they can be based on
quantifiable criteria important to water quality, they produce a single list of
waterbody rankings, and their results are reproducible. A potential drawback is that
a poor choice of variables may yield a poorly performing index. An example of a
numerical approach developed for Oregon is highlighted in Exhibit 5-2.
• The Decision Tree Approach relies on the best professional judgment of water
resource managers to answer a series of questions that lead to assignment of
waterbodies to specific priority categories. The primary advantage of using a
decision tree is that it provides a clear overview of choices made to establish
priority. A decision tree approach developed for New Mexico is highlighted in
Exhibit 5-3.
• The Data Layer Over/a yApproach involves simultaneous display of geographically
distributed data (e.g., land use, hydrography, impaired waters, and endangered
species) that can be interpreted and grouped into priority categories using a
decision strategy for analyzing data and ranking waterbodies. This approach may
be preferable to states and regions that have strong GIS capabilities and adequate
data bases from which to draw. An overlay approach being applied in Ohio is
summarized in Exhibit 5-4.
• The Consensus-Based Approach uses broad participation by multiple agencies and
other stakeholders to reach consensus on priorities within the basin. Participants
review technical information by using approved ranking techniques. Consensus is
reached when all parties agree on decisions or agree to support the decisions of the
larger group. The strength of this approach lies in the widespread acceptance of the
end product. Weaknesses include the potential inability to reach consensus. An
example of a consensus-based ranking system used in Washington is provided in
Exhibit 5-5.
5-19
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-2. Numerical Approach Developed for
Oregon
Oregon assigns a severity score to each waterbody based on impacts or threats to
beneficial uses. The following primary use factors are taken into account:
• Human health factor (drinking water and shellfish)
• Recreation factor
• Aquatic life factor
• Habitat (optional)
Each beneficial use factor is assigned severity points as follows:
o points = fully supporting the use or no data
1 point = moderate problem
3 points = severe problem
Each waterbody also is assigned a value factor (or weight) related to its importance as a
drinking water supply, its recreational value, and its fishery and aquatic life functions.
For instance, the scoring system for recreational value is:
Minimal recreational value: 1 point
Fair: 2 points
Good: 3 points
Excellent: 4 points
Wild or Scenic River: 1 extra point
For each beneficial use factor, a sub-index is calculated as the product of the use factor
or severity score (a number from 0 to 3) multiplied by the value factor weight (a number
from 1 to 5). The total water quality index is the sum of the resulting products for the
health, recreation, and aquatic life factors, plus an optional aquatic impact factor for
habitat.
Example Calculation for a Stream:
Beneficial Use Severity x Value = Total
Human Health 1 5 5
Recreation 3 3 9
Aquatic Life 3 3 9
Habitat (maximum of 10) 3 5 j .. (maximum value)
Total Score 33
Waterbodies are initially ranked according to the total of the first three factors above. If
there are close calls in defining the class of high-priority waters, Oregon considers the
extra habitat scores (especially for streams with anadromous fisheries). A second set of
tie-breaker criteria gives higher priority to waters that need TMDLs or are candidates for
Clean Lakes Grants.
5-20
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Ac-rivir’ ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-3. Decision Tree Approach Developed for
New Mexico
New Mexico’s decision tree approach groups waterbodies into priority
categories, from which a class of high-priority candidates can be
identified. The process is organized in the form of a series of questions
and decision responses. If the response is simply a “yes” or a “no,” then
the waterbody is advanced into one of two branches on the decision tree.
Some decision nodes have numerous branches.
One of the main objectives is to distinguish between waters having
adequate data for a management response versus waters with extremely
limited data. Where data gaps are apparent, priorities can be established
for conducting additional monitoring work. Where existing data are
sufficient, an additional series of questions assigns a waterbody to one of
six priority classes.
Higher priority is assigned where there are frequent water quality
standards violations. Higher priority is also given where the resource is
designated as an outstanding value water and where feasible techniques
for mitigation or protection are available. New Mexico has used this
system for Section 31 9 NPS project selection, for prioritization under the
State Revolving Loan Program to assist POTvVs, and in targeting
enforcement actions.
The following flow chart provides a graphical display of the decision tree
approach.
—.,‘
5-21
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
5-22
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvITY ELEMENTS
‘Exhibit 5-4. Overlay Approach Applied in Ohio
As part of its Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, the State of Ohio
implemented a targeting system using map overlay techniques. Each mylar map displayed
information on natural resource conditions (see diagram). Shadings were used to show
different degrees of each factor (e.g., darkly shaded streams might indicate severe habitat
destruction). When the mylar sheets are superimposed, some areas stand out as being
heavily impacted or in need of action based on the density of shaded areas. The method
works well for locating problem areas where multiple layers indicate pollution problems or
degradation threats.
The Ohio Target Waterbodies System was based on nine major map overlays: (1) sig-
nificant public water supplies according to the frequency of maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations; (2) locations of landfill sites; (3) locations of hazardous waste disposal
sites; (4) locations of significant fish kills; (5) NPDES discharge locations; (6) agricultural
land use; (7) priority areas with documented water quality concerns; (8) major groundwater
use areas; and (9) significant (sensitive) environmental resource areas.
Ohio’s map overlay process has seen limited use since the mid-1980s. Ohio EPA is cur-
rently increasing the number of watershed units it uses for its ranking procedures and is
working with major state and federal agencies to encourage the use of consistent data
sources. With steady improvements in GIS capabilities, Ohio anticipates developing a
more sophisticated overlay system in the future.
Water Supplies
Agriculture
Priority Areas/Sensitive Areas
NPDES Discharges
Landfills/Hazardous Waste Sites
Fish Kills
Groundwater Use Areas
5-23
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-5. Consensus-Based Ranking System Used in
Washington
The State of Washington has completed a final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) (or Puget Sound under the National Estuarine Program.
To produce the final CCMF’ and two interim management plans starting in 1987,
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority coordinated efforts with a variety of
federal and state agencies as well as the numerous local governments in the 1 2-
county study area (Cole. Ranking of Puget Sound Watersheds for the Control of
Non point Source Pollution. 1990).
Targeting Process
One of the Authority’s main challenges was to conduct a local watershed
planning process. The State of Washington had created a special Centennial Clean
Water Fund, and resources were available to initiate up to 1 2 early-action
watershed projects (one for each county). The emphasis was on addressing major
problems associated with nonpoint source impacts. To choose candidate
watersheds, the Authority and a Federal/State Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin
Study Team worked with the county governments to set up special committees. A
Watershed Ranking Committee was organized in each county to prioritize
watersheds within the county. Separate Watershed Management Committees were
also formed to prepare coordinated action plans for the chosen watersheds.
Committee membership was drawn from local government, agriculture and
business groups, citizen and environmental organizations, and tribal governments.
Representatives from natural resource agencies assembled water quality
information and presented this material to the local Watershed Ranking
Committees. Using consensus-based approaches, the local committees then
determined how to prioritize management needs for water resource areas within
their counties. High-priority candidates were pooled from the entire study area for
use by the Washington Department of Ecology in targeting the award of the early-
action watershed grants.
(continued)
5-24
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-5. Continued
Criteria for Targeting
Watershed rankings were carried out in all 1 2 Puget Sound counties using the
general guidance contained in the Puget Sound Authority’s “Nonpoint Rule”
(Chapter 400-1 2) adopted in 1 988. The basic ranking criteria used to assign scores
to each watershed included the following:
1. Assign differential scores where a beneficial use such as recreational or
commercial shellfish beds, fish habitat, or drinking water is impaired or
threatened by pollution from nonpoint sources.
2. Consider if a watershed has a likelihood of intensified land or water use,
including a likelihood of being logged, in the next 10 years.
3. Consider special local environmental factors such as soil, slope, and
precipitation on land and/or limited flushing in the sound, that might
increase the probability of present or future water quality degradation.
4. Consider whether a watershed produces more contaminants (loadings) or
causes greater harm to a beneficial use than other watersheds.
Each county was allowed to adapt these general principles in a flexible manner.
Most counties adopted a two-phase approach. Very simple scoring rules were
developed and applied to identify a consensus list of high priority watersheds.
More detailed scoring and evaluation methods were then applied to assign relative
ranks to high-priority candidates. Each county provided documentation for the
ranking approaches they used.
Although there was no uniform set of technical criteria in this strategy, the Puget
sound approach has proven productive in many respects. The process itself
incorporated heavy public participation. Because priority rankings from each local
group were based on a consensus drawn from many diverse viewpoints, the final
recommendations usually met with widespread public acceptance and political
support.
5-25
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Aciivrr ELEMENTS
L
REFINING PRI0RITIZATI0N AND TARGETING
METHODS (CONTINUED)
Additional Considerations
• Minimum data requirements for
inclusion in ranking process
• Prioritization for multiple purposes
Viewgraph 15: Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued )
Additional Considerations
Minimum Data Requirements: There will be times when information is insufficient to
evaluate the priority of a specific concern or identify where stakeholder resources
should be targeted (e.g., when an environmental assessment is lacking). States may
want to consider establishing minimum data requirements for inclusion in the process.
Prioritization for Multiple Purposes: Priorities may apply for purposes other than
management strategy development. For instance, New Mexico prioritizes watersheds
for data collection when information is insufficient for assessment (see Exhibit 5-3).
Thus, even if a watershed is not ranked for control through a numerical index, it may
receive a high priority for additional monitoring in the next cycle iteration.
5-26
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
NING PRIORITIzATION AND TARGETING
METHODS (CONTINUED)
EPA Distribute technical information
and provide support and input
STATE: Lead process, procure resources, ensure
participation and outreach, and produce method
——.
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Provide input to
choice of prioritizalion criteria and methods
/
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 16: Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued)
Example Roles for Development
EPA: Provide technical transfer on prioritization and targeting methods; provide funding
to support method development; participate as a stakeholder in the process.
State: Choose a leader and strategy for prioritization method development; procure
resources to support method development and update; ensure that appropriate
stakeholders participate in method and criteria development; produce a method that will
be used in the BMA.
Additional Partners: Participate as a stakeholder in the process; provide input to
selection of criteria and the method for their application.
5-27
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIvITY ELEMENTS
REFINING PRIORITIZATION AND TARGETING
METHODS (CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• De-emphasizing fixed priorities
• Translating priorities into specific
resource allocations
Viewgraph 1 7: Refining Prioritization
and Targeting Methods (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
De-Emphasizing Fixed Priorities: The prioritization process de-emphasizes fixed
program priorities (e.g., perform “x” number of inspections per year); instead, program
goals remain flexible to reflect BMA-produced resource priorities. For example, more
concentrated inspections are needed in the Black Creek watershed because of
impairment thought to be attributable to point sources and confined animal operations.
Translating Priorities into Specific Resource Allocations: Priorities need to be translated
by state programs, EPA regions, and other stakeholders into specific program resource
targeting allocations. For example, priorities will affect
• The location and purpose of field monitoring efforts
• The type and magnitude of TMDL development efforts
• The types and amount of laboratory support services
• The types and amount of modeling support
• Decisions on where to establish site-specific surface or ground water standards
• Priorities for use of 31 9 grant funds
• Priorities for approval of SRF loans
• The level of effort for NPDES permit development, compliance tracking, and
enforcement
• The amount of effort placed on habitat restoration
• The types and amount of information management support
• The types and amount of public outreach
5-28
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 18: Identifying Basin Assessment Methods
Development and application of basin assessment (Element 5) methods should be
closely related to prioritization criteria and resource management goals. Whether
assessing water quality status, identifying problems, quantifying impacts, calibrating
models, or evaluating effectiveness, assessment techniques should produce results that
assist stakeholders in ranking and addressing resource management priorities. Although
specific methods often are best selected by technical experts assembled to carry out
planning activities for a given basin, partners can benefit by identifying during the
framework development stage probable assessment needs and corresponding
capabilities to fill those needs.
Assessment needs and capabilities will vary substantially from state to state. Some
BMAs will include sophisticated techniques such as rapid bioassessment and risk
assessment, whereas others may need to rely on physical and chemical measurements
because of limited capabilities. Some states will have the capability for large-scale,
complex assessments, whereas others may be able to cover only small portions of basins
in any one cycle iteration. For some partners, integrating efforts will create capabilities
heretofore unattainable (e.g., GIS analysis). Whatever the case, identifying needs and
capabilities in the BMA development stage helps partners and stakeholders set realistic
expectations and highlight gaps in capabilities that can be filled as the BMA evolves.
L
IDENTIFYING BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS
Partners should identify
assessment needs and
capabilities during
the BMA framework
development process
5-29
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIv iTY ELEMENTS
‘ BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
Identifying Assessment Needs
+ Defining needs specific to each
step in bas n cyck ’
• Relating , eedstö selected environ-
mental indicators and stressors
Viewgraph 19: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Identifying Assessment Needs
Defining Needs Specific to Each Step in the Cycle: Assessment needs change
throughout the basin management cycle. Partners can define preliminary needs by
evaluating each step of the management cycle. For example, initial assessment needs
may relate to identification of strategic locations for monitoring. Prior to prioritization,
assessments will need to produce use support ratings that are also used to meet CWA
Section 305(b) reporting and 303(d) listing requirements. After prioritization, assessment
needs likely will include problem quantification and criteria development (e.g., site-
specific water quality standards and TMDLs). Assessments may involve predicting
effectiveness of alternatives during the strategy development phase and evaluating actual
effectiveness after plan implementation. Spatial scale (e.g., basin, watershed,
waterbody, and stream segment) for each assessment type should be established during
this review. By carefully evaluating needs at each step, partners will be better
positioned to match specific needs with specific capabilities.
Relating Needs to Selected Environmental Indicators and Stressors: Assessment needs
can also be identified as environmental indicators are established for broad-based goals.
Assessment endpoints are typically chosen for designated uses that apply to many
waterbodies across the state. For example, drinking water is an endpoint for water
supply use. Corresponding environmental indicators (measurement endpoints) are
drinking water criteria, taste, and treatment costs. Each indicator would require an
assessment method, so partners can discern assessment needs by reviewing and
selecting desired indicators. Similarly, partners can identify assessment needs for
common types of stressors that are likely to occur in each or many basins throughout the
state (e.g., sediment and nutrients).
5-30
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
L
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
Assessment protocols are
recommended for
• Assessment methods
• Documentation
• Information transfer
Viewgraph 20: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Establishing Assessment Protocols
Integrating assessments under a BMA requires protocols for successful aggregation of
results for each basin. Protocols are recommended for the following areas:
• Assessment Methods: Partners should establish protocols where information will be
pooled to make a collective or comparative assessment. Methods used by different
partners should be comparable, and quality assurance protocols applied uniformly.
• Documentation Format: Protocols for assessment documentation ease the
compilation burden and ensure that sufficient reference information is provided for
reviewers and users. Example protocols include requiring:
— Information on where and how data were obtained
— Descriptions of methods used for assessment
— Reporting formats for selected categories of assessment results
• Information Transfer: Information will be shared for both assessment and basin
plan documentation purposes. Hence, partners should agree on how information
will be transferred. Possible areas to address include:
— Who will be responsible for compilation?
— In what format should information be stored for submittal or retrieva’?
5-31
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvIrY ELEMENTS
L
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
EPA: Distribute technical information and
provide technical assistance and support
STATE: Lead protocol development,
procure resources, establish reporting
formats, facilitate partner participation
— ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Identify
assessment needs and capabilities and
support protocol development
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 21: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Example Roles for Development
• EPA: Provide technical transfer on applicable assessment methods and protocols;
provide technical assistance in developing methods and protocols; fund element
development.
• State: Lead development of BMA assessment protocols; procure resources to
support element development; establish assessment documentation formats that
meet basin planning needs and federal reporting requirements simultaneously (e.g.,
§305(b) and §303(d)); identify assessment needs and inventory assessment
capabilities of BMA partners.
• Additional Partners: Participate in identification of assessment needs; make
assessment capabilities known to other partners; support protocol development.
5-32
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrry ELEMENTS
IA
BASIN ASSESSMENT METHODS (CONTINUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Changes in existing methods
• Increased access to a broader range of
information
• Increased use of environmental indicators
• More comprehensive assessments
• Improved basis for management and
monitoring recommendations
Viewgraph 22: Basin Assessment Methods (continued)
Impad on Program and Staff Functions
• Changes in Existing Methods: BMA protocols may require changes in methods
used by some partners.
• Increased Access to Broader Range of Information: Protocols will improve access
to information for many partners and increase confidence in information that is
obtained from other partners.
• Increased Use of Environmental Indicators: The importance of assessment to the
BMA likely will increase use of environmental indicators to measure progress
toward resource restoration and protection goals.
• More Comprehensive Assessments: Aggregating information for basins and
watersheds will lead to more comprehensive assessments. Partners will have access
to multiple indicators and comparable information collected by other stakeholders.
• Improved Basis for Management and Monitoring Recommendations: The BMA’s
emphasis on assessment likely will provide more and better information than is
currently available to many programs.
5-33
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CoRE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 23: Developing the Strategic Monitoring Element
Strategic Monitoring Purpose and Participants
The purpose of developing a strategic monitoring element (Element 4) is to establish a
cost-efficient, effective means of collecting data to support assessment activities.
Coordinating monitoring efforts can be complex, because there are multiple
• Types of monitoring (ambient, compliance, and intensive survey)
• Types of parameters (chemical, physical, and biological)
• Purposes for monitoring (assessment of water quality status, model calibration,
evaluation of management actions, etc.)
• Sampling protocols
• Agencies/groups collecting monitoring data
Coordination is essential if the BMA is going to make the best use of each participants’
capabilities and leverage program resource expenditures for shared monitoring
objectives. Potential participants and their corresponding interest in strategic monitoring
include
• State water quality agency §106 surface and ground water monitoring programs
may focus on evaluating whether beneficial uses are being met and identifying
causes and sources of waterbody impairment to support §305(b) reporting and set
management priorities. These programs may also support water quality model and
TMDL development, as well as evaluating the success of existing and past
management actions.
DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC MONITORING
ELEMENT
Purpose is to
coordinate
monitoring types,
methods, purposes,
and participants
5-34
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvITY ELEMENTS
• Other state agencies may contribute collected data (e.g., fish and wildlife, marine
fisheries, soil and water).
• USGS may be interested in evaluating the status of and trends in water quality on a
regional and national basis.
• Other federal agencies may collect surface and ground water data (e.g., NOAA,
EPA, USDA, U.S. COE, U.S. F&WS, BLM).
• NPDES permittees may be required to perform instream monitoring (or may do so
voluntarily to establish an information base) to evaluate their impacts on receiving
waterbody water quality.
• The NRCS and state NPS programs will probably focus on BMP and §319 project
effectiveness.
• Universities may gather monitoring data for research purposes that are also useful to
resource managers.
• Local government or citizen groups concerned with protection of local resources
may want to monitor their own drinking water and recreational resource areas more
heavily.
• Private industries and institutions may monitor for research purposes.
Exhibit 5-6 highlights North Carolina’s use of basin NPDES discharger consortiums to
coordinate supplemental monitoring efforts.
5-35
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrn ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-6. North Carolina NPDES Discharger Basin
Monitoring Programs
North Carolina has discovered that their BMA provides new opportunities for
coordination. Private and municipal dischargers are forming consortiums in some
basins to perform instream monitoring in lieu of individual NPDES ambient
monitoring requirements. State staff found numerous problems with the individual
self-monitoring approach that limited the usefulness of data. Consortiums allow
resources to be pooled and subsequently directed address the most important
information needs within the basin. As a result, the state receives better and more
useful information with the same (or even fewer) resources than permittees expend
complying separately with NPDES instream monitoring requirements. (A more
complete list of advantages is provided below.) The state requires consortiums to
become legal entities and then draws up an agreement with the group, which lays
out requirements for data collection and reporting and sets forth conditions under
which the agreement can be terminated. NPDES permit conditions allow the state
to add individual self-monitoring requirements in the event that the agreement is
breached. The consortium is responsible for seeing that each member abides by
the group’s by-laws. In this manner, the state’s administrative burden for
overseeing the collection of instream data is reduced to working with one
organization rather than having to coordinate with each individual discharger or
other member. Agreements between the state and consortiums are updated
periodically (e.g., annually or biannually) such that the monitoring program can be
adjusted to reflect highest priorities.
Advantages of North Carolina’s Basin Monitoring Agreements with Consortiums:
• Collection of data by trained staff reduces error in sample results.
• Coordinated data collection improves usefulness of information for
management purposes (e.g., assessment, model calibration, targeting, and
TMDL or WLA development).
• Basinwide monitoring programs support cumulative impact analyses rather
than single-source impact evaluations.
• Coordination ensures critical waterbody segments are monitored
appropriately.
• Burden of overseeing the monitoring program is reduced, because evaluating
one program is easier than numerous individual permittees.
• State/consortium monitoring programs are easier to modify than multiple
NPDES permittee conditions.
