Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach 

EPA 841-R-95-004 

Office of Water 

(4503F) 

August 1995 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... 2 

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 4 

What Does Managing by Watersheds Entail? ............................................................................ 5 

Why Implement a Watershed Protection Approach?.................................................................. 6 

How Does a State Get Started?................................................................................................... 6 

How Does Ground Water Protection Fit?................................................................................... 7 

Foreword........................................................................................................................................ 8 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 9 

Chapter 1. The Watershed Protection Approach .................................................................... 10 

1.1 Historical Perspective ......................................................................................................... 10 

1.2 The Clean Water Act .......................................................................................................... 10 

1.3 The Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................................. 11 

1.4 The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) ..................................................................... 11 

1.5 Managing by Hydrologic as Well as Political Units........................................................... 15 

Chapter 2: Managing by Watershed: Common Elements...................................................... 18 

2.1 Management Units.............................................................................................................. 18 

2.2 Management Cycles............................................................................................................ 21 

2.3 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................... 25 

2.4 Strategic Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 26 

2.5 Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 27 

2.6 Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources.................................................................... 28 

2.7 Developing Management Strategies................................................................................... 29 

2.8 Management plans.............................................................................................................. 31 

2 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

2.9 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 33 

Chapter 3: Why Manage by Watersheds?................................................................................ 36 

3.1 Water Quality Programs Can Focus More Directly on the Resource................................. 36 

3.2 The Basis for Management Decisions is Improved ............................................................ 36 

3.3 Program Efficiency Is Enhanced ........................................................................................ 37 

3.4 Coordination Among Agencies in the State Can Be Improved .......................................... 37 

3.5 Resources Are Better Directed to Priority Issues ............................................................... 38 

3.6 Coordination with EPA Can Be Improved ......................................................................... 39 

3.7 Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged..................................................................... 40 

3.8 Opportunities for Data Sharing Are Enhanced ................................................................... 40 

3.9 Public Involvement is Enhanced......................................................................................... 41 

3.10 Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged .............................................................................. 41 

Chapter 4: Getting Started ........................................................................................................ 45 

4.1 Establishing a Common Direction...................................................................................... 45 

4.2 Managing the Transition..................................................................................................... 46 

4.3 Documenting the Approach ................................................................................................ 47 

4.4 Identifying Barriers............................................................................................................. 49 

4.5 Tailoring the Approach....................................................................................................... 50 

References.................................................................................................................................... 55 

Appendix A: How Does Ground Water Protection Fit? ......................................................... 57 

Appendix B: Management Cycle for the State of Nebraska................................................... 60 

3 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Executive Summary 

The Watershed Protection Approach is a strategy for effectively protecting and restoring aquatic 

ecosystems and protecting human health. This strategy has as its premise that many water quality 

and ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather than at the individual 

waterbody or discharger level. The Watershed Protection Approach has four major features: 

targeting priority problems, a high level of stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions that 

make use of the expertise and authority of multiple agencies, and measuring success through 

monitoring and other data gathering. 

One framework that states use to implement the Watershed Protection Approach focuses on 

organizing and managing by the state's major watersheds, which are called basins in this 

document. This flexible framework encompasses management and protection of ecosystems and 

human health at three levels: the state, the basin, and the watersheds within each basin. Some 

issues are best addressed at the watershed level, such as controlling nutrient loading to small 

lakes or restoring headwaters riparian habitat quality. Other issues may be best addressed at the 

basin level, such as phosphate detergent bans, wetlands mitigation banking, or nutrient trading. 

Still other activities and solutions are best implemented at the state level, including policies on 

toxics control or the operation of permit programs. 

To be comprehensive, the approach requires consideration of all environmental concerns, 

including needs to protect public health (including drinking water), critical habitats such as 

wetlands, biological integrity and surface and ground waters. This involves improved 

coordination among federal, state and local agencies so that all appropriate concerns are 

represented. Such involvement is especially important to integrate emerging programs such as 

ground water protection with older program frameworks. So, for example, the concerns 

addressed through Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs), 

Wellhead Protection Programs, National Estuary Programs or State Management Plans for 

Pesticides would be considered along with concerns addressed by wetlands protection programs 

and our more traditional programs for point and nonpoint source pollution prevention and 

control. The state experiences on which this document are based reflect different levels of 

integration. Thus, although the document is based on their experiences, it does attempt to 

identify opportunities for incorporating a truly comprehensive approach. 

A number of states, for example, are developing watershed approaches and CSGWPPs tailored 

to their priorities and individual local conditions. Together, these approaches will serve as a 

broad framework for facilitating surface and ground water coordination and, ultimately, will 

involve all appropriate state agency staff in setting goals, establishing priorities, convening and 

overseeing watershed teams and implementing integrated and effective solutions. 

4 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

What Does Managing by Watersheds Entail? 

A statewide watershed approach, as described in this document, is an approach to managing 

water quality by major hydrologic units. Typically, activities such as monitoring, planning, and 

permitting are conducted according to a set schedule (e.g., monitoring in years 1 and 2, data 

analysis and modeling in year 3, plan development in year 4, permit issuance and plan approval 

in year 5). Several state approaches have other elements in common as well: 

• Management units -- Large hydrologic units (e.g., major river basins or aquifers) are 

delineated by the state; each "basin" contains multiple watersheds. 

• Management cycles -- A state's basins are grouped in sequence so that the entire state 

is studied, and management plans developed, in a set period (typically, 5 years). 

• Stakeholder involvement -- Agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in the 

water quality, ecosystem health, and management strategies are included in watershed 

management activities. 

• Strategic monitoring -- Water quality and ecological health are monitored to measure 

the extent of problems and the stressors involved; this is typically done on a rotating 

basis (e.g., two summers of sampling every 5 years for a given basin). 

• Assessment -- Data analysis and professional judgment are used to identify problems, 

sources, and stressors; water quality standards are integral to assessments because 

they reflect criteria for restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and 

biological integrity of water. 

• Prioritization and targeting -- Waterbodies or watersheds are ranked according to 

resource value, degree of impairment, and other factors; specific watersheds or 

waterbodies are targeted for special management attention. 

• Development of management strategies -- Realistic goals are set for the basin and its 

watersheds; management strategies are then developed before allocating scarce 

resources. 

• Basin or watershed plans -- These plans document the assessment results, goals, and 

chosen management strategies for each basin or watershed; a plan may be issued in 

conjunction with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

and revised periodically (e.g., every 5 years); the plan also serves to educate the 

public on basin-specific issues. 

• Implementation -- Selected management strategies are implemented in the years 

between updates of the plan. 

5 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Why Implement a Watershed Protection Approach? 

Watershed protection provides states with a framework for protecting their watersheds and 

addressing all priority problems, not just those most readily solved. States already implementing 

a Watershed Protection Approach anticipate many benefits, including: 

• More direct focus by stakeholders on achieving ecological goals and water quality 

standards rather than on measurement of program activities such as numbers of 

permits or samples 

• Improved basis for management decisions through consideration of both traditional 

stressors (e.g., toxics from point sources, biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients) and 

nonchemical stressors (e.g., habitat loss, temperature, sediment, low flow) 

• Enhanced program efficiency because activities such as monitoring or permit writing 

are focused on a limited number of watersheds at a time 

• Improved coordination among federal, state and local agencies and other 

organizations, including increased data sharing and pooling of resources 

• Enhanced public involvement, including better relations with permittees due to 

increased involvement and greater consistency and equitability in permit conditions 

• Innovative solutions such as ecological restoration, wetlands mitigation banking, and 

market-based solutions (e.g., pollutant trading or restoration in lieu of advanced 

wastewater treatment). 

How Does a State Get Started? 

Switching from program-centered to watershed management is a major functional change for 

most state agencies, although it need not involve a change in organizational structure. Strong 

commitment of high-level management is essential, as is strong leadership on the part of the 

individual(s) appointed to direct implementation. Important first steps include budgeting 

sufficient time for key staff who will develop the approach, educating all parties on the principles 

of watershed management, and establishing an efficient means of communication among staff. 

Several states have used outside facilitators to bring staff from various program areas together to 

agree on common purposes and work out potential "turf" issues. 

The lead agency should consider preparing a detailed framework document that describes overall 

goals and objectives, the basin cycle, basin-specific schedules, roles and responsibilities of each 

organizational unit, procedures for developing plans, and guidelines for public involvement. 

Any Watershed Protection Approach must be tailored to suit the state's particular situation. State 

officials can benefit from reviewing the framework documents and, in some cases, watershed 

management plans from states such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Delaware and 

Washington. 

6 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

How Does Ground Water Protection Fit? 

Ground water and surface water are often directly connected, with water flowing back and forth 

from one resource to the other over time. The quality of ground water contributes to the overall 

condition of the watershed, and ground water may serve as a medium for transporting pollutants 

to surface waters (and vice versa). In many instances, the Watershed Protection Approach is an 

appropriate framework for integrating surface water and ground water protection. 

In other instances, ground water protection presents challenges that differ from those 

encountered in protecting surface waters. For example, because ground water is so expensive and 

difficult to clean up, there is heavy emphasis on prevention. Other dissimilarities between the 

two resources include differing transport mechanisms, monitoring approaches and resource 

boundaries (e.g., aquifer boundaries may not coincide with basin or watershed boundaries). 

A truly comprehensive statewide approach, therefore, must be designed to address specific 

concerns about ground water in addition to concerns about surface water. These concerns include 

how to address immediate and ongoing ground water program priorities such as wellhead 

protection with a state's Watershed Protection Approach. CSGWPPs provide states with the 

opportunity to implement an aquifer protection approach that integrates well with a Watershed 

Protection Approach. CSGWPPs incorporate the principles of the Watershed Protection 

Approach in that they are place-based, include the relevant stakeholders, consider multiple 

environmental objectives and give the leading role to states. CSGWPPs play an important part in 

tailoring all water programs to meet specific needs within watersheds at the local, state and 

federal levels. 

7 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Foreword 

The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) is a departure from the way the EPA has 

traditionally operated its water quality programs and how federal, tribal, and state governments 

have typically approached natural resource management. Resource management programs -- 

programs for wetlands protection, wastewater discharge permitting, flood control, farmer 

assistance, drinking water supply, fish and game management, and recreation -- have tended to 

operate as individual entities and occasionally at cross purposes. 

We now generally recognize that the critical environmental issues facing society are so 

intertwined that a comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach is required. We also recognize that 

solving environmental problems depends increasingly on local governments and local citizens. 

Thus, the need to integrate across traditional program areas (e.g., flood control, wastewater, land 

use) and across levels of government (federal, state, tribal, local) is leading natural resource 

management toward a watershed approach. 

One emerging framework for a statewide Watershed Protection Approach focuses on organizing 

and managing by a state's major watersheds, which are called basins in this document. In this 

statewide approach, activities such as water quality monitoring, planning and permitting are 

coordinated on a set schedule within large watersheds or basins. Involvement of other natural 

resource agencies is actively sought to achieve water quality and ecosystem goals. 

This document is one of two guides to watershed protection designed for state water quality 

managers. A second guide, Watershed Protection: A Project Focus, describes another aspect of 

the Watershed Protection Approach -- developing projects for the individual watershed. It 

provides a blueprint for designing and implementing watershed projects, including references 

and case studies. 

I trust this Watershed Protection Approach document will provide a useful guide for state water 

quality managers and others involved in watershed-based activities as they adopt, implement and 

evaluate watershed protection programs. 

Robert H. Wayland, III, Director

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

8 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Acknowledgements 

This document was prepared by Amy Sosin and Donald Brady of the Assessment and Watershed 

Protection Division, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Trevor Clements and 

Clayton Creager of The Cadmus Group and Michael McCarthy, Bill Cooter, and Kathleen 

Mohar of Research Triangle Institute. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of 

reviewers from within EPA and other agencies including the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control, the North Carolina Division of Environmental 

Management, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 

9 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Chapter 1. The Watershed Protection Approach 

1.1 Historical Perspective 

The concept of water resources management within watersheds originated as early as the 1890s 

with the work of the U.S. Inland Waterways Commission. The Commission, with the backing of 

President Roosevelt, reported to Congress in 1908 that each river system -- from its headwaters 

in the mountains to its mouth at the coast -- is an integrated system and must be treated as such 

(Inland Waterways Commission, 1908). The focus of water resources management then and 

throughout the first half of the century was on efficient use of water resources for such purposes 

as energy production, navigation, flood control, irrigation, and drinking water. 

