Workshop Summary:

WGA would also like to acknowledge and thank each of the speakers who gave freely of their time and experiences to participate in the WGA workshop. An extra thanks from WGA to the speakers for devoting extra time to develop thoughtful responses to the pre-questions posed to them prior to the workshop. We have attempted to capture the speakers' presentations in this report, but we urge those seeking further insights to contact them directly.

Western Governors' Association TMDL Workshop:
"Improving TMDL Coordination within States and River Basins"

May 6-7, 1999

Portland Hilton, 921 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon

Thursday, May 6

9:30 a.m. Welcome - Jim Souby, WGA Executive Director

Lead Governor Representatives Welcome- Langdon Marsh, Oregon DEQ

• Gary Beach, Wyoming DEQ

10:00 Panel One: Intra-State Coordination of TMDL Development and Implementation: A Case Study

The Grande Ronde, Oregon

• Panelists: Mitch Wolgamott, OR DEQ; Lorna Youngs OR Dept. of Ag.; Jerry Young, Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee; Dave Morman, OR Dept of Forestry; Pete Test, OR Farm Bureau
• Purpose: Develop an understanding of the key ingredients to achieving effective coordination of a TMDL for an impaired waterbody located within a state.

11:45 Instructions for Breakout Groups- WGA Staff

12:00 noon Lunch - on your own

1:30 Regional Breakout Groups (Attendees select which breakout to attend)

South Steens, Oregon (temperature)

• Presenters: Roger Wood, OR DEQ; Katherine Anderson, Harney County Watershed Council; Stacy Davies, Roaring Springs Ranch; Miles Brown, BLM

Lake Dillon, Colorado (nutrients)

• Presenter: Phil Hegeman, CO Water Quality Control Division

Garcia Watershed, California (sediment/temperature)

• Presenters: Bob Klamt, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; Carol Caughey, Garcia River Agricultural Landowners' Group; Tom Schott, USDA-NRCS

Couer d'Alene, Idaho (metals)

• Presenters: Michael McIntyre, ID DEQ; Ben Cope, EPA
• Purpose: Each breakout group will begin with a presentation of an intra-state TMDL case study. Each group will then discuss barriers, tools, and models for intra-state TMDL coordination issues, and prepare a report back to all attendees.

3:30 Break

4:00 Regional Breakout Group Reports - Breakout groups will report back to all the attendees on barriers, models and tools to improve intra-state TMDL coordination.

5:00 Conclude for the Reception

5:30 - 7:00 Reception - Pavillion West Room

Friday, May 7

7:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast - Plaza Foyer West

7:30 Reconvene/Discuss Day's Objective - WGA Staff

7:35 Breakfast Discussion: The Challenge of Coordinating Inter-State TMDLs -

• Donald Brady, EPA

8:15 Panel Two: Inter-State Coordination of TMDL Development and Implementation: A Case Study

Flathead Lake, Montana

• Panelists: Roxann Lincoln, MT DEQ; Bob Erickson, EPA; Seth Makepeace, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Mark Holston, Flathead Basin Commission
• Purpose: Panel will discuss coordination and interstate development of this TMDL.

9:40 Instructions for Breakout Groups - WGA Staff

9:45 Break

10:00-11:30 Regional Breakout Groups (Attendees select which breakout to attend)

Columbia/Snake Mainstem, WA/OR/ID (temp.and dissolved gas)

• Presenters: Dick Wallace, WA Department of Ecology, Russell Harding, OR DEQ; Mary Lou Soscia, EPA; Mark Schneider, NMFS; Doug Arndt, Corp of Engineers; Nina Bell, Northwest Environmental Advocates; Brian Brown, National Marine Fisheries Service

The Blue River, KS/NE (atrazine)

• Presenter: Tom Stiles, KS Dept. of Health and Environment

Bear Lake, WY/UT/ID (sediment/nutrients/temperature)

• Presenters: Don Ostler, UT Division of Water Quality; Jack Barnett, Bear River Commission; Craig Thomas, Bear Lake Regional Commission
• Purpose: Breakout groups will begin with a presentation of an interstate TMDL case study. Groups will then discuss interstate coordination, identify barriers, and focus on developing recommendations to improve interstate coordination, including possible guidelines or principles for interstate TMDL development. Each group will then report to all the attendees.

11:45 Reconvene for Regional Breakout Group Reports

• Each breakout group will report back to all the attendees on barriers and recommendations to improve coordination of interstate TMDLs including possible guidelines or principles.

1:00 Conclude the Workshop

Grande Ronde, Oregon

The Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin includes 1,640 square miles in the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon. A major tributary, Catherine Creek originates in the Wallowa Mountains. Permanent European settlement in the area began in the 1850s. Since that time the sub-basin has experienced heavy logging and grazing. The 360 square mile "Grande Ronde Valley," in the middle portion of the subbasin, has been highly developed for agriculture. Much of this agriculture is irrigated with water diverted from the river or from Catherine Creek. The valley also contains the City of La Grande (approximate population 12,500) and several smaller communities. There are three discharging point sources in the valley. The La Grande wastewater treatment plant discharges a portion of it's effluent to the Grande Ronde River. The City of Union discharges to Catherine Creek. A Boise Cascade particle-board plant has a small but significant discharge to the river. The combination of effects from such forestry, agricultural, and urban sources has resulted in degradation of water quality in the subbasin.

The state's current 303(d) list identifies various segments of the Grande Ronde River and its tributaries have having water quality problems related to seven parameters: Temperature, sedimentation, habitat modification, pH, algae, nutrients, flow modification, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria. The pH, algae, nutrient, flow, D.O., and bacteria concerns are restricted almost entirely to the Grande Ronde Valley portion of the subbasin. Temperature, sediment and habitat concerns are spread throughout the basin.

TMDLs are under development for temperature and D.O./pH (Dissolved Oxygen). These TMDLs will also address the sediment, habitat, algae, nutrient and flow issues. The bacterium listing excludes the summer season. No violations of the bacteria standard have been noted in the most recent four-year period. It is anticipated that bacteria will be removed from the 303(d) list in the next cycle.

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has the lead in the technical work of developing the TMDLs but drafts are circulated for input from local advisory committees, watershed council, State Water Conservation District (SWCD), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and others. A draft temperature TMDL is currently in circulation and in the process of being refined. It considers all of the factors affecting heat transfer to and from streams and it sets load allocations for shade based on site potential vegetation. A local group has been established to help in the refinement and definition of site potential vegetation. A draft of the D.O./pH TMDL is expected to be in circulation soon. It will focus on the effect of nutrients, algae, flow, temperature and light availability on the D.O. and pH levels of the river.

