Evolution of a Watershed-Management Framework in the Kentucky River Basin

Following an increased emphasis on watershed management by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1990s, the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) developed and implemented a watershed-management framework process for the state of Kentucky in 1997. The Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute (KWWRI) coordinated the first implementation of the framework process in the Kentucky River basin beginning in 2000. After an evaluation of the program that followed the completion of the first five-year cycle of the framework, the KWRRI made significant changes to the framework so as to incorporate greater stakeholder involvement and to place a greater focus on the development and implementation of watershed plans at a local level. This paper provides a summary of the watershed activities in the Kentucky River basin over the past 15 years and evaluates the lessons learned during that process. It is hoped that these observations will be useful to other agencies and organizations that are engaged in watershed-management activities, either at the state or local level. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000398. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers. Author keywords: Stakeholders; Volunteers; Watershed planning. Introduction and Background Watershed management became a specific focus of the EPA during the 1990s when the agency embarked upon a national program to develop and implement a comprehensive watershed-protection approach framework across the United States. This initiative built upon the Office of Water’s watershed-protection framework, first endorsed by senior EPA managers in 1991 (EPA 1991) and updated in 1996 (EPA 1996). As part of this initiative, the EPA developed specific guidance for implementing the framework at both the state (EPA 1995a) and project level (EPA 1995b). The watershed-framework process was originally envisioned to encompass an iterative planning process (typically more than 5 years), consisting of four to five phases (e.g., data collection/monitoring, assessment, prioritization, strategy development, basin plan review/approval, and implementation), which resulted in specific watershed plans for targeted watersheds within a larger river basin. In most cases, each state was subdivided into multiple management units for sequential application of the planning process. Each management unit would typically include several distinct river basins. For example, North Carolina, which was one of the first states to implement a watershed planning process, assigned each one of its 17 major river basins to one of five management units to facilitate a rolling five-year planning process (EPA 1995a). Since its inception, more than 20 states (including Kentucky) have adopted a watershed approach to their management of statewide water programs (EPA 2002). To date, 18 states continue to employ such an approach (EPA 2013a). One of the first studies to assess the benefits of watershed management at a national level was conducted by the EPA (1997). The resulting report, entitled The Top Ten Lessons Learned, should be required reading for anyone engaged in watershed management. While obviously somewhat dated, the report remains a treasure trove of great practical advice. The report identified the top 10 watershed lessons that had been learned up to that time and helped to inform many of the concepts subsequently implemented in later state watershed programs. Each lesson included at least two case studies for use in illustrating the main point. Among the important lessons were the following: 1. The best plans have clear visions, goals, and action items; 2. Good leaders are committed and empower others; 3. Plans only succeed if implemented; 4. Partnerships equal power; 5. Education and involvement drive action; and 6. Build on small successes. These findings tend to be echoed by subsequent authors who examined the importance of stakeholder involvement in the overall watershed-management process (Watkins and Paladino 2001; Webler and Tuler 2001; Johnson et al. 2002; Conway 2002; Bui and Smith 2002; Leach et al. 2002; Lu 2003; Shirey et al. 2005). In 2002, the EPA published the first comprehensive review of statewide watershed-management approaches. The study examined the programs of eight different states (Table 1). These eight states were included in the review because each state had “(1) adopted a statewide management approach; (2) had at least 2 years of experience implementing the approach; (3) represented a range of geography, types, or models of watershed management approaches; and (4) were recommended by a number of USEPA headquarters and regional managers.” The report provides a summary of states’watershed-management experiences with regard to six different metrics, including public involvement and state–local coordination. The report also evaluated the experiences of individual state regulatory programs [e.g., total maximum daily load (TMDLS) and national permit discharge elimination system (NPDES)] in light of the use of the watershed Director, Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Univ. of Kentucky, 233 Mining and Minerals Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0107 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] Environmental Specialist, Basin Coordinator for the Kentucky River Basin, Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Univ. of Kentucky, 233 Mining and Minerals Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0107. E-mail: [email protected] Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 11, 2012; approved on August 9, 2013; published online on August 12, 2013. Discussion period open until October 8, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496/04014022(11)/$25.00. © ASCE 04014022-1 