The 1950s and 1960s saw increased emphasis on improving ambient water quality and protecting 

the Nation's drinking water, much of which comes from ground water. The Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1956 provided large-scale funding of publicly owned treatment works. 

The Water Quality Act of 1965 required states to develop water quality standards for interstate 

waters. River basin compacts were formed to protect major systems such as the Delaware and 

Colorado Rivers. Some state sanitation commissions adopted a river basin approach to their 

work. They developed basin plans that classified individual waterbodies according to their best 

uses. These early water quality managers walked, boated, and drove throughout entire river 

basins, documenting outfall pipes and collecting ambient samples. 

1.2 The Clean Water Act 

In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL92-500) established as a 

national goal the restoration and maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation's waters. The dominant features of this Clean Water Act (CWA) were a Federal 

permitting program (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES) and 

massive funding for wastewater treatment and state water quality programs. Under NPDES, each 

discharger receives a permit containing numerical effluent limits that are, at a minimum, based 

on best available wastewater treatment technology or other guidelines (technology-based limits); 

more stringent limits are issued where needed to take into account the condition of the waterbody 

(water quality-based limits). 

Under Section 303(e) of the CWA, states prepared basin plans for controlling their point source 

problems. These plans consolidated most known information about dischargers and water quality 

and helped form the basis for grant decisions for wastewater treatment. Mathematical models 

were used to determine allowable loads from municipal and industrial treatment plants. 

However, after the initial plans were completed, most states maintained only a limited basin 

planning function while focusing on individual point source problems. 

The CWA also set the stage of early ground water protection efforts. Under Section 102, EPA, 

states and other federal and interstate agencies are authorized to develop comprehensive 

programs to reduce, prevent and eliminate pollution to ground water and surface waters. This 

authority, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

10 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

and Rodenticide Act and other laws provided for the initiation of Comprehensive State Ground 

Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). 

In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress required states to expand their programs for 

dealing with toxicants, nonpoint sources (NPSs), wetlands, water quality standards and other 

topics. These requirements have strained state budgets and made multi-agency programs such as 

NPS management more difficult to coordinate effectively. Moreover, the states' progress in 

eliminating point source pollution has revealed that NPS pollution and habitat degradation 

account for most of the Nation's remaining water quality problems (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency [EPA], 1994a). 

1.3 The Safe Drinking Water Act 

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) drew together several important programs 

protecting public health that now need to be considered within a comprehensive Watershed 

Protection Approach. Then, in the late 1970's, hazardous waste sites were found to be affecting 

public water systems. Some of these sites suffered from surface water intrusion and 

contaminated ground water discharge. The 1986 amendments established further the basis for 

protecting ground water supplying drinking water to public water systems and private users. The 

types of contaminants that must be removed by drinking water systems was quadrupled. The 

requirements for testing this expanded list of contaminants impose significant costs on State and 

local drinking water monitoring programs. 

EPA has also established the Source Water Protection and Wellhead Protection Programs under 

the SDWA. Source Water Protection emphasizes preventing contamination of drinking water 

resources and includes wellhead protection and sole source aquifer watershed control plans. The 

Wellhead Protection Program sets priority on contamination to ground waters that will provide 

drinking water in the next 5 to 20 years. It relies upon hydrologic models of ground water flow to 

define the protection area which may include the portion of the stream and the watershed 

upstream from the well. The Sole Source Aquifer Program allows the public to define entire 

aquifers that provide at least half the population's drinking water, whether for public or private 

use. Watershed control plans under the surface water treatment rule are used to define the area 

providing drinking water to a public water system experiencing microbial contamination. The 

area is to be managed to reduce or eliminate contaminant sources. 

1.4 The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) 

A comprehensive approach to water resource management is needed to address the myriad water 

quality problems that exist today from nonpoint and point sources as well as from habitat 

degradation. The WPA is a management approach for more effectively protecting and restoring 

aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health. The EPA Office of Water is using this 

approach to focus on hydrologically defined resource areas -- watersheds and aquifers. The WPA 

recognizes that water quality management must embrace human and ecosystem health and that 

managing for one without considering the other can be detrimental to both. The WPA allows 

managing a range of inputs for specific outputs. It emphasizes all aspects of water quality 

including chemical water quality (e.g., toxicants and conventional pollutants), physical water 

11 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

quality (e.g., temperature, flow, circulation, ground and surface water interaction), habitat quality 

(e.g., channel morphology, substrate composition, and riparian zone characteristics), biological 

health and biodiversity (e.g., species abundance, diversity, and range) and subsurface biogeochemistry. 

The WPA has four major features: targeting priority problems, stakeholder involvement, 

integrated solutions, and measuring success (Figure 1-1). It is important to note that the WPA is 

not a new program that competes with or replaces existing water quality programs; rather, it is a 

framework within which ongoing programs can be integrated effectively. Further, a watershed 

approach can provide benefits to individual citizens and the public and private sectors. 

12 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Individual citizens benefit because watershed protection improves the environment. The public 

sector benefits because agencies can accomplish more through cooperation with other 

stakeholders than they can on their own with limited resources. The participation of local 

organizations ensures that those who are likely to be most familiar with a watershed, its 

problems, and possible solutions play a major part, often a leadership role. The private sector can 

benefit because the burden of water resource protection is distributed more equitably among 

pollution sources. All stakeholders benefit because they can participate in decisionmaking that is 

based on a comprehensive assessment of the watershed including all interacting aquifers. 

The features of the WPA shown in Figure 1-1 include a strong monitoring and evaluation 

component. Using monitoring data, stakeholders identify stressors that may pose health and 

ecological risk in the watershed and any related aquifers, and prioritize these stressors. 

Monitoring is also essential to determining the effectiveness of management options chosen by 

stakeholders to address high-priority stressors. Because many watershed protection activities 

require long-term commitments from stakeholders, stakeholders need to know whether their 

efforts are achieving real improvements in water quality. 

Figure 1-2 illustrates how the WPA fits into the context of CWA implementation by a state water 

quality agency. The peak of the pyramid represents the goal of restoring and maintaining 

ecosystem integrity for human and aquatic health. Water quality standards and other 

environmental objectives are the measures of ecosystem integrity that comprise the next level of 

the pyramid. As suggested by its position in the pyramid, one purpose of the WPA is to integrate 

the many individual programs that have evolved to implement the goals of the CWA (e.g., to 

restore, protect and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's 

waters) and the SDWA (e.g., to protect human health through source water protection). 

CWA Section 303(d) and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process provide one key 

legislative and technical underpinning for the WPA. A TMDL may involve all of the actions or 

programs shown: point and nonpoint source controls, monitoring, and restoration. Similarly, 

SDWA programs for Source Water Protection and Wellhead Protection can be key components 

of the WPA. Each state may make more or less use of each of these CWA and SDWA programs, 

tailoring them to create its unique watershed approach. Various sources of funding may be 

brought to bear to carry out the WPA (e.g., federal grants, state appropriations, and permit fees). 

13 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

The pyramid includes initiatives by other agencies as integral components of a WPA. Examples 

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture include the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS; formerly the Soil Conservation Service or SCS) Small Watersheds Program; another 

NRCS initiative to delineate consistent watersheds nationwide; and the U.S. Forest Service's 

South Fork Salmon River Project, where restoration efforts seek to mitigate sediment impacts 

from past livestock grazing, logging, and road building activities. 

The WPA has evolved over the past several years. In 1991, EPA produced an initial framework 

document that discussed EPA's concept for watershed protection and outlined EPA's potential 

role in watershed protection efforts (U.S. EPA, 1991). Since that time, EPA has provided support 

to states and other entities to help build on the many existing regional, state, and local watershedbased programs and watershed projects. Following extensive consultation with the States, EPA 

issued its National Guidance for Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (U.S. 

EPA, 1993a). EPA has worked with many other Federal agencies to harmonize the WPA with 

other agency approaches. EPA has jointly and singly sponsored numerous conferences on 

watershed management. 

14 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Point source controls and other traditional approaches to water quality management have been 

effective to date in resolving many of our Nation's water quality problems. The WPA provides a 

flexible model for tackling the complex environmental problems that we still face today. In 

addition, the growing number of water resource programs with overlapping functions requires 

the coordination and integration that a watershed approach can provide. A watershed approach 

also allows new partnerships to form among federal, state, and local agencies, citizens, and the 

private sector that are focused on a specific resource. Finally, the WPA's emphasis on 

stakeholder participation fosters a sense of ownership and stewardship of local resources. 

1.5 Managing by Hydrologic as Well as Political Units 

Watershed boundaries seldom if ever coincide with jurisdictional boundaries such as state, 

county or town lines. Like watersheds, aquifers too are natural hydrologic units that seldom 

match jurisdictional boundaries but have unique management needs. This has long presented a 

special challenge to local and state water resource managers whose geographic areas of 

responsibility are politically rather than hydrologically based. It further complicates matters that 

watersheds occur on a range of scales from the sub-national or regional (e.g., the Mississippi 

watershed) down to local scale (e.g., the watershed of a small creek). At any scale, watersheds 

and aquifers function as natural systems within which resource managers and stakeholders can 

work to establish and maintain the best possible combination of ecological condition and human 

health and welfare. 

It is possible to organize watershed management around watersheds at scales large or small. In 

an average state, there may be ten or more major watersheds containing several hundred 

moderately-sized watersheds, and thousands of still smaller watersheds within these. Given the 

variety of scales and geographic units available, then, how can state resource managers best 

implement their programs on watershed management units? 

One framework that states use to implement the WPA focuses on organizing and managing by 

the state's major watersheds, which are frequently called basins in this document. This flexible 

framework encompasses management and protection of ecosystems and human health at three 

levels: the state, the basin, and the watersheds (and aquifers) within each basin. Some issues, 

such as controlling nutrient loading to small lakes or restoring headwaters riparian habitat 

quality, are best addressed at the local watershed level. Other issues may be best addressed at the 

basin level, such as phosphate detergent bans, wetlands mitigation banking, or nutrient trading. 

Still other activities and solutions are best implemented at the state level, including policies on 

toxics control or the operation of permit programs. 

Typically, the state's basins and selected major aquifers become the primary management units 

in this framework. Program activities such as permitting, monitoring, modeling, and water 

quality planning are scheduled for each basin on a rotating five-year cycle covering all the state's 

basins. Other activities such as compliance and enforcement are ongoing throughout the cycle. 

Products include an initial state framework document describing this approach and individual 

basin management plans that are updated every five-year cycle (Figure 1-3). 

15 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

When states manage by basins, their programs are organized around a limited and manageable 

number of major watersheds occurring within the state. Basin-level activities can be coordinated 

more broadly with statewide actions and policies, or more locally with watersheds of concern 

within a basin. This approach can be an improvement on past approaches to water resources 

management because it compels managers to focus on systems (basins, watersheds and aquifers), 

how well these systems are working, and how the management needs for these systems differ 

from watershed to watershed. 

16 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

1.6 Purpose of This Document and Intended Audience 

This guide is about the process of establishing a statewide WPA. It is not technical guidance and 

does not cover topics such as monitoring or permitting issues in detail. Rather, it presents 

common themes or elements among states that have adopted or begun the transition to watershed 

management -- states such as Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, 

and Washington. Chapter 2 describes these common elements. Chapter 3 addresses the benefits 

of statewide watershed management, and Chapter 4 discusses how a state can begin to 

implement this approach. Chapter 5 lists references. Additional information about how ground 

water protection fits into the approach is presented in Appendix A, and Appendix B focuses on 

Nebraska's basin cycle. 

This document is intended for state water resource managers and technical personnel as well as 

for the natural resource managers in other state, federal, tribal and local agencies with whom 

they cooperate. By outlining the components of a statewide approach and by providing examples 

of how some states are currently operating under such an approach, the document encourages the 

adoption of watershed-based water quality management by other states. 

A companion report, Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (U.S. EPA, 1995), describes key 

elements of local-scale watershed projects. Larger watersheds or basins can provide the 

framework for coordinating multiple watershed projects around the state, for targeting resources, 

and for operating permit and monitoring programs. At the same time, other water quality and 

ecosystem protection activities can be managed best at the watershed level. Examples include 

controlling point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings to a lake or to a stream recharging an 

aquifer and restoring riparian habitat in the headwaters of a watershed. 