A local advisory committee, the Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee, has been established to develop a Water Quality Management Plan to implement the TMDLs. This work is being done concurrently with the TMDL development. The committee has been meeting monthly for the past 18 months. Work groups under the umbrella of the advisory committee have been addressing best management practices related to agriculture, transportation, urban, and forestry sources. Completion of a comprehensive Water Quality Management Program (WQMP) that will apply to the entire subbasin is anticipated in the fall or winter of 1999.

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Mitch Wolgamott and Jerry Young

Mitch Wolgamott, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - 3012 Islande Ave. - La Grande, OR 97850 - 541.963.1331 - wolgamott.mitch@deq.state.or.us

Jerry Young, Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee - 96 Penn Ave. - La Grande, OR 97850 - 541.963.3879 - gyoung@eou.edu

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

Because this TMDL is not yet completed the final answer of what worked remains to be seen. But what seems to be working includes:

• Approaching temperature by using the surrogate of shade targets as a load allocation
• Having DEQ do most of the technical analysis but involving local groups early on in reviewing draft reports and TMDLs
• Using local expertise in developing site potential vegetation targets
• Using a local stakeholder committee to develop a single implementation plan that covers all sources
• When information is lacking or priorities are unknown, set out a process in the plan that will result in collecting the information and implementing the needed actions
• Use work-groups to develop information on specific source categories and best management practices (BMPs) then present this information of the full committee to integrate into an equitable water quality management plan

2.) What did not work?

In Oregon, the legislature has given the primary authority and responsibility for dealing with agricultural pollution sources to the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) under a separate program (SB 1010). The ODA and DEQ are working under different schedules and priorities in developing management plans. This has led to confusion regarding needs of implementation plans and what they should specifically address. It has also made it difficult to keep agriculture involved in the community-based efforts to develop a single plan that equitably includes all the stakeholders.

3.) How were stakeholders involved?

Through the establishment and use of a broad based advisory committee

...How did you bring the right people into the process?

The advisory committee was established jointly by DEQ and the local watershed council (Grande Ronde Model Watershed). DEQ and watershed council staff initially worked together to create a steering group made up of watershed council board members, a County Commissioner, ODA staff person and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) staff person and EPA staff person. This group then identified a prospective Chair for the advisory committee and he was added to the steering group. The steering group then identified the stakeholder groups that needed to be represented and individuals within those groups that could potentially fill the slot. The watershed council and DEQ then jointly sent a letter to the prospective committee members inviting them to participate.

All committee meetings are open to the public and are announced in the local paper so that other interested parties have the opportunity to get involved. Regular updates on progress are made to the watershed council board and occasional updates are given to other groups.

Work groups that gather information for the advisory committee are made up of individuals with expertise in the particular source category. These are made-up largely, but not entirely, of agency and local government technical staff.

...How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

Not sure we have determined that. We just tried to make sure that all potentially affected interest groups are aware of the process and have the opportunity to participate. The advisory committee will be considering public outreach and involvement strategies to include in the water quality management plan. This effort may lead to more participation in the future.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

Having all affected stakeholders and agencies actively interested and engaged in actually trying to identify win-win solutions, instead of protecting self-interest, would result in effective coordination. The absence of that interest and engagement precludes effective coordination. The solution may be a TMDL communication strategy that at least gets the agencies to all understand the process and accept that a TMDL is a tool that can help us solve problems rather than create problems.

From: Dave Morman, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) - 2600 State Street - Salem, OR 97310 - 503.945.7482 - dave.a.morman@state.or.us

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

The current relationship between DEQ and ODF at both the technical and policy levels is good. We have formalized our relationship through a Memorandum of Understanding that addresses how the adequacy of the Oregon Forest Practices Act in protecting water quality will be evaluated and that clarifies the Department of Forestry's role in TMDL processes. If the statewide requirements of the Forest Practices Act are determined to be inadequate to meet water quality standards in a particular water-quality limited basin, a process is in place to develop basin-specific regulations. The MOU also encourages voluntary and incentive-based solutions to achieve water quality objectives.

In the Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin, DEQ and ODF are cooperating on a monitoring study that will:

• Provide data to test the validity of the shade assumptions used in developing the proposed TMDLs for shade.
• Determine if the current forest practices riparian basal area retention requirements are effective at maintaining shade at levels that meet the proposed TMDL standards.
• Develop aerial photographic techniques that can be used for larger geographic areas and in watershed assessments to determine when shade TMDLs are being achieved.

2.) What has not worked?

Due to the lack of a communications plan, little understanding, acceptance, or support has been gained from regulated stakeholders, particularly agriculture and forestry landowners, for the proposed shade TMDL implementation process. As a result, stakeholders are reacting out of their worst fears. This communication breakdown may have unfavorable longer-term political consequences for DEQ.

It is not clear that the shade TMDL will be applied consistently across forestry, agriculture, and urban land uses. The TMDL does not appear to address water withdrawals. Landowners who can provide riparian shade may be asked to mitigate for other parties who withdraw water from streams.

3.) How were stakeholders involved?

Earlier this year, ODF requested that DEQ work cooperatively with the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture to develop a mutual communications plan, but no action has taken place to date.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

• TMDLs based on a strong science that are attainable under natural conditions, recognizing the range of natural disturbance that will occur in the watershed
• Technical and biological criteria that are applied consistently across all land uses
• Clearly articulated policy statements justifying any instances where different land uses will be held to different levels of TMDL compliance
• Early and frequent coordination with Designated Management Agencies
• Clear communications planning to build understanding acceptance and support among stakeholders
• Realistic implementation schedules that recognize limited agency resources and the time needed for TMDL technical evaluation, monitoring current program effectiveness, and building stakeholder acceptance.

From Lorna Youngs, Oregon Department of Agriculture - Oregon Department of Agriculture - 635 Capitol NE - Salem, OR 97310 - 503.986.4557 - lyoungs@oda.state.or.us

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that established a template for cooperation between the agencies in developing TMDLs. The ODA has statutory responsibility for developing agricultural water quality area wide plans for agricultural lands where water quality impaired streams have been identified by the CWA 303(d) process. These agricultural water quality plans are intended to serve as implementation plans for the agricultural portion of the TMDL. The MOA thus provided guidance to both agencies as the Grande Ronde TMDL was being developed. Both agencies had local technical staff that participated jointly in the local TMDL committee as well as the local agricultural water quality planning committee to facilitate communication and joint problem solving.

2.) What did not work?

The MOA between the DEQ and ODA creates an opportunity for partnership in dealing with both the scientific and political issues surrounding non point source TMDL development. Oregon's temperature standard and the Grande Ronde temperature TMDLs are the subject of considerable scientific debate and disagreement which has spilled over into the political arena. The MOA between ODA and DEQ did not provide a mechanism for ODA technical involvement in the development of the modeling used in establishing the temperature TMDL prior to that TMDL's release for public review. Thus ODA did not have the opportunity to identify and assist in resolving technical issues related to agriculture and thus potentially assist in responding to public concerns.