• Consortiums help summarize data and submit information in electronic
formats (e.g., computerized data bases).
5-36
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE ACTIVITY ELEMENTS
1A
L — DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
Statewide and Within-Basin Strategic
Planning Components
• Statewide fixed-station ambient network
• Rotating basin ambient network
• Intensive surveys by basin
• Compliance monitoring
Viewgraph 24: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Statewide and Within-Basin Strategic Planning Components
Strategic monitoring may reflect varying spatial and temporal scales to address specific
assessment needs. For example,
• A portion of monitoring resources may be used to support a statewide fixed-station
ambient network that is monitored monthly or quarterly to evaluate status or trends
continuously for physical and chemical parameters. Such a network may require
fewer fixed sites than under pre-BMA conditions, because resources are shifted to
other monitoring needs.
• A network of rotating basin sites that are sampled only 1 or 2 years out of the basin
cycle may be used for biological and habitat sampling (where one sample can be
representative of status for a longer period of time) as well as supplementing fixed-
station ambient physical and chemical data. Some new sites may be selected for
each cycle to address watershed-specific concerns and to measure the effectiveness
of controls. Some states are converting a portion of their fixed-station sites to
rotating sites such that more waters are monitored over time.
• An increased number of intensive surveys may be needed to support activities such
as problem identification, model calibration and validation, and TMDL
development.
5-37
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvrrY ELEMENTS
Compliance monitoring may remain independent of the basin management cycle or
may increase in a given year for specific watersheds where permittees are suspected
of contributing to non-achievement of standards.
Statistical design analysis can help determine how often sites need to be sampled to
provide reliable results, which may help in balancing fixed-site and rotating station
monitoring. Available resources will also place practical constraints on the amount of
monitoring that can be performed for specific purposes. Leveraging resources with other
stakeholders, therefore, can be very important to achieving a sufficient level of
monitoring. Exhibit 5-7 highlights strategic monitoring approaches for the states of
Washington and South Carolina.
5-38
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIv iTY ELEMENTS
Exhibit 5-7. Two States’ Approaches to Monitoring
Under a BMA
Washington: The Washington Department of Ecology has used a statewide BMA
to coordinate monitoring activities. “Core” fixed stations throughout the state are
sampled monthly throughout the 5-year cycle for basic physical and chemical
parameters; targeted watershed stations are sampled monthly for 1 year in the 5-
year cycle; biological samples (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton,
and fish) are collected mid-summer in Year 3; and lakes are sampled twice
annually, near the start and end of the growing season. Compliance monitoring
occurs in Year 2 or 3 in the cycle for a given watershed. Intensive surveys are
initiated in Year 2 and are completed in Year 3 or 4.
South Carolina: The South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control has
revised its monitoring program for the state’s BMA. The Bureau will continue its
statewide primary network of over 200 sites that are sampled year-round to
characterize water quality status and trends for a broad spectrum of rivers and
estuaries. The state also will continue to monitor a secondary network of stations
that were established for special concerns (e.g., upstream and downstream of
problem sources). Its secondary network, however, now includes watershed
monitoring sites that are sampled during 1 year of a 5-year cycle, with emphasis
on
• Waterbodies listed under CWA §303(d), §304(l), and §314
• NRCS watersheds with limited water quality data
• Known point and nonpoint source problem areas
• Waterbodies impacted by ground water
• Waterbodies needing point source wasteload allocations
Close coordination between central office, district office field staff, and the state’s
laboratory increased the number of analyses by approximately 50 percent
without any increase in the amount of program resources that were devoted to
monitoring under pre-BMA conditions. The bureau may not be able to maintain
its current monitoring pace, but expects some relief by converting more
secondary sites to the rotating basin schedule as the process is streamlined.
—s
5-39
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Aciivrr ELEMENTS
L
DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTI NU ED)
Strategic Monitoring Plans
• Help partners integrate monitoring activities
efficiently and effectively
• Document important components: monItoring
purposes; resources and capabilities;
parameters of concern; data coflection;
analysis, and management protocols; and
training needs
Viewgraph 25: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Strategic Monitoring Plans
Some states develop strategic monitoring plans for each basin, so that partners and
stakeholders have a clear picture of what to expect during each basin cycle iteration.
Monitoring plans can document several important components, including:
• Purposes for monitoring (i.e., related to basin goals and objectives and
corresponding assessment needs)
• An inventory of stakeholder monitoring resources and capabilities
• Parameters of concern and their basis (i.e., basin goals, historical basis, public
interest, and environmental indicators)
• Data collection plan, including
— Sampling assignments
— Sampling locations
— Timing and frequency of sampling
— Methods of monitoring
— Field sampling and handling protocols
5-40
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcrIvrrY ELEMENTS
• Laboratory analysis protocols (i.e., to ensure comparable methods)
• Data storage and transfer protocols
• Training (i.e., for agency personnel applying new techniques, or to support citizen
monitoring efforts)
• Methods for strategic plan update
Developing a generic monitoring plan outline during the BMA framework development
stage expedites actual plan development during the first management cycle iteration for
each basin. Also, partners may be able to address some protocol needs during this
stage, before developing specific monitoring plans.
5-41
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvnY ELEMENTS
LOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
Primary input through Secondary feedback from
formal planning process implementation process
Monitoring
Plan Update
Strategic monitoring plan update mechanisms
Viewgraph 26: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
ç ¼ Mechanisms for Strategic Monitoring Plan Update
p
Monitoring plans often need to be flexible to changing circumstances. Coordination
among lead monitoring agencies and groups maintains a stable, efficient, and effective
monitoring program. Two levels of coordination are common with regard to monitoring
plan update and should be considered by partners when establishing monitoring activity
protocols for the BMA:
Primary coordination involves formal planning to determine how monitoring
specifics will reflect statewide BMA priorities. Because of the dynamic nature of
BMA priorities, some states find it useful to refine long-term monitoring plans
annually (typically during the winter period prior to spring and summer sampling
periods when increased intensive surveys are likely). Primary coordination focuses
on major areas such as clarifying goals, refining agency and group roles, leveraging
resources, and reviewing proposed methods.
Secondary coordination incorporates feedback provided during day-to-day
implementation of monitoring plans and the interpretation of sampling results. Plan
details such as timing, location, and parameter coverage may need to be altered
“on-the-fly” based on important new findings.
Some states use public meetings to educate stakeholders about the strategic monitoring
planning process and solicit comment on monitoring plans specific to each basin. Basin
advisory groups representing a broad range of stakeholders can be formed to work
alongside technical planning teams.
5-42
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIv iTY ELEMENTS
IA
DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTINUED)
EPA: Distribute technical information, coordinate
federal agencies, and provide support and input
STATE: Lead process, procure resources, ensure
participation, inventory capabilities, help build
- consensus, and include results in framework
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Provide input
and identify monitoring capabilities
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 27: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Example Roles for Development
EPA: Provide technical transfer on the process and examples from other states; assist the
state in integrating other federal partners in the monitoring element development
process; provide funding; participate as a partner in the process.
State: Lead the development process for the strategic monitoring element; procure
resources to support development; inventory partner monitoring capabilities; facilitate
consensus on monitoring components and planning protocols; ensure that appropriate
partners participate in the development process; document results in framework
document.
Additional Partners: Participate as a stakeholder in the development process; identify
monitoring capabilities for use in BMA.
5-43
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvITY ELEMENTS
L’— DEVELOPING THE MONITORING ELEMENT
(CONTI NUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased time required for planning
• Improved access to quality-assured data
• Increased information management
requirements
Viewgraph 28: Developing the Monitoring Element (continued)
Impad on Program and Staff Fundions
Increased Time Required for Planning: Individual program staff will likely spend more
time collaborating with other monitoring stakeholders prior to sample collection to
clarify roles, eliminate redundancy, establish mutually acceptable QAfQC procedures,
and coordinate field logistics. For example, effective ambient data collection through
NPDES permittee monitoring requirements will necessitate development of an overall
strategy for a basin or sub-basin unit. Permitting staff may find themselves translating
monitoring strategies into permit conditions or helping establish discharger consortiums
that provide for coordinated permittee monitoring. Similarly, NPS project monitoring
plans may need to be revised to coincide with other basin monitoring objectives and
time frames, which could become more time consuming.
Improved Access to Quality-Assured Data: Program staff who assess monitoring data
will probably have greatly improved access to a broader range of quality-assured,
comparable monitoring information collected by numerous stakeholders.
Increased Information Management Requirements: Program staff outside the
monitoring program who rely on monitoring and assessment data will need to establish
procedures for relaying information needs to the monitoring program. For example,
TMDL and water quality model developers will need to provide input on the type of
data needed to support their activities.
5-44
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE Acrivrr ELEMENTS
Viewgraph 29: Preparing for Implementation
Much of the implementation component (Element 9) of a BMA will be defined during
the management strategy development and basin plan documentation phases of the
management cycle for each basin. Partners can prepare for implementation, however,
by identifying authorities, stakeholder resources, and implementation means that likely
will play significant roles. Such an inventory provides stakeholders with a toolbox for
reference when evaluating management options and making targeting decisions.
Examples of areas to inventory include:
• Regulatory Authorities (e.g., NPDES permitting, welihead protection, and local
ordinances)
• Non-Regulatory Support (e.g., pollution prevention and conservation planning)
• Outreach (e.g., agency programs and school programs)
• Funding Mechanisms (e.g., grants, loans, appropriations and donations)
Lr’ PREPARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Partners can prepare for
implementation by
identifying key
authorities, stake-
holder resources, and
implementation means
Ba’m Man m nt Cycle
5-45
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcTIvITY ELEMENTS
ARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
(CONTINUED)
EPk Provide inventory of authorities and
resources, technical assistance, and support
STATE: Lead process; procure resources; and compile
inventory of all authorities, resources, and mesas
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Identify key
implementation components and provide
inventory of authorities, resources, and mesas
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Viewgraph 30: Preparing for Implementation (continued)
Example Roles for Development
• EPA: Provide inventory of EPA authorities, resources, and means; provide technical
assistance in developing overall inventory; fund element development.
• State: Lead preparation process; procure resources to support development;
establish inventory of state authorities, resources, and means; compile inventories of
implementation capabilities of BMA partners.
• Additional Partners: Participate in identification of key implementation
components; provide inventory of individual authorities, resources, and means for
compilation; support development.
5-46
-------
MODULE 5
DEFINING CORE AcrIvrr ELEMENTS
PREPARING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
(CONTI NUED)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased number of management options
• Decreased time search for means
• Increased time coordinating implementation activities
• Decreased paperwork for resource allocation
• Decreased individual monitoring burden
• Increased outreach support
Viewgraph 31: Preparing for Implementation (continued)
Impact on Program and Staff Functions
• Increased number of management options: Having a toolbox of implementation
means will broaden the base of solutions for BMA partners.
• Decreased time searching for means: Having both a toolbox and a forum for
coordination should reduce time partners spend searching for means to achieve
goals.
• Increased time coordinating implementation activities: The flip-side of integrating
implementation efforts is that coordination overhead tends to increase for
participating programs.
• Decreased paperwork for resource allocation: Basin plans will provide
justification for authorizing expenditures on implementation activities, thereby
reducing the need for individual justifications for each action.
• Decreased individual monitoring burden: Some programs may see a reduction in
burden for measuring progress toward goals because they will have access to data
collected by partners that meets their needs.
• Increased outreach support: Stakeholder awareness of basin planning goals and
implementation strategies should increase, because multiple partners likely will
conduct outreach under the BMA.
5-47
-------
MODULE 6
-------
MAKING THE TRANSITION TO A
BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH
MODULE 6
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE T1 kNsrnoN TO A BMA
Modules 4 and 5 focused on recommendations for tailoring the nine common elements
of a BMA to the needs of partners seeking to integrate efforts within a specific state.
Collectively, the tailored elements form the basis for a new operating framework for
participants. Additional steps are recommended, however, to complete the framework
so that it can support efficient and effective operations.
Module 6 includes considerations and recommendations for making a smooth transition
to the new operating framework; it also provides instruction on how to capitalize on the
opportunities for increasing efficiency and effectiveness that a statewide approach
affords. The transition may require participating programs and agencies to refine
organizational structures and administrative operating procedures. Methods for
evaluating refinement needs are discussed, and examples of refinements are provided
for selected programs. Additionally, the module covers developing and implementing a
transition plan to move participants from existing operations to their newly defined
BMA.
OSE OF MODULE
To provide considerations and
recommendations for making a
smooth transition to a BMA
6-1
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Tlt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
This module should enable participants to
• Evaluate refinements to organizational structure to support BMA functions
• List types of operational procedures to evaluate for refinements that improve
efficiency and effectiveness
• Prepare and implement a transition plan to move from the development stage to the
operational stage of a BMA
NING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to
• Evaluate organizational refinements to
support BMA functions
• List types of operational procedures to
evaluate for refinement
• Prepare and implement a plan for
transition from development to operation
6-2
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Ti NsrnoN TO A BMA
UATING REFINEMENTS TO
ORGANIZATION
• Build on organizational entities defilied
during framework development to enhance
the iii 1irnent
integrated mana e’ment strategies
• cycle and
refine organizational roles to cover all
responsibilities
Viewgraph 3: Evaluating Refinements to Organization
Enhancing coordination and integration of multiple agencies, programs, and other
stakeholders in a BMA presents challenges not easily overcome through traditional
organizational structures. Basin management units and a basin cycle form an
incomplete coordination framework if organizational units are not established to put key
elements into operation. Individual programs and agencies generally are not
accustomed to committing to projects that extend beyond the scope of their own (often
narrowly defined) mandates. Additional mechanisms are often needed for programs and
agencies to function in an integrated manner.
Some organizational decisions may already have been made in establishing a capability
to develop management strategies (Module 5 discussed four types of organizational
entities: basin coordinators, basin teams, citizens’ advisory committees, and basin plan
approval boards). For example, partners already may have decided to use basin teams
and citizens’ advisory committees as the means for producing basin plans. Many details
of day-to-day operations that extend beyond basin plan development, however, likely
will need to be refined. Partners should evaluate organizational structure in light of all
activities necessary for the BMA. If roles and responsibilities for each step in the basin
cycle cannot readily be associated with one of the organizational entities, partners
should refine the organizational structure. In many cases, a basin coordinator may meet
the need for handling much of the day-to-day BMA administration.
6-3
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION TO A BMA
UATING REFINEMENTS TO OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURES
Review procedures in the following areas for
refinements that better support BMA functions:
• Staffing
• Planning
• Budgeting
• Directing
• Technical approaches
• Performance evaluation
• Information management
Viewgraph 4: Evaluating Refinements to Operational Procedures
Evaluating how operations should be refined for a BMA involves reviewing procedures
for staffing, planning, budgeting, directing, defining technical approaches, conducting
performance evaluations, and managing information flow. Many opportunities are
presented through this review. For example, partners can determine where
• Institutional impediments can be removed
• Economies of scale exist
• Multiple government mandates can be met through reduced effort
• Partners can pool resources or integrate efforts to complete a core activity more
efficiently.
Review of staffing procedures can coincide with evaluation of organizational structure.
The remaining areas for review (i.e., planning, budgeting, directing, technical,
performance evaluation, and information management) are discussed in the viewgraphs
that follow.
6-4
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANsrn0N TO A BMA
Because agency and program planning for core BMA activities is closely tied to the
basin management cycle, partners should synchronize many of their activities with the
cycle’s schedule. Synchronization involves aligning individual program work plan
schedules for core activities with the statewide basin management cycle schedule.
Numerous benefits evolve from synchronizing program work plans with the basin
management cycle, induding
• Providing focus: Activities are performed in defined geographic units over specified
time periods.
• Increasing consistency: Activities are performed simultaneously throughout a
basin, increasing the likelihood that decisions and actions will be consistent.
• Improving efficiency: Workloads are balanced from year-to-year and month-to-
month, data collection is consolidated by basin, public notices and hearings for
agency actions are consolidated by basin, water quality modeling efforts for TMDL
and WIA development are consolidated, and so on.
• Improving long-term planning capability: Synchronizing program plans with a
multi-year basin cycle typically improves an agency’s ability to plan activities
proactively.
• Increasing effectiveness: Increased focus, consistency, efficiency, and long-term
planning collectively promote program effectiveness.
NING PLANNING PROCEDURES
— —Syn€hronizing-work-pIanning -with4he————
..basin..management cycle
• Provides geographic focus
• P!omOt s cOnsistent decision-making
• Improves efficiency
• Improves Iong:term planning
• Increases effectiveness
—
I
6-5
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING rrn TRANSITION TO A BMA
Synchronization benefits most routine activities carried out throughout the state. Each
partner should refine its work plans where possible to take advantage of these benefits.
Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the process for synchronizing NPDES permit re-issuance with
basin schedules in Nebraska and Michigan.
6-6
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Tlt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
- 6-1. Synchronizing Permit Re-issuance
with a Basin Management Cycle
General Concept of Permit Synchronization
Permit synchronization involves setting permit expiration dates by geographic
location within a basin so that all permits in a specified sub-basin or watershed
are reviewed for re-issuance at the same time. The expiration date for a
watershed grouping of permits is strategically scheduled during the
implementation phase of the management cycle, after basin plans that include
TMDLs have already been adopted. The concept can be applied to any type
of permit, including permits for other media when coordination may
streamline the overall renewal process (e.g., issuing air and wastewater permits
for a given industry at the same time).
Example of NPDES Permit Synchronization
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued
by authorized states or EPA regions to dischargers of contaminated water.
NPDES permits cannot be issued for periods exceeding 5 years, and permitting
authorities must review renewal applications at the end of every permit cycle.
Many states have hundreds to thousands of permitted dischargers, so
synchronizing permit review and re-issuance with a basin management cycle
can help substantially by balancing work loads and providing geographic
focus for consistent, efficient, and effective permitting decisions.
Methods for synchronizing basin permit schedules are influenced by the
institutional arrangement for issuing permits. Programs that issue permits
through a single central office within a state are typically handled differently
from programs that issue permits through district offices. This example
therefore includes descriptions of permit synchronization in both Nebraska
(issues permits through central office) and Michigan (issues permits through
district offices).
Nebraska: The permitting program within Nebraska’s Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) first established a target of re-issuing eleven
permits per month to balance workload (i.e., total number of permits in the
state divided by total number of months in the basin cycle). Using spread-
sheets to assist in the analysis, DEQ grouped permits by sub-basin and basin.
Starting at the headwaters of each basin, eleven permits were assigned to a
group and to a specific month. The first group was scheduled for four months
after basin plan approval (to allow time for public notice). Each permit group
that followed was assigned to the next month. After initial set-up, the overall
schedule was fine-tuned to balance anticipated workloads based upon
6-7
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE T1 NsrnoN TO A BMA
Exhibit 6-1. Continued
knowledge of more complex permits and to ensure that sufficient time was
allotted between basin plan approval and scheduled permit re-issuance.
Michigan: The State of Michigan issues its NPDES permits through district
offices by hydrologic unit. A monthly target of 35 permits was established in
1988, which accommodated existing permit modification as well as new
permit applications. The state’s permit section developed and distributed a
series of tables and maps that indicate the permit re-issuance schedule by
basin and district over a five-year cycle. Under the Michigan system, the
number of permits issued annually across the state has been relatively
constant; likewise, each district processes a relatively constant number of
permits each year. This temporal and spatial uniformity of permit re-issuance
promotes both effective and efficient use of permitting resources (both staff
time and operation costs).
issued from Central Office
Issued from District Offices
Methods for establishing basin permit schedules will
depend on whether permits are issued through a single
central office or several regional offices.
6-8
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSiTION TO A BMA
NING BUDGETING PROCEDURES
Areas to Review
• MergngBMAadnii istration-wiTh.
government budget cycles.
• AHocatingfundsconsistent with targ ting
decision —-- -- —
• C óidinating grants.within BMK
• Maintaining fiscal accountability
Viewgraph 6: Refining Budgeting Procedures
BMA partners may choose to refine budgeting procedures to capitalize on the
opportunities provided by the new operating framework. With multiple agencies and
programs involved, budgeting for integrated efforts likely will be difficult without
procedural refinements. Example areas to review are
Merging BMA Cycle Administration with State and Federal Budget Cycles: Each
partner has a planning cycle for agency operations, which includes budget planning
and procurement requirements to receive appropriations, fees, grants, etc. Partners
may find benefit in clarifying budgets for operations under the BMA and developing
a strategy that considers timing of proposals, grant applications, appropriations, and
other key factors.
Allocating Funds Consistent with Targeting Decisions: Procedures forallocating
funds may need to be revised to operate the BMA efficiently and effectively. The
basin planning process will produce resource protection and restoration priorities
for targeting program funds based on environmental assessments that identify key
stressors and cost-effective management strategies. Often, states are restricted in
how they can target funds and activaies, particularly where elected representatives
set specific and restrictive funding conditions for each program. To implement a
BMA, states may therefore wish to pursue both short- and long-term strategies to
increase flexibility for directing funds to basin priorities. The recommended short-
term strategy involves analyzing funding guidelines and requirements to determine
the maximum amount of flexibility that can be applied immediately to allow basin
teams to target priority concerns. The long-term strategy is to work with funding
agencies to revise funding guidelines and requirements to better facilitate a BMA.