17 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Chapter 2: Managing by Watershed: Common Elements 

States independently develop watershed approaches to fit their unique circumstances. Several 

key elements have emerged, however, that are common in the approaches developed by states to 

date (Figure 2-1): 

• Management units 

• Management cycles 

• Stakeholder involvement 

• Strategic monitoring 

• Assessment 

• Prioritization and targeting 

• Development of management strategies 

• Management plans 

• Implementation of the plans. 

These are common elements rather than steps; they do not necessarily occur in a sequence. 

Stakeholder involvement, for example, is crucial throughout implementation of any watershed 

approach. The following sections describe each of the common elements in more detail. 

2.1 Management Units 

Management units are the geographic units within which the state will implement its Watershed 

Protection Approach. States often select major watersheds or basins as their management units, 

although aquifers, groups of watersheds, or composites of ground water and surface watersheds 

are also used. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has designed and mapped a national system of hydrologic 

units for cataloging, sometimes called HUCs, that provide a common national framework for 

delineating watersheds and their boundaries at a number of different geographic scales. The 

hierarchical system's largest units, called water resources regions, are each designated by a 2-

digit code. Each regional unit may be subdivided into 4-digit subregions, and further subdivided 

into 6-digit and 8-digit units representing smaller and smaller watersheds. 

18 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

The 8-digit units, which are still fairly large watersheds averaging thousands of square miles 

each, are the most detailed delineations currently available nationwide as a geographic 

information system (GIS) coverage or a map. The approach has been carried further in individual 

states down to the 11-digit and the 14-digit level to delineate watersheds averaging 

approximately 100 square miles and 30 square miles each, respectively. As hydrologic units will 

be an important GIS data set within the envisioned National Spatial Data Infrastructure, all 

watershed programs wishing to delineate smaller-scale watersheds should collaborate with this 

existing national framework for watershed delineation. 

The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management uses river basin boundaries 

developed in the 1970s under CWA Section 303(e). The state is divided into 17 basins. The 

South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control took a different approach by combining 

basins to form five very large basin management units. The highlight on page 2-4 describes 

water quality management areas used for basin planning by the Washington Department of 

Ecology. Many states have also delineated smaller watersheds for water quality management. 

For example, Virginia has delineated approximately 500 watersheds based on NRCS (formerly 

SCS) delineations; South Carolina and Wisconsin have delineated approximately 270 and 330 

watersheds, respectively. 

19 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Figure 2-2 shows a "nested" hierarchy of watersheds, including a river basin, USGS Cataloging 

Units, and NRCS "14-digit watersheds". NRCS has begun a nationwide initiative to delineate 14-

digit watersheds for natural resource management. These small watersheds are subsets of both 

the USGS Cataloging Units and previous SCS-delineated watersheds. North Carolina, for 

example, has approximately 1,640 14-digit watersheds statewide; they average 30 square miles 

in size. 

The development of fully compatible watershed boundaries typically involves close coordination 

among USGS, NRCS, and state water quality, coastal management, and GIS agencies, among 

others. Nested watersheds are important because they offer stakeholders different levels at which 

to manage water quality. Basins allow the state to allocate resources, while small watersheds are 

useful for local governments and local NRCS conservation programs. The nested watershed 

approach also facilitates information exchange among all levels of government, especially if 

stakeholders are maintaining data in a GIS format. 

20 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Ecoregions represent another important type of boundary and are useful integrators for managing 

water quality. Ecoregions are areas having physical and biological traits that tend to support 

characteristic aquatic communities. Ecoregions do not generally coincide with basins or 

watersheds, and a given basin may cross more than one ecoregion. However, the two concepts 

(basin and ecoregion) are fully compatible. For example, basin goals might be based on 

biological criteria for each ecoregion that crosses the basin. 

2.2 Management Cycles 

Water quality management activities for each major watershed or basin are completed within a 

management cycle. A management cycle has three features that create an orderly system for 

continually focusing and coordinating management activities to meet water quality standards and 

other environmental goals: 

• A specified time period -- Key surface and ground water management activities within a 

basin (e.g., monitoring, assessment, priority setting, management strategy development, 

plan preparation, and plan implementation) occur within a specified time period. The 

length of the cycle is state-specific, but most states are using a 5-year cycle to coincide 

with NPDES permitting requirements. 

21 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

• A sequence for addressing basins -- A sequence is established to balance workload from 

year to year. States find it impractical and inefficient to perform all management 

activities in every basin at the same time. Therefore, in one year a state may focus on 

monitoring in one-fifth of its basins; assessment and priority setting in another one-fifth; 

modeling and TMDL development in another one-fifth; developing management plans in 

another one-fifth; and implementing management plans in the remaining one-fifth of the 

state's basins. In succeeding years of the cycle, efforts rotate among the basin groups. It 

takes time to work into this cycle, so the state must determine the sequence in which 

basins will be addressed (see the North Carolina highlight). 

In choosing a sequence, most states take into consideration the workload requirements as well as 

the degree of water quality impairment or environmental risk. Other considerations include data 

availability and stakeholder support. See the Washington highlight on for a description of the 

factors that state considered in establishing its sequence. 

22 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

North Carolina's Basin Cycle

23 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

North Carolina's basin approach includes an emphasis on protection of surface water sources of 

drinking water. In addition to the 17 major river basins, the Department of Environment, Health, 

and Natural Resources has identified over 200 smaller watersheds supplying drinking water to 

communities. These water supply watersheds range in size from 3 to 300 square miles and cover 

about 23 percent of the state. Local governments are required to develop and implement 

watershed plans protective of drinking water. These plans address allowable density and types of 

development in these watersheds or portions of watersheds. 

North Carolina's basin approach thus assesses water supply protection needs along with other 

factors and identifies priorities for further protection throughout the basins. Other factors 

considered in setting priorities for action include ambient water quality, fish tissue 

contamination, nonpoint source impacts, NPDES permits, and storm water impacts. 

• A schedule for management activities -- Once the statewide sequence is established, a 

detailed schedule of management activities is developed. The schedule specifies when 

particular activities will occur during the 5-year cycle, thus providing a long-term 

reference for all stakeholders. Appendix B contains the detailed schedule for basins in 

Nebraska; the first 5-year cycle shows how activities will be phased in across the state, 

and the second 5-year cycle indicates how activities ultimately will be coordinated across 

the state. 

In many states, the management cycle will have to take into account the goals, objectives and 

activities of a broad range of programs, agencies and public interest groups who may also be 

stakeholders and basin team participants. For example, Delaware will incorporate other natural 

resource (e.g., fish and wildlife) and county planning agencies. A management cycle for states 

that take an integrated resource management approach may have different activities, structure, 

and timing than those that focus exclusively on water quality. For example, Idaho's Department 

of Environmental Quality will host workshops to build basin teams from public resource 

management agencies, interested citizens and tribes. Each team will determine the cycle for its 

planning basin. 

Most of the examples provided in this document focus on programs of state water quality 

agencies. However, urban planning and zoning (county planning agencies), habitat restoration 

and species protection plans (fish and wildlife agencies), and soil conservation and animal waste 

management (agricultural agencies) can all contribute to the preservation and protection of 

waterbody integrity. 

24 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Washington's Basin Cycle 

By 1999, the Washington Department of Ecology will be planning, collecting data, analyzing 

data, managing information, and issuing permits for at least four basin management units per 

year. Baseline program activities such as enforcement and compliance will continue on a 

statewide basis. The Department used the following factors to establish the schedule of activities 

in each basin management unit: 

• Number of dischargers and permit workload 

• CWA Section 303(d)-listed waters 

• Completed TMDLs 

• Availability of ambient monitoring data 

• Threats to beneficial uses (e.g., population growth) 

• Likelihood of stakeholder support 

• Historical water quality initiatives (e.g., NPS projects) 

• Existing and potential funding including grants 

• Workload balance. 

2.3 Stakeholder Involvement 

A watershed approach creates opportunities for a broad range of stakeholders to play meaningful 

roles in basin plan development and implementation. Success depends on the pooled resources, 

energy, and regulatory authority of multiple stakeholders. Stakeholders are all agencies, 

organizations and individuals that could be affected by water quality management decisions. 

They may include: 

• The state water quality agency 

• State agriculture, forestry, and wildlife agencies 

• State public health agencies 

• Municipal and industrial dischargers 

• City and county governments 

• Trade associations 

• Environmental groups 

• Chambers of Commerce 

• Local offices of Federal agencies 

• EPA Regions. 

25 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Special Stakeholders in Delaware, Idaho, and Texas 

In Delaware, basin management teams include county planning authorities. Their participation 

allows the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to more effectively deal 

with land use issues that impact physical habitat and to better coordinate their local management 

activities. 

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA Region 10 are jointly developing 

a basin approach for Idaho. Much of Idaho's land is federally owned and managed by resource 

agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. A key objective for 

Idaho is to engage these resource agencies directly in the process. 

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is incorporating their Water Utilities and 

Water Resources (water rights) Programs into their basin framework. These types of 

stakeholders, often neglected by traditional water quality programs, add valuable insight and 

experience. For example, the Water Utilities Program has established goals to reduce pollutant 

loading to protect drinking water supplies that are consistent with water quality agency goals. 

The Water Resources Program brings issues such as the timing and level of diversions into the 

basin management arena. 

Stakeholder roles and responsibilities should be defined for each stage of the management cycle. 

These roles and responsibilities can include: 

• Data and research sharing 

• Joint monitoring 

• Identification of waterbody stressors 

• Priority setting 

• Public meetings for goal setting 

• Public outreach events such as presentations or festivals 

• Reviewing management plans 

• Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation. 

The highlight above describes efforts by three states to include key stakeholders. The companion 

volume to this document, Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (U.S. EPA, 1995), also 

contains examples of stakeholder involvement. 

2.4 Strategic Monitoring 

Most types of monitoring are strategically coordinated by basin to address various needs such as: 

• Identifying stressors and their sources 

• Determining water quality status and trends 

• Targeting priority waterbodies/watersheds for action 

26 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

• Evaluating the effectiveness of management actions 

• Developing models to support TMDL development and permit issuance. 

States that implement watershed approaches generally modify their existing monitoring networks 

to improve cost efficiency by focusing on one or a few basins at a time rather than the entire 

state. Monitoring programs often feature: 

• Maintenance of a statewide fixed-station ambient network for physical/chemical 

parameters, monitored monthly or quarterly; may have fewer sites than previously. 

• A network of "rotating basin" monitoring sites sampled only 1 or 2 years out of the basin 

cycle; some new sites may be selected each cycle to address watershed-specific concerns 

and to measure the effectiveness of controls 

• Increased biological monitoring tailored to the ecoregion(s) or subregions and their 

reference conditions 

• An increased number of intensive surveys for model development (e.g., for TMDLs) 

• A return to each basin at regular intervals (e.g., 5 years) to conduct intensive surveys and 

rotating monitoring. Continuous enforcement activity; compliance monitoring of 

wastewater treatment facilities may remain independent of the rotation cycle or may 

focus on specific basins in a given year. 

Features of basin-oriented monitoring in Washington and South Carolina are described in the 

highlight. 

2.5 Assessment 

Assessment is the process of determining levels of water quality and ecosystem impairment and 

identifying sources and causes of this impairment. States have been assessing water quality for 

many years under CWA Section 305(b). Assessment typically involves comparing monitoring 

data to state water quality standars to determine whether each waterbody's designated uses (e.g., 

aquatic life, swimming, drinking) are being achieved. Statistical analyses also may be done to 

determine whether water quality is improving or declining over time. Thus, assessments are 

important because they provide the basis for evaluating the success of past management actions 

and targeting future management efforts. 

Two States' Approaches to Monitoring 

The Washington Department of Ecology has revised its monitoring activities. "Core" fixed 

stations throughout the state are sampled monthly every year of the 5-year cycle for basic 

physical and chemical parameters; targeted watershed stations are sampled monthly for 1 year in 

a 5-year cycle; biological samples (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, fish) are 

collected mid-summer in year 3; and lakes are sampled twice annually, near the start and end of 

the growing season. Compliance monitoring occurs in years two or three in the cycle for a given 

watershed. Intensive surveys are initiated in year two and are completed in years three or four. 