3.) How were stakeholders involved?

The statutes and regulations that provide ODA with the authority to regulate agricultural non point source pollution specify that agricultural water quality plans will be developed by a local committee. The composition of the committee is detailed in rule. ODA solicits input from local governments, local agricultural organizations, tribes, and local environmental and public interest groups for membership in the local advisory committees. The goal is to provide balance as well as representation from the range of agricultural industries in the area. A Soil and Water Conservation District within the planning area is contracted with to provide assistance and outreach in the plan development and implementation. Ultimately portions of the plan are adopted as rules through a public process.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

The DEQ through its MOA's with designated management agencies such as ODA and the Oregon Department of Forestry has a good model for effective intrastate TMDL coordination. Like all models, implementation will identify areas needing improvement. The Grande Ronde temperature TMDL is one of the early examples of implementation of these agreements. What we learn here will improve our future coordination.

From: Pete Test, Oregon Farm Bureau Federation - 3415 Commercial Street SE - Salem, OR 97302 - 503.399.1701 - pete@oregonfb.org

Before answering these questions I informed the audience that my experience with the process for the Grande Rhonde TMDL is not direct. My knowledge of the process comes from comments and information received from members of the TMDL group, local farm bureau members, and other area agriculture producers.

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

The effort in the Grande Rhonde Basin in Oregon did seem to bring together a fairly representative group of stakeholders to participate in the activity. It seems that efforts to get the group to work together were successful.

2.) What did not work?

Because the TMDL process is relatively new the stakeholders involved in the process, both those serving on the group and the interested public who followed the process, did not understand the process and what the final result means. Influential agricultural leaders in the basin are particularly upset with portions of the resulting TMDL because they feel, with good reason, that some of the TMDL requirements are beyond the natural capabilities of the area's waters, as are the parameter standards.

Several things could have been done that might have reduced the confusion about the process and the public's opposition to the results.

• A clear orientation as to how the TMDL setting process fits with all the other water planning processes going on in a basin is an absolute necessity. In Oregon there could be as many as 5 different water/watershed planning processes occurring at the same time. Some of these processes could have regulatory outcomes, as is the case with the TMDL process and others won't. TMDL group members must clearly understand what their mission is and how it relates to other planning and regulation related activities in the local area. Interested stakeholders should also understand how all the processes fit together. To avoid confusion, a constant effort must be made, throughout the TMDL process, to orient participants and the public as to what the TMDL process's mission is and how it relates to other water/watershed management processes in the local area.
• In the Grande Rhonde TMDL process, specialists and professionals from Oregon State University (the state's Land Grant Institution) who had credibility with the non-point source stakeholders were not included in the process for consultation and educational purposes. Most regulatory agency specialists do not have credibility with the non-point source community but they were the key players in this TMDL process. Efforts should be made to include university or Extension Service specialists as consultants and reviewers in the process.
• In the Grande Rhonde Basin, as in the rest of the state of Oregon, the temperature standard is considered by many to be impossible to attain in most water bodies. The standard is one of heated debate. In an effort to develop a TMDL for temperature the state has created a surrogate TMDL based on shade. The effort to develop a surrogate TMDL measure, because they cannot effectively heat loading, is commendable but the influence of shade on water temperature many believe, including credible scientists, is as debatable as the temperature standard itself. The shade cover percentage required by the TMDL is not physically possible on many of the areas in question. And the model used to determine the percent covers relationship to the heat loading is seriously flawed when applied to natural conditions. Many feel that a heat load that can't be measured may be better that an impossible surrogate.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

I am unable to answer many of these questions. Because of the intense opposition to this TMDL by the forestry and agriculture community, and other stakeholders' involvement. I suspect the process of bringing the right people to the table and the allowable amount of participation in the process should be reviewed.

4.) What would you consider to be an effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

Most of the stakeholders I represent do not believe that the TMDL process was ever meant to include non-point sources. Those stakeholders and many others agree that establishing a specific, quantified non-point TMDL is not possible and may never be. Non-point sources cannot be regulated by TMDL's, they can only be managed. I don't think there is a way to coordinate the TMDL process to avoid very strong conflict and opposition as long as the end result threatens to make all landowners and agriculture producers violators and threatens their livelihoods.

The only coordination process that has any hope for success is one that makes sure all the questions in question number three are addressed and the TMDL group has the flexibility to work around the bureaucracy.

The real problem is not the coordination or group process but the underlying regulatory process. The goal for the group is to "fit a round stake in a square hole" or do the impossible. They are being asked to take a regulatory process meant to only be used for point sources (where loads can be measured and controlled out of a pipe) and apply it to non-point sources where direct measures of loads cannot easily be taken if at all. To make it even more complex, in many cases, natural loading cannot be separated from artificial, as it can be for point sources. No matter how carefully you select, coordinate, encourage participation from all stakeholders in an advisory group, a regulatory process that is basically flawed and impossible to comply with will only cause conflict and hurt innocent people.

Bio's

Mitch Wolgamott

Sr. Water Quality Analyst, Oregon DEQ Eastern Region

B.S. Zoology, Oregon State University/M.S. Biology, Portland State University

Mitch has worked in medical research, environmental consulting, and has been with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for the past 15 years. Most of that time was spent at DEQ Headquarters working as the agriculture coordinator when the nonpoint source effort at DEQ consisted of three staff people statewide. Mitch has coordinated DEQ's efforts in the development of the original implementation plan for the Tualatin River TMDL and served as the DEQ representative on the Department of Agriculture advisory committee that develop the implementing rules for Senate Bill 1010 - the Agricultural Water Quality Management Program. He moved to La Grande five years ago to be the DEQ representative on the Grande Ronde field team for the Watershed Health Program. Mitch currently coordinates DEQ's TMDL efforts for the Grande Ronde at the local level. He also works with watershed councils and Soil & Water Conservation Districts on water quality issues throughout much of Eastern Oregon.

David Morman

Forest Practices Policy Unit Manager

Oregon Department of Forestry

David is the Policy Unit Manager for the Oregon Department of Forestry's Forest Practices Program. The Policy Unit is responsible for rule and policy development and analysis, legislative and interagency coordination, and coordinating implementation of the forestry components of Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. His staff also manages a monitoring program which continually evaluates and reports on the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Program. David has previously served as the Forest Practices Operations Unit Manager, as a staff silvicultural specialist working on reforestation, pesticide, and harvesting issues, and he also served as the Forest Practices Program's first monitoring coordinator. In the mid-1980's, David assisted in Oregon's coordinated response to proposed federal land management plans. He has seven years of experience as a field forester working in both public and private sector timber management in northwest and northeast Oregon. He earned his B.S. in Forest Management at Oregon State University.