6-9
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TLw, srnoN TO A BMA
Exhibit 6-2 illustrates the relationship between funding sources and basin priorities
for a BMA centrally administered by a single agency. Each basin in the exhibit has
a list of actions required for addressing priority concerns. Challenges for the central
agency include determining how much funding to allocate to each basin and
documenting for outside funding sources how funds were used. The challenges
become even greater and more complex when multiple agency budgets are
involved.
Coordinating Grants with a BMA: Consideration must be given to the timing,
application, expenditure, reporting, and accounting requirements of state and
federal grants that provide support to existing water quality and other resource
protection programs. How can the BMA be structured to fulfill these existing
requirements more easily? How can existing requirements be changed to support
the BMA? Specific examples of issues to be considered in answering these questions
include
— Can grant proposals, allocations, and reports be scheduled to support the BMA
basin cycle?
— Can grant requests be formatted so that information from basin plan chapters on
problem identification, priority setting and targeting, management options, and
implementation can easily be used in the application process?
— How can grant reporting requirements for implementation progress,
accountability, and measures of success be made consistent with basin plan
format?
Maintaining Fiscal Accountability: Maintaining fiscal accountability is often the
rationale used by funding agencies for requiring program-specific budgets. The
BMA, however, offers new opportunities for efficient reporting on the use of funds
that could still comply with federal and state reporting mandates. For example,
Idaho’s Division of Environmental Quality emphasizes the use of basin plans as an
accountable entity for funding allocations, an approach having distinct advantages:
— A broad base of basin stakeholders participate in and support funding
decisions,
— Funding is more clearly tied to specific management objectives and measures
of environmental success, and
— Funding flexibility allows implementation of the most cost-effective approach to
achieve environmental objectives.
6-10
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TL1 . &NsrnoN TO A BMA
When multiple programs and agencies are involved, a method must be devised to
obtain sufficient resources from all programs to address priorities. From a practical
standpoint, this method must address two competing requirements:
The method must be flexible enough that programs and agencies maintain
authority over and accountability for their respective budgets.
— The method must ensure sufficient commitment of program and agency
resources such that the basin plan can be reliably implemented.
6-11
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSrnON TO A BMA
Exhibit 6-2. Targeting Funds to Priority Issues
Using a Consolidated Funding Process
$
Basin 1 Priorities
1. Habitat restoration in SB6*
2. Permit for wetlands project
3. Purchase of habitat in SB3
4. TMDL development in SB4
5. Public water use education
6. Water supply protection
regulation
7. NPS rngmt. plan for 5B2
N. Permit for Discharger X
$
I
r
State BMA Fund Pool
$
Basin 2 Priorities
1. Municipal stormwater plan
2. Purchase water rights
3. Permit for Discharger Y
4. Industrial pollution prevention
program
5 Fund W’VVTP upgrades in SB2
6. Assess flow diversion impacts
7. Support monitoring consortiums
N TMDL development in SB1
$
I
Basin 3
Water Quality
Management Team
Basin 3 Priorities
1. Permit for Discharger Z
2. NPS mgmt. plan for SB1
3. NPS mgmt. plan for SB2
4. NPS mgmt. plan for SB3
5. Basinwide permit for CAFOs
6. Outreach on fertilizer use
7. GW vulnerability study in
SB4
N. Habitat restoration in 5B2
SB stands for sub-basin
State Funding
Sources
Permit and Other
User Fees
Federal Grants:
§106, §201, §319,
OSDA, etc.
F
Basin 1
Water Quality
Management Team
Basin 2
Water Quality
Management Team
6-12
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TitANsrnoN TO A BMA
NING DIRECTING PROCEDURES
•.Translating basin priorities into
program work plan priorities
• Conducting adivities that occur
outside the BMA
Viewgraph 7: Refining Directing Procedures
A BMA can significantly benefit those charged with directing program efforts. The basin
cycle provides a schedule for activities, and management priorities are produced for
each basin in a state. Hence, program directors can focus more on defining specifics for
implementation. For example, the prioritization step produces a set of priority concerns,
each of which the partner must translate into specific program priorities. Procedures for
directing, therefore, can be evaluated for refinements that enhance a program director’s
ability to translate basin priorities into program work plan priorities.
Additionally, some programs will be required to conduct activities that are not
integrated with the BMA. For instance, agencies must respond to emergencies such as
spills and natural disasters and regulatory needs such as a new permit for a new
discharger. Procedures should be evaluated to ensure that these contingencies can be
handled and that the proper balance is maintained between work performed under the
BMA and work that must be handled outside of the BMA.
6-13
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Tlt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
NING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
• Technical procedures can be refined to better
support the BMA and increase individual
program efficiency and effectiveness
• Factors that may promote change include
new activity schedules, increased integration
of activities with other partners, and basin-
scale operations
Viewgraph 8: Refining Technical Procedures
Many partners may want to refine their technical procedures to better support the BMA
and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a BMA. Many factors can be
considered. For example, the basin activity schedule may differ from past work
planning schedules, and procedures may need to be revised to work within the new
schedule. Additionally, increased integration of activities with other partners may affect
technical decisions and approaches. Furthermore, the increased focus on basin and
watershed scale analyses may require application of different tools and methods,
particularly for those programs unaccustomed to coordinating efforts by hydrologically
defined units.
The degree of refinements likely will vary from program to program and from state to
state. A single solution that is best for every case probably does not exist. The next
three viewgraphs illustrate refinements that can be made to a state’s nonpoint source
program. The example is not meant to be all-inclusive; rather, it is intended to stimulate
thinking on how refinements can be made to technical programs and procedures to
achieve water restoration and protection goals more efficiently and effectively under a
BMA.
6-14
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TR srnoN TO A BMA
NING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTINUED)
Opportunities for NPS Programs under a BMA
• Basin assessment of NPS control needs
• NPS project selection based on degree of
environmental benefit
• NPS program outreach and project selection
synchronized with the basin management
cycle
Viewgraph 9: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Opportunities for Nonpoint Source Programs under a BMA
The BMA framework may facilitate nonpoint source (N PS) program implementation on a
watershed basis. Many states have an approved NPS management program that allows
them to receive federal funds appropriated for CWA §319 projects. Under these
programs, each state identifies NPS-impaired waters and associated causes and sources,
and implements best management practices (BMPs) to control the sources. Even though
the CWA encourages implementation of the NPS management program on a watershed-
by-watershed basis ( 31 9 [ b] [ 41), many states currently administer their programs on a
project-specific basis (including selecting projects based on proper grant application
submittal and readiness to proceed). The assessment, prioritization, strategy
development, and basin plan implementation elements of the BMA that are
systematically sequenced within the basin management cycle provide a ready-made
watershed management framework for NPS program integration.
Basin assessment and prioritization elements within a state’s BMA will result in a
ranking of NPS concerns that may help states make difficult choices in selecting projects
for cost-share grants where funding demands exceed the state’s supply of funds. In other
words, identifying projects having the greatest amount of environmental benefit for each
dollar spent may be easier under a BMA. Accordingly, states may need to bolster their
outreach to increase the demand for grants in priority areas.
6-15
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Tlt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
Basin assessments can also influence the type of project that may be most effective in
addressing the NPS-related concern. For instance, the assessment might indicate that
ecological restoration projects such as bank revegetation and stream channel
modification are needed before diversity and abundance of aquatic organisms can be
restored to acceptable levels. NPS project solicitation and selection procedures may
need to be adapted, therefore, to tie into the information bank created through basin
assessment.
The timing of activities in NPS programs also may need to be modified to be in sync
with the basin management cycle. Project identification and selection in a given basin
should be synchronized with management strategy development so that feasibility and
predicted effectiveness are evaluated in light of basin, or smaller watershed,
management goals. Project implementation should coincide with basin plan
implementation, and NPS project monitoring can be coordinated with other strategic
monitoring to collectively assess basin plan effectiveness.
6-16
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION TO A BMA
NING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTI NUED)
EPA: Distribute technical and public information,
provide support, and conduct outreach
STATE: Refine project selection and funding
procedures, synchronize program activities with
BMA cycle, and increase outreach in priority areas
ADDITIONAL PARTNERS: Support NPS basin
assessment and prioritization, assist outreach,
and plan efforts in sync with BMA cycle
EXAMPLE ROLES FOR NPS PROGRAMS
Viewgraph 10: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Example Roles for NPS Programs
EPA: Provide technology and information transfer on ways that the NPS program can be
integrated with the BMA, including examples from states with effective approaches;
provide outreach materials and participate in outreach activities to demonstrate EPA
support; negotiate interim EP,VState Work Program agreements that encourage transition
of CWA §319 programs to the BMA.
State: Review existing NPS program procedures and make refinements to operate on a
watershed basis; adapt §319, State Revolving Fund (SRF), and other funding mechanisms
to support NPS projects that coincide with basin management goals and priorities;
synchronize project selection, implementation, and monitoring with appropriate phases
of basin plan development and implementation; aggressively market NPS project
funding opportunities in priority areas to increase NPS control and ecological
restoration/protection activities.
Additional Partners: Assist the BMA process by creating means to input NPS-related
assessment information that can be integrated with prioritization methods; help establish
multi-stakeholder outreach methods by adding expertise and information document;
establish schedules for activities that are in sync with the state BMA cycle and NPS
Management Program activities schedule.
6-17
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSrnON TO A BMA
NING TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
(CONTI NU ED)
Impact on NPS Program and Staff Functions
• Increased time required for outreach
• More time spent on non- 319 grant and
loan projects
• Improved assessment of watershed-level
program effectiveness
Viewgraph 11: Refining Technical Procedures (continued)
Impact on NPS Program and Staff Functions
Increased Time Required for Outreach: NPS program staff can expect to spend more
time on outreach to stimulate voluntary NPS projects, especially in high-priority regions
of the basin where NPS stresses are significant. Outreach will be particularly important
where low-interest loans (e.g., through the SRF) are being used as a primary funding
mechanism for projects. The inability to use §319 funds for program management (i.e.,
program outreach) may be seen as an impediment.
More Time Spent on Non- 31 9 Grant/Loan Projects: Improved assessments through
the BMA will likely cause an increase in identified NPS control needs. Because the
demand for §319 funds already exceeds the supply in many states, NPS program staff
can expect to spend more time securing and distributing non-g31 9 grants and loans.
The SRF is one example of a funding source outside of the §31 9 program that could be
tapped for this purpose.
Improved Assessment of Watershed-Level Program Effectiveness: Although every §31 9
NPS project requires monitoring to evaluate control measure effectiveness, the wide
distribution of sites coupled with uncoordinated timing of monitoring under non-BMA
programs makes large-scale effectiveness evaluations difficult, if not impossible. If NPS
projects are funded and monitored on a basin basis, however, then project monitoring
can be coordinated with other monitoring efforts through strategic monitoring plans to
more readily evaluate effectiveness at the watershed and basin levels.
6-18
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSITION TO A BMA
NING PROCEDURES FOR MEASURING
SUCCESS
Recommendations include
• Programmatic indicators that track
development and implementation of BMA
and basin plans
• Environmental indicators that track progress
toward environmental objectives
Viewgraph 12: Refining Procedures for Measuring Success
Establishing procedures for measuring the success of BMA operations will probably
require substantial refinement to existing methods. Performance of BMA operations is
likely to be judged by stakeholders through both programmatic measures and
environmental indicators established in the basin plan. Although programmatic
indicators can help track interim management milestones and progress toward
implementing management strategies that are crucial to achieving environmental
objectives, using environmental indicators is preferred because they directly measure
achievement of environmental objectives. Environmental monitoring, however, may not
demonstrate improvements for long periods of time (e.g., in lakes or estuaries where
internal pollutant recycling temporarily masks improvements from reductions in overall
loading).
Programmatic Indicators
• Programmatic indicators or measures, where possible, should provide for relative
comparisons and are meaningful to evaluation of environmental objectives (e.g.,
percentage of waters comprehensively assessed and percentage of impaired or
threatened waters covered by TMDLs).
• Measures can track development and implementation of a BMA including
delineation of basins, implementation of a basin management cycle, and
synchronization of program activities with the management cycle (e.g., monitoring,
surface- and ground-water assessment, permitting, M ’S §319 project selection, and
SRF project selection). Measures should address whether partners are fulfilling
6-19
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE T1t NsITIoN TO A BMA
responsibilities and obligations, unforeseen impediments are delaying implementation,
and whether the functions of organizational entities (e.g., basin coordinators, basin
teams, advisory committees, and approval boards) are being carried out efficiently and
effectively.
Environmental Indicators
• Environmental indicators may reflect general aquatic ecosystem health or human
health criteria when the objective is overall assessment. They can also be used to
evaluate very specific criteria or management performance for addressing priority
concerns. Exhibit 6-3 includes example assessment endpoints and their associated
measurement endpoints that could be used as environmental indicators.
• Because environmental monitoring can be expensive, methods and frequency of
monitoring should reflect the estimated time for recovery when impaired waters are
involved.
I
Exhibit 6-3. Example Environmental Indicators
Assessment Endpoint
Habitat
Biota
Surface Water Quality
Ground Water Quality
Hydrology
Measurement Endpoint
Area of aquatic, sandbar, riparian, and wetlands habitat
Abundance and diversity of primary producers,
macro invertebrates, fish species, etc.
Physical: pH, temperature, DO, and turbidity
Chemical: Toxics and nutrients
B Ic logical: Bacteria and bioassessments
Metals, pesticides, nitrates, other toxics, and bacteria
Flow volume, velocity, water depth, groundwater level,
and seasonal variation
6-20
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANSrnON TO A BMA
NING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
PROCEDURES
Benefits of Integrate&Inforrn ’on Management
• Promotes data consistency and aggregation
• Easier access to multi-stakeholder information
• Improved informationqUalit5’
• increased management consistency
•
Viewgraph 13: Refining Information Management Procedures
Information management procedures are essential for BMA success. Integrated efforts
require efficient and effective means for sharing, analyzing, and communicating
information.
Integrated information management systems can be built around several options,
including
• Aggregation of related information for data sharing (e.g., waterbody monitoring and
assessment results and information on permitted facilities)
• Interface with federal data bases to ease uploading and downloading burdens (e.g.,
STORET and Permit Compliance System)
• GIS interface to support data layer maintenance, analysis, and presentation
• Scheduling of multi-stakeholder events such as monitoring, inspections, mailings,
and permit issuance
A system that integrates information from participating BMA agencies and stakeholders
offers the following benefits:
• Promotes consistency in data collection and reporting procedures
• Easier access to data maintained by other stakeholders
• Improved information quality, which increases the reliability of assessments and
improves the basis for management decisions
6-21
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TRANsrn0N TO A BMA
• Increased overall management consistency through access to numerous sources of
data housed in a common information base
• Enhanced day-to-day planning capabilities among stakeholders
In addition to enhancement of systems, partners also should evaluate procedural
refinements for system operation, including user training and format standards for
inputting information.
6-22
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Ti NsrnoN TO A BMA
ELOPING A TRANSITION PLAN
Components for a smooth transition:.
• . A schedule for UMA implementation
•. Interim work plans: .•
• Acffons to remove remaiiiiñg impediments
• Methods for framework update
+ Outreach plans
Viewgraph 14: Developing a Transition Plan
Partners should consider developing a transition plan to guide themselves in moving
from the BMA development stage into the operational stage. As is the case for any
major change, the transition will proceed more smoothly if transition steps are well
planned. Potential transition plan components include:
• A schedule for BMA implementation: Although a schedule exists for the basin
management cycle, some activities may need to be phased in over time (Exhibit 6-
4). The transition plan should clearly communicate planned implementation
schedules to all partners.
• Interim work plans: States often phase in the basin management cycle according to
the sequence of basins agreed to in the cycle. Hence, BMA operations will not be
fully implemented in all basins for several years. Partners should clarify how they
intend to balance work between BMA efforts and non-covered basins during the
transition period.
• Adions to remove remaining impediments: Any remaining impediments to BMA
implementation or efficient operations should be identified, along with actions that
will be taken to eliminate or mitigate them.
• Methods for framework update: The BMA framework will likely undergo
refinement and enhancement as it evolves. Partners should clearly understand how
to effect necessary changes so that BMA implementation and operations can
proceed as smoothly as possible.
• Outreach plans: Partners should outline how stakeholders throughout the state will
be informed of the BMA and the opportunities it offers for integrated management.
6-23
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TI ANsmoN TO A BMA
Exhibit 6-4. Phased BMA Implementation
Implementation of the BMA framework is likely to occur in phases, because in-
formation, time, expertise, and financial resources may be constrained. Rather
than postponing BMA implementation until all elements are fully developed to
address all tong-term goals, states and their BMA partners are encouraged to
begin implementation in spite of perceived resource deficiencies. Initial
implementation efforts create a foundation to anchor more sophisticated BMA
elements as they evolve over time.
Phase ____ Phase ____
Near-Term Long-Term
Objectives Objectives
The level of BMA implementation is
a function of available stakeholder
resources andcapabitities.
During the first iteration of the BMA basin management cycle, in particular,
participants will depend largely on currently available information and expertise,
along with whatever additional information can be collected given time and
financial constraints. The comprehensiveness of basin assessments, management
plans, and coordinated implementation efforts may not be at the desired level for
some stakeholders. This initial effort therefore forms the baseline for directing
future efforts in subsequent iterations of the cycle for each basin. With each
iteration of the cycle, information gaps and resource needs will be brought to the
surface for review. Stakeholders can then determine the amount of resources that
can be directed to address these needs. Resulting basin plans can be used to
document remaining needs, can raise the awareness of legislators for
appropriation needs, and can serve as the rationale in applications for special
grants. In the interim, however, the water resources benefit from whatever
projects can be implemented using existing available resources.
6-24
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE Tlt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
Additionally, the complexities of some priority concerns will require more time than is
available under one cycle iteration. For example, targeting NPS projects in certain
priority areas where little previous information exists may require advanced assessment
methods that participants are not prepared to apply during that cycle iteration.
Emphasis might be placed in setting up the framework for data collection and analysis
to be conducted during the next iteration.
Some priority concerns, on the other hand, may already be adequately assessed and
already partially addressed through ongoing efforts that began prior to the BMA.
Stakeholders may achieve longer-term goals earlier in these basins than in others.
Stakeholders should therefore realize that implementation of the BMA will be more
advanced in some basins than in others and that this situation may be desirable with
respect to workload and program resources.
6-25
-------
MODULE 6
MAKING THE TIt&NsrnoN TO A BMA
EMENTING A BMA
Effective outreach using the BMA
framework document and transition
plan will improve chances for
immediate success. Then
JUST DO JT!
Viewgraph 15: Implementing a BMA
BMA partners should proceed as planned (JUST DO IT!). The transition plan and the
framework document provide written guidance for implementation. Although
preparation of these documents may require considerable time and effort from BMA
partners, their existence ensures a common point of reference for all stakeholders.
Additionally, having to document the framework and plan for transition encourages
participants to organize their thoughts carefully and comprehensively. Hence, BMA
partners should be able to use these two documents as complementary road maps for
implementation.
From the outset of implementation (and prior to if possible), outreach should be
performed to increase stakeholder awareness of the BMA and transition plan. Partners
should be careful not to overlook their own staff and constituencies with regard to
outreach. Some will have played a lesser role than others in framework development
and will need to be fully educated with regard to the BMA and its implications on them.
Effective outreach will increase understanding and improve chances for immediate
success.
6-26
-------
MODULE 7
-------
PUrrING A BASIN MANAGEMENT
APPROACH INTO PRACTICE
MODULE 7
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA iwro PRACTICE
This module provides participants with a hypothetical example of integrated operations
under a BMA within a fictitious basin—Big River Basin. Additionally, the example
highlights the involvement for a local community, Waterville, to demonstrate how local
efforts can be integrated with state and federal activities under a BMA. Through the
example, participants should gain an understanding of their potential role and an
appreciation for roles that other partners and stakeholders are likely to play as a BMA is
put into practice.