The South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control has also revised its monitoring program. 

27 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

The Bureau will continue its statewide primary network of over 200 sites on major rivers and 

estuaries. However, its secondary network now focuses almost entirely on watersheds in one 

basin per year, with emphasis on 

• Waterbodies listed under CWA Sections 303(d), 304(l), and 314 

• Watersheds with limited water quality data 

• Known point source and NPS problem areas 

• Waterbodies impacted by groundwater 

• Waterbodies needing wasteload allocations. 

In recent years, state 305(b) assessments have focused on biological measures of ecosystem 

integrity in addition to chemical measures. For example, biological assessments of streams may 

include measures of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and habitat quality. This 

focus on aquatic ecosystem integrity is consistent with watershed protection approaches and, in 

fact, a state may choose to set the water quality goals for a basin or its watersheds in terms of 

biological integrity. If a state has developed biological criteria, these can be used to develop 

water quality goals for individual basins. One basin may have a set of biocriteria for each 

ecoregion that crosses basin boundaries. 

States incorporate assessment results into their management plans. This information also appears 

in state Section 305(b) reports, but its presence in basin plans makes the assessments more 

accessible to stakeholders. In later cycles, assessments help determine whether basin and 

watershed goals are being achieved by the management options chosen in an earlier cycle. 

2.6 Assigning Priorities and Targeting Resources 

As discussed in Section 2.2, states often develop their sequences based on factors such as 

workload considerations, data availability, and waterbodies needing TMDLs. Once the sequence 

is established, the state sets priorities for water quality protection and restoration needs within 

each watershed as the watershed arises in the management cycle. 

Prioritization and targeting may be thought of as two separate steps. Prioritization is the process 

of ranking water quality concerns. Targeting is the process of deciding how resources should be 

allocated to address priority concerns. For example, waterbodies in a basin may be prioritized or 

ranked according to such factors as 

• 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. 

The targeting step may involve selection of specific watersheds or waterbodies for special 

management attention (e.g., as local watershed projects), based on 

• Ranking from the prioritization step above 

28 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

• Availability of staff and financial resources 

• Overall planning goals (e.g., statewide or basinwide goals) 

• Willingness to proceed on the part of local stakeholders. 

Targeting allows states to use limited resources to address priority ecosystem concerns. New 

priority watersheds or waterbodies may be selected during each management cycle. 

Prioritization and targeting of watersheds and waterbodies are described further in Geographic 

Targeting: Selected State Examples (U.S. EPA, 1993b). A method developed by the State of 

Oklahoma is described in the highlight on the next page. 

A Watershed Targeting Approach 

In the late 1980s, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission delineated approximately 300 

watersheds for NPS assessment. The agency used a numeric index method for ranking these 

watersheds based on waterbody-level information. For each watershed with adequate data, three 

factors were calculated: 

• Beneficial Use Factor: Each assessed waterbody received a score according to degree of 

use support from the EPA Waterbody System database. Scores range from low (1) for a 

fully supporting waterbody to high (4) for a nonsupporting waterbody. Weights were 

assigned based on waterbody size. 

• Human Use Factor: Highly populated watersheds and those containing major recreational 

attractions received higher scores (e.g., 4 on a scale from 1 to 4). 

• High-Quality/Nondegradation Factor: This factor was scored according to ecological 

value of assessed waterbodies. Scores range from low (1) for habitat-limited fisheries to 

high (4) for outstanding resource waters. Scores were weighted by waterbody size. 

For more detailed information on this and other state indexes, see Geographic Targeting: 

Selected State Examples (U.S. EPA, 1993b). 

2.7 Developing Management Strategies 

Before preparing a basin plan, the state identifies a range of management strategies and evaluates 

their effectiveness. Management strategies take into consideration the unique problems of 

individual watersheds as well as constraining factors such as resources available for control 

measures, legal authority, willingness of stakeholders to proceed, and the likelihood of success. 

The first step in developing management strategies is to establish clear goals and objectives for 

addressing priority concerns. Goals and objectives can be quite specific. For example, a basin 

goal could be to reduce or eliminate the incidence of algal blooms in an estuary; a corresponding 

objective could be to reduce total phosphorus concentrations in its tributaries by 30 percent. The 

Klamath River Basin highlight describes one goal and one objective that provide a basis for 

management strategy development for that basin. Similarly, goals and objectives may be 

developed for certain watersheds. See Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (U.S. EPA, 1995) 

for further discussion of watershed goals. 

29 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Goals and Objectives of the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program 

The Klamath River Basin was once one of the most productive anadromous fish spawning areas 

on the West Coast. Physical barriers, habitat destruction, and pollutant loads have severely 

damaged this important commercial and Tribal fishery. The long-range plan of the Klamath 

Restoration Program uses a "step-down" approach with specific goals, objectives, and policies or 

project priorities. Following is an example of one goal and a single objective under this goal. 

Goal I: Restore, by 2006, the biological productivity of the basin in order to provide for viable 

commercial and recreational ocean fisheries and in-river Tribal (subsistence, ceremonial, and 

commercial) and recreational fisheries. 

Objective 1: Protect stream and riparian habitat from potential damage caused by timber 

harvesting and related activities. 

• Improve timber harvesting practices through local workshops; develop habitat 

protection and management standards for agency endorsement; create a fish 

habitat database; view existing regulations as minimum expectations 

• Contribute to evaluating the effectiveness of current timber harvest practices 

through: developing an index of habitat integrity; incorporating fish habitat and 

population data into state water quality assessments; monitoring recovery of 

habitat in logged watersheds 

• Promote necessary changes in regulations--State Forestry Practice Rules; Forest 

Service Policies in Land Management Plans, BMPs 

• Anticipate potential problems by requesting additional state monitoring programs 

and by modifying State Forest Practice Rules and Forest Service plans to protect 

highly erodible soils and give priority to protection of unimpaired salmonid 

habitat. 

Source: Klamath River Basin Restoration Program, 1991 

Nutrient Trading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin 

The Tar-Pamlico Basin is designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) by the state of North 

Carolina. In 1989, state officials were poised to establish strict new controls on point sources of 

phosphorus and nitrogen, believing at the time that point source controls were the only 

enforceable option. However, dischargers concerned about the high capital costs of the new 

controls formed the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association and worked with the state and two local 

environmental agencies to craft a nutrient trading program. 

The management strategy for the basin now calls for the Association to fund rural best 

management practices (BMPs) by contributing to the State Agricultural Cost Share Program. The 

investment by the Association was approximately one-fifth the amount that point source controls 

were expected to cost, and the reduction in loading to the nutrient-sensitive portion of the basin 

should be considerably larger than point source controls alone could achieve. 

30 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Some strategies developed for a management plan may be basinwide in nature (e.g., phosphate 

detergent bans or incentives for riparian protection) while others may be more local (e.g., 

improved animal waste management in a watershed with a high concentration of livestock 

operations). Implementation of a basin approach allows states to address large-scale problems 

and local issues at the same time (see the "Nutrient Trading" highlight above). 

Stakeholder involvement contributes to equity in point and nonpoint sources controls. 

Individuals are more likely to negotiate when their knowledge of watershed problems is strong 

and they see that all sources are being asked to make sacrifices. Figure 2-3 illustrates a method 

for relating specific goals and objectives to stakeholders for management strategy development. 

Effective statewide approaches may provide opportunities for innovative management 

alternatives such as pollutant trading, wetlands mitigation banking, and ecological restoration. 

(See Section 3.10 for additional information on these topics.) 

2.8 Management plans 

Management plans are critical. They document the process, the selected management strategies, 

and stakeholder roles, and also serve as a reference for future basin cycles. Teams, composed of 

staff of the state water quality, agricultural, public health and other state agencies, are 

responsible for developing the documents. Plans are updated periodically thereafter. 

31 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Watershed management plans must specify how goals will be achieved, who is responsible for 

implementation, on what schedule, and how the effectiveness of the plan will be assessed. 

Clearly defining an implementation step is a characteristic that separates basin protocols from 

initiatives for planning purposes only. Experience suggests that formal commitments from all 

stakeholders are critical before moving into implementation. 

The upcoming highlight shows a draft basin plan outline for the Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control. 

32 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

2.9 Implementation 

Upon completion and approval of a basin plan, the plan is implemented. Implementation 

activities may include issuance of NPDES permits with conditions reflecting the plan provisions, 

implementation of voluntary or mandatory BMPs to control NPS pollutants, critical area 

protection, habitat restoration, a monitoring program to measure success and guide future plan 

revisions, and development of TMDLs. 

As an example, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDEM, 1993) 

describes management strategies for this basin and its watersheds. For the first cycle, the Plan 

describes point source controls in the Neuse Basin in considerable detail. NPS strategies for this 

cycle involve numerous existing programs and prioritization of BMP funding. In future cycles, 

North Carolina anticipates including more detailed information about NPSs and strategies. 

Figure 2-4 shows the major steps identified by the Washington Department of Ecology for its 

statewide approach. Although the terminology differs slightly, Figure 2-4 features all of the 

common elements presented in this chapter. 

Basin Management Plans in Delaware 

Following is a draft outline for upcoming basin plans, as developed by the Delaware Department 

of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 

1. Introduction/Summary 

1.1 Purpose of Plan 

1.2 Whole Basin Planning Cycle 

1.3 Participating Agencies and Publics 

1.4 Summary of the Management Plan 

2. General Basin Description 

2.1 Physical, Geographical, and Ecological Features 

2.2 Overview of Potential Environmental Stressors 

2.3 Land-Use/Land Cover Characteristics 

2.4 Socioeconomics and Government 

2.5 Projected Trends in Basin Development 

33 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

3. Existing Environmental Conditions, Uses, and Stresses 

3.1 Land 

3.2 Water 

3.3 Air 

3.4 Resource Integration 

4. Major Concerns and Priority Issues 

4.1 Issues of Concern 

4.2 Targeted Geographic Areas 

5. Long Term Goals and Management Strategy 

5.1 Goals 

5.2 Options Analyzed 

5.3 Strategies Selected 

5.4 Measures of Success 

6. Implementation 

 Area-Specific Inplementation Activities 

7. Next Steps 

34 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

35 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Chapter 3: Why Manage by Watersheds? 

Adopting a watershed approach statewide is an initiative taken by a state water quality agency in 

consultation with other stakeholders, usually in response to a self-assessment of that state's 

programs. This chapter discusses why states have adopted statewide watershed management. 

Most of this discussion concerns states' expectations of outcomes based on extensive workshops 

and planning; it may take several years for these benefits to be achieved and measurable, and 

state approaches may be revised over time. In some cases, however, states are already benefiting 

from adopting a watershed-oriented approach, e.g., through improved staff morale or increased 

miles of streams monitored each year. 

In presenting the following expected benefits, EPA does not mean to imply that this is a simple 

process. It requires time, energy and perseverance, and presents several challenges, as discussed 

in Chapter 4. 

3.1 Water Quality Programs Can Focus More Directly on the Resource 

Historically, EPA and state regulatory agencies have organized their water programs around 

discrete activities such as permitting, monitoring, enforcement and nonpoint source control. As a 

result, program success tends to be measured in terms of program activities - numbers of permits, 

compliance orders, inspections, or samples, for example. These activities often do not 

demonstrate or measure improvements in water quality. Focusing on the entire basin, on the 

other hand, requires staff in different programs to ensure that their work is consistent with 

basinwide goals. In other words, the focus on environmental results is sharpened. 

3.2 The Basis for Management Decisions is Improved 

Organizing around major watersheds or basins 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 that tend to be overlooked by traditional 

programs (e.g., ecosystem effects due to habitat loss). This encourages monitoring 

programs to account for the full realm of impacts and sources. 

• The pooling of resources and data by multiple stakeholders tends to increase the 

amount and types of data available for carrying out assessments and prioritizing 

problems for action. 

• Basin-oriented monitoring may result in more detailed information. In North 

Carolina, for example, approximately 38 percent more monitoring sites were sampled 

during the first full year than previously, with about the same level of effort. 

36 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

3.3 Program Efficiency Is Enhanced 

Focusing on individual basins can improve program efficiency within the State water quality 

agency. For example: 

• Coordinating monitoring by basin results in more efficient use of staff and reduces 

travel time between sites. 