Gerald Young

Chair, Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee

B.S. Horticulture/M.S. General Science (Chemistry)/Ph.D. General Science (Radio-chemistry)

Dr. Young is a former professor of chemistry and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Eastern Oregon University in La Grande, Oregon. He retired in 1995 after more than 35 years at Eastern. He has remained active in civic affairs since leaving the University. Currently he serves on the State Library Board and is the Chair of the Grande Ronde Water Quality Committee. The water quality committee is charged with assisting in the development of a comprehensive water quality management plan that will implement the TMDLs for the Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin.

Jerry is a native of the Grande Ronde Valley having grown up on a fruit orchard north of La Grande. His ancestors were early pioneers who arrived in the area in the 1850s and '60s. Chief Joseph captured his great-grandfather in 1872 in the Wallowa Valley. Jerry's unique background brings an important historical and social perspective along with scientific understanding to the development of TMDLs for the Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin.

Dr. Lorna Youngs

Assistant Director

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Dr. Youngs has served as the Assistant Director for Natural Resources at the Oregon Department of Agriculture since 1997. She is responsible for the plant protection, pesticide, fertilizer and nursery stock regulation, and water quality programs of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. She joined the department in 1984 as a survey entomologist in the Plant Division where she helped pioneer the use of Bacillus Thuringiensis to eradicate gypsy moth infestations. She served as Assistant Administrator of the Plant Division before becoming Assistant Director for Food Safety and Consumer Protection in 1989. She has a bachelor's degree in International Agricultural Development from the University of California at Davis, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in entomology from Oregon State University.

Pete Test

Associate Director of Governmental Affairs

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation

Pete joined the Farm Bureau staff in July of 1994. In his short tenure, on behalf of the Oregon farmers and ranchers, he has assisted in developing and/or helped pass water-related legislation that protects and/or has provided fair treatment for agriculture producers. He has assisted with legislation and rule making related to other natural resource issues that affect Oregon's agriculture, specifically related to watershed/riparian systems, water quality, grazing and fish and wildlife. Pete was also a member of the American Farm bureau's National Water Quality Task Force. Pete's other activities include work with state water and natural resource work groups and task forces, as well as local natural resource cooperative working groups and individual farmers and ranchers. Before joining the Oregon Farm Bureau, Pete worked for Oregon State University as an Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension Agent in Grant County. Before coming to Oregon, he worked for the University of Nevada, Reno as an Extension Agent in two different Nevada counties, and prior to that, the Nevada Department of Wildlife as a Fishery Biologist.

Pete holds a BS in Renewable Natural Resources (Wildlife Management Option) from the University of Nevada, Reno. He also holds an MS in Range Management from Texas Tech University, and has a Ph.D. in Range Management from the University of Wyoming. Pete is actively involved with Society for Range Management on a national and regional level, as well as other professional societies. Pete is single, resides in Salem, and enjoys outdoor activities, particularly hunting and fishing.

Responses to Pre-Question

From: Katherine Anderson, Harney County Watershed Council - HC71 4.51 Hwy 205 - Burns, OR 97720 - 541.573.2064

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

We were very lucky with people and personalities. We worked with progressive and responsible landowners and managers as well as remarkable agency personnel. The watershed council came into this process late in the game, so it may not have started out with an atmosphere of good communication and hard-core cooperative efforts. It was my observation that everyone was really trying to do a good job.

2.) What did not work?

Trying to apply the numerical standards of a TMDL to nonpoint source pollution.

3.) How were the stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

Our state environmental agency (DEQ) drove that bus. For the South Steens Management Plan and TMDL, the stake holders were at the table from day one. Additional privat4e landowners were brought into the process through public meetings and public comment efforts produced by the DEQ. The watershed council formed a subcommittee which reviewed all draft documents and produced comments. These comments were brought to the full membership of the council twice. They were thoroughly discussed and amended to reflect the opinions of the full membership.

4.) What would you consider to be effective interstate TMDL coordination?

I can see that the added hierarchy of two state governments might complicate the process.

What we really need to do is use TMDLs for point source pollution and develop water management plans that are applicable for nonpoint source pollution. Let us please take another look at the Clean Water Act.

We had cooperative and intelligent players and we could not accomplish what attorney’s for the EPA in Washington DC seem to expect from a TMDL. There is a disconnect between applicable science and the intent of the law.

Katherine Anderson

Member: Society for Range Management
B.S. Rangeland Resources/ Minors in Crop Science and Soil Science

Katherine has worked in the field of natural resources since 1991 with Soil and Water Conservation Districts and with the Watershed Council. She works with both private agricultural producers and agency personnel. She believes that the primary challenge faced by both agriculture and natural resources management in general is the issue of "sustainability." "Our agricultural producers have met the challenge of feeding our growing population. I think we forget too often how important that job is. Part of my challenge is how do we encourage these people to continue to produce and improve stewardship."

Miles R. Brown

Andrews Resource Area Field Manager (BLM)

Miles Brown is currently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Field Manager for the Andrews Resource Area, Burns District, Located in southeast Oregon. Since his arrival three years ago, he has primarily focused on planning and implementing grazing management strategies through cooperative efforts with numerous partners and interests. The vast landscapes he is responsible for contain numerous issues including riparian conditions, water quality, inland species of trout, wild horses, wilderness values, livestock grazing and intermingled private lands. Cooperation, trust and active participation of partners and interests has been key to meeting resource objectives and public expectations.

Miles is also a member of the Harney County Watershed Council. This Council is a grassroots organization that focuses on local education about current watershed issues, involvement in key watershed or water quality issues, and support for projects and efforts related to water quality that will benefit the citizens of Harney County.

Prior to arriving in Oregon, Miles served as a renewable resources staff supervisor for the Caballo Resource Area (BLM) located in Las Cruces, New Mexico and as a Range Conservationist in the San Simon Resource Area (BLM) in Safford, Arizona. For five years between these southwestern New Mexico. Miles received his B.S. in 1980 from the School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona.

