Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Teb\h\essee	eide Approach

Watershed Groups and Management Cycle

Lead Agency:

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)

Point of Contact:

Paul E. Davis, Director

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Division of Water Pollution Control

401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243

(615) 532-0625

e-maii. paul.estill.davis@state.tn.us

Information:

TDEC's Watershed Management Approach Web site:
www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/watershed/

Overview

In 1996, the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) Division of Water Pollution Control
reorganized its programs (monitoring and permitting activi-
ties) on a rotating watershed basis. Nationally, watersheds
in the United States (U.S.) are delineated by the U. S.
Geological Survey (USGS) using a nationwide system based
on surface hydrologic features (see "Watershed Delinea-
tion" sidebar). Tennessee comprises fifty-five watersheds
that correspond to USGS's Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
8-digit categorization. These watersheds serve as TDEC's
geographic management units and are arranged into five
groups.

Planning, monitoring, assessment, total maximum daily
load (TMDL), and permitting activities are placed on a
rotating five-year schedule such that the same activity
occurs in each watershed within a group at the same time.
TDEC uses its watershed management approach as a
program inventory tool that reflects a common strategy for
information collection and analysis as well as a common
understanding about roles, priorities, and responsibilities
of all stakeholders within a watershed group. In addition
to balancing staff workload at twenty percent of the total
workload per year for five years, a watershed focus helps
identify the most cost-effective pollution control strate-
gies to meet clean water goals. This case study discusses
TDEC's process for implementing its statewide watershed
management approach to developing NPDES permits.

Background

TDEC's Division of Water Pollution Control initiated the
watershed management approach to better manage plan-
ning and resources and to streamline watershed activi-
ties. Tennessee designed its watershed approach to be
programmatic and to address what it calls the "Three Es":
efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability.

Watershed: Te^^essee S'to.'teujide
Wcaters bed Approach

Watershed Approaches Used:

•	F'lA.hyh\ih\J, y*Ok-\t'toKf A.S $ e S S KV\ e b\11, TM & L

development,	permi't'ttSyb\chrob\tied on a

five^yefi.t cycle

•	WA.'tershed m^n^emen't process docv\w\enrted

Wfi.'ter GLv\*.li"ty M fi-n^ement F*l^nS

Stakeholders:

•	QenetA.1 Public

•	Qivision of Wt^er F*ol(fficeS

•	division of W^cter Supply

•	Tennessee Pepfi.r'tvnen't of AjrictAl'tiAre (TQA)
N onpo i n't source f>rojrA.m

•	NAtfc!/-*./ Re source s {ZonSetv fiction Service

(nkcs)

•	U.S. QeolojicA.1 Survey

•	Tennessee V*lley Avi'tkort-tLf (TVA)
»	U.S. Arr*Corp of St^cjieri

•	Nedt'oht^l R^rfc Set-vice

•	U.S. Forest Service

•	U.S. FisU n.t-.d Wrid I if'e Service

•	Locn.1 W 6-tersked Groups

Stakeholder Involvement Techniques:

•	Public meetings jet Key points of five~~ye
watershed cycle

•	Consulting *jitt\ Tennessee Valley Authority oh
promoting partnerships

•	Post in j Wfider duo.1ity Mev*ent Pl*.nS oh
Web site

1


-------
Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Te^^essee S'te^teiAjide Approach

Watershed Delineation

Watershed boundaries are defined by the topographic
dividing line where water flows in two different directions;
however, the scale for defining a hydrologic unit varies
depending on the scale of investigation. USGS assigns
HUCs consisting of two to twelve digits based on six levels
of classification. HUCs with more digits represent a smaller
portion of the watershed.

HUC Classification

Name

Digits

# in US

Avg size (sq mi)

Region

2

21

177,560

Subregion

4

222

16,800

Accounting unit

6

352

10,596

Cataloguing unit

8

2,262

700

Watershed

10

n/a

227

Subwatershed

12

n/a

40

The first four levels (2- to 8-digit) have been completed and
certified for the entire United States. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service is
presently developing a national system that will delineate,
number, and name hydrologic units on the watershed and
subwatershed scales.

The development of Tennessee's approach is not formally
documented, but it was initiated by the Division of Water
Pollution Control management who attended a U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) Watershed Conference
in 1994. After learning about other states' efforts in water-
shed-based permitting, Tennessee investigated options for
implementing a watershed approach and decided to make
programmatic changes to its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issuance process.