• Modeling studies can be consolidated to increase the stream miles of waterbody 

modeled per unit of effort. 

• NPDES permit notices can be consolidated by basin to limit the number of 

publication documents; this requires adjusting permit expiration schedules so that all 

permits in a basin have the same expiration dates. 

• Public meetings can be consolidated to cover multiple permits for a given basin. 

The development of basin plans can also be a means to achieve compliance with CWA 

mandates: 

• Basinwide assessment results can support Section 305(b) reporting if a common 

database is used for basin plans and Section 305(b) reports. For example, basin plans 

can include water quality assessment text and Waterbody System data summarized by 

basin. The Waterbody System can then be used to generate the required statewide 

summary results and tables for Section 305(b) reports. In 305(b) reports, states may 

choose to reference the basin plans for detailed assessment results, thus avoiding 

duplication of effort. 

• Basin plans can satisfy Section 303(d) reporting requirements since strategies for 

addressing impaired waters (i.e., actual TMDLs) can be included in basin plans. 

• TMDL development often requires a watershed approach. EPA regulations and 

guidance define a TMDL for a specific pollutant as being equivalent to the loading 

capacity of a waterbody. This total load includes both point and nonpoint sources. 

Since nonpoint sources are often diverse and widely distributed across a waterbody's 

watershed, management strategies that affect the entire watershed are often needed. 

3.4 Coordination Among Agencies in the State Can Be Improved 

A watershed approach can help clarify the role of the state water quality agency in relation to 

other natural resource agencies -- those in state and local government as well as federal agencies, 

such as USGS and USDA, which have state and local offices. Some tasks require site-specific 

knowledge and close local contact; other tasks need state-level authority or can be more costeffective at that scale. For instance, the state water quality agency is usually best equipped to 

conduct laboratory analysis and monitoring and to provide oversight for water quality standards 

37 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

and discharge permitting. This agency can play a coordinating role to secure support from other 

state and federal agencies and leverage resources for multi-stakeholder efforts. 

The watershed approach provides an umbrella under which local programs can be reinforced and 

their consistency with state- and basin-level objectives ensured. Local agencies and organizations 

may be in the best position to develop detailed land use inventories, organize workshops and 

educational programs, and implement BMPs, habitat restoration and protection, or land use 

controls. 

Improved efficiency may also result from closer coordination among programs. For example, 

Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality hopes to reduce the amount of time spent 

investigating citizen complaints. Through closer coordination, only one agency will respond to 

each complaint and that agency will determine if further action is needed. In Alabama, many 

water-related programs are being coordinated through the CSGWPP (see highlight). 

3.5 Resources Are Better Directed to Priority Issues 

A state is better able to focus its water quality program resources, which are often dispersed 

among several agencies, on those portions of basins where they will do the most good. 

Alabama's Use of Its Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program to 

Coordinate Its Programs

As a first step toward total water resource management, Alabama is coordinating its programs 

through its Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP). In developing 

its CSGWPP, the state recognized the unique challenges of ground water protection, including 

the enormous costs and technical difficulties of ground water remediation, and the difficulty of 

locating sources of contamination due to the lag time between discharge of pollutants at the land 

surface and their transport through an aquifer. These challenges emphasize the need for a 

coordinated state approach centering on common priorities. 

Alabama is implementing this coordinated prevention approach through its CSGWPP. All of 

Alabama's major environmental programs, including its waste programs, are located in the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. In addition, Alabama has established the 

Water Programs Advisory Committee, which brings together all the major entities with ground 

water protection responsibilities. Alabama's Department of Agriculture has been a full partner in 

this effort. Once the CSGWPP has been fully implemented, all ground water-based programs 

will direct their efforts first at wellhead protection areas. Alabama is also in the process of 

developing a ground water classification system that will direct program priorities. Currently, the 

state's Underground Storage Tanks Program is focusing its inspection and prevention efforts in 

wellhead areas and is spending funds to help delineate the state's wellhead areas. 

38 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

The watershed approach opens the door to statewide application of risk-based procedures for 

targeting where and how program resources should be spent. This improved capability is 

primarily the result of three features of a statewide approach: 

• Improved information bases and assessments more clearly identify water quality 

issues and waterbody concerns for the process of assigning priorities. 

• Systematic review of all basins as the state cycles through the sequence allows for 

comprehensive review of within-basin needs as well as comparison of resource needs 

among basins. 

• Improved coordination among stakeholders produces common management priorities 

and promotes the leveraging of resources. 

3.6 Coordination with EPA Can Be Improved 

EPA and the states are already working together on programs with a watershed orientation and 

extensive stakeholder involvement. Examples of such programs include: 

• Chesapeake Bay Program 

• Clean Lakes Program 

• National Estuary Program 

• TMDLs with watershed-wide nonpoint source issues 

• Great Lakes Program (especially Remedial Action Plans and Lake Management 

Plans). 

Watershed approaches provide an opportunity for EPA and state agencies to augment one 

another's efforts throughout the state, not just in areas that fall under special programs. In the 

long run, an approach that serves to clarify roles, identify resource needs, and establish 

management priorities enhances the efforts of all partners. 

States pursuing watershed approaches have identified several ways that EPA can help facilitate 

the approach. EPA can: 

• Issue program guidance that encourages long-term watershed management goals 

rather than short-term program goals that might draw resources away from the basin 

planning process 

• Negotiate annual or multi-year state program plan commitments that revise traditional 

reporting requirements (e.g., STARS/SPMS, TMDLs, lists, reports) 

• Provide for transfer of information so states can learn from experiences throughout 

the EPA Region or the Nation 

39 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

• Make basin planning efforts a priority under grant programs such as the Sections 

104(b)(3) and 319 programs 

• Where feasible, Regions can work with states to ensure that grants have compatible 

requirements and planning periods 

• Assist in negotiations involving other federal agencies or adjoining states. 

Regional Flexibility to Accommodate the Transition 

North Carolina officials found that considerable time was needed to plan the state's basin 

approach. Also, the first round of basin plans are more time consuming than plans will be in 

subsequent 5-year cycles. The state asked EPA Region 4 for permission to maintain existing 

effluent limits in cases where NPDES permits came up for renewal ahead of the basin schedule 

(i.e., prior to the year when all the basin's permits are to be renewed). If approved, state staff 

would not need to remodel each water quality-limited parameter, and permittees would not be 

penalized by different effluent limits upon the adoption of a basin plan in 1 or 2 years. The state 

reasoned that major management decisions should await the improved technical analyses 

associated with the basin plan. Region 4 agreed that this interim flexibility would further longrange water quality management goals. 

3.7 Consistency and Continuity Are Encouraged 

By focusing on goals to be achieved over several cycles, the approach reduces the tendency to 

operate in a reactive or crisis mode. Stakeholders can expect improved continuity in decisions 

because management actions throughout the basin are fixed for at least the length of a basin 

cycle. Utilities directors, for example, can better plan their long-term wastewater or water supply 

needs. 

Improved consistency is possible because pollution sources across a watershed are evaluated 

within the same time frame, and because management actions are subject to broad scrutiny 

during the planning process. Thus, for example, animal producers across a watershed are likely 

to be subject to consistent impact analysis and management measures. Similarly, all NPDES 

premittees along a major river may be studied at the same time using the same water quality 

model; the fact that these stakeholders will be aware of the process and each others' discharge 

limits tends to promote consistent and equitable permits and may reduce the number of 

grievances filed by permittees. 

3.8 Opportunities for Data Sharing Are Enhanced 

Increased data sharing is an important benefit of any process in which stakeholders from 

different organizations work toward common goals. Most state and local agencies have records 

and information systems unique to their individual functions. In many states, for example, NPS 

related data are housed in several agencies and are not readily accessible to outside parties. 

40 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Inaccessible data on land use and BMPs presents a significant limitation to some states' NPS 

efforts (see highlight on this page). 

Sharing and linking new computer technologies among different agencies is also encouraged. 

Geographic Information Systems (GISs) can help analyze spatial data for entire basins using data 

from several agencies, e.g., to show the relationship between land use and predicted nonpoint 

source loading. GIS buffering techniques are being used to assess the needs for riparian habitat 

protection, to design greenway systems, for biodiversity analysis, and for planning wetland 

banking programs, among other purposes. 

3.9 Public Involvement is Enhanced 

Watershed protection focuses on a discrete resource around which citizens can rally. The 

approach promotes awareness of water-related issues by citizens and encourages agencies to 

respond to their concerns. Opportunities for this interaction occur during basin plan development 

and activities such as workshops, hearings, and citizen monitoring. An additional benefit of 

public involvement is that a better informed public can lead to increased citizen and legislative 

support for water quality programs. 

Data Sharing in North Carolina

During its first 5-year basin management cycle, North Carolina is promoting data sharing among 

natural resource agencies. This initiative might have occurred without a basin approach, but the 

basin approach has accelerated the process. Initially, a Sub-basin Database was developed 

containing available data on point sources, land use, agriculture, and other NPSs by watershed 

for preparing basin plans. 

Realizing the need for more detailed nonpoint source data, the state is consolidating NPS and 

BMP data from multiple agencies, including new information yet to be collected. The TarPamlico Basin will be the focus for system development, and the needs of state and local users 

and modelers will receive top priority. To the extent possible, spatially based information will be 

collected for GIS analysis. The agencies' GIS data layers are maintained in the state's Center for 

Geographic Information and Analysis. 

3.10 Innovative Solutions Are Encouraged 

Some watershed problems, such as habitat destruction, inadequate stream flow, wetlands loss, 

atmospheric deposition, and introduced aquatic species, are difficult for traditional water quality 

programs to address. This approach can provide a strong framework for identifying and solving 

such problems. Problem identification is made easier by involving technical experts from many 

fields during the environmental assessment portion of the basin cycle - aquatic biologists 

working side by side with water resource engineers and agricultural specialists, for example, can 

share data and perspectives on a basin's stressors. Solutions are not limited by the authority or 

expertise of a single agency, but rather encompass the range of stakeholders. Following are 

several nontraditional solutions that are feasible under a watershed approach. 

41 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Ecological Restoration - Ecological restoration is the reestablishment of physical, chemical and 

biological components of an aquatic ecosystem that have been compromised by point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution, habitat degradation, hydromodification, or other stressors (

Restoration as a Water Resource Management Tool, U.S. EPA 1994b). Categories of restoration 

techniques include: 

• Techniques applied directly to the stream channel (e.g., channel reconfiguration to 

restore geometry and sinuosity; streambank stabilization) 

• Techniques applied in the riparian zone (e.g., replanting of riparian buffers to increase 

the canopy and other functions) 

• Techniques applied outside the riparian zone that result in instream improvements 

(e.g., BMPs that reduce stormwater surges and improve riverine habitat). 

Restoration activities in the stream channel and riparian buffer zone are much less commonly 

used than traditional point and nonpoint source controls. Yet, restoration activities may be 

essential for achieving ecological integrity. Examples include: 

• Chronic sedimentation and catastrophic blowouts caused by logging roads; such 

occurrences may be unavoidable on steep terrain, despite engineered BMPs. 

Revegetation and road decommissioning may be necessary to restore instream 

habitat. 

Providing Fish Passage

On regulated river systems, impassable barriers sometimes block the migrations of anadromous 

fishes. The most dramatic cases involve salmon stocks on the Columbia River system in the 

Pacific Northwest, where dams either interfere with fish passage or, in the case of structures like 

the Grand Coulee Dam, preclude migration altogether. Other obstructions may be less obvious 

but equally deleterious. For instance, culverts and minor flood control structures around bridges 

or stretches of a channelized stream can block the migrations of shad or rock fish. Eliminating 

such minor blockages is a major goal of the Anacostia River Restoration Project in Maryland and 

the District of Columbia. On larger systems, retrofitting fish ladders or elevators may be viable 

options. 

• Barriers to fish passage that may prevent reestablishment of important fish species, 

regardless of water quality (see the highlight above). 

• Waterbodies with toxics-laden sediments that must be removed before healthy aquatic 

communities can reestablish themselves. 

In many cases ecological restoration may be the most cost-effective way to achieve watershed 

water quality goals. The highlight on page 3-10 describes a case in which habitat restoration was 

preferable to advanced wastewater treatment. 