Lake Dillon, Colorado

Lake Dillon is a man-made impoundment constructed in the early 1960s and is located in Summit County, Colorado. It is an impoundment of the Blue River immediately below its confluence with the Snake River and Tenmile Creek. The watershed drains elevations between lake level, at about 9,000 ft and the mountain headwaters of the three contributing drainages to elevations over 14,000 ft. Because of the geology of the watershed, Lake Dillon would be expected to exhibit oligotrophic conditions were it not for nutrient addition resulting from local land uses. In the early 1970s watershed development in the watershed had brought Lake Dillon to mesotrophic status. Local interest in protecting the reservoir increased to the point that, in the early 1980s, the Dillon Clean Lakes Steering Committee was formed and limnological investigations were initiated. The resultant management strategy includes local land use controls involving best management practices to address non-point source contributions, design criteria for on-site wastewater treatment systems, and the Dillon Reservoir Control Regulation adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. The Dillon Reservoir Control Regulation was adopted in 1984 and is based on the goal of maintaining the quality of Dillon Reservoir at the levels observed in 1982. The regulation establishes mass-based wasteload allocations for domestic wastewater point sources in the basin, as well as numerical effluent concentration limits for phosphorus discharges from these facilities. The regulation provides an option for point source dischargers to control nonpoint sources of phosphorus that were in existence prior to 1984 and receive credit toward their point source phosphorus allocation. The major domestic dischargers in the basin consistently achieve effluent concentrations and annual mass loadings that are well below the levels required by the regulation. Because of their success in achieving very low effluent phosphorus concentrations point source dischargers have not needed to increase their wasteload allocations. Use of the regulation's trading provisions has therefore been limited. However, continuing growth appears to have now reached a point where non-point and point source trading of phosphorus credits is now underway.

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Phil Hegeman, CO Dept of Public Health and Environment - 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South - Denver, CO 80246-1530 - 303.692.3598 - philip.hegeman@state.co.us

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

With respect to the Lake Dillon TMDL, it appears that there was a combination of factors that contributed to TMDL "success." In the early 1980s there was:

• A significant level of local concern regarding the perceived degradation of Lake Dillon water quality during the previous decade,
• Local concern regarding water development proposals which were circulating in response to growth in the Colorado front range (Denver and environs) and which had the potential to affect Lake Dillon hydrology,
• Local leadership and commitment. The local stakeholders were responsible for development of the TMDL implementation strategy. It was not a solution dictated to the local community by state or federal agencies.

2.) What did not work?

The only significant element of the Lake Dillon TMDL which did not work was a short-lived ban on sale of certain cleaning products with relatively high phosphorus contents. This approach proved unsuccessful primarily due to the large transient population buying such products elsewhere. Additionally, the treatment capabilities of local wastewater treatment plants proved the ban to be unnecessary.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

Stakeholders' groups were already in place and were willing to assume the lead role in TMDL development. The process was characterized by substantial opportunity for public involvement. Nonetheless there was not an overwhelming of amount of public involvement much less a significant degree of controversy.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

Effective TMDL coordination, in this case, resulted from a sense of urgency that existed in the Lake Dillon community at the time the TMDL was developed. This, in turn, may have been the reason why local stakeholder groups were willing to assume a leadership role and develop the TMDL implementation strategy. Effective TMDL coordination, in this instance, meant allowing local groups to dictate the process to the regulatory agencies instead of vice versa.

Bio's

Phil Hegeman

Permits Unit Manager, Water Quality Control Division

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Phil Hegeman serves as manager the Permits Unit of the Water Quality Control Division. The Permits Unit is responsible for issuance of approximately 1,100 permits to municipalities and industries discharging wastewater to surface and groundwaters in Colorado and some 4,000 storm-water permits. The Permits Unit is also charged with the regulation of industries discharging process wastewaters to community sewer systems and the recycling of biosolids (sewage sludge) as a fertilizer.

Prior to accepting his current position, Mr. Hegeman was responsible for the development and management of the Division's Industrial Pretreatment Program and Biosolids Management Program. He has served on a number of EPA workgroups tasked with the development of national policies and procedures relative to implementation of the federal biosolids program. His work in this area has earned him EPA's External Achievement Award. He has authored and presented several technical papers relative to biosolids use and regulation and is active in educational activities sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Water Environment Association and the Environmental Training Center at Red Rocks Community College.

Mr. Hegeman received his undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Colorado - Boulder in 1974. He subsequently received his Masters Degree in Biology from the University of Denver. In 1981 he accepted a position with the Water Quality Control Division. His experience with the Division includes work in the Construction Grants Program (the precursor to the current State Financial Assistance Program), the Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Program, and design, execution and interpretation of water quality studies performed as part of the Clean Lakes program and the ongoing Water Quality Standards Program. He served as the Division's liaison with the Water Quality Control Commission's Ammonia Standard Task Force.

Garcia River Watershed, California

The Garcia River Watershed is a 73,223 acre coastal basin in northwest California, about 120 miles north of San Francisco. It was the first of eighteen North Coast 303(d) listed impaired water bodies scheduled for TMDL completion under a Court Consent Decree in settlement of a lawsuit against the EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) filed by fishing and environmental organizations. The targeted pollutant is sediment from accelerated erosion from land use practices. The primary impaired beneficial uses include cold freshwater habitat, spawning, reproduction and early development of coho salmon and steelhead, Endangered Species Act listed species. High seasonal rainfall (45-75 in /yr), an active young geology (Franciscan Formation) San Andreas fault system and steep slopes characterize the basin. Historical land uses of redwood/Douglas-fir timber harvest, ranching and agriculture continue today. 80% of this mostly private owned basin is managed by industrial and non-industrial forest owners and ranchers.

EPA through an Interagency Personnel Agreement provided staff to the RWQCB staff to aid the development of a TMDL including public outreach and participation. Regional Staff accurately referred to the TMDL effort as a "Water Quality Attainment Strategy for Sediment." RWQCB staff built on a watershed restoration effort and a local watershed advisory group first started in 1991 by the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District and NRCS. In 1996, RWQCB staff reconvened and expanded the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) which included representatives from the timber industry, ranching and farming industry, gravel mining industry, environmentalists, State and Federal resource agencies, local government and other interested members of the public. Monthly WAG meetings, facilitated by RWQCB staff, were conducted in the watershed. Quarterly newsletters were mailed. Court imposed TMDL completion deadline, pressured EPA/SWRCB personnel and the WAG to gather and analyze watershed data and develop an implementation plan to reduce management induced sediment. In the absence of WAG consensus on specific measures, RWQCB staff incorporated general WAG agreements where possible and finished a draft Water Quality Attainment Strategy in December of 1997 that included EPA required sections on Problem Statement, Numeric Targets, Source Analysis, Load Capacity Calculation and Load Allocations. The State has responsibility for implementation and monitoring so the Strategy included these sections. EPA produced a TMDL built on the RWQCB Strategy to meet a March 1998 Court deadline. While hearings and State Office of Administrative Law review continue, the RWQCB's strategy is built on a phased acquisition of sediment inventory and monitoring activity that focuses on sites that are management induced, producing sediment reaching streams in amounts greater than 10 cubic yards where control treatment is feasible. The implementation section offers owners 3 options: 1) Comply with waste discharge prohibitions - subject to permits/violations 2) Comply with an approved Erosion Control Plan and Owner developed Site Specific Mgt. Plan 3) Comply with an Erosion Control Plan and guidelines developed by RWQCB staff entitled "Garcia River Management Plan."