PURPOSE OF MODULE
To review hypothetical example
of integrated operations under a
BMA to gain better understanding
of individual and partner roles
7-1
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA iwro PRACTICE
This module should enable participants to better understand
• Potential roles for local, state, and federal stakeholders operating under a BMA
• The typical flow of integrated operations under a BMA
• Considerations for BMA partners operating simultaneously in multiple basins
• The need for balancing BMA operations with outside needs
• Potential impacts of BMA operations on programs commonly involved in water
resource management
NING OBJECTIVES
This module should enable participants to better
understand
• Potential roles for stakeholders operating under a BMA
• Typical flow of integrated operations under a BMA
• Simultaneous operation in multiple basins
• Balancing BMA operations with outside needs
• Potential impacts of BMA operations on programs
commonly involved in water resource management
7-2
-------
H
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA iwro PRACTICE
Viewgraph 3: Basin Management Cycle for Big River Basin
Big River Basin is located in the State of Mind, which recently completed development
of a BMA framework. The Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)—the state agency
with primary authority for surface, ground, and drinking water programs—led the BMA
development effort with support from U.S. EPA. Additional key partners in the BMA
include state and federal agricultural, forestry, and wildlife agencies, and the state’s
Division of Community Assistance, which represents local interests at the state level.
The state’s BMA operates on a 5-year cycle and includes provisions for a technical basin
team, local watershed management teams, a citizens’ advisory committee, and
stakeholder meetings throughout the basin cycle. A series of steps involving these
provisions was defined for basin planning during the BMA framework development
process (Exhibit 7—1). Big River basin is third in the state’s sequence of basins and is at
the beginning of the basin cycle’s first iteration.
The example also focuses on the involvement of Waterville, a burgeoning city of
300,000 located within Big River basin along Falls Creek. City management staff,
including planning and utility officials, actively participated in the development of a
basin planning framework for the state, particularly in determining how local
governments would interact with state and federal agencies throughout the management
cycle.
BASIN MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR Buc RIVER BASIN
____ _____________ • Third in the State’s
_____________ sequence of basins
___ 1
____ _____________ • First iterafion of 5-year
basin management cycle
C
7-3
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA Irsrro PRACTICE
Exhibit 7-1. Big River Basin Management Cycle
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
ACTIVITY STEP
( STAKEHOIDER
INVOLVEMENT
STAKEHOLDER
( VEMENT4 .
5.
I STAKEHOLDER I
IN VOL VEMEN VEMENT 6.
8.
“ STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN INFORMATION
3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE INFORMATION
____
J
MONTHS 1-3
MONTHS 3-18
MONTHS 19-24
MONTHS 25-2 7
MONTHS 28-36
MONTHS 37-45
MONTHS 46-48
MONTHS 49-54
( MONTHS 55-60
I AND BEYOND
TIMING
1. CONDUCT INITIAL OUTREACH AND ORGANIZE BASIN
AND WATERSHED TEAMS/COMMIITEES
PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
L
PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS OF PRIORITY IssuEs
DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
PREPARE/UPDATE DRAFT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
1
FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
J r
____________________ I
IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
10. REPEAT CYCLE
7-4
-------
MODULE 7
PUrLING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
Lc’ STEP 1. OUTREACH AND ORGANIZATION
Key Activities
• Public meeting to explain BMA and oppor-
tunities for Big River Basin stakeholders
• Formation of citizen advisory committee
and technical planning teams
• Orientation of committee and team
members to their roles and responsibilities
Viewgraph 4: Step 1. Outreach and Organization
Time Frame: Months 1-3 in 60-month cycle
A meeting is convened in Waterville’s City Hall to discuss the BMA process with Big
River Basin stakeholders. DEQ begins the meeting with a general description of the
statewide BMA and anticipated benefits, drawing from the state’s BMA framework
document. BMA partners from agricultural, forestry, wildlife, and community assistance
agencies also present their roles in the statewide framework. The meeting emphasizes
how integrated basin management will proceed and highlights opportunities for local
stakeholder involvement, including the citizens’ advisory committee and stakeholder
meetings. The following groups are assembled to facilitate basin and local planning:
• A citizens’ advisory committee to review findings of the technical basin planning
team and provide input regarding basin management goals, problems, priorities,
strategies, and implementation
• A basin team to coordinate large-scale planning and implementation
• Watershed teams to coordinate local planning and implementation
All of these entities include public outreach as a part of their functions.
Nominations are solicited by DEQ for the citizens’ advisory committee for Big River
Basin. Membership slots are filled from a cross-section of basin stakeholders, including
representatives from industry, agriculture, forestry, commerce, environmental groups,
and several local governments. The Waterville City Manager is appointed to chair the
committee. The first committee meeting involves orientation of new members on their
roles and committee protocols, along with review of initial management goals and
objectives for Big River Basin.
7-5
-------
MODULE 7
PU1TING A BMA ircro PRACTICE
A technical basin team and local watershed teams for several sub-basins are also
organized. Most of the basin team is comprised of experts from state and federal
agencies, and the state university located in Waterville. Waterville is part of the Falls
Creek Watershed Team, along with two other municipalities and the county. The
watershed team includes staff from Waterville’s planning, engineering, stormwater,
utilities, parks and recreation, and sanitation programs. Chairpersons from each local
watershed team will meet with the basin team at key points in the basin cycle.
7-6
-------
MODULE 7
PurriNG A BMA i ro PRACTICE
STEP 2. COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN
I N FORMATION
Key Activities
• Identifying information needs, with initial
emphasis on basin characterization and
strategic monitoring plans
• Applying protocols for information
management and transfer
• Developing and implementing strategic
monitoring plan
Viewgraph 5: Step 2. Collect Relevant Basin Information
Time Frame: Months 3-18
Basin information is collected by the basin management team. A list of information
needs is prepared using a checklist from the framework document, input from the
stakeholders meeting and advisory committee, and best professional judgment of basin
team members. Local watershed teams are to provide input to the basin management
team in accordance with the standard protocols developed for the BMA. Waterville
provides information on its population growth, water supply demands, wastewater
flows, and watershed protection measures (such as land-use zoning, stormwater
controls, stream buffer requirements, erosion controls, and provisions for wetlands
protection and pollution prevention). Providing information on general basin
characteristics (e.g., geology, hydrology, climate, and biology), designated uses, and
sources of stressors is the basin team’s responsibility.
A strategic monitoring plan is developed and implemented with both basin and
watershed components based upon preliminary review of available information.
Technical planning team members and the advisory committee help identify
information gaps and assessment needs to be addressed by the plan. State and federal
agencies integrate their specialized expertise to collect ambient data throughout the
basin for analyzing physical, chemical, and biological components of water quality
trends and evaluating the effectiveness of existing management strategies. They also
take the lead in special intensive surveys to identify and quantify risk. Primary contacts
for the basin monitoring team work with local monitoring consortiums to complement
one another’s efforts. Waterville is a member of the Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring
7-7
-------
MODULE 7
PUrliNG A BMA iwro PRACTICE
Consortium, which conducts a wide variety of monitoring, including stormwater,
wastewater, drinking water, and ambient water quality sampling. Local citizen
volunteer monitoring groups also participate in the consortium. Sampling protocols are
established for consistency and comparability, and reporting format is standardized for
local, state, and federal monitoring results.
Each participating agency is designated as data custodian for selected basin information
and is entrusted to follow agreed-upon quality assurance procedures in entering and
storing data. Partners generally maintain data for their own program activities. For
example, DEQ maintains information on surface, ground, and drinking water. The
forestry, agricultural, and wildlife agencies all maintain descriptions of relevant
activities, land use data, and ongoing water resource restoration and protection
measures. Basin stakeholders can upload and download information to and from a
centralized data management system maintained by DEQ. The basin team compiles an
inventory of available information and distributes it to members and interested
sta kehol ders.
7-8
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA IN’F PRACTICE
STEP 3. ANALYZE AND EVALUATE
I N FORMATION
Key Activities
• Partners perform assessments
• Basin team compiles assessment information into
preliminary report for review and evaluation
• Partners finalize assessment documents; DEQ uses
information to fulfill §303(d) listing and §305(b)
reporting requirements for Big River Basin
Viewgraph 6: Step 3. Analyze and Evaluate Information
Time Frame: Months 19-24
Water quality status assessments based on data collected in Step 2 are made by DEQ to
fulfill the state’s §305(b) reporting requirements for Big River Basin. Results include lists
of impaired waters and habitat, along with preliminary identification of causes and
sources of impairment. State and federal wildlife resource agencies and a local citizens’
group, Friends of Big River, also identify waters (including wetlands) within Big River
Basin that need special protection. The Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring Consortium
produces a report assessing stormwater runoff impacts below Waterville. The state’s
geological survey and groundwater program cooperatively produce a groundwater
vulnerability study for the basin. A cooperative project among state and federal
agricultural agencies produces an analysis of agriculture-related water resource
concerns. Similarly, the state Forestry Commission identifies water resource concerns
related to forestry activities within the basin. The State University provides assessments
for a wide range of issues using funding from both private and public sources. USGS
and DEQ combine their GIS expertise to perform an overlay analysis summarizing basin
assessment results and corresponding relationships to physical features such as geology
and land use/land cover.
The basin team compiles all assessment information into a preliminary report that will
also be used to fulfill several subsections of the Big River Basin Plan (e.g., Chapter 1—
Basin Characteristics, Chapter 2—Existing Status of Water Resources, and Chapter 3—
Causes and Sources of Resource Degradation). DEQ uses the compiled assessment
information to prepare a preliminary update of its CWA §303(d) list for waters in need of
7-9
-------
MODULE 7
PUrnNG A BMA INTO PRACTICE
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Partners and stakeholders discuss the
preliminary assessment results at a series of team and advisory committee meetings, and
the compiled assessment report and §303(d) list update are refined accordingly.
7-10
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES
Key Activities
• The basin team screens input for compliance
with minimum data requirements for ranking for
management strategy development
• Stakeholders review preliminary rankings
• Basin team finalizes rankings to develop manage-
ment strategies and additional monitoring
Viewgraph 7: Step 4. Prioritize Concerns and Issues
Time Frame: Months 25-27
The Big River Basin Team uses assessment information to develop a numerical index for
priority ranking using the prioritization system developed for the BMA framework.
Because the BMA prioritization protocols include minimum assessment data
requirements some waterbodies are not ranked for management strategy development.
The preliminary ranked list is presented to the Big River Citizens’ Advisory Committee
for review and comment. Example issues on Waterville’s ranked list include:
• NPS nutrient loading to the Waterville drinking water reservoir, resulting in
accelerated rates of eutrophication and algal production;
• Physical habitat degradation of the Falls Creek riparian corridor within Waterville
and extending into surrounding rural areas (farm and range lands), resulting in loss
of fisheries;
• Stormwater pollution and increases in peak runoff that exceed flood stage due to
increased development;
• Failing septic systems in adjacent unincorporated areas in conjunction with severe
limits on remaining capacity available at existing wastewater treatment plant;
• NPDES permit changes for Waterville to account for major new industrial source.
(Permit will require re-evaluation of local limits for pretreatment program and
pollution prevention program.)
7-11
-------
MODULE 7
PU1TING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
Input is solicited from additional basin stakeholders at a public meeting held at
Waterville City Hall. The citizens’ advisory committee recommends revising the
ranking slightly to address specific management goals for the Big River Basin that are not
taken into account by the initial ranking method. Additional priorities for monitoring to
fill identified management gaps are also discussed. The basin team adopts many of the
committee’s recommendations and documents the final rankings in a chapter for the Big
River Basin Management Plan.
7-12
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
[
STEP 5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS
OF PRI0RIn ’ ISSUES
Key Activities
• Partners integrate efforts to perform detailed
assessments
• Basin team compiles and evaluates assessments
• Recommendations are made for loading
reductions or restrictions to meet restoration
and protection goals
Viewgraph 8: Step 5. Perform Detailed Assessments of Priority Issues
Time Frame: Months 28-36
The Big River Basin team determines that resources and information are sufficient to
quantify thirty-five of the sixty issues prioritized for management. Watershed areas
lacking sufficient information for detailed assessment are targeted for future sampling in
the strategic monitoring plan. DEQ leads a process to establish TMDLs for impaired and
threatened waters within the basin where data are sufficient to quantify pollutant
loading levels required for restoration or protection. The Waterville Reservoir is
assessed for a nutrient TMDL that will reduce the threat of nuisance algal blooms. A
combination of field-calibrated and desktop models is used for the analyses based on
assessment objectives, model attributes, and resource constraints. The results will rank
nutrient loadings to the reservoir such that the information on loadings can be
effectively used in the next step to develop cost effective control strategies. NRCS leads
a cooperative effort with other agricultural agencies to identify significant contaminant
loading areas and quantify needs for agricultural best management practices (BMPs).
EPA leads a risk assessment process for the Falls Creek watershed. The Falls Creek
Watershed Team assists by quantifying primary source loads for priority parameters of
concern identified from the stormwater study. The state university is awarded a grant to
estimate nutrient load reductions needed to mitigate the eutrophication problem
threatening Waterville’s water supply reservoir. The state and U.S. Geological Surveys
help assess and model hydrologic and geohydrologic conditions for many of the partner
studies.
7-13
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA IWFO PRACTICE
The Big River Basin team gathers and evaluates all detailed assessments for use in the
management strategy development step. Results include magnitudes of problems,
detailed information on causes and sources of impairment, inventories of areas in need
of special protection, habitat restoration needs, and estimates of loading reductions and
maximum allowable loadings (TMDL..s) to meet restoration and protection goals.
7-14
-------
MODULE 7
PurrING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Key Activities
• Basin team and advisory committee finalize
specific goals and objectives for 35
targeted priority concerns
• Management options are identified and
evaluated using multi-objective criteria
• Basin and watershed teams select preferred
management strategies and establish
implementation means
Viewgraph 9: Step 6. Develop Management Strategies
Time Frame: Months 3 7-45
The basin team presents to the Big River Citizens’ Advisory Committee and local
watershed teams proposed TMDLs, contaminant load reductions, and habitat restoration
needs corresponding to the thirty-five priority basin concerns. The committee helps
establish specific management goals based on the team’s recommendations. Focus
groups are formed to identify and evaluate management options that will meet basin
goals. Combinations of point and nonpoint source controls, pollution prevention, and
restoration options are evaluated based on the degree of environmental benefit,
feasibility, cost effectiveness, and willingness of stakeholders to participate where
voluntary measures are needed. Experts from the basin and watershed teams provide
technical input. The Falls Creek Watershed Team proposes a six-pronged strategy for
meeting goals in its part of the basin:
• Watershed master planning,
• General development restrictions,
• Environmental site-planning,
• Sediment and erosion control during construction,
• Urban stormwater BMPs, and
• A community stream restoration program.
7-15
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA i ro PRACTICE
NRCS leads development of several watershed BMP implementation plans where
farmers are willing to participate collectively. State and federal agencies propose target
watersheds for their grants, cost-share funds, and State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans as
partial means to implementing selected actions.
7-16
-------
MODULE 7
PUrlING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
STEP 7. PREPARE DRAFT BASIN AND
WATERSHED PLANS
Key Activities
• Basin and wätershed teams compile information
and draft chapters from previoul iteps into draft
basin and watershed managementplans
•‘Refinements are made to’ensure that basinand’
watershed plans compkment one another
• implernentationstrategies are dearly out!ined
Viewgraph 10: Step 7. Prepare Draft Basin and Watershed Plans
Time Frame: Months 46-48
The Big River Basin team and the local watershed teams compile the information and
draft chapters from earlier steps into draft basin and watershed management plans. The
Falls Creek watershed team refines its watershed protection strategy slightly based on
additional insight obtained during the later stages of Step 6. Implementation strategies
outlining methods and means for achieving basin and watershed management goals are
clearly documented.
7-17
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA IN FO PRACTICE
LJ STEP 8. FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN
AND WATERSHED PLANS
Key Activities
• Plans are distributed for stakeholder
review and comment
• Public meetings are held to obtain input
• Plans are officially authorized for
implementation
Viewgraph 11: Step 8. Finalize and Distribute Basin and Watershed Plans
Time Frame: Months 49-54
Basin and watershed teams release their plans for review by stakeholders. The Falls
Creek Watershed Team conducts a public meeting in the Waterville City Hall jointly
with the Big River Basin Team to obtain input on both the basin and watershed plans.
Because many stakeholders participated in plan development, revisions are minimal.
Officials from the Falls Creek Watershed Team formally sign the plan to authorize its
implementation. The Chairman of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee and a
representative from each key agency with responsibility for implementing the basin plan
provide authorizing signatures. EPA accepts the basin plan for meeting water program
§305(b) reporting, §303(d) listing, and continuing planning process requirements.
7-18
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA INTO P1t cncE
STEP 9. IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED
PLANS
Key Activities
• Basin and watershed teams conduct outreach
to raise stakeholder awareness of
implementation plans and participation needs
• Partners and stakeholders mobilize funds and
personnel to implement strategies
• Monitoring plans are updated to include
environmental indicators for evaluating
effectiveness of strategies
Viewgraph 12: Step 9. Implement Basin and Watershed Plans
Time Frame: Months 55-60 and beyond
Initial activities involve outreach and mobilization of funds and personnel. The Falls
Creek Watershed Team holds a meeting in Waterville to explain to stakeholders how
strategies will be implemented, particularly where voluntary efforts will be needed to
achieve basin and watershed goals. DEQ issues Waterville a new NPDES permit with
effluent limits and monitoring requirements consistent with the basin plan; limits remain
similar to previous permits, except for nutrients and cadmium. Plans call for reductions
in both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients, and Waterville’s revised NPDES
nutrient limits reflect TMDLs established for nitrogen and phosphorus. Nonpoint source
load allocations under the TMDLs are addressed through a combination of strategies,
including BMPs made possible through state cost-share funds and CWA 31 9 grants.
EPA assists in locating and procuring additional funds for watershed protection
activities.
Waterville revises its ordinances to reflect its six-pronged watershed protection strategy.
Significant effort is directed toward implementing a riparian reforestation program to
restore buffer zones around many streams impacted by rapid urban development.
Community groups volunteer to plant seedlings provided by the state forestry agency.
Additionally, Waterville embarks on a five-year program to upgrade its urban
stormwater BMPs to imitate the natural hydrology that existed in Falls Creek prior to
urban development. The state issues Waterville a low-interest SRF loan to support the
project. DEQ works with Waterville to implement additional actions to support well-
head protection and drinking water source protection strategies.
7-19
-------
MODULE 7
PUTFING A BMA INT PRACTICE
The Falls Creek Watershed Monitoring Consortium updates its strategic monitoring plan
to evaluate progress toward management strategy goals. Similarly, the Big River Basin
team updates its plan including key environmental indicators for the thirty-five priority
watershed zones.
7-20
-------
MODULE 7
PurrING A BMA i ro PRACTICE
10. REPEAT THE CYCLE
Participants will continually build on the
foundation developed through the first
basin management cycle iteration
Viewgraph 13: Step 10. Repeat the Cycle
Waterville—along with its local, state, and federal partners—is ready to begin the next
iteration of the basin cycle for the Big River Basin. Participants build on the foundation
developed through the first iteration. For example, resource constraints prevented
partners from addressing several issues during the first iteration. These issues and new
concerns that emerge during the subsequent iteration are entered into the numerical
prioritization index and ranked for mitigation. Thus, water resource management
progresses—systematically building on previous efforts and bringing new concerns to
light—in a process that is designed to continually improve management of Big River
Basin’s waters.
7-21
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA i ro Pi AcTIcE
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Recommendations fór. partnèrs operating
simultaneous yin multiple basins:
• Basin cyde Thould balanceworkloads across
all basins \
.. ‘__ ..?
• Participation methodsior basin t a n should
ensure continuity throughout ‘ de, with
access to specific technicaI ipport as needed
Viewgraph 14: Additional Considerations
Simultaneous Operation in Multiple Basins
The example focused on integrating efforts in one basin—Big River Basin. For some
partners, however, operations will be ongoing in more than one basin. Agencies
operating statewide likely will have ongoing operations in every basin. Hence,
sequencing activities and balancing workloads and program resource expenditures will
be very important for these partners. The design of the basin sequence and activity
schedule components of the basin management cycle (Element 3) should reflect these
considerations. Furthermore, some members’ level of participation in basin team
activities likely will vary during the course of the management cycle. Team members
focusing on strategic monitoring activities, for example, may be very active during the
first two years of a 5-year cycle for one basin and less active during the latter three
years, when they will be very active in monitoring activities for other basins supporting
other teams.
Some statewide agencies choose to have one coordinator on the basin team, who then
relays information and directives to various technical staff within his or her agency to
support team needs. This approach provides consistency and continuity by ensuring
that basin team composition remains constant through the cycle, and that at least one
agency staff person is aware of all basin team actions and findings throughout the entire
cycle.
7-22
-------
MODULE 7
PUTTiNG A BMA i ro PRACTICE
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTINUED)
Recommendations for balancing BMA operations with
outside needs:
• Set aside resources to handle emergency operations,
regulatory needs (e.g., permits for new sources), and
general technical support needs
• Track projects and activities and periodically evaluate
balance between BMA and outside operations
• Avoid the trap of reactive management; respond in
accordance with cycle and priorities
Viewgraph 15: Additional Considerations (continued)
Operations Occurring Outside Basin Cycle
Some management activities of partners will need to occur outside of the basin
sequence and activity schedule. For example, agencies will need to respond to
emergencies such as toxic/hazardous material spills and natural disasters like floods and
hurricanes. Some partners will need to respond to regulatory needs such as new
discharge or water withdrawal permits for new sources. Additionally, some programs
may be charged with providing technical support on a daily basis regardless of basin
location. Agencies should set aside resources to handle such operations and
contingencies, without falling into the trap of reactive management and overallocating
resources to non-priority activities.