42 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Protection of Critical Areas - The National Research Council recently cited promising 

examples of restoration projects that have restored functions in small wetlands, stretches of 

streams, and small lakes (National Research Council, 1992). However, the study did not find 

cases where populations of fish or wildlife were restored on a broad, regional scale. 

Fortunately, long-term biological integrity in a watershed may be possible through a watershedwide strategy of protecting and restoring high priority areas such as headwaters, riparian buffers, 

and biotic refuges. 

Traditional CWA programs may not protect these areas. In many watersheds, for example, 

headwaters and riparian buffers do not receive protection as wetlands under CWA Section 404. 

The loss of these areas may reduce or eliminate future opportunities for healthy, balanced 

biological communities and good habitat. In other words, an "ounce of prevention" by protecting 

key areas in a watershed may be the only way to ensure long-term ecological integrity and avoid 

the costs of restoration in the future. 

Ecological Restoration as a Cost-Effective Solution

In addition to meeting the needs of living resources, ecological restoration or habitat protection 

can sometimes increase the capacity of a system to assimilate and transform pollutants. In 

Boulder Creek and the South Platte River in Colorado, city governments rebuilt natural flood 

plain meanders and reestablished natural channel depths and near-stream vegetation patterns. 

These restoration efforts helped reduce the concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in reaches 

downstream of the cities of Boulder and Denver. This in turn eliminated the need for costly 

sewage treatment plant upgrades. 

Biotic refuges are areas with relatively undisturbed habitat that maintain aquatic biodiversity. 

They may include the headwaters portion of a watershed or undisturbed riverine segments. A 

watershed may also contain many smaller patches of intact aquatic habitat (e.g., undisturbed 

small lakes or stretches of stream with deep pools for fish habitat). These biotic refuges and 

smaller patches may have been protected by fortuitous land ownerships or simple chance. 

Scientists now recognize that the restoration of ecological integrity across a watershed or a basin 

may depend on identifying these special areas and protecting them from disturbance 

(development pressures and point or nonpoint sources). 

For further information on protection and restoration of ecologically important areas, see U.S. 

EPA (1994b), National Resource Council (1992), Doppelt et al. (1993), and Moyle (1992). 

Wetlands Mitigation Banking - This approach has emerged as an alternative to onsite 

compensation for wetlands loss. In wetlands mitigation banking, larger offsite wetlands are used 

to mitigate for many smaller development projects. Developers purchase "compensation credits" 

from the mitigation bank. Wetlands in the bank are created, enhanced, restored, or preserved for 

this purpose (Environmental Law Institute, 1993). 

43 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Wetland mitigation banking potentially can provide greater ecological benefits than onsite, 

project-specific mitigation - e.g., if the compensation sites are larger and more viable 

hydrologically and biologically. Also, continuing professional wetland management is more 

likely to protect water quality than ad hoc management at isolated sites (Environmental Law 

Institute, 1993). 

Ideally, wetlands management will become integrated within comprehensive management 

programs and the policy of "no net loss" implemented by basin or watershed unit. This approach 

could provide water quality benefits for the entire basin. 

Market-based Solutions - Market-based approaches such as pollutant trading do not have a long 

history, but some states are developing promising approaches. Pollutant trading between point 

and nonpoint sources may be feasible in cases where one source category is facing large costs to 

control pollutants common to other sources. For example, point source dischargers may find it 

cost effective to provide funds for nonpoint source controls or ecological restoration rather than 

to add additional treatment. One example is nutrient trading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin of North 

Carolina, where a consortium of municipalities and other point sources has agreed to fund the 

State Agricultural Cost Share program for nutrient BMPs in the basin (RTI, 1995). Other marketbased applications include wasteload allocation trading among point source dischargers on the 

same river. Local governments can play a facilitation role in such approaches. In South Carolina, 

for example, the Bureau of Water Pollution Control hopes to involve regional councils of 

government in wasteload allocation decisions. 

44 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Chapter 4: Getting Started 

For most state agencies, switching from program-centered to watershed-centered management 

involves a fundamental change that will prompt intense scrutiny by staff and administrators. 

Although such a shift involves changes in functional relationships among individuals and 

programs, it does not necessarily require a change in organizational structure. Nonetheless, a 

significant investment of time is needed to resolve such issues. The use of skilled, outside 

facilitators can be helpful in effecting change in a timely fashion, but is not always necessary. 

The process is unique to each state (see highlights below). However, experience shows that most 

States face several key challenges: 

• Establishing a common direction 

• Managing the transition 

• Identifying barriers 

• Documenting the approach. 

These challenges and some ways to address them are described in the following sections. EPA 

understands that this is not the only way a state can adopt a basin approach. Rather, the 

information below suggests themes and techniques that have proven useful in several states to 

date. 

4.1 Establishing a Common Direction 

Agencies and programs involved in watershed protection are likely to have different perspectives 

and goals. Successful development depends on strong leadership and support from each 

participating program. Agency and program staff often want a clear direction and specific 

mandate before agreeing to participate. This "buy-in" to the approach generally requires a 

demonstration of long-term commitment by program administrators. 

45 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Implementing Statewide Approaches in Delaware and Texas

In Delaware, managers from two separate divisions within the state's Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control recognized the limitations of operating nonintegrated 

programs. These managers brought together their staffs and representatives from several other 

agencies. Through a series of workshops and workgroups, they are developing a core program to 

integrate the activities of the Division of Water Resources programs (i.e., surface water, ground 

water, wetlands) with the activities of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation Programs 

(i.e., NPS management, coastal zone management, sediment, and stormwater). 

The State of Texas initiated a process after a Division Director brought the approach to the 

attention of both the Deputy Executive Director and Chairman of the Texas Natural Resources 

and Conservation Commission. These top-level administrators, in turn, have instituted an 

agency-wide review for application of the approach to all programs. A series of educational and 

discussion sessions led to the establishment of internal workgroups to address preliminary issues 

and provide the foundation for development of a basin approach. 

Administrators can demonstrate their commitment by developing a mission statement that 

supports the concept of basin- or watershed-centered management. Meetings can be held with 

staff and managers to develop consensus regarding goals and objectives. The expected products 

(e.g., basin plans, technical references) and services (e.g., assessment, planning, outreach) should 

be specified from the outset. 

4.2 Managing the Transition 

State agency staff and other stakeholders will be very interested in how the operation of 

programs will change to accommodate watershed management. Several steps can be taken to 

assure stakeholders that a smooth transition can be accomplished. 

• Determine who will direct development: 

Planning all the details of basin schedules, stakeholder responsibilities, monitoring plans 

and other activities is a significant effort. To lead this effort, it is important to have a 

knowledgeable person with strong communication and organizational skills. The leader 

may select a core group of contacts throughout the stakeholder agencies to advise and act 

on process issues. The leader should communicate the anticipated process for 

development to all participants. 

• Establish a resource base for development: 

Developing a watershed approach will require an expenditure of staff time to plan, 

document and implement the approach. Therefore, it is helpful to determine, up front, the 

46 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

availability of staff resources. Other resources such as federal assistance or outside 

contracting services can be explored. 

• Educate participants on statewide management. 

• Educate all staff likely to be involved in the process on the fundamental concepts. 

• Establish a means of communication among participants: 

Given the significance of the process, agencies should not rely on information to trickle 

down through supervisors to staff; a network is recommended that reaches all participants 

directly. Effective methods include newsletters, an electronic bulletin board system, and 

staff briefings. 

4.3 Documenting the Approach 

The lead agency should prepare a document that describes the approach for that state. This 

document, often referred to as the framework document (see Figure 1-3), should include the 

overall goals and objectives for participating agencies, a definition of the management units for 

the state, the basin cycle schedule, procedures for developing basin plans, roles and 

responsibilities of participating programs and agencies, targeting criteria and procedures, and 

guidelines for public involvement. The framework document serves as a written reference for 

staff to ensure consistency of application and quality of results. The document also often serves 

to communicate to the public what the approach involves and how they can better participate in 

the process. 

Figure 4-1 is an outline for a framework document that contains features common to several 

states. The next highlight presents some of the issues being addressed by the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control in developing a framework for that 

state. 

Executive Summary

Statewide Watershed Management Approach Vision 

Long-Term Basin Management Vision 

Relationship of Current Basin Approach to Vision 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

1.2 Rationale for Approach 

1.3 Federal CWA Mandate for Approach 

2. Coordination/Integration of Agency Programs/Functions 

47 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

2.1 NPDES Permitting 

2.2 Monitoring 

2.3 Financial Planning and Grants 

2.4 Water Resource Planning 

2.5 Nonpoint Source Programs 

2.6 Coastal Zone Management 

2.7 Drinking Water 

2.8 Ground Water 

2.9 Fish and Wildlife 

3. Transition Issues and Solutions 

3.1 EPA Flexibility 

3.2 Organizational Structure 

3.3 Coordination with Local Planning Agencies 

3.4 Basin Scheduling Process 

3.5 Other Issues 

4. Major Components of a Basin Management Plan 

5. Procedures for Developing Basin Management Plans 

6. Statewide Monitoring Plan 

7. Data Analysis, Modeling, Presentation (TMDLs) 

8. State Financial Assistance 

9. Roles and Responsibilities in Basin Approach 

9.1 Surface and Ground Water Quality 

9.2 Soil and Water Resources 

9.3 Other Divisions 

10. Implementation Schedule 

11. Data Management 

11.1 GIS 

11.2 Existing Data Management Structures 

11.3 Recommended Data Management Structures 

Figure 4.1. Example framework document outline. 

48 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Key Issues Addressed by Delaware in Developing a Basin Management Framework 

• A primary goal in Delaware is to restore and preserve physical habitat that is essential to 

waterbody integrity. 

• The Division of Water Resources will phase-in coordination with other divisions and 

agencies. The consensus strategy recommended that the Division take the lead in the 

early phases of development and implementation. This will provide the program with a 

base of CWA authority and precedence. However, the program description includes a 

definition of water quality inclusive of biological resources, physical habitat, and 

watershed linkages to ensure that the Division's approach is consistent with the goals and 

objectives of programs and agencies that will be partners in subsequent phases. The 

Delaware approach will ultimately include many of the natural resource programs 

including the Fish and Wildlife Division, the Parks and Recreation Division, and county 

planning authorities. 

• A statewide monitoring program addresses targeted needs for individual basins (e.g., 

rotating stations and intensive surveys) and maintenance of a statewide network for 

monitoring water quality status and trends. 

• Transition issues raised in Delaware will require solutions. They include EPA flexibility, 

workload planning, coordination with local planning agencies, and scheduling basin 

rotation. Delaware is working actively with EPA Region 3 to make grant funding 

schedules and requirements more consistent. 

• The process for funding through the traditional State Financial Assistance process 

presented an institutional barrier for implementation. Alternatives involving a 

geographically targeted risk-based approach are discussed in the framework document. 

• Changes to current information management practices are also necessary. Information 

management is an important issue for most states, especially because the WPA focuses 

more attention on environmental assessment and involves information from a larger 

number of data sources. 

(see also Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 1994) 

4.4 Identifying Barriers 

State agency policies or even individuals may pose obstacles to developing a basin approach. For 

example, an agency policy or regulation may have provisions contrary to the proposed approach 

or a key individual may fail to participate in the development process. There may also be staff 

resistance if organizational changes are necessary to implement the approach. Because the 

approach encourages direct networking among technical experts in different program areas, some 

supervisors may have difficulty with the changing supervisor/staff relationship. For example, 

biologists and engineers might need to work more directly with their peers in other agencies. 

To identify concerns and risks of switching to a basin approach, some states have used a 

workshop setting and outside facilitators who have no vested interest in the approach selected. 

Positive outcomes may include reduced level of concern and new ideas for resolving issues. 

49 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Workshops and workgroups are especially useful for issues that can be resolved in a relatively 

short time. Involving a skilled and impartial facilitator can also help mediate difficult, long-term 

issues. 

To identify potential impacts to agencies, it may be helpful for states to consider the following 

questions: 

• Will organizational changes be necessary? 

• How will changes in methods affect staff and training? 

• Are additional resources needed? 

• How will the state's relationship with EPA/other agencies be affected? 