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Tom Schott, NRCS - 405 Orchard Ave. - Ukiah, CA 95482 - 707.468.9223 - Thomas.Schott@ca.usda.gov

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

• Skilled EPA/RWQCB staff, who were locally placed or as close as possible, who spent time to meet individually with all stakeholders as well as in a group. They spent time to insure coordination with public agencies.
• Building on a previous Watershed Advisory Group in the basin. Open to all interested parties, meetings held on a regular monthly basis at a fixed time and place in the watershed.
• Use of newsletters mailed to all owners and interested parties regardless of whether they attended meetings.
• Extensive use of agencies and locals' watershed data (e.g. fishery habitat, sediment sources, maps, soil-data, photos, etc.) Compilation on a sub watershed basis where possible and then subjected to public review.
• Cooperative baseline mapping on common scales and GIS formats between agencies. Division of agencies' labor on assessment tasks needed for TMDL and that needed for monitoring purposes to avoid duplication.

2) What did not work?

• Court imposed deadline that forces education/knowledge, agreements on data, actions needed regardless of local impacts. Bottom-up approach with top-down deadline sometimes lead to fixed positions.
• Actual litigants and various lawyers present sometimes carried more influence than local owners impacted or resource specialists with good local knowledge.
• Overlapping jurisdictions when dealing with salmonid species between RWQCB, State Dept. of Fish and Game, National Marine Fishery Service, California Dept. of Forestry.
• Confusion over the value of regulatory vs. cooperative voluntary roles (NRCS-Natural Resource Conservation Service, RCDs-Resource Conservation Districts). "Voluntary" programs were equated by some to write-your-own rules or to continuing the status quo rather than looking at what the technical staff and funding needs really were to make an "activist, cooperative, voluntary program work." Fear of role mixing inhibited the development of potential alliances. More important than funding, technical staff is needed to build trust.

3) How were stakeholders involved?

• Watershed Advisory Group formed, open to all, regular public noticed meetings, working sub-committees topic specific, periodic newsletters.

...How did you bring the right people into the process?

• Readily apparent from previous watershed group effort, large impacted owners and court litigants against EPA clearly wanted involvement.

...How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

• Check the court litigants calendars and deadline

4) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

• See #1 above, deal with #2 issues (e.g. provide more time for education and data collection) Maybe unique to Garcia since it was the first and awareness of TMDL is greater now.
• Keep it local as possible, provide more field-based discussions if trust is there.
• Be clear with expectations to meet goals (e.g. definition of voluntary) and if group doesn't progress, provide a draft document to work from.
• Build a really specific strategy for implementation that actively involves the other agencies rather than just listing what programs they have.
• Get out in front with a monitoring program - good data = better decisions

From: Robert R. Klamt, CA Regional Water Quality Control Board - North Coast Region - 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite H - Santa Rosa, CA 95403 - 707.576.2693 - klamr@rb1.swrcb.ca.gov

Garcia River has mix of Coast Range terrain ranging from sea level to 3000 ft; complex geology with heavy winter rains leads to severe erosion hazard in much of watershed. Land use mix includes commercial timberlands and ranches as dominant, minor amounts of dairy-pasture and suburban residential, 303(d)-listed because of habitat impairment due to sediment deposits and increased stream temperature, may be "critical habitat" for ESA-listed coho salmon and to-be-listed steelhead trout. A "Consent Decree" watershed and the first of 17 such basins to be addressed by the Regional Water Board (made it a real "fishbowl").

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

Perseverance of an experienced and dedicated staff with prior involvement with diverse stakeholders. The dynamics of stakeholder learning-processes and succession-of-leadership must be allowed to proceed.

2.) What did not work?

Original projected budget and time-lines. The objective was to produce a TMDL for the EPA and a State Implementation Plan for the Regional Board; meeting those objectives became much-more complex than expected. A new wrinkle - a lawsuit-filing - has just appeared in US District Court-San Francisco.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

Every-which-way. The tensions between fishery-interest, ranching-interest, timberland-interest, suburban-residential-interest and other sectors of the community were well-established before the TMDL process began. In the end, it was the persistent people who contributed the most energies and probably will see the most benefits. We solicited participation over the two-year process and saw evolution to a different set of folks at the end than had been there at the beginning. Enough? When we ran out of time and money. With the lawsuit, we may learn that more is needed.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

We thought that in-the-basin folks would be most-effective; but they have differing levels of expertise and patience with bureaucratic processes; they need support from out-of-basin organizations and agencies.

...Guiding principles for effective coordination: Give participants clear, stable objectives (tough job in litigation-driven and underfunded TMDL program) and recognize that TMDL (as a model created to restore waste-impaired large water bodies which have "assimilative capacity") may be difficult to "sell" in watersheds with non-point sources as the dominant impairing influence.

From: Carol Caughey, Garcia Watershed Landowner - P.P. Box 277 - Manchester, CA 95459 - 707.882.3672 - caughey@mcn.org

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

• North Coast Water Quality Control Board acted a lead agency and provided personnel and office staff; the nuts and bolts of transcribing notes, sending mailings, etc. was taken care of
• Meetings were noticed in advance via local papers and agendas
• Process was begun early - or as early as was possible, given the time-lines for developing a TMDL under the 17 Rivers suit; it was the first river in the state to have to establish a TMDL process
• Met in a location that was accessible to most of the participants
• By it's very existence, brought the river situation to the public's attention
• Developed Ground-rules Statement for participants to sign
• Meetings were recorded

2.) What did not work?

• Representation of the group lacked balance; heavily skewed toward agencies
• The WAG was perceived as being pro-environmentalist by many locals who consequently chose not to participate in the early process
• Because the group was comprised of many professionals and agency personnel, non-professionals were faced with an incredibly steep learning curve relative to current rules (CDF, County ordinances re roads, etc.), jargon and scientific data
• Despite efforts by the moderator conflicts erupted between representatives on the board resulting in some walking out, never to return
• Perception of a 'top down' situation: the government, however helpful, dictating a course of action
• The Garcia is a large watershed; what was appropriate for the upper reaches (mainly timber production) was not necessarily appropriate for the middle (ranching) or lower reaches (dairying and crops); example: buffer zones, livestock fencing, moving machinery during specific times
• Baseline data was questioned by community members and one or two members of the board (us v them, again)

3.) How were stakeholders involved...?