Project management procedures can include periodic comparisons of active projects to
basin priority listings to ensure proper balance. Some unforeseen requests will not
constitute emergencies and should therefore be appropriately scheduled within the BMA
cycle where they can be properly evaluated for relative priority.
7-23
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
L 1 —’ ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTINUED)
Summarizing management plan goals and
corresponding stakeholder roles increases
stakeholder awareness and reduces
confusion regarding integrated strategies
Viewgraph 16: Additional Considerations (continued)
Communicating Basin Plan Goals and Stakeholder Roles
Integrated management strategies may seem complex and confusing to some
stakeholders when many stakeholders are coordinating numerous activities to achieve
multiple goals under the plan. Overviews of strategy goals and roles for stakeholders
can help increase stakeholder awareness and reduce confusion.
Exhibit 7—2 displays a useful matrix approach for communicating management goals
and stakeholder roles in a watershed plan for the Anacostia River in Maryland.
Overviews should be included in basin plans and in outreach materials and
presentations.
7-24
-------
Exhibit 7-2. Goals and Objectives for Stakeholders
in the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Project
(.1
x
u
c
ri
U
DJ
U)
GOAL 1—STORMWATEL Dramatically reduce pollutant loads delivered to the tidal
estuary to improve water quality conditions by the turn of the century
Sewage Overflow Controls: Sharply reduce the volume of combined sewage overflow
into the Anacostia from the District of Columbia’s combined sewer system and the
aging suburban sanitary sewer network in the tributaries
I
I
I
I
if
I
Urban Stormwater Retroflts: Sharply reduce urban stormwater pollutant loadings
from existing development in the watershed through the implementation of
stormwater retrofit ponds, marsh, and filter systems
I
I
I
I
I
uP
I
I
P
1
1
1
Urban BMPs for New Development: Prevent increases in urban stormwater pollutant
loadings from new development in the upland watershed through the use of stringent
stormwater quality and sediment control regulations at new development sites
I
I
I
I
I
v
I
Control of Trash and Debris: Prevent trash and floatable debris from getting to the
tidal river and remove the floatable debris that is currently trapped in the estuary
,,
,,
,
,
,,,
/ I
GoAL 2—STREAMS: Protect and restore the ecological integrity of urban Anacostia
streams to enhance aquatic diversity and provide for a quality urban fishery
Urban Stream Restoration: Comprehensively apply both stomniwater management and
instream restoration techniques to improve the habitat quality of severely degraded
urban streams (Streambank stabilization methods include bioengineering, rip-rap, and
instream restoration methods such as log check dams, boulder placement, and
deflectors.)
I
I
I
V’
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
/
Urban Stream Protection: Apply land-use controls and stringent urban stormwater
and sediment control practices at new development sites to protect receiving streams
from the impacts of urbanization
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
GOAL 3—FISH PAS5ACE Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical
limits
.
Removal of Fish Barriers: Strategically remove or modify fish barriers to expand the
available spawning range for both anadromous and resident native fish
,
,
,,
,
,,
—
Improve Habitat Quality: Improve the quality of spawning habitat in the lower
Anacostia through the installation of instream habitat improvement structures
,
.,
,
,
(11
-------
‘ xhibit 7-2. Continued
U
U I
( j
m
.
ft
UI
z
COAL 4—WETLAND& Increase the natural filtering capaaty of the watershed by sharply
increasing the acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands
Wetlands Protection: Prevent further net loss of wetlands in the watershed as a result
of new development and other activities
,,
,,
,
7
Urban Wetland Restoration: Restore the ecological function of e dsting degraded
wetland areas
,,
,
U,
/
,
Urban Wetland Creation: Create several hundred acres of new wetlands throughout
the basin to partially replace the natural filtering capacity lost over time
I,,
I , ,
•
V
U ’
/
/
GOAL 5—FORESTS: Expand forest cover throughout the watershed and create a
contiguous comdor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers
Forest Protection: Reduce the loss of forest cover associated with new development
and other activities by local implementation of the 1991 Maryland Forest Conservation
Act
UP
/
UP
UP
/
U’
Watershed Reforestation: Take full advantage of existing local, state, federal and
private resources to extensively reforest suitable sites throughout the basin
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
U’
1
1
#
Riparlan Reforestation Reforest ten linear miles of riparian areas along the Anacostia
over the next three years as a first step in creating an unbroken forest corridor from
the tidal river to the uppermost headwater sfreams
UP
/
UP
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
UP
COAL 6—STEWARDSHIP Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river
and increase volunteer participation in watershed restoration activities
Watershed Outreach and Education: Raise public awareness about the problems of the
Anacostia River and restoration effoits; ask for sustained citizen commitment; educate
the public, especially children, about the ecology of the river system and the role of
the public in reduo.ng urban pollution
/
U ,,
,,
U,,
I ”
Restoration Stewardship: Encourage the development of an Anacostia stream
constituency and grass-roots network of watershed residents to participate in a variety
of ways: practicing good citizenship, joining environmental activist groups, adopting
stream segments, and participating in small-scale habitat improvement projects
,,
.
U’
=
UP
=
.
/ /
I
/ /
UP
0\
-------
MODULE 7
PIJTrING A BMA iwro PRACTICE
Key to Stakeholders Listed in Exhibit 7 2*
COE Corps of Engineers (Baltimore District)
COG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
DC-DCRA District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
DC-DPW District of Columbia Department of Public Works
DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ICPRB Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
MC-DEP Montgomery County Department of Environmental Programs
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MNCPPC-MC Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission -
Montgomery County
MNCPPC-PG Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission - Prince
George’s County
NPS National Park Service
PG-DER Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Regulation
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WASUA Water and Sewer Utility Administration
WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
* From Anacostia Restoration Team. 1991. A Commitment to Restore Our Home River.
7-27
-------
MODULE 7
PUrriNG A BMA m o PRAC11CE
L —’ ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTINUED)
Example Impacts on Program Operations
• Permit Writers: Greater emphasis on permits
with most impact; permit decisions consistent
with basin plan provisions
• NPS Staff: §319 project selection based on basin
priorities; monitoring project effectiveness
• Monitoring Staff: Information gaps filled;
effectiveness measured; phased TMDL studies
conducted
Viewgraph 17: Additional Considerations (continued)
Example Impacts on Program Operations
The Big River Basin example included several example roles for a broad range of local,
state, and federal partners operating under a BMA. The roles were listed in the context
of basin cycle steps, largely representing overall agency functions. Broad state and EPA
regional water programs, however, often involve numerous water resource management
components. Examples of how the implementation of a BMA might affect the
management of these components include:
• Permit Writers: Greater emphasis will be placed on permits documented in the
basin plan as having the greatest environmental impact; NPDES permits, for
example, should contain effluent limitations reflecting wasteload allocations (WLAs)
established in TMDLs that are documented in the basin plan; WLAs should reflect
any decisions on pollutant trading loading capacity banking negotiated during plan
development, although special conditions may need to be included in permits for
administrative purposes; permit conditions may also include ambient monitoring
requirements to support continued environmental assessments; basin plans will
help permit writers identify potential problem areas for discharges and provide a
sound basis for permit denials where loading capacity would be exceeded or where
subsequent degradation would violate antidegradation policies.
• NPS Staff: Basin planning priorities will translate into NPS program priorities; §319
project funds should be allocated on the basis of environmental benefit. Project
effectiveness will need to be monitored and evaluated.
7-28
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA i ro PRACTICE
§106 Moi rin Staff: Fixed-station ambient monitoring wiU continue, along with
site-specific specialty monitoring. Strategic monitoring plans should be updated to
reflect basin plan findings and recommendations (e.g., to fill assessment information
ps for priority areas, establish performance measures, and develop and
implement TMDLs).
7-29
-------
MODULE 7
PUrrING A BMA INTO PRACTICE
‘ ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTINUED)
Example Impacts on Program Operations
(Continued)
• Wedands Staff: Better basis for §404 permit
reviews and conservation planning
• SRF Program: Basin priorities translate into
funding priorities
• Groundwater Staff: Basin plans influence
permit decisions, protection measures, and
monitoring design
Viewgraph 18: Additional Considerations (continued)
Example Impads on Program Operations (continued)
Wetlands Staff: Basin plans will provide a better basis for evaluating wetland
management issues such as §404 permit reviews. Basin plans may help
conservation planning by indicating critical biological hot spots for wetlands
protection or areas in need of restoration.
• SRF Program: Basin planning priorities should be translated into SRF program
priorities for funding eligible activities.
• Groundwater Staff: Basin plans may influence decisions on groundwater use
permits, drinking water and well-head protection measures, and groundwater
monitoring design.
7-30
-------
MODULE 8
-------
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BASIN
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
MODULE 8
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
The purpose of this module is to provide comprehensive summaries of BMAs in selected
states that will help workshop participants understand how individual BMA components
fit together, and how the states developed and implemented their approaches. Each state
summary includes a description of the initiating agency and its structure, a list of
participating programs, outstanding features of the BMA, BMA development and
implementation milestones, current BMA elements, and future building blocks.
PURPOSE OF MODULE
To provide summaries of selected states’
BMAS to help workshop participants
understand how individual BMA
components fit together, and how these
states developed and implemented their
approaches
8-1
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
This module enables workshop participants to
• Capture a “big-picture” view of entire BMA frameworks for selected states
• Learn who initiated BMA development in these states, along with the range of
participants
• Compare similarities and differences among BMA development and implementation
milestones
• Compare current BMA elements among the states to note variations in emphasis
and how elements are tailored for specific circumstances in each state
• Identify outstanding features of each BMA
• Understand future building blocks in each state
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This module will enable workshop participants to
• Capture a hbig.pictureu view of BMAs for selected states
• Learn who initiated BMA development in these states,
along with the range of participants
• Compare similarities and differences in states’ BMA
development and implementation milestones
• Compare current states’ BMA elements to note variations
in emphasis and tailoring for specific circumstances
• Identify the outstanding features of each BMA
• Understand future building blocks in each state
8-2
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Initiating Agency and Strudure
Delaware’s BMA was initiated in 1992 by the Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC), whose programs are operated centrally from its
headquarters in Dover.
Participating Programs
Division of Soil and Water
• Nonpoint Sources
• Conservation Districts (agricultural extension)
• Coastal Zone Management
• Channel (Drainage) Construction and Maintenance
• Beach Protection
• Navigational Maintenance (Dredging)
Division of Fish and Wildlife
• Conservation
• Fisheries Research
• Consumptive Species Management
• Non-Consumptive Species Management
• Stream Restoration
• Fishing Regulations
• Interstate Management Plans
• Surveys
DELAWARE
Initiating Agency: Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control
Participating Programs: All state resource
management agencies
Viewgraph 3: Delaware
8-3
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
• Access(Fishing)
• Acquisition (Conservation Lands)
Division of Parks and Recreation
• Natural Heritage Program
• Land Preservation Open Space
• Resource-based Recreational Programs
• Natural Areas Protection
• Recreation - Public Interpretation
• SCORP - National Park Service
Division of Air and Hazardous Waste
• Superfund
• Underground Storage Tanks
• Multi-Media Permitting
• Pollution Prevention
• RCRA Corrective Action
• Air Toxics
• Solid Waste
• Enforcement
Division of Water Resources
• NPDES Permits: Major, Minor, General, and Stormwater
• Wetlands Permitting
• Standards
• Underground Discharges
• Estuaries
• Citizen Monitoring
• Septic Systems/Wells
• Toxics
• Clean Lakes
• Ground Water
• Water Supply
• Fish Kills
• Watershed Assistance: Technical Services (TMDLs) and Monitoring Plans
Management and Operations
• Geographic Information System
• Public Education and Information
• Development Advisory Service (Staff Training)
County Planning and Zoning Authorities
• NewCastle County
• Kent
• Sussex
8-4
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
The DNREC basin approach incorporates all resource management agencies in
Delaware, which allows for the development of comprehensive resource protection
strategies. A primary goal for Delaware is to mitigate physical habitat problems
attributable to agricultural drainage ditches that have been in place since pre-
Revolutionary times.
‘ DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
Outstanding Features
• Comprehensive resource protection
strategies
• Emphasis on restoring physical habitat
Outstanding Features
8-5
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
‘ 1992 1993
1994
1995
d
1992
1994
DNREC staff
P,lot project
consider a WPA
for Nanticoke
for Delaware
River Basin
•_____________
1993
Establishment
of work groups
1995
Completion
of framework
document
Viewgraph 5: Delaware (continued)
BMA Milestones
1992 Aug
1992 Sep
1993 Jan
1993 Summer
Division of Water Resources staff discuss the need for comprehensive
management approaches to address habitat degradation.
DNREC staff from all Divisions are invited to a series of meetings to
consider adopting a WPA for Delaware. Workshop participants evaluate
potential WF’A objectives, opportunities, and concerns and reach near-
consensus support for proceeding with development of a basin approach
for Delaware.
DNREC conducts a BMA Development Workshop to continue defining
various elements of the basin approach for Delaware. Roles and
responsibilities for individual programs are discussed, and a definition of
resource protection is developed that allows cross-division/agency
participation. The following work groups are formed to address issues
not resolved at the workshop: Implementation, Coordination, and
Institutional Barriers; Management Units, Data Management, and
Monitoring; Public Outreach and Education; and Briefing Package for
Department Secretary (because DNREC staff have not yet received the
mandate to proceed).
Changes in top management at DNREC delay development of the
whole-basin approach as incoming senior managers become familiar
with the initiative and provide input to its future direction.
WARE
(CONTINUED)
BMA Milestones
8-6
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
1993 Fall Work groups established in January 1993 distribute recommendations
on their assigned topics to all BMA Development Workshop
participants.
1994 Apr The Delaware Basin Management Workshop begins with an open
meeting to reassess or confirm earlier decisions on the basin approach.
Following the open meeting, the work group convenes to prepare a
briefing for Secretary Tulou and Division Managers on the updated
basin approach. Secretary Tulou and Division Managers approve a
whole-basin management pilot project and the development of a
framework document for statewide implementation.
1994 Jul The Nanticoke River Basin is selected for the whole-basin management
pilot analysis. Work group representatives plan specific activities for
each step in the basin cycle. The pilot analysis addresses questions on
roles, methods, products, and costs for each division for each phase of
the cycle. The purpose is to provide senior managers with insight into
workload planning and resource allocation issues associated with the
basin approach.
1995 Jan DNREC produces for the Division Secretary and EPA Region 3 a
management plan for completion and implementation of the BMA.
The plan is also the basis of a Section 1 04(b)(3) grant application to
Region 3, which would fund a basin coordinator to facilitate the
activities of participating agencies and divisions.
1995 Jul DNREC will begin phased implementation of the basin approach.
1995 Aug The basin coordinator and a contractor will complete a public release
edition of the framework document.
8-7
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
DELAWARE (CONTINUED)
:. 9ow has Delaware tailored
the npne commo BMA
elements for its approach?
Viewgraph 6: Delaware (continued)
Current BMA Elements
Basin Management Units: Delaware delineates six basin management units, four of
which are defined using hydrological boundaries of major drainage basins in the state.
The Delaware Bay Unit and Atlantic Ocean Unit are added to address special resource
management issues for these areas. Although technically these management units are
not drainage basins, the geographic areas within them have common ecological
characteristics, stressors, and resource management issues and solutions. Additionally,
the Delaware Bay Unit provides a useful interface between the Delaware BMA and the
Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program and Susquehana River Management Commission.
Ecoregional overlays continue to be an important component of resource status and
trend analysis.
Basin Management Cycle: The Delaware BMA has eight components: Planning,
Preliminary Assessment, Intensive Basin Monitoring, Comprehensive Analysis,
Management Options Evaluation, Resource Protection Strategy, Public Participation,
and Implementation. Repeating a series of steps defined for each component constitutes
Delaware’s basin cycle; a fixed length of time for each program to complete each step of
the process, however, has not been calculated. DNREC is currently conducting a
workload planning assessment to determine whether developing an average cycle
length across all basins is practical; estimates range between 5 and 7 years. One
potential solution is to get a fixed cycle length and allow phased implementation of
basin planning components during future cycle iterations.
8-8
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Stakeholder Involvement: DNREC’s goal is to provide citizens with a meaningful role in
basin management, without creating an undue burden on other stakeholders. The
Outreach and Education Review Group developed a communication strategy to
promote public awareness and involvement that identifies two different audiences,
macro groups and micro groups. Macro groups are involved in the overall whole-basin
planning process and have an opportunity to be involved in individual watershed
planning. Micro groups are involved in planning for their own watersheds and have an
opportunity to be involved in the overall whole-basin planning process. This strategy
offers a series of communication approaches, ranging from personal communication to
the use of mass media. Approaches are tailored for each audience and phase of the
basin planning process. The communication strategy also offers practical suggestions
for promoting the support of and convening stakeholders.
Strategic Monitoring: DNREC is completing a data needs survey of participating
programs and agencies as background for a strategic monitoring plan. As part of this
assessment, participating programs identify complementary data collection and
management objectives. This assessment is enabling the strategic monitoring plan to
identify opportunities for collaboration in gathering environmental data. The plan
includes the following sections: basin planning, special studies, statewide resource
status and trends, compliance, and enforcement. The Water Resources Division has the
lead in developing and implementing a strategic monitoring plan for the state, with other
DNREC divisions playing an important role.
Basin Assessment: The BMA has a broad array of assessment objectives for basin plans
because of the numerous core agency stakeholders. DNREC recognizes that existing
environmental information is not being used to its fullest extent, especially in setting
priorities and targeting resources. Although BMA assessment is broadly based on a
weight-of-evidence approach that includes traditional endpoints, such as numeric and
narrative standards, it also includes development trends (e.g., county planning and
zoning authorities), measures of physical habitat integrity, and other factors critical to
ecosystem integrity.
Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources: The Delaware BMA uses a two-step
priority setting and targeting protocol. Because the Delaware BMA directly involves
multiple resource protection and management agencies, this protocol calls for
establishing joint and independent priorities for basin team members. A multi-program
review group is currently developing criteria for problem determination. The draft
framework document recognizes that basin team members may have conflicting or
nonintersecting objectives. For example, a county planning authority may want higher-
density zoning in an area where Parks and Recreation has a natural heritage site.
Criteria for problem determination include procedures that (1) attempt to achieve
consensus; (2) if consensus is not possible, serve as the basis for a negotiated solution;
and (3) in the worst-case scenario, establish a means to proceed in the absence of an
agreement.
8-9
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Capability for Developing Management Strategies: Delaware’s BMA development
process focuses on improving the capability for divisions to work together. The close
proximity of most state resource programs facilitates coordination. The BMA provides a
coordination framework for programs having independent legislative mandates to
cooperate to achieve complementary resource protection goals (e.g., restoring an
estuary that requires the contributions of all divisions to different aspects of the
restoration effort). Basin teams provide the forum for program collaboration on solutions
to targeted environmental problems. County planning and zoning authorities have also
expressed an interest in participating on basin teams; their participation would enable
consideration of land-use issues in the basin planning process. The ability to develop
comprehensive resource protection strategies that are supported by local stakeholders is
a primary goal of the BMA.
Basin Management Plans: DNREC is responsible for writing and producing the basin
management plans, which serve as a reference point to stakeholders for the basin
planning process. Basin plans are formal program plans for DNREC; the level of
authority for other participating agencies is determined for each basin through program
agreements. Basin plans serve both as a stewardship document for the general public
and as a means to fulfill several legislative and program reporting obligations. When
appropriate, basin plans contain technical analyses associated with TMDLs, standards
reviews, and other CWA requirements.
Basin Plan Implementation Component: The basin management plans contain a
chapter for area-specific implementation activities, such as documentation for an estuary
restoration project. This implementation plan includes information on the site to be
restored, specific parameters of concern, management actions, funding sources, timing
and sequence of activities, responsible parties, and other relevant project information.
Phased TMDLs are also described in this section. The timing and magnitude of planned
management actions are presented in a manner easily understood by the general public.
8-10
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
4WARE (CONTINUED)
Future Building Blocks
Improve data management and GIS
capabilities to
• Provide infornation to all stakeholders
on environmental stressors, priorities,
and managenient activities-
• Analyie overlays of seve:ral sources of
environmental information
P1 P WI1( lt I] iii iii’ R i ’
Future Building Blocks
DNREC is improving its data management system and GIS capabilities to provide all
stakeholders within basins information on environmental stressors, priorities, and
management activities. The improved system includes the capability to analyze
overlays of several different sources of environmental information (e.g., species
distribution from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, land-use trends from County Planning
and Zoning, and nonpoint source loading from Soil and Water Resources). Overlays
enhance appreciation of complementary objectives and discussions regarding basin
planning goals.