Once a basin approach has been established, educating the public is critical to building support 

for the approach. Potential methods include briefing state and local agencies, commissions, and 

special interest groups about the process and what roles they can play. This important step may 

be difficult for states to accomplish when so much staff energy is going into developing the basin 

approach. 

4.5 Tailoring the Approach 

Once issues of direction and administration have been resolved, a state is ready to develop an 

approach that will best meet its needs and objectives. Answers to the following questions will 

guide this effort. 

• What are the appropriate management units (i.e., basins and watersheds) to be used 

by all participants? 

As discussed in Chapter 2, basin boundaries should be established as a baseline for all 

participants in the management process. Too few basin units can result in large, 

cumbersome basin plans, and too many management units may lead to overwhelming 

numbers of basin plans. 

• In what sequence should those management units be addressed and over what time 

cycle? 

Factors to consider when determining length of the cycle and basin sequence include: 

Resource constraints -- available staff and funding may determine length of the statewide 

cycle and where management strategies are feasible 

Balancing workload from year to year (e.g., in permit development, TMDL development, 

monitoring, and basin plan writing and updating) 

Level of activity in a basin -- a state may want to begin with basins where substantial 

information and management tools are already available 

50 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Anticipated degree of public involvement -- a state may prefer to address first those 

basins with a high degree of public interest and willingness to implement management 

initiatives 

• Which programs should be involved? 

Decide which programs should be integrated (e.g., surface water, groundwater, drinking water, 

wetlands, agricultural runoff control programs). Some states may choose to initiate a basin 

approach that incorporates only a few programs and plan to incorporate other programs once 

some success has been demonstrated. Permits or monitoring may be the first programs included 

due to the expected substantial gains in efficiency from coordinating these activities within a 

basin management cycle. Other states may choose to initiate an approach that includes all water 

quality programs. See the next highlight regarding the integration of Massachusetts' drinking 

water protection program with its basin approach to resource management. 

In making its determination of which programs to include, a state may find it useful to list in 

detail the tasks required to implement basin management (e.g., data collection, data analysis and 

assessment, priority setting, TMDL development, public participation, plan preparation and 

adoption, permitting, and other elements). Roles and responsibilities can then be identified for 

completing these key tasks, thereby identifying the programs and stakeholders that need to be 

involved. 

Comprehensive Source Water Protection in Massachusetts

EPA is actively promoting development of CSGWPPs. Massachusetts is currently working to 

develop a CSGWPP aimed at integrating protection of both surface water and ground water 

sources of drinking water using EPA's CSGWPP Guidance as a model. Through this process, the 

state has begun to identify inconsistencies and gaps in the protection programs for both ground 

and surface water-based drinking water supplies and to develop recommendations and actions 

necessary to address those deficiencies. 

A critical part of Massachusetts' current effort is the integration of the state's drinking water 

protection program with its river basin approach to resource management. With development of 

its Clean Water Strategy in 1993, the state started synchronizing functions within each basin that 

had previously been carried out in isolation within discreet water protection programs: water 

quality monitoring; water withdrawal permitting (new wells); mitigation and remediation of 

nonpoint sources of pollution; and permitting under NPDES. Each of these activities impacts 

drinking water supplies as well as other waters of the state in some way, and drinking water 

supplies are critical resources to be protected in each basin. The state's strategy is ultimately to 

combine ground water and surface water protection program efforts into a unified Source Water 

Protection Program which will provide protection for all sources of drinking water throughout 

Massachusetts. 

Specific issues to be addressed during development of its Source Water Protection Program 

include: (a) defining surface water protection areas for reservoirs and river intakes of varying 

51 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

sizes and types and identifying appropriate land use restrictions in those protection areas; (b) 

alleviating problems resulting from highway runoff to surface water supplies; and (c) developing 

a policy for disposal of water supply-generated sludge in drinking water protection areas. 

Additional opportunities for integration of drinking water protection into the state's basin 

approach will be identified as the program is developed further. 

• What are the desired levels and methods of public participation? 

Determine how and to what degree the public will be involved in the process. Potential 

areas for participation include: 

-- Data and information collection 

-- Prioritization of problem waterbodies 

-- Development of management strategies 

-- Review of management plans and implementation strategies 

-- Plan implementation (e.g., by NPS agencies and local governments) 

Determine whether the public will have open access to the participating agencies at all 

times or be limited to specific "windows of opportunity". Also, states should establish 

which mechanisms of access will be most efficient and effective for both the agencies 

and the public. 

• What interactions among programs are key to effective implementation of the 

approach? 

Identify programs that are affected by products or services from other programs, but are 

not currently interacting at the most effective level. Some agencies have found it useful to 

develop a matrix of agency program units and the required elements of the basin process. 

Such a matrix can help identify redundancies and ineffective interactions among 

programs. 

• How should program activities be scheduled within the basin cycle to ensure 

coordination? 

Work with stakeholders to establish a schedule for key task completion that corresponds 

to the overall basin management cycle. States should then identify interim products that 

will be integral to the plan's preparation (e.g., monitoring summaries, analyses, and 

assessments) and establish the format in which they should be produced and the schedule 

by which they should be completed. It is particularly important to identify those products 

that one program area must receive from another before work can proceed, since 

bottlenecks can affect basin plan preparation and implementation. Often, the 

review/revision of interim products is necessary before they can be used in the next steps 

of planning. 

Appendix B shows a detailed schedule of activities for Nebraska. 

52 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

To date, nearly all states that have adopted basin approaches (or are moving that way) are 

synchronizing NPDES permit expiration dates with the basin management time cycle. 

Since the permit program is such a large part of a state's water quality agency, 

synchronizing permits makes it easier for this activity to be integrated with other 

components (planning, monitoring, etc.). In fact, increased permitting efficiency was the 

initial reason that several States such as South Carolina adopted a basin approach. 

However, a state could choose to bring other programs into the cycle and let permit 

issuance remain on its own schedule, incorporating permits into the basin plans. 

If permitting is synchronized with the basin management cycle, it is recommended that 

permits expire shortly after the scheduled basin plan adoption date so that plan 

recommendations can be incorporated into the permits and results can be tracked prior to 

the next basin plan update. For large basins with many NPDES dischargers, permits may 

need to be issued over a longer period of time to spread out the workload for agency 

permitting staff. Permittees can be grouped by sub-basin in this case so that consistency 

and efficiency factors (e.g., consolidation of public notices and hearings) can be 

maintained. 

• What criteria will be used to prioritize specific waterbodies and watersheds within 

basins for management action, and how will agency resources be targeted to address 

specific concerns within those prioritized waterbodies? 

In light of resource constraints, participating programs will need to establish criteria to 

prioritize waterbody segments, watersheds, pollutants of concern, etc., for effective 

management. Because objectives may differ across programs, it is useful to make 

prioritization criteria explicit so that program involvement remains efficient and 

consistent. See Section 2.6. 

• What resource or technical support needs must be addressed before the approach can 

be implemented? 

Determine the specific needs of participating programs for implementation (e.g., 

information management systems, GIS, and modeling capabilities). 

• How will basin plans be used? 

Establish the intended audience(s) and purpose(s) of your basin plan, identify the level of 

plan approval that will be required, and outline the anticipated components of a basin 

plan. See the highlight concerning Nebraska's decisions about the role of basin plans. 

53 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

The Role of Basin Plans in Nebraska

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) recently 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 and Purpose 

• NDEQ -- provide for coordination and direction of programs 

• Natural Resource Districts -- provide for information transfer; raise awareness; assist 

coordination and implementation 

• Other state and federal agencies -- inform; direct activities and plan implementation 

• Regulated community -- raise awareness of process; communicate reasons for effluent 

limitations (education tool); aid long-range planning 

• Legislature -- communicate; raise awareness of process and resource needs/legislative 

needs 

• General public -- increase awareness of process; improve perception; facilitate 

participation; help direct citizen monitoring efforts 

• EPA -- address program plan requirements; expedite required approvals; indicate 

resource needs; aid in program coordination/implementation 

• Special interest groups (e.g., power utilities, agricultural industries, environmental 

groups) --raise awareness of process; improve perception; facilitate participation; help 

direct special monitoring efforts. 

• Once implemented, how will the basin approach and its component programs be 

administered? 

It may be helpful for states to review operating agreements or state programs supported 

by federal funds to identify areas where revisions or consolidation are needed. Multiple 

grants often result in complex administrative burdens. Consultation with EPA and other 

participating federal agencies may result in possibilities for block grants or other 

mechanisms to encourage program integration. Where feasible, program plans should be 

revised to support implementation. Also, new interagency memoranda of understanding 

may be needed. 

54 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

References 

References in Alphabetical Order by Author or Agency listed 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1994. Draft Delaware 

Basin Management Approach: Statewide Framework Document. Draft. Dover, DE. 

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New 

Approach to Save America's River Ecosystems. The Pacific Rivers Council. Island Press. 

Washington, DC, and Covelo, CA. 

Environmental Law Institute. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Banking. Washington, DC. 

Inland Waterways Commissions. 1908. Report to Congress of the Inland Waterways 

Commission. Washington, DC. 

Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. 1991. Long Range Plan for the Klamath River Basin 

Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka, CA. 

Moyle, P. B. 1992. Fishes, aquatic diversity management areas, and biodiversity. California 

Policy Seminar, University of California. Berkeley, CA. 

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Systems: Science, Technology, and 

Public Policy. Washington, DC. 

NCDEM (North Carolina Division of Environmental Management). 1993. The Neuse River 

Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, NC. 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division and The Cadmus 

Group. Draft Basin Management Approach Framework Document for the State of Nebraska.

Lincoln, NE. 

RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1994. Nutrient Modeling and Management in the Tar-Pamlico 

River Basin. Draft report for the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

RTI. 1995. Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Nutrient Reduction in the Tar-Pamlico 

Basin. Prepared for the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

South Carolina Bureau of Water Pollution Control. 1993. Watershed Water Quality Management 

Plan for the Savannah-Salkehatchie Basin. Columbia, SC. 

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. The Watershed Protection Approach: An 

Overview. EPA 503/9-92-001. Office of Water. Washington, DC. 

55 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

U.S. EPA. 1993a. Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance.

EPA100-R-93-001. Office of Administration and Resources Management. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA. 1993b. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. EPA-841-B-93-001. Office 

of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA. 1993c. Solutions Basinwide. Video prepared for the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds by RTI. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA. 1994a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-94-

001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA. 1994b. Restoration as a Water Resource Management Tool. Draft. Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, DC. 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Watershed Protection: A Project Focus. EPA 841-R-95-003. Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Watershed Approach to Water Quality 

Management: A Strategy to Convert the Washington Department of Ecology Wastewater Permit 

Function to an Implementable Watershed Approach. Olympia, WA. 

56 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Appendix A: How Does Ground Water Protection Fit? 

A.1 Perspective 

Considerable concern has been expressed by water resource managers about how ground water 

protection is integrated with a statewide basin approach. The need for integrating surface and 

ground water is clear since the quality of ground water contributes to the general condition of a 

watershed and may serve as a medium for transporting pollutants to surface waters. 

Furthermore, by coordinating the state's basin approach with its Comprehensive State Ground 

Water Protection Program (CSGWPP), a state may be able to leverage the authority and 

resources of programs outside the normal surface water management arena. Starting in 1984, 

EPA began working with states to create ground water protection strategies to coordinate efforts 

under some 20 federal ground water programs. There are ground water provisions focusing on 

hazardous substances impacts through programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

governing waste disposal sites and remediation of Superfund sites. Initiatives under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act regulate the use of agrichemicals. The Safe Drinking 

Water Act encourages states to develop Wellhead Protection Plans and allows the designation of 

Sole Source Aquifers to provide additional safeguards from the impacts of various federally 

assisted projects. 

The states' CSGWPPs integrate these various programs and activities. Also, many states use 

surface water quality standards under their CSGWPPs to provide site-specific ground water 

protection standards. Thus, a state's CSGWPP and its basin management activities can reinforce 

each other's goals. In fact, the effectiveness of the state's basin approach may depend on how 

well these basin management activities and the CSGWPP integrate important regional or sitespecific concerns. 