• I was not involved in the early stages of the process and am unable to address these issues.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

• Develop local efforts to address water quality issues in a meaningful and practical way
• Focus on water quality issues rather than species issues
• Determine lead agency, consortium, group
• Look at the watershed and determine who the players are: agencies, timber operators, agriculture, municipalities, recreation interests; don't overlook any group and don't pad the panel
• Network with other TMDL groups and find out what worked for them and what didn't
• Ask for participation agencies, timber groups, agriculture, municipalities, etc.
• Ask for commitment (and know what you're asking for - time, money, staff)
• Ask for a person who can and will be able to commit agency resources, who can speak for the agency
• Recruit alternates who can step in when someone from the group is unable to continue with the process
• Determine protocol for meetings: who moderates, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.
• Establish Ground-rules Statement; have all participants and alternates sign it
• To the extent possible develop separate proposals to accommodate diverse groups; what works, or is necessary, for one group (timber production) has little or no cause for concern to another (municipalities)
• Several issues (roads, riparian zones, stream protection) are common to most, if not all, land owners; build on those
• Educate, educate, educate - in the beginning, in the middle and at the end: terms, jargon, current practices, historical data (storm events and other natural processes)
• Acknowledge zones within the watershed if they exist and develop separate implementation procedures for them when possible
• Baseline data and protocols are imperative; a standardized, accepted method of data collection needs to be available or developed; should be scientific, doable, economical, user friendly and easily replicated

Bio's

Tom Schott

District Conservationist

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Tom Schott has worked on forestry, water quality, and watershed restoration issues important to the North Coast of California since 1975. He has served as a Watershed Coordinator and as a technical advisor for numerous watershed restoration planning and implementation projects. Tom is employed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service as the District Conservationist for the 2.25 million-acre Mendocino County. He was a member of the Garcia TMDL Watershed Advisory Group. He is a California Registered Professional Forester and a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist. He graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1974 from the University of Minnesota College of Forestry.

Carol Caughey

Garcia Watershed Landowner

I was born and raised in northern California and attended Humboldt State University where I where I graduated with a degree in Sociology. Except for brief forays into the wilds of Texas and West Virginia I have lived on the north coast all my life. I have been fortunate in having varied careers as a social worker, teacher and, most recently, the banking industry. Three years ago we moved back to the coast where my husband had been raised. Since our return we have operated a sheep ranch on the Garcia River for the Kendall Trust. I am president of the Garcia Watershed Landowners' Group and was a member of the Garcia Watershed Advisory Group until it disbanded at the conclusion of the TMDL process.

Couer d' Alene, Idaho

EPA and the State of Idaho are proposing a draft TMDL to address metals contamination in the rivers, streams, and lakes in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. Dissolved cadmium, lead, and zinc levels in mining areas and downstream areas exceed the water quality standards that protect fish and other aquatic life. Even after the Coeur d'Alene River mixes with relatively clean tributaries downstream and in Coeur d'Alene Lake, the quality of water in the outlet from the lake, the Spokane River, exceeds applicable water quality standards for Idaho. The metals problem continues downstream, where the Spokane River exceeds the State of Washington's water quality standards.

In the Coeur d'Alene Basin, EPA and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are jointly proposing the TMDL because the scope of this action crosses jurisdictional boundaries. In addition to state waters, the TMDL will affect waters of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and State of Washington. In such cases, it is not unusual for EPA to assume a prominent role in the TMDL process to address the need for inter-governmental coordination.

Much of the metals contamination in the basin results from over a hundred years of mining activity. Prior to the advent of environmental controls in the 1960's, wastes from the mines were discharged directly into adjacent rivers and streams. These tailings release metals to rivers and streams. Significant amounts of tailings have also washed downstream and line the bed, banks and flood plains of rivers and streams. Other mining sources, including releases from over 50 adits (mine portals) and hundreds of waste piles, also contribute to the metals contamination.

Some metals contamination also comes from facilities currently discharging wastewater under permits issued by EPA. These NPDES facilities include part of the Bunker Hill Superfund site (Kellogg tunnel), several operating and inactive mines, and the municipal sewage treatment plants serving Mullan, Wallace, and Smelterville. Most of the NPDES permits for the facilities in the Coeur d'Alene Basin are overdue for renewal. EPA believes that improved wastewater management and treatment for these sources will significantly reduce metals loadings to basin waters.

For sources like tailings and waste piles, the TMDL provides initial targets for clean-up actions that are consistent with the Clean Water Act. A number of significant clean-up actions by mining companies, state agencies, and federal agencies have already been conducted to contain or relocate mining wastes away from stream channels, most notably in ongoing Superfund actions at the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex. In addition, EPA is currently conducting a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the basin. The draft TMDL is a product of technical and policy coordination between the TMDL, NPDES, and Superfund programs.

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Michael McIntyre, Idaho DEQ - 1410 North Hilton - Boise, ID 83706 - 208.373.0570 - mmcintyr@deq.state.id.us

Intra-state panels

1.) With regard to intra-state TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

Winchester Reservoir TMDL is the example I'll be talking about today. The TMDL was jointly issues by Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nez Perce Tribe, April of this year. The decision early on in the tri-party Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) not to deal with jurisdictional issues along with determining who was responsible for what TMDLs (i.e. sediment, nutrients, DO, temperature etc.) between the parties was helpful.

2.) What did not work?

While the MOA went a long way in detailing with who was doing what, it did not go into enough detail. Additionally, a clear statement of who (IDEQ, EPA or tribe) was in charge was lacking and this hindered things greatly.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

This TMDL was a carry over from a 314 Clean Lakes Project as well as numerous other initiatives, such that there was a lot of interest and knowledge in the reservoir and its watershed. When Idaho established §39:3601 in 1995, a big part of this legislation was the formation of Basin Advisory Groups and Watershed Advisory Groups (BAGs and WAGs). §39:3601 not only created these groups, but laid out roles and responsibilities for each. BAGs were to help DEQ prioritize monitoring efforts, TMDL schedules and designate beneficial uses, while WAGs are to assist DEQ in writing TMDLs and implementation plans.

The WAGs are open to all interested parties who wish to participate. DEQ also established a Technical Advisory Group, composed of state, federal and private scientists to help the technical issues related to the TMDL and specific pollutants. Determining how much participation is enough is difficult and best handled on a case by case basis. DEQ has found the public will generally tell us how much participation is enough.

4.) What would you consider to be effective intra-state TMDL coordination?

This is an issue within DEQ and Idaho regarding TMDLs. While DEQ stresses the need for consistency and standardization in TMDL development, the people actually doing the work sometimes complain that such emphasis on consistency and standardization stifles good science and work. Thus, DEQ has and is learning how to walk a fine line between dictating how TMDLs look and are done and allowing for flexibility, knowing that each TMDL is somewhat unique in terms of its situations and setting.