8-11
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
I Ill
Initiating Agency and Strudure
Idaho’s BMA was initiated by the Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) within the
Department of Health and Welfare. IDEQ’s central office in Boise provides technical
assistance and statewide guidance on water quality standards and planning. The six
regional offices have substantial responsibility and autonomy for implementing the
programs listed below. Regional boundaries generally correspond to major river basins
within the state.
Participating Programs
IDEQ
• Nonpoint Source Management Program
• Antidegradation Program
• Nonpoint Source Coordinated Monitoring Program
• State Agricultural Water Quality Program
• Forestry Program
• Mining Program
• Clean Lakes ProgramtWetlands
• Ground Water Program
• Drinking WatertWellhead Protection
• 319 NPSProgram
• 106 Water Quality Planning
• Nutrient Management
L
IDAHO
• Initiating Agency: Idaho Division of Environ-
mental Quality (IDEQ)
• Participating Programs: Currently, IDEQ, EPA,
and citizen groups; IDEQ envisions partnerships
with all resource agencies operating in Idaho
8-12
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
• 303 (d) TMDL
• Land Application
• Storm Water Run-off
• 401 Certification
• Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal
EPA Region 10
• NPDES
Citizens’ Voluntary Monitoring Program
The April 1994 draft of Idaho’s watershed framework document, which identifies several
potential partners in the watershed approach, was distributed to several additional state
and federal agencies for review and comment. IDEQ is currently conducting outreach
to encourage these programs and agencies to participate, including Idaho Department of
Water Resources, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, National Park Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, county and city governments, and tribal governments.
8-13
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
IDEQ’s partnership with EPA Region 10 serves as a model for state and regional
interaction. Although the specific nature of this partnership is still being defined, NPDES
permitting staff from Region 10 clearly will be members of watershed teams.
IDEQ provisions for citizen participation through the Citizens’ Watershed Task Forces
and Watershed Advisory Groups provide the public an uncommon opportunity and
level of responsibility for developing and implementing watershed plans.
Idaho’s planning process provides flexibility for alternating the lead agency for each
watershed. The lead agency can be selected based on several factors, including, but not
limited to, citizen advisory committee recommendation, priority resource management
issues, and responsibility for primary resource management mandate (e.g., USDA Forest
Service in National Forests).
IDEQ proposes using watershed plans to satisfy multiple local, state, and federal
resource management and reporting requirements. Examples of resource management
issues that could be addressed in watershed plans include conservation plans for
endangered species (Endangered Species Act) and water quality standards review and
update.
(CONTINUED)
Outstanding Features
• Partnership with EPA Region 10
• Provisions for public participation
• Selection of lead ag ncy based on specific
needs within each watershed
• Watershed plans to satisfy reporting
requirements
Outstanding Features
8-14
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
d
1990.
1993 1
1994
1992
1990.1992 [ 1994
IDEQ learns benefits External review of
of WPA through
experience in 4
A_______________
watershed frame.
work document
1993
watershed projects
Production of work
plan for developing
statewide watershed
approach
Viewgraph 10: Idaho (continued)
BMA Milestones
1990-1992
1993 Jul
1993 Aug
IDEQ is involved in four major targeted projects in the Henry’s Fork
River, Mid-Snake River (Nutrient Management Plan), Coeur d’ Alene
Lake, and the South Fork of the Salmon River watersheds. Through
these projects, IDEQ realizes the benefits of program collaboration in
achieving specific environmental objectives within a defined
management area. Citizen participation is also a key component.
The Monitoring and Technical Support Bureau (MTSB) within
Community Programs at IDEQ is designated as the lead for a work group
on the watershed approach initiative. The group includes
representatives from other programs in IDEQ headquarters and its
regional offices. The work group compiles and distributes information
regarding the watershed approach to others within IDEQ.
The work group develops a Watershed Work Plan describing the
preliminary rationale and recommendation for a watershed approach.
The Watershed Work Plan outlines a process to continue developing
and refining a watershed approach for Idaho. Stakeholders are afforded
the opportunity to provide input on the approach throughout
development of the framework document. The work plan includes a
series of action items that clearly identify a product, start date,
completion date, and responsible staff for each task.
(CONTINUED)
BMA Milestones
8-15
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
The work plan also describes a nested approach to watershed
delineation and identifies basic components of Idaho’s watershed
approach.
1993 Sep IDEQ and EPA Region 10 meet to discuss Idaho’s proposed watershed
approach and the development of an Idaho/Region 10 Memorandum of
Understanding for Development of a Watershed Protection Approach.
The memorandum includes a mission statement, goals, approach
outline, preliminary description of organizational roles, and timeline.
1993 Oct MTSB produces an internal draft of the watershed approach framework
document for review by IDEQ regional offices.
1993 Nov A 2-day workshop with staff from IDEQ headquarters and regional
offices is held in Boise to identify major issues and practical steps to be
taken for transition to a watershed approach. IDEQ begins to address
several issues during the workshop including roles and responsibilities,
participating agencies, basin delineation, and implementation.
1993 Dec The draft framework document is updated based on results of the
watershed workshop, and a description of participating agencies,
preliminary roles and responsibilities, basin and watershed delineations,
and an implementation schedule are incorporated. MTSB’s primary
concerns regarding this draft are defining the document’s target
audience, determining whether the document will communicate
effectively to this audience, and assessing whether the document
provides sufficient guidance on developing watershed plans. A
brochure based on information contained in this draft is produced for
public outreach and education regarding the approach.
1994 Jan The second internal draft is sent to IDEQ regional offices, other IDEQ
programs, EPA Region 10, and outside consultants for review and
comment.
1994 Apr IDEQ incorporates comments from IDEQ and EPA Region 10 and
produces the first external review draft of the framework document. This
draft is sent to a broad range of individuals and organizations for review
and comment.
8-16
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAS
1994 Jun Based on comments received from the first external review, IDEQ
substantially revises document format and content. This second external
draft is sent to all agencies and programs identified in the framework
document. This draft serves as the basis for discussions with programs
and agencies regarding their participation, roles, and responsibilities in
IDEQ’s watershed approach.
1994 Aug IDEQ produces a draft watershed companion guide for IDEQ regional
offices that provides information on participating programs, contacts,
and other logistical information for their use in establishing watershed
groups.
1994 Oct IDEQ receives numerous comments from local, state, and federal
agencies, ranging from minor editorial changes to concerns about
fundamental issues. An October draft of the framework document is
produced that incorporates editorial changes and some minor textual
changes. More significant issues are being addressed as part of IDEQ’s
outreach to partners.
IDEQ awaits the outcome of two events before proceeding with another
draft of the framework document and implementation of the watershed
approach: (1) the passage of statewide watershed legislation that would
combine the Nutrient Management Act and the state Antidegradation
Policy [ including provisions for integrating identification of stream
segments of concern and conducting joint basin area meetings] and (2) a
joint agency project to determine which local, state, and federal require-
ments can be fulfilled through watershed plans and what information
would need to be included in watershed plans to fulfill selected
requirements.
1995 Mar The statewide watershed legislation passes; all references to the control
of NPS pollution, however, are deleted from the final act. The project to
define how watershed plans can fulfill requirements is still pending, but
expected to start in the near future. Several lawsuits related to the TMDL
process introduce considerable uncertainty and concern among
stakeholders on how court decisions may impact the watershed
approach. Many stakeholders, however, believe that the watershed
approach is the solution to disputed TMDL issues.
8-17
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
IDAHO (CONTINUED)
How has Idaho tailored
the nine common DMA
eIements for its approach?
Viewgraph ii: Idaho (continued)
Current BMA Elements
Basin Management Units: Idaho has six major basins that are delineated in accordance
with Title 1, Chapter 16 of Rules and Regulations for Nutrient Management.
Delineations account for the importance of both surface waters and aquifers.
Boundaries of the six Idaho regional offices coincide with the six delineated basins. A
nesting approach establishes a three-tiered spatial scale: basins, watersheds, and sub-
watersheds and enables BMA activities to be targeted to any scale. Basin maps identify
hydrological unit boundaries for surface waters and aquifers, and basin plans address
the interaction between ground water and surface water.
Basin Management Cycle: The IDEQ watershed approach uses an iterative basin
management cycle for a prescribed series of steps to develop and implement a
watershed plan. Currently, the length of basin cycles can vary from basin to basin.
Although flexible cycle length allows IDEQ to accommodate a broad range of
stakeholder activities and priorities, the impact of a variable length cycle on resource
and work load planning is not known.
Stakeholder Involvement: Idaho has defined two levels of citizens’ advisory committees
that have significant input to each step of the watershed approach. The Citizens’
Watershed Task Force assists the IDEQ regional Administrator in prioritizing watersheds
within each basin unit for study and management plan development. The Watershed
Advisory Groups are responsible for assisting with the development and implementation
8-18
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
of a watershed p’an. A remaining issue for the Idaho watershed approach is
coordination and integration of other natural resource management agencies and
programs on the watershed teams.
Strategic Monitoring: Strategic monitoring is used in each phase of the watershed
planning process. Targeted monitoring provides the basis for identifying and prioritizing
water quality concerns, focusing on attainability and current status. Idaho currently
monitors biological, chemical, and physical parameters. Substantial data collection
activities precede the preparation of watershed plans, with focus on priority areas within
each watershed or sub-watershed to fill gaps in existing data. Monitoring is tailored to
support the decision-making process. Once management strategies are implemented,
environmental indicators are monitored to document project or plan success, water
quality trends, and beneficial uses. Enforcement and compliance monitoring are based
on objectives in watershed plans, but notification and scheduling for these activities is
independent of the plan. IDEQ has a strong and expanding volunteer monitoring
program that is being incorporated into the watershed approach.
Basin Assessment: IDEQ is continuing to develop and implement the Data Management
Plan for facilitating data exchange. This system can receive and send data statewide and
includes GIS (ARC-Info and ARC-View), statistical processing modules, environmental
modeling and other analysis components. The goal is to provide access for all IDEQ
staff to the central data system and all its functions and, to the extent possible, access for
members of the watershed advisory group and agency planning team. The watershed
data management system provides simple and understandable resource-based
information for use in planning watershed activities.
Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources: The Idaho watershed approach relies
more than any other state on citizen advisors for assigning priorities and targeting
resources. The Idaho framework document clearly states that its mission is to fulfill
CWA requirements, and funding limitations necessitate choosing which problems to
address first or which outstanding resource areas to preserve. Such obligations and
limitations sometimes conflict with the priorities assessed by citizens’ groups. IDEQ and
other participating programs and agencies make recommendations and provide the
advisory groups with technical information on sources, cause, and severity of impacts.
At the same time, citizen advisory groups have a substantial decision-making role in this
process. Previous experience in Idaho suggests that when citizens are integral to the
watershed planning process, they are effective advocates in seeking additional project
resources from the legislature.
8-19
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Capability for Developing Management Strategies: The Idaho watershed approach
promotes using agency watershed teams to develop comprehensive solutions for
multiple stressors. Teams provide outreach to public citizens and local, state, and
federal agencies. The framework document provides examples of over thirty activities
carried out by potential members of the agency watershed teams and identifies many
organizations that do not traditionally have roles in developing and implementing
resource protection strategies, such as public schools. The framework document also
describes several administrative mechanisms for consolidating agency activities.
Basin (Watershed) Management Plans: A Watershed Advisory Group begins planning
for individual watersheds in the sequence determined by the Citizen Watershed Task
Force. IDEQ provides an example outline for a watershed plan, but Watershed Advisory
Groups have final authority for selecting the format and content for individual plans. All
participating agencies contribute to the watershed plan, but the lead agency or program
for a watershed assumes responsibility for producing the watershed plan. Each
watershed plan includes a signature block for participating agencies to demonstrate
agency support, but the level of authority and subsequent nature of commitment by
agencies vary from one watershed to the next based on program agreements signed by
participating agencies. Each plan should include specific environmental measures of
success for each watershed. IDEQ and Region 10 are sponsoring a project to develop
guidelines for satisfying specific program and legislative requirements.
Basin Plan Implementation: Idaho watershed plans contain a detailed section on
implementation, including an implementation schedule that considers phasing in
complex activities over several iterations of the basin cycle. The schedule provides
information on specific monitoring activities, evaluation of plan effectiveness, plan
revision, and enforceable actions in the event that elements of the management plan are
not implemented. Plans describe an enforcement approach, where regulatory authority
exists. Where possible, specific individuals or agency contacts are identified to respond
to inquiries on activities listed in the plan.
8-20
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
(CONTINUED)
Future Building Blocks
• Guidance to watershed teams on
satisfying program and agency:
requirements through basin plans
• Data management and t IS network
Viewgraph 12: Idaho (continued)
Future Building Blocks
IDEQ is currently conducting outreach to potential agency partners for the basin
approach. The framework document will be revised to reflect the contributions of
several partners. EPA Region 10 and IDEQ are evaluating requirements for a broad
range of participating programs and agencies to ensure that watershed plans fulfill their
needs. Findings will be summarized to provide guidance to watershed teams for
satisfying those requirements.
IDEQ is developing a data management and GIS network between the central office and
regional offices. Completion of this network will facilitate environmental assessments,
production of watershed plans, and clear presentation of sources and impacts of
pollutants and other stressors to citizen advisory committees. Access to clear, relevant
environmental data will facilitate priority setting, targeting, and management strategy
development.
8-21
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
NEBRASKA
• Initiating Agency: Department of
Environmental Quality
• Participating Programs: Core water
quality programs initially; envision
broader coalition for future
Viewgraph 13: Nebraska
Initiating Agency and Structure
The Nebraska BMA was initiated in 1992 by the state’s Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). DEQ’s programs are operated centrally out of its Lincoln headquarters,
and they maintain one regional office in North Platte for field operations in the western
part of the state.
Participating Programs
DEQ Surface Water Section
• Statewide Monitoring
• Ecological Assessment
• Intensive Survey
• Surface Water Modeling
• TMDL Development
• Basinwide Planning
• Nonpoint Source Management
• Clean Lakes Program
• Wetlands Conservation Program
• Standards and Classifications
8-22
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
DEQ Permits and Compliance Section
• NP DES Permitting
• State Permitting
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Pretreatment
DEQ Wastewater Facilities Section
• State Revolving Fund Program
• Onsite Assistance Program
• Municipal Water Pollution Prevention
DEQ Ground Water Section
• Planning and Assistance: CSGWPP and Welihead Protection
• Septic Tank Program
• UIC Program
DEQ LUST/Emergency Response Section
DEQ envisions a time when management of most Nebraska environmental programs
will be coordinated with the Nebraska BMA. Early success by the BMA’s core water
quality programs is expected to add credibility to the approach and attract increased
involvement from other relevant stakeholders.
8-23
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
RASKA (CONTINUED)
Outstanding Features . - . .
• Well planned schedule that allows all
BMA participants to know when
activities will occur
• 5 Opportunities for greater stakeholder .
involvement, including basin meetings
that coincide with important milestones
in thebasin cycle
Viewgraph 14: Nebraska (continued)
Outstanding Features
DEQ has a well planned schedule for activities within the basin management cycle.
Substantial effort was expended to balance workloads and adjust timing of activities to
meet needs and constraints of participating programs. The level of detail provided in
Nebraska’s schedule (Appendix 4A to Module 4) allows all participants in the BMA to
know precisely when activities will occur for each basin and to prepare for and
implement actions accordingly. The schedule ensures that priorities and plans will be
updated every 5 years, and that efforts will move beyond the planning phase into
implementation on a routine basis.
Additionally, DEQ strives to provide opportunities within the Nebraska BMA for greater
stakeholder involvement. The principal mechanism for outreach is a series of meetings
held in local Natural Resource Districts (NRDs) during each iteration of the basin cycle.
Meetings focus on obtaining information from stakeholders to help establish basin
management goals, identify environmental concerns and monitoring needs, develop
management strategies, target resources to address highest priorities, identify measures
of success, and solicit public participation in volunteer programs. Meetings are
strategically scheduled to coincide with important milestones in the basin cycle, and
their format includes open house sessions, large group presentations, and small focus
group discussions.
8-24
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
1990.
1993
1994.
1997
1998.
2001
2001
Basin management
plane completed
for all 13 balm
management unit,
I__
1992 1994
DEQ begine to concep. Draft BMA framework
tualize comprehenuve document
watershed management 1 comPl ed
1997
First comprehensive
bum management plan
complated for
Lower Platte Baaln
Viewgraph 15: Nebraska (continued)
BMA Milestones
1992
1993
1993 Aug
FYi 993 DEQ Strategic Budget Plan and Water Quality Division Five-
Year Strategic Plan lists goals for integrating and prioritizing activities
and optimizing use of available agency resources through
comprehensive watershed management.
Surface Water Section holds several sessions to discuss methods for
improving effectiveness and efficiency when using agency resources for
BMA monitoring activities.
Surface Water and Permits and Compliance Sections concur on
preliminary ideas for a 5-year basin management cycle that groups the
state’s existing 13 major river basins into 5 larger management units.
DEQ and EPA co-sponsor a workshop to begin educating agency staff
on the BMA and facilitating a process for framework development. The
group documents goals and opportunities, along with potential barriers,
and reaches consensus on a workgroup process for framework
development and an outline for the corresponding work plan.
ASKA (CONTINUED)
BMA Milestones
8-25
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
1993 Nov Two 3-day facilitated workgroup sessions are conducted for BMA
framework development. The workgroup focuses on defining basin
plan format, establishing a detailed basin management cycle,
documenting program roles and responsibilities, and developing
prioritization and targeting criteria.
1994 Jan DEQ completes schedule for synchronizing NPDES permits with
proposed basin management cycle.
1994 Apr Draft BMA framework document is completed.
1994 May Strategic monitoring plan for first two basins is completed and
implemented.
1994 Oct DEQ obtains the services of a technical staff person from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service through an Intergovernmental
Personnel Act (IPA) agreement. The staff member will help coordinate
nonpoint source management activities under the BMA.
1997 Feb First comprehensive basin management plan is scheduled to be
completed for the Lower Platte Basin.
2001 Oct DEQ expects to have completed the first iteration of basin management
plans for all 1 3 delineated basins.
8-26
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
ASKA (CONTINUED)
‘How has Nebraska tailored
S. the nine common BMA
elements 5 for
Viewgraph 16: Nebraska (continued)
Current BMA Elements
Basin Management Units: Nebraska has 1 3 major river basins that are subdivided into
36 sub-basins. Some basin boundaries have been adjusted outside natural surface
drainage patterns to account for extensive diversions through canal systems or the flow
of groundwater.
Basin Management Cycle: The state has sequenced activities for its 1 3 river basins over
a 5-year basin cycle to balance DEQ workload. Within a given basin, monitoring for
use support assessments and canvassing stakeholders for additional assessment
information are emphasized in Year 1 of the cycle. Prioritization, problem
quantification, and stakeholder negotiations to reach consensus on management goals
and strategies occur in Years 2 and 3. Basin plan development, public review, and
adoption occur in Years 3 and 4. Plan implementation occurs in Years 4 and 5 of the
first cycle iteration and continues until the plan is updated 5 years later, when a new
implementation phase begins.
Stakeholder Involvement: The initial draft of Nebraska’s framework document (April
1994) calls for stakeholder involvement through public basin meetings to begin the
cycle in each basin. Stakeholders can stay involved by participating in several activities
strategically timed to coincide with key milestones throughout the management cycle.
(See “Outstanding Features” section below for more information.)
8-27
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Strategic Monitoring: DEQ monitors lakes, fish tissue, pesticides, sediment quality, and
wetlands. The agency also conducts biological assessment, fish kill investigations, and
special water quality studies. Due to limited program funds, however, support for the
statewide ambient monitoring network is being reduced to free resources for strategic
monitoring within basins according to the management cycle sequence. In addition,
DEQ is building on cooperative relationships developed with other’agencies and
institutions to leverage its monitoring resources through coordinated strategic planning.
Ground water monitoring and assessment is performed at the local level.
Basin Assessment: DEQ now analyzes its monitoring data and information received
from other stakeholders by basin, according to the basin management cycle. In addition
to conducting common statistical and modeling analyses, Nebraska is building a GIS to
enhance its assessment capabilities. GIS hardware is in place, but key environmental
information has yet to be compiled in quality-assured data layers for use within the
system.
Assigning Prior3ties and Targeting Resources: DEQ is developing a waterbody
prioritization and resource targeting system for use in its BMA. The agency anticipates
that the prioritization process will rank watershed concerns in order of their importance
for incorporation into basin plans. Numerical indices are being developed to facilitate
ranking by providing quantitative comparisons among waterbodies. DEQ plans to
follow this priority ranking when directing program and private resources in managing
prioritized waters.