The Division of Water Pollution Control formed a new sec-
tion, called the Watershed Management Section, and moved
nonpoint source program staff to the Tennessee Department
of Agriculture (TDA). The Watershed Management Section
coordinates with the nonpoint source program staff at TDA,
as well as the Planning and Standards Section (responsible
for monitoring strategies, water quality standards, and the
Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list), the Permits Section
(responsible for issuing permits), and the Environmental
Field Offices, or EFOs, (responsible for water quality moni-
toring). More information about these programs is available
on TDA's Nonpoint Source Web site www.tennessee.gov/
agriculture/water/nps.html, TDEC's NPDES Permit Web site
http://tn.gov/environment/permits/npdes.shtml, and Tennes-
see's Environmental Field Offices Web site http://tennessee.
gov/environment/efo/ TDEC also partners with other agen-
cies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service and
the Tennessee Valley Authority, watershed groups, and local
universities to support watershed planning and restoration
projects. Currently, the Watershed Management Section
consists of eight people: four in the watershed group, who
prepare watershed water quality management plans, and
four in the TMDL group, who conduct modeling, waste load
allocations, and prepare TMDL reports.

Initially, the Director requested that staff develop a plan for
conducting business using the watershed approach. Staff
designed and implemented the program as part of their regu-
lar workload. The first task for the section was to organize
USGS's HUC-8 watershed list into five Watershed Manage-
ment Groups, which are depicted in Figure 1. Currently, all
Water Pollution Control programs are using the watershed
approach and schedule. The NPDES permits within each
watershed were organized so that permits within a water-
shed would be issued during the same year. A Septem-
ber 14, 1995, memo from the Director to all NPDES permit-
tees advised dischargers of forthcoming schedule changes to
their permit terms and invited them to a meeting to discuss
the new watershed approach.

Tennessee Watershed
Management Groups

North Fork _ ^ _ , ,,

Holston South Fork Holston
06010101	06010102—

Mississippi y J
06010100 ot"°"
^ | (North Fork,

Group 1

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Figure 1. Tennessee Watershed Management Groups

2


-------
Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Te^^essee S~tfi^tei^>ide Approach

Strategy

The goals of Tennessee's watershed approach are to inte-
grate all aspects of watershed management into a struc-
tured, scheduled program and to be efficient, effective, and
equitable in program implementation. The framework for the
approach is based on the concept that many water quality
problems, like the accumulation of pollutants or nonpoint
source pollution, are best addressed at the watershed level.

Watershed management activities across Tennessee occur
over five-year cycles. As shown in Figure 2, the cycle begins
in a different year for each of the five Watershed Manage-
ment Groups. Thus, the current activities for each group at
any point depend on the group's position in the five-year
cycle. The six key activities that occur during the cycle are:

4 Planning. TDEC compiles existing data and reports
from appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and
citizen-based organizations and uses them to describe
the quality of rivers and streams and to determine
monitoring priorities. Priority streams are those on the
CWA 303(d) list, those previously non-assessed, and
those believed to exhibit a change in water quality
since they were monitored last.

4 Water Quality Monitoring. TDEC staff collect field
data for streams previously identified as priority
streams. These data supplement existing data and are
used for water quality assessments.

4 Assessment. TDEC uses monitoring data to determine
whether the streams support their designated uses
based on stream classifications and water quality
criteria. This assessment is used to develop the CWA
303(d) list and the CWA 305(b) report. Following
this assessment, TDEC conducts a public meeting to
inform the public of the most recent results.

4 Wasteload Allocation/

TMDL. TMDLs exam-
ine both point source
and nonpoint source
contributions to the
watershed. TDEC uses
the monitoring data not
only to determine pol-
lutant limits for NPDES
point source discharg-
ers, but also for TMDL
development to ensure
water quality standards
are met. TDEC's TMDL
Web site www.state.
tn.us/environment/wpc/
tmdl/ provides more
information on TMDLs

and TMDL development in Tennessee. TDA's Nonpoint
Source Web site www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/
water/nps.html provides more information about
the use of watershed planning and nonpoint source
projects.

4 Permits. TDEC synchronizes issuance and expira-
tion of all point source discharge permits to follow
the five-year watershed cycle. Permits are issued
following completion of the five-year watershed
management cycle (e.g., if planning begins in 2005,
permits are drafted in 2009 and issued in 2010).
Tennessee issues approximately 1,350 individual
NPDES permits. All permits were organized by HUC-8
geographic areas by 2000, so that all NPDES permits
in a watershed are now re-issued at approximately the
same time. With all the permits in a watershed expir-
ing in the same year, permit writers are able to better
address watershed-wide issues.