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. D ow nl oa de d fr om a sc el ib ra ry .o rg b y L in de ll O rm sb ee o n 06 /1 0/ 14 . C op yr ig ht A SC E . F or p er so na l u se o nl y; a ll ri gh ts r es er ve d. as an integrative management framework. Finally, the report provided a series of conclusions and six different recommendations for both the EPA and the collective states. With regard to public involvement and state–local coordination, while the report found that “statewide watershed management has greatly increased opportunities for public involvement in state water quality and resource management. : : : public involvement efforts can create tension between state [regulatory] agencies and the public.” For example, because state agency personnel are often involved in watershed-management issues as both a regulator and facilitator, these roles can frequently come into conflict when issues may arise in which stakeholder interest or perspectives are at variance with the regulatory decision. The report also found that “despite greater opportunities for public involvement and input, few statewide management programs have built specific linkages to local government, planning, zoning, or land use authorities.” Among the final conclusions of the report were that “The key to a successful statewide watershed program appears to be one that recognizes the important value of inter-agency and state–local partnerships and is supported by an adequate coordination infrastructure.” In 2005, the EPA conducted another national survey of watershed-management programs associated with the National Estuary Program (EPA 2005). The survey was published as the Community-Based Watershed Management Handbook (EPA 2005) and summarized highly successful approaches to watershed management as implemented by the 28 National Estuary Programs. Among the recommendations of the report were the following: 1. Foster consensus on difficult issues by establishing effective governance structures; 2. Conduct vigorous education and outreach by involving the public; and 3. Establish credibility by using science to inform decision making. While the report emphasized the importance of stakeholder involvement, such involvement frequently took the form of a citizen’s advisory committee in which watershed-management governance was still implemented from a top-down approach, and technical issues were typically separated from citizen stakeholders through the use of a parallel technical advisory committee. In manyways, the 2002 and 2005 surveys tend to reflect a greater influence of the principles of thewatershed-management framework (EPA 1996) than lessons documented in the top 10 watershed lessons report (EPA 1997). This is perhaps not surprising, since the top 10 lessons were derived from experiences from implementation of watershed-management plans at a local level as opposed to implementation of a statewide program. The implications of such differences were subsequently manifest in the ultimate implementation of thewatershed-management framework in the KentuckyRiver basin. While some of the experiences in Kentucky may be unique, it is still hoped that some of the lessons learned might be applicable to other basins as well (Michaels and Kenney 2001). Kentucky Watershed-Management Program As part of this national effort, the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) developed a comprehensive watershed-management framework (KDOW 1997a). The purpose of the framework was to “provide a means for coordinating and integrating the programs, tools, and resources of multiple stakeholder groups to better protect, maintain, and restore the ecological structure and function of watersheds as well as support their sustainable use.” The specific goals of the program are summarized as follows: 1. Protect and enhance public health and safety; 2. Conserve and enhance watershed ecosystems; 3. Support sustainable watershed resource uses that meet waterquality standards and conservation goals; 4. Reduce or prevent pollutant loadings and other stressors in watersheds; 5. Preserve and enhance aesthetic and recreational values of watersheds; and 6. Provide adequate water supply to support sustainable human use and ecological integrity. The original framework involved a collaboration of nearly 30 separate agencies. Representatives from each of these organizations made up an initial statewide steering committee whose purpose was to review progress, set goals, and provide interagency coordination associated with various joint activities, including water-quality monitoring. Basin coordinators were established for five major river-basin management units within the state. Additionally, separate basin-management teams were created for each of the major river basins that would provide strategic guidance and program support for implementing the management framework process in each basin (KDOW 1997a). As a result of both financial resources and an agency mandate, KDOW quickly emerged as the de facto manager of the statewide program, although other agencies continued to be involved. Division of Water staff provided leadership through the staff positions of the statewide coordinator, as well as the eventual basin coordinators in all but the Kentucky River basin. In the Kentucky River basin, financial support was provided by the Kentucky River Authority (KRA) at a level of approximately $100,000 a year. Because of limited staff, the KRA contracted with theKentuckyWater Resources Research Institute (KWRRI) to act as its agent in the implementation of the process. In that capacity, the KWRRI worked very closely with the statewide coordinator, the statewide steering committee and KDOW. The funds from the KRA were used to support a local coordinator for the basin to support Table 1. Summary of Eight Statewide Watershed-Management Approaches (EPA 2005) State Type Basins Origin Year Statute CWA