Capability for Developing Management Strategies: DEQ has informally named a
Basinwide Coordinator to lead staff from participating programs in developing
management plans for each basin according to the state’s basin management cycle. The
department hopes to create a formal agency position to fill that role. The state has not
yet reached the plan development stage for any basin, but the framework does call for
an integrated effort among DEQ programs and other stakeholders. Basin public
meetings and outgrowth focus groups will be significant tools for developing
management strategies.
Basin Management Plans: DEQ has established the intended audience and purposes for
its forthcoming basin plans. A general plan outline has been developed and is being
used as a guide by DEQ staff for carrying out activities during the early part of the basin
management cycle. The outline will ensure appropriate information is available for
production of the plans. The ground water-related sections of the plan will depend
heavily on information in Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPP) plans, which are produced at the local level.
8-28
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Basin Plan Implementation: No plans have been developed to date. As they become
available, however, DEQ will use plans to direct agency implementation activities,
including permitting, nonpoint and point source control project grants and loans,
monitoring, etc. The state also hopes that stakeholder involvement will lead entities
outside DEQ to use the plan when implementing important activities.
8-29
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
ASKA (CONTINUED)
Future Building Blocks
• Integrated informatiOn system
• Expanded DEQ program coverage
• Sfrengthened partnerships with
stakeholders outside DEQ
/
Viewgraph 1 7: Nebraska (continued)
Future Building Blocks
Nebraska’s current BMA framework represents the first phase of development. Initial
efforts were restricted to a core set of water quality programs to establish a strong central
focus that is firmly based in authority of the CWA and related state statutes and
regulations. DEQ intends to build on this foundation by adding other environmental
management programs, as appropriate, to achieve the goals of environmental resource
protection in fulfilling the agency’s mission. Future building blocks include:
• integrated Information System: DEQ plans to provide shared access to multi-
program information through a computerized network.
• Expanded DEQ Program Coverage: Coordinated permitting, for example, will be
expanded beyond current NPDES emphasis. Expiration dates of all appropriate
permits (e.g., RCRA, air quality, landfill, and stormwater) will be aligned with the
basin management schedule, to the extent possible, to facilitate issuance of multi-
media permits that better serve facilities and help ensure better coordination and
integration among DEQ programs.
• Strengthened Partnerships: Stronger partnerships with Nebraska’s NRDs are a
likely starting point. NRDs play a significant role in protecting ground water and
sponsor a large number of NPS implementation projects. DEQ is evaluating the
possibility of jointly funding a position in NRD offices to respond to complaints and
help conduct water quality monitoring at the local level. In addition, DEQ would
8-30
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
addition, DEQ would like to continue exploring options for leveraging its resources
with other stakeholders to achieve shared resource goals. Current joint monitoring
and assessment projects among several stakeholders (e.g., DEQ, EPA, USGS, NRCS,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Game and Parks Commission, and the University of
Nebraska) provide examples of what could be accomplished on a statewide scale
under the BMA. Additionally, NRCS and the state’s Cooperative Extension Service
are beginning to synchronize their activities with DEQ’s BMA schedule.
8-31
-------
Viewgraph 18: North Carolina
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Initiating Agency
North Carolina’s BMA was initiated in 1986 by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) within the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. DEM’s programs are operated centrally out of its headquarters in Raleigh;
they also maintain seven regional offices throughout the state. The North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) oversees state environmental policy
and rule-making for DEM.
Participating Programs
DEM Environmental Sciences Branch
• Statewide Monitoring
• Biological Assessment
• Ecological Assessment
• Intensive Survey
• Aquatic Toxicity
• Clean Lakes Program
DEM Planning Branch
• Basinwide Planning
• Non point Source Management
• Water Supply Watershed Protection
• Wetlands
• Standards and Classifications
L
NORTH CAROLINA
• Initiating Agency: Division of Environmental
Management within the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
• Participating Programs: Core water quality
programs
8-32
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAS
DEM Technical Support Branch
• Surface Water Modeling
• TMDL Development
• NPDES Permitting
• State Permitting
DEM Operations Branch
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Pretreatment
• Operator Certification and Training
DEM Regional Offices
• Support monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and basin planning functions
8-33
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
L
NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
Outstanding Features . - -
• Strategic Monitoring .
- Statewide ambient and targeted monitoring sites
- Extensive resources for biological samplingS
• Assessment
- Coordination among programs
- Statistical analysis and water quality modeling
Viewgraph 19: North Carolina (continued)
Outstanding Features
North Carolina’s BMA is supported by a strong monitoring element that combines a
statewide ambient monitoring network with targeted basin monitoring. The state
commits extensive resources to biological sampling (i.e., phytoplankton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish tissue and communities, and aquatic toxicity) that complements
broad physical and chemical monitoring. Monitoring objectives are strategically
coordinated among programs to support a wide range of assessment needs. DEM has
initiated efforts to leverage its monitoring program resources with those of USGS and
other monitoring programs, including consortiums of local basin stakeholders. North
Carolina’s assessment element is also strong, using statistical analysis and water quality
modeling tools to provide a firm scientific basis for priority setting and management
recommendations within basins.
8-34
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
1985.
1988
1 969-
1992
1993-
1996
1997-
2000
‘
1986
1993
DEM begins to
Netne River
conceptualize
basin approach
basin plan
approved
1998
Basin plans
completed
for all basins
1990
OEM announces
basinwide per.
miffing initiative
BMA Milestones
Viewgraph 20: North Carolina (continued)
Milestones
1986 Small group of DEM staff begin conceptualizing a basin approach for
coordinating NPDES permitting-related activities.
1987 A permit workload study is performed to evaluate alternatives for
grouping NPDES permits by river basin (and sub-basin) and issuing
them sequentially over a 5-year cycle. EPA Region 4 cautions that
changing the permit cycle will require issuing short-term permits, which
is seen as a barrier by permit writing staff because the method will
create a permit backlog.
1988 Informal internal review of permit writing procedures reveals several
inefficiencies. DEM embarks on permit writing automation project to
reduce inefficiencies and remove barrier to permit synchronization.
1 989 First generation of automated permit writing system is implemented.
Synchronized permit reissuance schedule is finalized.
1 990 Jan DEM publicly announces its basinwide permitting initiative. First set of
short-term permits is issued; over next 5-year period, NPDES permit
expiration dates will be synchronized with basin schedule as permits
come up for renewal.
1990 May Staff begin discussing benefits of expanding basin permitting approach
to other water quality program areas.
TH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
8-35
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
1990 Oct Workshop is held with selected representatives from DEM
Environmental Sciences, Technical Support, Planning, and Operations
Branches to outline framework for implementing a comprehensive BMA
that integrates water quality program functions. Details are streamlined
through facilitated process.
1991 Mar Workshop is held with participating DEM Branches, EPA, SCS, and
National Rivers Program staff, along with representatives from some
adjoining states (SC, TN, VA). Draft framework document is reviewed,
and next implementation steps are discussed.
1991 Aug DEM publishes framework document, North Carolina’s Basinwide
Approach to Water Quality Management: Program Description.
1992 Oct DEM releases for public review a draft of the first basin plan developed
under the comprehensive BMA for Neuse River Basin. Basin meetings
are held to obtain public feedback on proposed basin plan provisions.
1993 Feb NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approves Neuse
River basin management plan.
1994 May EMC approves Lumber River Basin Management Plan following series
of public meetings and revisions to draft plan.
1994 Aug DEM Water Quality Section reorganizes Planning and Environmental
Sciences Branches to, in part, better support basin planning. Changes
include creating a Basinwide Assessment Unit within the Planning
Branch to support public coordination, basin plan development, and
agency implementation.
1994 Dec EMC approves Tar-Pamlico River Basin Management Plan with the
condition that DEM develop a strategy for non point source nutrient
reduction within the basin by September of 1995.
1995 Jan EMC approves Catawba River Basin Management Plan following series
of public meetings and revisions to draft plan.
1995 Mar DEM Water Quality Section establishes a statewide nonpoint source
workgroup and river basin teams that include members from
agricultural and wildlife agencies. Listing of many of the state’s waters
as impaired by nonpoint sources is based on wildlife data from the
1 970s and 1 980s. Identifying methods and means for updating these
assessments is a primary task of the workgroup, along with updating the
state NI’S program management plan. The river basin NI’S teams help
identify priority NPS concerns and develop and implement
management strategies to achieve corresponding objectives.
1998 Jun DEM expects to complete the first iteration of basin management plans
for all 1 7 delineated basin management units.
8-36
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
Lc NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
How has North Carolina
taiIored the nine common BMA
Iementsfor it approáth?
Viewgraph 21: North Carolina (continued)
Current BMA Elements
Basin Management Units: North Carolina has 1 7 major river basins that are subdivided
into 1 33 sub-basins. The state’s basin and sub-basin units were recently streamlined in
a cooperative effort with NRCS and USGS such that NRCS 14-digit watersheds nest
within sub-basins, which in turn nest within USGS hydrologic units and state major river
basins.
Basin Management Cycle: The state sequenced activities for all 1 7 river basins over a
5-year basin cycle to balance DEM workload. Within each basin, strategic and
intensive monitoring are emphasized in Years 1 and 2 of the cycle, and assessment
using statistics and modeling occurs in Years 3 and 4. Management plan development,
public review, and adoption occur in Years 4 and 5. Implementation of the plan begins
in Year 5 of the first cycle iteration and continues until the plan is updated 5 years later
when a new implementation phase begins.
Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholder involvement occurs largely through basin public
meetings held in Years 4 and 5 of the cycle. Stakeholder associations formed in some
basins and sub-basins play meaningful roles throughout the basin cycle in areas such as
monitoring, assessment, prioritization, planning, and implementation.
Strategic Monitoring: The state uses a combination of fixed stations that are monitored
each month within a statewide ambient network and strategic stations that are included
during intensive monitoring periods for each basin. Monitoring serves a wide
8-37
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
range of assessment needs, including evaluation of use support status, water quality
trends analysis, problem identification and quantification, model calibration, use
attainability, and evaluation of management strategy effectiveness.
Basin Assessment: The current BMA relies largely on DEM’s assessments, which include
analyses of benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, fish, sediment, ambient water-
column physical and chemical parameters, and bacteria. DEM also assesses the trophic
status of its lakes, and targeted surface waters are often modeled using field-calibrated
fate and transport models or empirically based statistical models.
Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources: Management priorities are currently
established through an ad hoc process within DEM. The agency uses its own
assessment information, along with information obtained from other stakeholders, and
reaches an informal consensus among agency programs on the most important issues.
Participating programs then decide how their resources should be targeted or leveraged
with others to address priority concerns.
Capability for Developing Management Strategies: North Carolina has a Basinwide
Coordinator who coordinates staff from participating programs to develop management
plans for each basin according to the state’s basin management cycle schedule. TMDL
and WLA analyses are used for all point source management strategies. TMDLs
influence some NPS management activities, but most NPS actions are conducted
through one or more of the 30+ individual programs in the state.
Basin Management Plans: North Carolina produces basin management plans according
to its basin management cycle. Plans are written by DEM staff, undergo extensive
public review, and are approved by the state’s Environmental Management
Commission. The first plans are being developed in the first basin cycle iteration (to be
completed in 1998) and will be updated every 5 years thereafter. Each plan contains
policy and technical information summaries and is intended to reach a wide spectrum
of stakeholders, ranging from internal staff to the regulated community and general
public. Detailed and highly technical information is placed in technical appendices or
supplemental documents for reference by the smaller audience interested in that level of
detail.
Basin Plan Implementation: Current implementation activities emphasize issuance of
NPDES and state permits according to the plan. Areas targeted for NPS controls receive
greater attention through selection of CWA §319 projects and coordination with
agricultural cost-share programs. To the extent possible, statewide NPS programs focus
on priorities for a given region that are highlighted in basin plans.
8-38
-------
MODULE 8
EXAMPLE STATEWIDE BMAs
L
NORTH CAROLINA (CONTINUED)
Future Building Blocks
• Increased stakeholder involvement, in and
support for basinwide planning workshops
• Cooperative watë rshed projects
• Specific N!S control strategies in future
basin plan$
Viewgraph 22: North Carolina (continued)
Future Building Blocks
DEM is working to involve more stakeholders outside the agency, and the division has
made progress in the area of outreach. The NC Cooperative Extension Service and the
NC League of Municipalities, for example, now co-sponsor basinwide planning
workshops with DEM to inform the public and encourage broader participation earlier
in the management cycle than originally occurred. Cooperative watershed projects in
the Tar-Pam lico and Neuse River Basins are also laying the groundwork for increased
coordination with USGS, SCS, and the NC Division of Soil and Water. Continued
coordination with outside agencies and local stakeholders is expected to result in
greater stakeholder commitments to address concerns that fall outside DEM’s regulatory
authorities. As stakeholder commitments increase, DEM anticipates that basin plans will
eventually contain more specific NPS control strategies.
8-39
-------
EXERCISE 1
-------
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
TO FORM A BMA
EXERCISE 1
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Instructions for Exercise 1
Background and Objectives
This exercise simulates an initial meeting of prospective partners to discuss
developing a statewide BMA. You will be given a detailed description of the
roles you are to assume in the discussions. The overall goal of Exercise 1 is to
provide you with experience in working with others to assess the foundation
for a basin framework that will facilitate a common approach to resource
management. This hands on exercise will also provide you with the
opportunity to apply and evaluate the information in Modules 1—4, listed
below. Drawing upon that material, you will work with other participating
“stakeholders” to simulate the discussions that must occur in order to develop
working relationships with basin partners.
• Module 1—Historical background and a rationale for place-based
management
• Module 2—Definition of the nine common elements of a statewide BMA
• Module 3—Description of the BMA development process and how to
initiate the process
• Module 4—Introduction of the process for tailoring the elements to
individual states
The scenario underlying this exercise is the initial meeting among potential
partners in a statewide BMA. The State Water Program has called the meeting
to introduce the BMA concept and to discuss the potential for partnerships.
The participants have received outreach materials and information from the
State Water Program that are consistent with the information in Modules 1—4.
Stakeholders are therefore familiar with the terminology and the basic
principles and elements being proposed (i.e., basin management units, basin
management cycle, and basin plans). The State Water Program wants to
determine whether the proposed BMA framework will facilitate formation of
partnerships with the stakeholders convened for this meeting.
The objectives of the meeting are to
• Promote communication among stakeholders to raise awareness
regarding key activities and issues for protecting and restoring of the
resource
• Identify shared goals, complementary objectives, and common needs
among stakeholders
El-i
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
• Identify potential impediments to BMA development, and other areas of concern
among stakeholders
• Develop an understanding of what each partner can contribute in terms of
authorities, mandates, expertise, and resources
Detailed Exercise Instructions
We will divide the class into groups of 6 to 8 people. Each group will select a facilitator
and scribe to moderate and record the discussion that emanates from the scenario
described above. The group will have 55 minutes to address the questions listed in the
problem formulation section of these instructions. Each facilitator and scribe will have 5
minutes to report after the class has been reassembled.
The basin stakeholder roles that you will assume during the exercise include:
• State Water Program Manager(s)
• EPA Regional Water Program Manager
• Agricultural Agency Manager
• Fish & Wildlife Agency Manager
• President of an NPDES Discharger Association
• Representative of State Municipal Drinking Water and Wastewater Utility
Association
• Forestry Agency Manager
• Bureau of Land Management Manager
• Geological Survey Representative
• Representative of Environmental Organizations
Each of you has been provided with a role description for the stakeholder you will
represent in Exercise 1, and you will be asked to maintain this assigned stakeholder role
for Exercise 2. You will be given a few minutes to review your Role Description before
the exercise begins.
The Role Description includes the following information: role title, jurisdiction, agency
mandate, agency programs, issues, and activities of interest to the BMA, agency
resources at your disposal, and the goals and interests of your constituent group. Your
assignment is to represent your assigned role in the partnership discussions as accurately
as possible.
E1-2
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Problem Formulation
Discussion groups will be asked to report on their findings in the following five areas:
• What goals and objectives among participating stakeholders are complementary?
• What opportunities for collaboration do these shared goals and objectives provide?
• Do the BMA elements serve as catalysts or impediments to promoting integrated
efforts among partners? (Be prepared to explain your answer.)
• Describe impediments to forming partnerships that your group has identified.
• Identify any program areas or components that should be excluded from the BMA
framework and explain why.
• List other significant conclusions or observations resulting from your group’s
discussion.
E1-3
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 1: State Water Program Manager(s)
Jurisdiction: Statewide
Agency Mandate: Your agency has primary responsibility for administering statewide programs
regulating surface and ground water resources (water quality and water supply). The agency’s programs
are governed by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and other federal
and state statutes.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA: You, your agency administrator, and key staff
have discussed the concept of BMA development, and consider integration of the following agency
programs and activities as crucial to the effort’s success:
• Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
• Environmental Assessment (including for CWA §305b)
• Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling
• TMDL Listing and Development (under CWA §303d)
• Water Quality Standards
• Nonpoint Source Management (including CWA §319)
• NPDES Permitting and Enforcement
• Ground Water Wellhead Protection
• Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
• Drinking Water Program
• Wetlands Conservation Program
• CWA §401 Certification
• State Revolving Fund
• Pollution Prevention
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Substantial resources are available for agency operations through federal grants (e.g., CWA §106,
205j, 604b), state appropriations, and various fees assessed on the regulated community. Both staff
and operating budgets under the above programs may be used at your discretion.
• The agency also administers funds for implementation projects (e.g., CWA §314 Lakes Restoration
Grants, §319 NPS Demonstration Projects, and State Revolving Fund) that could be prioritized for
use under a BMA.
Goals and Interests:
• Leveraging resources for collecting, managing, and assessing environmental data.
• Consolidating federal and state reporting and grant requirements.
• Improving public outreach and involvement.
• Addressing a broader range of water quality stressors with more comprehensive strategies.
E1-4
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 2: EPA Regional Water Program Manager
Jurisdiction: States within EPA Region
Agency Mandate: Your agency has primary oversight responsibility for state implementation of key
federal environmental statutes and regulations involving the management of surface and ground water
resources (water quality and water supply). These statutes and regulations include the Clean Water Act
(CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and several other
federal statutes. Your region also offers education, technical assistance, grants, and loans for pollution
control.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA: You, your agency administrator, and key staff have
discussed the concept of BMA development, and consider integration of the following agency programs
and activities as crucial to the effort’s success:
• Water Quality Management Programs (water quality standards, water quality management planning,
TMDL/WLA, nonpoint source, environmental assessments, wetlands, Clean Lakes, National Estuary
Program and other coastal programs, etc.)
• Ground Water (wellhead protection, CSGWP, sole source aquifer programs)
• Drinking Water (PWS/UIC program oversight, outreach, etc.)
• NPDES Permitting
• Enforcement
• Municipal Facilities (state revolving fund, construction grants, technology transfer, pollution
prevention, etc.)
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff for administrative oversight, technical assistance, compliance monitoring, research and special
studies.
• Grants for states for most water quality protection/restoration activities (e.g., CWA §106, 205(jl, 314,
319, and 604 IbI).
• Funds for special studies or projects (e.g., 104 1b1(31).
Goals and Interests:
• Ensuring accountability to Congress for funds appropriated to state programs.
• EPA regions require well-defined environmental objectives and documentation of the planning
process and implementation in basin plans.
• Translating traditional program requirements and benchmarks into basin objectives. Ensuring full
compliance with the CWA and SDWA.
• Maximizing efficiency of procedures used to address environmental concerns.
• Resolving transboundary issues (states, regions, and countries).
E1-5
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 3: Agricultural Agency Representative
Jurisdiction: Statewide (You have been asked to represent both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: You represent multiple agencies operating under the general mandate to stabilize and
support the efficient production, marketing, and distribution of food and fiber. In addition to commodity
and public welfare programs, you represent several conservation programs designed to assist private and
public land owners or managers in natural resource conservation and management. Related federal
statutes include the Food and Agricultural Conservation and Trade Act, Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and National
Environmental Policy Act.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA:
• Conservation Reserve Program (conserves/protects highly erodible land using vegetative cover and
easements/annual rental payments)
• Wetlands Reserve Program (protects or restores wetlands using easements/annual rental payment
method)
• Conservation cross compliance programs (e.g., ‘Sodbuster ’ and °Swampbuster ; these programs deny
subsidy payments to farmers who plow highly erodible land or drain wetlands)
• Water Quality Incentives Program (a watershed treatment program to improve/protect soil and water
resources in watersheds impacted or threatened by NPS pollution)
• Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program (promotes lower input methods of farming)
• NRCS Small Watershed (P1-566) Program
• NRCS Natural Resource Assessment Programs (Soil Survey, Natural Resources Inventory, River Basin
Studies)
• ASCS Agricultural Conservation Program (cost-sharing for soil-conserving and water quality
practices)
• State and Federal Cooperative Extension Services
o State Soil and Water Conservation Commissions
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff and equipment for technical assistance, program administration, research, and outreach.