4 Watershed Water Quality Management Plans. The

watershed analysis is documented through Tennessee's
Watershed Water Quality Management plans. Each
plan includes six chapters that provide a generic sum-
mary of TDEC's Watershed Approach to Water Quality,
a general description of the watershed, a water quality
assessment of the watershed, a point and nonpoint
source characterization of the watershed, water qual-
ity partnerships in the watershed, and future plans/
restoration strategies for the watershed. TDEC holds
a second public meeting to discuss draft plans with
local citizens, elected officials, and the regulated com-
munity. TDEC's Watershed Management Plans Web
site www.tn.gov/environment/watersheds/wsmplans/
provides links to the Watershed Management Plans for
specific watersheds organized by Watershed Group.

Figure 2. Tennessee's Watershed Management Cycle

Activities

Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Planning

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5



















Water Quality
Monitoring

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5



















Assessment

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4



















Waste Load
Allocation

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2



















Draft Discharge
Permits/
Management Plan

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1



















Issue Permits

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5


-------
Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Te^^essee S'te^teiAjide Approach

All of the activities in the cycle are coordinated by the Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control and are designed to comple-
ment one another: planning helps lead to effective program
implementation; monitoring and assessment support use
determinations, TMDL studies, and NPDES effluent limita-
tion development; and Watershed Water Quality Manage-
ment Plans are used for basin planning. TDEC uses the
sequence of activities in Tennessee's watershed approach as
a tool to analyze the watershed every five years and to docu-
ment the results of that process in its published plans.

Stakeholder Involvement

The Watershed Approach represents awareness that restor-
ing and maintaining Tennessee's waters requires crossing
traditional barriers (point vs. nonpoint sources of pollution)
when designing solutions. These solutions increasingly rely
on participation by both public and private sectors, where
citizens, elected officials and technical personnel all have
opportunity to participate. Tennessee believes that this
integrated approach mirrors the complicated relationships in
which people live, work, and recreate in a watershed.

When designing its approach, TDEC looked to the Tennes-
see Valley Authority, which, since 1992, had been build-
ing partnerships with community residents, businesses,
and government agencies to promote watershed protection
through its Clean Water Initiative. In addition to consulting
the Tennessee Valley Authority for its watershed knowledge
during development of the program, TDEC used Tennessee
Valley Authority's River Action Teams as models for stake-
holder involvement.

Tennessee welcomes participation in any phase of the
watershed management cycle. Following the assessment
that occurs during the second year of the cycle discussed
above, a watershed-wide meeting is held (during the third
year) to inform the public about the most recent water qual-
ity assessment and to invite input about water quality issues
in the watershed. Another public meeting Is held in the fifth
year of the cycle for comment on the draft Watershed Water
Quality Management Plans. The TDEC homepage and direct
contact with local Environmental Field Offices provide addi-
tional opportunities for public involvement. Figure 3 Illus-
trates the how NPDES permit development fits within the
Watershed Management Cycle and illustrates Tennessee's
commitment to public participation and transparency in all
NPDES activities.

Factors Considered During Development

Specific factors considered during initial development of
Tennessee's watershed groups were watershed proximity
to field offices, complexity of the issues (i.e., upstream to
downstream, number of permittees in each watershed), and
geographic scale of watershed. The primary consideration
for the Watershed Management Section staff during this

Figure 3. Phases of NPDES Permit Development
on a Watershed Management Cycle

NPDES Permits
Issued Following *+
Public Notice

New Cycle
Begins

	

o/ve^ I

Watershed Assessment
& Public Update

Monitoring
Strategies

& Data
Collection

grouping process was the appropriate scale for associating
watersheds with HUC geographical management units. After
initially contemplating HUC-6, HUC-8, and HUC-10 clas-
sifications, they chose HUC-8 because it has available land
use and agricultural census (livestock) information and is
considered to be a more manageable unit than a larger area
designation. TDEC was also committed to local participation,
and the smaller unit of HUC-8 corresponds better to local
citizen identity.

TDEC identified several potential benefits that it considered
when designing its Watershed Management Cycle. These
benefits included:

4 Attaining water quality goals: The approach should
increase focus on attaining and maintaining water
quality goals and ecological integrity, rather than on
program activities such as number of permits issued.
The approach also should ensure timely development
of TMDLs and promote effective control strategies.

4 Improving the basis for management decisions: By

considering both point and nonpoint source stressors,
the approach should improve the scientific basis for
decision making. Managers can focus their efforts on
watersheds where they are most needed.

4


-------
Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Te^^essee S~tfi^tei^>ide Approach

4 Enhancing program efficiency: The approach should
improve the efficiency of water management programs
by facilitating integration and coordination of program
activities within each watershed.