programs KY Rotating basin 5 years/5 steps 46 WQ agency 1997 No 303d, 305b, 319, 402 MA Rotating basin 5 years/5 steps 27 DEP sec’try 1993 No 303d, 305b, 319, 402 (w/EPA) NJ Basin management areas 20 DEP sec’try 1999 No prop reg 303d, 305b, 319, 402 NC Rotating basin 5 years/5 steps 17 WQ agency 1991 Yes 303a 303d, 305b, 402 OH Rotating basin 5 years/5 steps 21 WQ agency 1990 No 303d, 305b, 319, 402 OR Local watershed councils 93 Governor 1997 Yes 303d, 305b, 319 TX River authorities 16 WQ/statute 1996 Yes 305b, 319, 402 WA River basin and local government planning 23 WQ/statute 1995 Yes 303d, 305b, 319, 402 Note: DEP = department of environmental protection; WQ = water quality. Denotes Clean Water Act (WA) programs partially involved in the statewide management approach. © ASCE 04014022-2 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. D ow nl oa de d fr om a sc el ib ra ry .o rg b y L in de ll O rm sb ee o n 06 /1 0/ 14 . C op yr ig ht A SC E . F or p er so na l u se o nl y; a ll ri gh ts r es er ve d. volunteer water-quality sampling across the basin and to implement each of the steps of the overall watershed-management framework. Framework Components The Kentucky watershed-management framework was designed based on five basic components: (1) basin-management units; (2) a basin-management cycle; (3) a statewide basin-management schedule; (4) a partner network including public participation; and (5) basin-management and watershed-management plans (Ormsbee and McAlister 2005). These are briefly summarized below. Basin Management Units The state of Kentucky contains 12 major river basins: Big Sandy, Green, Kentucky, Licking, Little Sandy, Lower Cumberland, Mississippi, Salt, Tennessee, Tradewater, Tygarts, and Upper Cumberland (Fig. 1). The Ohio River constitutes most of the northern border of the state and several small watersheds drain directly into its main stem. To facilitate the application of the watershed-management approach across the commonwealth, the state was subdivided into five basin-management units. The basin-management units were based on six-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), within which are nested 8-digit, 11-digit, and 14-digit HUCs (watersheds). HUCs were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and others, to standardize hydrologic unit delineations for geographic description and data storage purposes. Amap of the five basin-management units is provided in Fig. 2. A listing of the five basin-management units and their associated statistics is provided in Table 2. Basin-Management Schedule In applying a watershed-management approach across the state, each basin-management unit is processed through a five-part basin-management cycle. To provide for the strategic utilization of program resources, the basin-management cycle for each basinmanagement unit was lagged by one year and sequenced over an initial five-year period. The Kentucky River basin was selected as the first basin to implement the process, followed by the Licking/ Salt river basins, the Upper and Lower Cumberland River basin, the Green and Tradewater river basins, and finally, the Big Sandy, Little Sandy, and Tygarts river basins. A detailed map of the basin is provided in Fig. 3. Basin-Management Cycle The basin-management cycle has five activity phases that are sequenced and repeated for each basin-management unit at fixed five-year intervals. This process is intended to ensure that management goals, priorities, and implementation strategies are routinely updated and progressively implemented (Fig. 4). The five phases include (1) scoping and data gathering, (2) assessment, (3) prioritization and targeting, (4) plan development, and (5) implementation (Ormsbee and McAlister 2005). Scoping and Data Gathering The first phase of the management cycle involved the development of a basin status report (KDOW 1997b). This report provided an Fig. 1. Map of the major Kentucky River basins [data from KDOW (1997a)] Fig. 2. Kentucky basin management units [data from KDOW (1997b)] Table 2. Basin-Management Units for the Kentucky Watershed Framework (Ormsbee and McAlister 2005, © ASCE) Basin management unit number and description Number of USGS 8-digit HUCS Area (km) Percent (%) total state area Kentucky River 5 18,042 17.2 Salt and Licking rivers 8 23,406 22.4 Upper and Lower Cumberland, Tennessee, and Mississippi rivers 15 25,519 24.4 Green and Tradewater rivers 12 28,772 27.5 Big sandy, Little Sandy, and Tygarts 6 8,868 8.5 Fig. 3. Map of the Kentucky River basin with HUC-8 subwatersheds © ASCE 04014022-3 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. D ow nl oa de d fr om a sc el ib ra ry .o rg b y L in de ll O rm sb ee o n 06 /1 0/ 14 . C op yr ig ht A SC E . F or p er so na l u se o nl y; a ll ri gh ts r es er ve d. assessment of existing data about the basin and addressed issues of watershed quality, biodiversity, water use, population, land cover, and public involvement and participation. The report also provided a summary of the 305(b) stream assessments for 1996. Existing water quality and geographical information system (GIS) data sets for the basin were also identified and collected. As a result of this initial assessment, a subsequent basin-monitoring plan was developed (Ormsbee et al. 2000). This plan was designed to fill in data gaps identified in the initial basin status report and structured to take advantage of collaborative sampling initiatives of several of the framework collaborators. By combining resources, multiple agencies were able to provide an increased amount of sampling in the basin of emphasis, which provided a robust set of data for performing a more detailed assessment. For example, KDOW reduced their annual synoptic sampling in each of the other river basins by 50% to increase their sampling of nutrient and pathogens in the Kentucky River basin when it was a basin of emphasis.