• Funds for cost-share grants, easements, rental subsidies, special studies, and watershed
demonstration projects.
• Information such as maps, data, environmental analysis, BMP selection and implementation
guidance, BMP implementation status, etc.
Goals and Interests:
• Promoting and supporting agricultural production in a manner that complies with recommended
conservation practices and other environmental legislation (e.g., CWA, FIFRA).
• Achieving environmental objectives (e.g., soil conservation, wetlands preservation) with minimal
contact by regulatory agencies with individual landowners and agricultural businesses.
• Improving incentives (financial) for land owners to implement BMPs.
I
E1-6
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 4: Forestry Agency Representative
jurisdiction: Statewide (You have been asked to represent both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: You represent multiple agencies operating under the general mandate to manage the
nation’s forests and grasslands for sustained production and multiple use (e.g., timber, grazing, fish,
recreation, and water). Your agency oversees timber sales and harvest contracts, grazing leases, and
mineral development on forest lands and provides technical assistance to permit holders in proper use of
resources. Watershed and Ecosystem programs conduct overall planning and technical support for forest
management decisions.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA:
• USFS Permit Program (timber sales and harvest contracts, grazing leases, and minerals development
on USFS property)
• USFS Air and Watershed Programs (overall environmental planning and technical support for
management decisions; special studies and watershed demonstration projects)
• USFS Forest Stewardship Initiative (technical assistance and cost share for installing BMPs on private
inholdings or lands adjacent to nation forest lands)
• State Forestry BMP Education and Outreach Programs
• State Enforcement Program
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff for technical assistance and compliance monitoring.
• Funds for special studies and watershed demonstration projects.
• Information such as natural resource inventories, water quality/habitat monitoring data,
environmental analysis of resource trends and conditions, BMP selection and implementation
guidance.
Goals and Interests:
• Maintaining forest health with continued use of forest resources by permittees and the public. Forest
health extends beyond trees (both commercial and noncommercial timber) to all habitats and species
within the state’s forests.
• Seeking assistance with restoration projects in upland streams, range lands, and abandoned mines
that impact water quality downstream.
E1-7
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
r Role 5: Fish and Wildlife Agency Representative
Jurisdiction: Statewide (You have been asked to represent both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: You represent state and federal agencies operating under the general mandate to
manage the nation’s wildlife resources. Responsibilities include overseeing and regulating public wildlife
reserves and fish and wildlife harvesting, enforcing game and fish laws, protecting endangered and
threatened species, cooperatively administering national wetlands program, and sponsoring special
studies such as fishery investigations and cooperative projects to enhance wildlife habitat.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA:
• Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and other laws on public and private agricultural land
related to managing of wildlife resources.
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff for technical assistance, research, and enforcement.
• Information such as fish and wildlife resource inventories (e.g., Natural Heritage Program), research
reports and data on wildlife habitat and populations, educational materials and maps, etc.
Goals and Interests:
• Restoring and preserving habitat for fish and wildlife, especially for endangered species. Example
interests include protecting salmon stock from hydraulic intakes, preserving flow during critical times
of the year, restoring stream channels that have been channelized, and preserving waterfowl habitat
(i.e., wetlands).
• Developing plans that designate critical habitat areas for protection and preservation.
• Ensuring that agency consultations on endangered species have realistic management strategies that
can be implemented.
• Obtaining monitoring data on fish and waterfowl tissue contamination by persistent pollutants (e.g.,
mercury, PCBs).
• Developing management programs for nonindigenous species that threaten indigenous species (e.g.,
zebra mussels, feral pigs)
E1-8
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 6: Bureau of Land Management Representative
Jurisdiction: Federal lands designated for agency oversight
Agency Mandate: Your agency us responsible for administration and management of designated federal
lands. You oversee grazing leases, and mineral exploration and extraction bids and leases on BLM lands.
This oversight includes providing technical assistance to permittees regarding proper resource use. Your
agency is also responsible for managing fish and wildlife, forests, and cultural resources on lands within
BLM jurisdiction. Additionally, you oversee recreational uses of BLM land.
Agency Programs Considered Important to the BMA:
• Grazing management
• Mining leases (lease conditions for environmental controls and landscape restoration)
• Abandoned mine cleanup
Agency Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff and equipment for technical assistance, oversight, and environmental analysis and trend
evaluation on BLM land.
• Funds for special studies, cost-share for permittees for certain conservation practices, range
improvement, riparian area management, and recreational area development projects.
• Information such as maps, data, and reports on BLM lands.
• Staff and equipment for technical assistance and implementation of ecological restoration of river
corridors and degraded rangelands on BLM lands.
Goals and Interests:
• Providing technical assistance to pennittees on the proper use of resources granted to their use, and
oversight of other uses (e.g., recreation) on BIM land.
• Improving cooperation with downstream stakeholders to restore degraded upland grazing and
ripariari areas that impact water quality downstream.
• Leveraging resources for addressing environmental problems associated with abandoned mines.
E1-9
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
k Role 7: Geological Survey Representative
Jurisdiction: Statewide (You have been asked to represent both state and federal interests.)
Agency Mandate: A primary part of your agency mission is to provide hydrologic information for
managing the Nation’s water resources. As such, your agency programs involve delineating geologic
drainage basins and patterns, conducting long-term baseline monitoring of water resources (quantity and
quality), hydrologic and geologic investigations, and special intensive short-term studies. Additionally,
your agency coordinates the activities of all federal agencies in acquiring and storing of water data.
Agency Programs Considered (mportant to the SMA:
• Topographic mapping and hydrologic unit delineation
• Streamflow monitoring network
• Ground water well monitoring network
• Water resource investigations
• Water use data collection
• National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs (where applicable)
Agency l esources at Your Disposal:
• Staff and equipment for technical assistance, field studies, research and special projects.
• Matching funds for cooperative studies or projects with other governmental agencies.
• Information such as maps, data, and reports on geology, hydrology, water quality status and trends.
Goals and Interests:
• Adhering to monitoring and data management protocols.
• Maintaining consistency in long-term monitoring network.
• Collecting scientifically defensible water quality and quantity data.
El-lO
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 8: Representative of State Drinking Water and
Wastewater Utility Managers Association
Jurisdiction: Statewide
Organization Mandate: You represent numerous local municipal utility districts operating throughout
the state. Local utilities oversee the construction, operation, and maintenance of public works projects
for drinking water and wastewater. As such, your group’s members must comply with numerous
environmental mandates, including applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water
Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.
Constituency Activities Considered Important to the BMA:
• Wastewater discharge (planning, constructing, operating, maintaining)
• Water supply delivery (planning, constructing, operating, maintaining)
• Compliance monitoring
• Ambient monitoring (voluntary and mandatory)
• Pollution prevention programs
• Pretreatment programs
Organization Resources at Your Disposal:
• Utility districts collect a broad range of environmental information such as monitoring data, reports
on water issues, district maps.
• Association members may contribute funds to special projects.
• A well established distribution and communication network with utility subscribers (e.g., billing
network) within service districts provides a mechanism for direct contact with citizen stakeholders
regarding basin issues.
Goals and Interests:
• Ensuring that wastewater treatment plants are not assigned disproportionate responsibility for
reducing pollutant loadings where needed in the basin. That is, all pollutant control options
including nonpoint sources are considered in the management strategy.
• Establishing closer ties to rural and urban nonpoint source pollution control programs for source
(drinking water) protection objectives.
• Protecting the quantity and quality of drinking water available to districts.
• Establishing a pollutant trading program that allows members to meet pollution control goals more
cost effectively.
El-li
-------
EXERCISE 1
FORGING PARTNERSHIPS
Role 9: Representative of Environmental Organizations
Jurisdiction: Statewide (You have connections with state and national organizations.)
Organization Mandate: You represent numerous environmental organizations (i.e., a consortium)
throughout the state. Various groups have formed to protect and restore the environment at large or to
address specific issues. Some groups actively lobby for environmental laws and programs, as well as
funding. Many perform volunteer services such as water quality monitoring or natural resource
rehabilitation work.
Constituency Activities Considered Important to the BMA:
• Volunteer ambient water quality monitoring
• Ecological restoration projects
• Public outreach projects
Organization Resources at Your Disposal:
• Staff and volunteers for assistance with local projects.
• Information such as monitoring data, reports on environmental issues, educational materials and
programs.
• Limited funds from members for special projects, including cooperative work.
Goals and Interests:
• Preserving and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities
• Preserving open space and habitat (e.g., wetlands, wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, ancient
forests)
• Promoting biodiversity and compliance with the Endangered Species Act
• Ensuring pollution is sufficiently controlled (Point and Nonpoint Source)
• Ensuring water quality standards are enforced
E1-12
-------
EXERCISE 2
-------
INTEGRATING BASIN ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
EXERCISE 2
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
a
Instructions for Exercise 2
Background and Objectives
Extending the simulation started in Exercise 1, Exercise 2 begins to define potential
roles and responsibilities among stakeholders for activities integrated under the BMA.
The setting is a second meeting among partners during which specific roles and
responsibilities within the framework will be clarified. Discussions are structured
around the BMA activity cycle and a basin plan outline, developed and distributed by
the State Water Program to each stakeholder. Partners are being asked to use these
products to define their specific roles and responsibilities at each step of the cycle,
including basin plan production and implementation. For example, partners will
determine key tasks, as well as which of them will play principal roles in developing,
documenting, and implementing strategic monitoring plans; tasks and roles for
assessment; and so on for each step identified in the cycle.
This exercise has been conducted in several states that have developed a statewide
BMA. Typically, the discussions have primarily involved state programs and agencies;
federal and local agencies have participated only infrequently. The results, however,
have been very successful whenever federal and local agencies have been included.
Again, Exercise 2 includes a diversity of local, state, and federal roles so that you can
more fully understand the benefits afforded by a broad-based approach.
The objectives of this second simulated meeting are to
• Provide experience in BMA brainstorming sessions among BMA partners using
specific objectives
• Demonstrate how examining cycle steps and products can help determine where
resources of individual partners can be best used or pooled with those of other
partners for key activities
• Emphasize the importance of communication and coordination to developing
and implementing basin management plans
Detailed Exercise Instructions
We will use the same groups of 6 to 8 people as in Exercise 1. Each group will select a
new facilitator and scribe to moderate and record the discussion. The discussion notes
can be structured by cycle step. Because of the time constraint for the exercise, groups
should focus on a limited number of steps rather than try to describe the activities for
all steps. For example, describe the stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities
only for those steps selected by the group. As before, the group will have 55 minutes
E2-1
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESI’ONSIBILITIES
to discuss stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and the facilitator and scribe will have
5 minutes to complete their report.
Problem Formulation
Each group should report on their findings in the following three areas:
• Identification of lead and support roles at each step of the proposed basin
management cycle
• Identification of organizational structures or forums to promote communication,
coordinate planning, integrate decision-making, and ensure progress through the
cycle
• List of support needs and recommendations for maintaining the organizational
structures or forums
E2-2
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Generic Basin Plan Outline
This generic basin plan outline for Exercise 2 is based on examples from several states.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The basin plan introduction provides historical background information;
introduces the basin planning process and participating agencies; and the
purpose of the plan.
1 .1 Historical perspective on basin management efforts and vision for the
future
1 .2 Purpose of the basin plan as a comprehensive management and
stewardship guide for stakeholders
1.3 Description of basin management participants
2.0 RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION
The background descriptions included in Chapter 2 cover a broad range of
basin attributes that provide essential information for the multi-objective
planning process. To the extent possible this information is displayed in
graphic format.
2.1 Physical, geographic, hydrologic, and ecological features, including
discussion of ground water/surface water interface
2.2 Summaries of governmental organization and population demographics
2.3 Economic base
2.4 Land use/land cover, including practices
2.5 Water body use, classifications, and standards (streams, lakes, ground
water, wetlands, estuaries)
2.6 Fish and Wildlife
2.7 Cultural Resources
2.8 Other Resources
E2-3
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
3.0 BASIN ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to clearly convey the condition of the resources
described in Chapter 2.
3.1 SurfaceWater
3.2 Ground Water
3.3 Fish and Wildlife
3.4 Habitat/Special Ecosystems (e.g., wetlands, estuaries, forests, riparian)
3.5 Cultural Resources
3.6 Other Resources (Air)
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the sources and causes of impairment
identified in the assessment. Sub-basin summaries are included in the appendix.
4.1 PointSources
4.1.1 NPDES Permitted Wastewater Dischargers
Municipal
Industril
4.1 .2 NPDES Permitted Stormwater Dischargers
Municipal
Industrial
4.2 Nonpoint Sources
Identify and describe nonpoint sources of concern within the basin,
including such types as land development, construction, crop production,
animal operations, landfills, leaking underground storage tanks, failing
septic systems, etc.
4.3 Loading Determinations
Provide loading estimates for key parameters, including, where appropriate,
conventional pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, and
fecal coliform bacteria), and toxic substances (e.g., metals and organics).
E2-4
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
4.4 Degraded Physical Habitat
Stream channel alterations, riparian habitat, wetlands filling, etc.
4.5 Hydrological Modifications
Stream diversions, drawdown, flushing, extreme fluctuations, etc.
4.6 Exotic Species
Zebra mussels, feral pigs, nonnative sports fish, etc.
5.0 BASIN CONCERNS AND PRIORITY ISSUES
Chapter 5 describes the methods used in the basin planning process to establish
priorities. The resulting priority concerns and issues are also reported.
5.1 Priority Setting Method
Criteria
Ranking method
5.2 Priority Setting Results
River Basin Concerns
Priorities for additional data collection
6.0 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Management strategies are developed only for priority issues (by watershed),
because resources are limited for rigorous quantification and technical analyses
that are required. Many management strategies require a high level of precision
and certainty. For example, some areawide wasteload allocations will require
well developed TMDLs to support a pollutant trading program. Recdnfiguration
and restoration of physical habitat will require a detailed hydrological analysis.
Please note that the management strategies address a broad range of stressors,
include and economic analysis, and a detailed implementation plan.
6.1 Watershed A
6.1 .1 Priority # 1
Development of Management Option
Description of Problem
Overview of Management Options
Technical analysis (quantification, modeling, other techniques)
Economic Analysis
E2-5
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Implementation Strategy
Tasks and Responsible parties
Methods and Means for Implementation
Milestones
6.1 .N Priority # N
Development of Management Option
Implementation Strategy
6.N Watershed N
7.0 FUTURE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Issues to be addressed in future iterations of the basin management cycle.
7.1 Issue identified but not addressed
Data needs
Resource needs
Technical needs
7.N Issue identified but not addressed
Data needs
Resource needs
Technical needs
E2-6
-------
EXERCISE 2
INTEGRATING ROLES AND REsP0NsIBILmEs
Basin Management Cycle for Exercise 2
PUBLIC
PART I CI PAIl ON
ACTIVITY STEP
STAKE HO
( VEMENDH
STAKEHOLDER
VOL VEMENT
CONDUCT INITIAL OUTREACH AND ORGANIZE BASIN
AND WATERSHED TEAMS/COMMFITEES
[ COLLECT RELEVANT BASIN INFORMATION
ANALYZE AND EVALUATE INFORMATION
I
I r
4. PRIORITIZE CONCERNS AND ISSUES I
I
5. PERFORM DETAILED ASSESSMENTS OF PRIORITY ISSUES
I
MONTHS 1-3
MONTHS 3-18
MONTHS 19-24
MONTHS 25-2 7
MONTHS 28-36
I ( STAKEHOLDER
N VOL VEM E NT
MONTHS 3 7-45
MONTHS 46-48
( STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
8.
FINALIZE AND DISTRIBUTE BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
‘V
I
MONTHS 49-54
IMPLEMENT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS 1 MONTHS 55-60
AND BEYOND
1 0. REPEAT CYCLE
TIMING
6. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
I
PREPARE/UPDATE DRAFT BASIN AND WATERSHED PLANS
1
E2-7
-------
STA TEWIDE WA TERJSHED MANA GEMENT COURSE (Dry Run)
April 4-5, 1995
DAY 1-AM
8:30-8 45 Welcome and Opening Remarks
8:45-9:00 Purpose and Course Content
9:00-945 Module 1: Course Introduction
Description of the historical selling and need for a watershed protection
approach along with opportunities created through a watershed approach
Introduction to the concept of a statewide watershed approach, ofien referred
to by states as a basin management approach, as the basis for the remainder
of the course
9.45-10:00 Video. Partnership for Watersheds
10.00-10:15 BREAK
10:15-11.15 Module 2: Overview of the Statewide Basin Management Approach
Key elements and benefits of the basin management approach.
11:15-11:30 Video: Solutions -- Basinwide
11:30-12:00 Questions, Answers, and Feedback
An opportunity to raise questions for further discussion by the course
instructors and other participants and to provide feedback on the course
12.00 BREAK FOR LUNCH
DAY 1-PM
1:l5-1 45 Module 3: Getting Started
Important steps that can serve as a springboard for successful basin
management approach development
1:45-2:45 Module 4: Establishing Basin Focus Elements
Considerations and recommendations for establishing three key elements of a
basin management approach that principally define the spatial, temporal, and
planning units for basin management
-------
2:45-3.00 BREAK
3:00-3:45 Exercise 1: Forging Partnerships to Form a Basin Management Approach
An interactive exercise that provides insight on organizing and initiating
basin management approach efforts (Discussion and feedback only for “thy
run” course)
3 45-4 30 Questions, Answers, and Feedback
An opportunity to raise questions for further discussion by the course
instructors and other participants and to provide feedback on the course
DAY 2-AM
8.30-10:00 Module 5: Defining Core Activity Elements
Ideas and examples for tailoring key basin management approach activity
elements to meet specific needs in a given stale.
10.00-10:15 BREAK
10:15-11:30 Module 6: Making the Transition to a Basin Management Approach
Considerations and recommendations on how to make a smooth transition to
a basin management approach and how to take advantage of the
opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness that are provided by a
statewide approach
11:30-12.00 Questions, Answers, and Feedback
An opportunity to raise questions for further discussion by the course
instructors and other participants and to provide feedback on the course
12:00 BREAK FOR LUNCH
DAY 2-PM
115-2:00 Exercise 2: Integrating Roles and Responsibilities
An interactive exercise that provides the opportunity to experience how a
work group format can be used to clarify roles and responsibilities for key
activity elements of a basin management approach (Discussion and
feedback only for “dry run” course)
-------
2:OO-300 Module 7: Putting a Basin Management Approach into Practice
An example of integrated operations under a basin management approach
and a discussion of issues that participants are likely to confront during
implementation
3:00-3:15 BREAK
3:15-3:45 Module 8: Example Statewide Basin Management Approaches
An overview of the entire basin management approach framework
development and implementation process of selected states.
3:45-4:15 Questions, Answers, and Feedback
An opportunity to raise questions for further discussion by the course
instructors and other participants and to provide feedback on the course
4:15-4:30 Closing Statement
-------
NOTE 4/5/94
SUBJECT: Division Retreat Foil - p
FROM: John W. Meagher
TO: Wetlands Division
Our recent multi-vote on fol ow-up to our Huntley Meadows
retreat ended up in a dead heat. While the tally sheet has
disappeared, I think it was 25 votes for each.
I suggest that we undertake one follow-up item at a time,
because I think there is a better chance of succeeding if we avoid
biting off more than we can chew at one time. Therefore, I propose
that we form a team to work on one of our priority “barriers” for
the remaining six months of FY 1995, and form a second team at the
beginning of FY96 to work on our second priority for the following
six months. Of course, as we agreed, each of us will try to find
ways to overcome all of the barrier areas in our approach to our
jobs on a continuing basis.
To move forward, we need a tie-breaker vote. Therefore,
please indicate below the barrier you think we should attack first,
and return to me by Friday, April 14:
____ Relationships: External: Gulf of communication and message
with the Regions. Lack of experience! understanding
Headquarters and Regional jobs/roles (works both ways.) Fear
of loss of power. Program controversial which leads to need
for control. Necessary to understand certain things in
responding to others, such as the Regions. Internal:
Compartmentalization of responsibilities. Two Branch
Chiefs/structure. Stability in Branch management.
____ Work Environment/Teamwork and Empowerment. Realize staff
expertise by decornpartmentalization of responsibilities and
allocation of work. Workload volume. Lack of trust
Accountability to management seems easier. Inadequate
staffing. Habits. Opportunities in EPA more limited.
training dollars less, stigma associated with training and
career development opportunities (OJT vs. rotational detail.)
Fear of failure. Questioning the value/benefit (WARRB.) Both
individual and management responsibility to set priorities.
Program is controversial which needs to need for control.
Feedback on what is needed for individual development.
After this step, we will assemble the team. I also indicated
I would give you a chance to comment if you felt that the result of
using the “barriers” for the multi-vote did not provide an adequate
mechanism to follow-up on opur true priorities. PLease comment on
the back of this sheet if you conclude that is the case. Thanks!
------- |