4 Improving coordination: The approach should enable
coordination between federal, state, and local agen-
cies, including data sharing, pooling of resources, con-
ducting assessments and managing control strategies.

4 Increasing public involvement: The approach should
provide opportunities for stakeholders to increase
their awareness of water-related issues and to inform
staff about their knowledge of the watershed, includ-
ing scheduled public meetings during the five-year
watershed management cycle, as well as meetings at
stakeholders' request.

4 Providing greater consistency and responsiveness:

Developing goals and management plans for a water-
shed using stakeholder involvement should provide
increased awareness of public perceptions, respon-
siveness to the public's needs, and consistency in
determining management actions.

Program Effectiveness

The Watershed Management Section defines success
programmatically by the improved administration and
watershed characterization achieved through the Watershed
Management Cycle. Long-term programmatic goals include
development of watershed restoration plans. The Watershed
Management Section has achieved several programmatic
milestones that it considers indicators of success:

4 permit reissuance is synchronized by watershed,
which allows the Permitting Section to consider cumu-
lative effects of permits and provides the additional
benefit of facilitating planning for staff resources;

4 98 percent (all but one) of the watershed Water Qual-
ity Management Plans that inventory point sources,
document nonpoint sources, and provide information
to develop watershed restoration plans are complete;

4 80 percent of the Water Quality Management Plans
are available on the TDEC Web site (www.tn.gov/
environment/watersheds/wsmplans/); and

4 TDEC coordinates effectively with the Tennessee
Department of Agriculture nonpoint source program
(administrators of the 319 program).

In addition, public awareness has increased through the
development of Watershed Water Quality Management
Plans, which has improved cooperation and formulated
productive relationships. There is strong stakeholder sup-
port from permittees, who appreciate the goals of efficiency,
effectiveness, and equitability. Permits are more efficient
because there is better coordination and synchronization,
more effective because monitoring data are used to develop
water quality based effluent limitations, and more equitable
because watershed management plans examine all permit-
tees in the watershed. Other stakeholders are motivated
to participate in the process because of the opportunity to
become involved with protection of water quality in their
watersheds.

Tennessee believes that its watershed approach establishes
a strong foundation for water quality improvement. As the
watershed approach begins to address watershed restora-
tion through watershed restoration plans, streams should be
removed from the CWA 303(d) list with greater regularity.
TDEC reports these success stories to EPA and also posts
them on the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (nonpoint
source program) Web site www.state.tn.us/agriculture/water/
success.html.

Lessons Learned & Next Steps

One lesson Tennessee learned was that it was difficult to
anticipate staff resource needs when implementing a water-
shed approach. When beginning to implement its watershed
approach, TDEC underestimated the time needed to syn-
chronize permits and develop Water Quality Management
Plans. Now that one five-year cycle has been completed
(all watershed plans have been written), progress is more
predictable. The new challenge is to move the plans from
inventories (the Water Quality Management Plans) to active
watershed restoration plans. If the approach is replicated
in another state, that state should anticipate an adjustment
period when reorganizing to implement a watershed man-
agement cycle.

Another lesson Tennessee learned was the importance of
appropriately defining geographic scope. Tennessee grappled
with its decision to use HUC-8 as the organizing unit. Each
state should decide whether this geographic focus suits its
needs. In the future, the Tennessee Watershed Approach will
be moving from the HUC-8 watershed geographic manage-
ment units toward using HUC-12 subwatersheds for water-
shed restoration plans. A smaller area is easier to evaluate
for specific projects. TDEC also will coordinate permit re-
issuance at the HUC-12 level when appropriate.

5


-------
Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study

Te^^essee S~tfi^tei^>ide Approach

Resources

Communication between Jennifer Duckworth, Tetra Tech, Inc. and David Hair, EPA OWM Permits Division on June 19, 2008.

Communication between Jennifer Duckworth, Tetra Tech, Inc., Sherry Wang, Manager Watershed Management Section, and
David Duhl, TDEC Watershed Coordinator on July 3, 2008.

Electronic communication from David Duhl. TDEC Watershed Coordinator, to Jennifer Duckworth, Tetra Tech, Inc. on
August 19, 2008.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Watershed Management Approach Web site
.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Watershed Water Quality Management Plans
.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Planning and Standards Section,
Proposed Final Year 2008 303(d) List, May, 2008.

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2009, Federal guide-
lines, requirements, and procedures for the national Watershed Boundary Dataset: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods 11-A3 .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Watersheds, Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Unit
Codes, Watershed Approach, and Rapid Watershed Assessments Fact Sheet. June 18, 2007.
.

Note: All Web references current as of December 11, 2009.

6


-------