A.2 Surface/Ground Water Issues at the Basin and Watershed Levels 

Basin management plans under a statewide basin approach should identify surface/ground issues 

at both the basin and watershed level. At the basin level, certain issues tend to be broad in scope, 

sometimes extending across all or part of a basin, for example: 

• Large areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia underlain with limestone caverns 

where land disposal or direct pollution of sinkholes can rapidly contaminate both 

surface and ground water for many miles 

• Parts of Florida with underlying coral and limestone formations and underground 

streams 

• The Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, where activities in the basin (e.g., irrigation, 

Superfund sites) have the potential of contaminating both the aquifer and the Snake 

River itself; the aquifer is now designated as a Sole Source Aquifer 

57 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

• Portions of Arizona and elsewhere in the arid west where activities such as 

agriculture or mining tap into alluvial aquifers, draining them and causing loss of 

critical riparian habitat 

State basin management plans also identify watershed-specific issues for special attention in 

future watershed projects. Examples of watershed-level issues affecting surface and ground 

water include localized problems with solid waste disposal in sinkholes, protection of springs, 

pollution of surficial aquifers by land activities, and localized sites where recreational activity in 

caverns has caused damage to sensitive aquatic biota. 

A.3 Challenges Specific to Ground Water Protection 

There are many opportunities for integrating surface water and ground water protection. This is 

particularly the case where shallow aquifers, which are often highly susceptible to 

contamination, are directly connected to surface waters. In other respects, however, ground water 

protection presents challenges that differ in kind or scale from those encountered in protecting 

surface waters. For example, given the enormous costs and technical difficulties of ground water 

remediation, considerable emphasis must be placed on pollution prevention. In contrast, because 

surface waters are generally easier to clean up, greater emphasis under surface water programs 

can be given to restoring impaired waterbodies. 

Other ground water-specific concerns that should be considered when designing broad protection 

approaches include ground water pollutant fate and transport mechanisms, monitoring 

considerations and resource boundaries, (e.g., aquifer boundaries may not coincide with basin 

boundaries). Because ground water generally flows slowly, there is often a long lag time 

(sometimes decades) between discharge of pollutants at the land's surface and their transport 

through an aquifer. This may make it difficult to locate sources of contamination and has obvious 

implications for enforcement and for evaluating environmental effectiveness of protection 

efforts. Ground water problems thus are often treated as nonpoint source pollution or in-place 

contaminant concerns. 

Monitoring ground water quality involves sampling existing or new wells for pollutants of 

concern. Monitoring ground water can be very expensive compared with monitoring surface 

water, especially if a large network of new monitoring wells must be installed and extensive 

laboratory analyses of ground water consistent with the state's priorities and schedules are 

implemented. 

CSGWPPs should be carefully coordinated with the state's general, long term Watershed 

Protection Approach. For maximum effectiveness in protecting water resources, states need to 

make conscious decisions on how CSGWPPs and basin approaches can most profitably align. 

The following highlight describes how Nebraska deals with interrelated ground water and 

surface water pollution issues. 

58 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Linking Surface and Ground Water Management in Nebraska 

Nebraska's basin approach includes both surface water and ground water programs. Although the 

approach is not designed specifically for ground water, various ground water protection 

programs within the state are moving to a more basin-by-basin approach. The state's Wellhead 

Protection Program annually targets communities in selected basins to receive a more focused 

Wellhead Protection effort. Also, educational activities in Nebraska's CWA Section 319 

nonpoint source program are coordinated with the state's basin approach. Furthermore, septic 

tank and underground injection control program activities are targeted to different basins in 

successive years. 

In addition to these state-level activities, ground water management plans for dealing with 

ground water supplies and nonpoint sources of contamination have been developed and 

implemented by each of the 23 Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) that cover the state. Basin 

plans will be coordinated with the ground water management plan for each appropriate NRD. 

Since the Districts' boundaries generally follow basin delineations, they provide a logical 

geographical management unit for coordinating watershed protection activities at the local level. 

The NRDs already sponsor a large number of CWA Section 319 nonpoint source implementation 

projects across the state. Several NRDs have worked with the Nebraska Department of 

Environmental Quality to develop and implement Special Protection Areas, while other NRDs 

have independently developed and implemented their own Ground Water Quality Management 

Areas. Both designations deal with the management of nonpoint source ground water 

contamination. Consequently, although ground water activities in Nebraska are not specifically 

included in the basin approach, in effect the state's high-priority ground water concerns are being 

addressed basin by basin. 

59 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Appendix B: Management Cycle for the State of Nebraska 

Management activities within Nebraska's thirteen delineated basins will be coordinated around a 

five-year cycle. A series of steps are executive for each basin over the cycle, ending with the 

promulgation and implementation of a management plan. These steps are illustrated in Figure 1 

and described below in more detail. 

Step 1. Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan 

A strategic plan will be drafted that specifies monitoring to support basinwide assessment. 

Details shall include monitoring objectives, station locations, parameter coverage, sampling 

frequency, and monitoring plan rationale. 

Step 2. Initial Public Outreach 

As resources allow, NDEQ will hold public meetings at appropriate sites within the basin to 

acquaint stakeholders with the overall framework and help identify management concerns 

specific to that basin. It is anticipated that the format of the meetings will generally follow that 

used for Nebraska Wetlands Conservation Plans, which includes Open House sessions, large 

group presentation, and small group discussions. Relevant portions of the NDEQ strategic 

monitoring plan will be presented with an explanation of how the resulting data will be used for 

assessing water quality and prioritizing management needs. This initial outreach will provide 

stakeholders with opportunities early in the basin planning process to submit relevant 

information, identify potential gaps in the monitoring strategy, participate in data collection 

where appropriate, or provide other feedback. 

Step 3. Implement Strategic Monitoring Plan 

The strategic monitoring plan for basinwide assessment will be implemented following any 

modification resulting from feedback received during initial outreach activities. 

Step 4. Canvas for Information 

NDEQ will make direct contact with key agencies and other entities to obtain additional relevant 

information for use in basin planning. In particular, data will be sought for characterizing the 

basin (e.g., hydrology, land-use, population demographics, economic base, etc.) and for 

evaluating water quality. Stakeholder information will also be used where appropriate in the 

prioritization and management strategy development process. 

Step 5. Analyze Information 

Initial analyses of basinwide monitoring data and supplemental stakeholder information will 

focus on determining use support status, identifying problems and areas of special ecological 

value, and assessing information gaps. Limitations in data coverage should be specified so that 

initial findings can be appropriately qualified. Some quantification of problems may occur to 

60 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

clarify causes and sources, estimate loading, and quantify assimilative capacity. Further analysis 

and more detailed quantification of problems will continue for waters that are prioritized in the 

next step. Known gaps in field data will be addressed during updates of the strategic monitoring 

plan. 

Step 6. Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues 

NDEQ will apply a standardized set of criteria and procedures to prioritize waterbodies in need 

of management or additional assessment so that resources can be targeted to address the concerns 

in an efficient and effective manner. 

Step 7. Continue Public Outreach 

NDEQ will present potential stakeholders with a summary of the initial water quality 

assessments and recommended management priorities. Areas in need of further problem 

quantification will be identified. NDEQ will attempt to match stakeholders to corresponding 

priority waterbodies. In some cases, "Focus Groups" may be formed among stakeholders to help 

clarify matters. Stakeholder and Focus Groups will form the basis for stakeholder involvement in 

the evaluation of management options and development of basin management plans. 

Step 8. Implement Updates to Strategic Monitoring Plan 

Based on the results of initial assessment and prioritization, along with feedback from public 

outreach activities, NDEQ will update and implement its strategic monitoring plan to gather data 

for further problem quantification. This will include data for model development or other tools 

necessary to evaluate management options. 

Step 9. Problem Quantification 

Additional problem quantification will be performed where required to establish the magnitude 

of a problem, determine assimilative capacity, calculate loads for contributing sources of 

pollutants of concern, or otherwise further assess the problem such that sufficient information is 

available for management strategy development. This includes field calibration of models and 

development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). 

Step 10. Develop Management Strategies 

NDEQ will work with other stakeholders to arrive at a consensus on management goals, such as 

specific waterbody segments to be restored or protected. This will include loading reductions that 

should be achieved, or the amount of habitat that needs restoring, etc. Input will also be solicited 

from stakeholders to establish feasible combinations of point and nonpoint source control 

measures and management actions to achieve goals. Management options will be evaluated via 

predictive modeling, or by other methods where appropriate, for their relative effectiveness at 

achieving environmental objectives. Regulatory constraints and procedures will be considered, 

and stakeholder consensus will be sought where voluntary efforts are needed to meet 

environmental objectives. Selected management strategies will outline mechanisms for 

61 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

implementing controls, time frames, anticipated costs, sources of funding, monitoring strategies, 

compliance tracking and enforcement methods, etc. 

Step 11. Prepare Draft Basin Plan 

NDEQ will prepare a draft basin plan which documents the results of the basin planning process 

including assessment, priorities, goals, selected management alternatives, and the 

implementation strategy. 

Step 12. Agency and Public Review 

An internal review of the draft basin plan will be performed to ensure that it is ready for public 

distribution. Upon agency approval, the plan will be made available for public review and 

comment. Outreach will be provided to explain provisions and implications of the plan. 

Step 13. Complete Final Basin Plan 

Modifications will be made to the plan, as necessary, based on comments and input received 

through the review process, to complete a final basin plan. 

Step 14. Basin Plan Implementation 

Each cycle ends with a basin plan implementation period. The implementation strategy outlined 

in the plan will be followed, taking such steps as necessary to implement pollutant source 

controls, best management practices, monitoring programs, enforcement methods, etc. Activities 

occurring during this period will include public notice and issuance of NPDES individual and 

basin general permits, distribution of state revolving fund (SRF) loans to prioritized entities, and 

allocation of 319 funds to prioritized NPS problem areas. In addition, implementation will 

include an outreach component to communicate the goals and selected management strategies of 

the final plan. Outreach will also be used to educate stakeholders on implementation schedules, 

milestones, and where regulatory and voluntary efforts are required to meet environmental 

objectives. 

The final basin plan contains recommendations for follow-up basinwide assessment to measure 

the degree of success from plan implementation and to evaluate areas that were not assessed 

during the previous cycle. After a specified period of time for plan implementation, NDEQ will 

implement the updated strategic monitoring plan and the basin management cycle will be 

repeated. 

The basin management cycle will not be initiated in all basins at the same time for practical 

reasons. Activities within the thirteen basins will be sequenced so that steps are performed 

incrementally across the state. This helps to balance program workloads. Focusing on the same 

steps at one time in a small segment of the state creates a more efficient and effective operating 

framework. 

62 
US Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach

Table 1 shows the sequence and scheduling of steps for Nebraska's thirteen river basins. The 

order in which river basins will be addressed is shown along the left hand column of the table. 

Corresponding schedules for performance of each step of the basin management cycle are shown 

to the right of the column of basins. Two lines of symbols are used for each basin to better depict 

simultaneous activities (Note: symbols are defined in the legend at the bottom of the table). The 

table shows how steps are phased in across the state over the first five-year cycle from 1994 to 

1998. Basinwide management activities will be ongoing in all basins across the state by 1998, 

and basin management plans will be implemented for all basins by the end of 2001. 

Specific scheduling patterns have been incorporated within the basin cycle. For instance, the vast 

majority of field monitoring activities for NDEQ's Water Quality Division are performed 

between May and November for scientific reasons. Therefore, strategic monitoring plans will 

need to be finalized by the end of April each year so that actual sample collection can begin in 

May. 

Data analysis (A) and problem quantification (Q) are shown in the table under the months of 

November through February following the first year of monitoring and information collection. 

However, this does not mean that analysis and quantification are restricted to that period. Rather, 

this is the period where data are screened and assessed for watershed prioritization purposes. It is 

recognized that analysis and quantification for purposes of evaluating management options will 

continue on in some prioritized watersheds up until development of management strategies and 

written plans. This is illustrated in the table by the series of months with a Q following the Mq

period. 

Finally, it should be noted that the length of time scheduled for follow-up problem quantification 

and management strategy development differs across basins that are grouped in the same year of 

the cycle. The times have been staggered so that only one basin plan is being drafted at a time. 

For example, plan drafting will occur in July-August of 1996 for the Lower Platte whereas the 

basin plan for the Nemaha will be written in November-December, 1996. This same type of 

pattern is repeated for each year of the basin cycle. 

63