Interstate panels

1.) With regard to the interstate TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

Paradise Creek TMDL is the example I will be talking about today. Paradise Creek TMDL was approved by EPA in January of 1998. Paradise creek originates in Idaho, runs through Moscow, Idaho and passes into Washington, through the city of Pullman. As the Clean Water Act and regulations state, Idaho had to write a TMDL that met Washington water quality standards at the border. What helped in this regard was having a Region 10 EPA person assigned to the TMDL development group. This individual worked nearly full-time with IDEQ, but was also the liaison with Washington. His involvement not only smoothed the inter-state issues, but also gave the TMDL an advocate inside EPA when it came time for approval.

2.) What did not work?

Getting Washington's attention was difficult, since this watershed had a different TMDL priority then Idaho's. Secondly, Washington has a numeric standard for nutrients, while Idaho has a narrative standard.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process? How did you determine how much participation would be enough?

As noted above, Idaho has legislation §39:3601, that establishes roles and responsibilities for the public interested in participating in TMDL development. Similar to Winchester Lake noted above, Paradise had a history with water quality monitoring and corrective strategies. Many of these stakeholders rolled into the Paradise Watershed Advisory Group.

A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed to deal with technical TMDL development issues and approaches. The TAG consisted primarily of state, federal and private scientists. Most of the people affected by the TMDL participated, most notably the city of Moscow and the Idaho University. Once given life, these public working groups take on a life of their own. Since DEQ has not spelled out how much participation, time or monies are enough, we generally allow the groups to tell us when enough is enough.

4.) What would you consider to be effective interstate TMDL coordination?

Getting EPA involvement early is critical, since they are charged with inter-state water issues. Getting a firm commitment on singular point of contact, someone that can roll up their sleeve and do the work, not just coordinate, is also beneficial. This involvement may well slow the process, but in the end, makes the TMDL more approvable when submitted, since they have a personal buy-in.

Bio's

Michael McIntyre

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

1977 B.S. from Humboldt State University in Natural Resource Science
1979-84 Hydrologist for United States Forest Service working on forestry impacts on water quality
1984-88 Planning Engineer with Morton Thiokol Inc., working on trident missile program.
1988-91 Graduate School at Idaho State University, teaching assistant
1991 M.S. in Stream Ecology

1991-95 Begin employment with DEQ, Boise Regional Office as a Water Quality Science Officer, working on Non-Point Source related water issues, biomonitoring and bioassessment of streams and rivers

1996 on Promoted to Bureau Chief for Water Quality Assessment and Standards with responsibilities for monitoring/assessment of surface waters in the state along with water quality standards and enforcement (Bureau work includes but is not limited to 303(d), 305(b), TMDLs, TMDL Implementation Planning, development and revision of water quality standards)

Ben Cope

Environmental Engineer, EPA Region 10

Ben holds a Civil Engineering degree from Stanford University. After two years in the Peace Corps in Liberia, West Africa, he joined EPA Region 10 in 1988 as an NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit writer. He has developed and issued permits to facilities in the seafood processing, pulp and paper, and mining industries in Alaska.

In support of the NPDES program, Ben contributed to a number of water quality studies and TMDLs. He co-authored EPA's technical assistance reports to the Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed AJ and Kensington mines in 1994. He was subsequently the EPA lead in the development of a Supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and NPDES permit for the reconfigured Kensington mine. In Alaska, he has analyzed water quality impacts in Captains Bay (dissolved oxygen) and Gastineau Channel (metals/cyanide), and he has authored TMDLs for Ward Cove (dissolved oxygen) and Upper Birch Creek (sediment).

Since 1995, Ben has worked as a water quality specialist in the TMDL program, providing technical support on a variety of TMDLs in Alaska, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. In this capacity, he contributed to a sediment TMDL for the Yakima River and a mediated agreement between 23 governmental and private parties on future water quality management in the Mr. Doug Arndt is Chief of the Fish Management Office in the Northwestern Division, Corps of Engineers. In that role he is responsible for salmon passage research, planning, design and construction activities at Corps Columbia River Basin projects. Mr. Arndt began his work on fish passage at Corps projects in 1973 as a field research team leader and, later, as a Corps' fish passage research manager. He graduated from the University of Washington in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in fishery biology and in 1973 with a Master of

Science degree in fishery research biology.

Puyallup River: Ben is currently EPA's technical lead for the proposed TMDL for dissolved cadmium, lead, and zinc in the Coeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho, which is currently available for public review and comment.

Flathead Lake, Montana

Flathead lake is one of the 300 largest lakes in the world. Of those large lakes that occur in the temperate latitudes, Flathead Lake ranks near the top in terms of water quality. It is renowned for its clarity and purity and citizens of Montana maintain firm resolve to keep it that way. The lake remains in relatively good shape in part because nearly 70% of its catchment basin (22,240 sq. km) is in Glacier National Park and adjacent national Forest wilderness areas. Hence, the majority of water that flows into the lake annually via the Flathead River system is derived from snowmelt in extremely pristine headwaters. Nonetheless, negative influences of human activities on water quality of Flathead Lake have been documented. Interactive effects of stream and lake level regulation by hydroelectric dams, eutrophication caused by anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus loading and food web change mediated by introduction of non-native species are of greatest concern.

For almost two decades water quality conditions in Flathead Lake have been monitored by personnel of the Flathead Lake Biological Station. The monitoring program was based on limnological principles that clearly show that long-term sustainability of water clarity and purity in lakes is directly related to the input of the primary plant growth nutrients, phosporous (P) and nitrogen (N). If human activities accelerate the input of N and P beyond specific thresholds, water quality can be degraded very rapidly as a consequence of scum and odors associated with blooms of algae and bacteria. The monitoring program therefore emphasized measurement of N and P loads as drivers of algal production, algal standing crop biomass, and water clarity. Monitoring began in 1977 and is an ongoing program.

Reducing nonpoint source pollution will be the major focus of the Flathead Lake TMDL project. A two-year synoptic study in the mid 1990s of shoreline seeps and upstream areas provided the Flathead Basin Commission and other agencies with well-documented information about the locations of significant nutrient loading. Through the EPA-funded synoptic study, scientists looked at the influence of several geographical segments of the Flathead Basin: the shore line of the lake itself, the valley bottom immediately upstream from the lake, sites of urban runoff in the basin's major urban areas, the Evergreen aquifer, managed forest lands, and unmanaged, wilderness-type forested areas. In addition, the influence of the airshed was taken into account.

Considering that the effort to carry out a Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy (VNRS) would by necessity be non-regulatory, and would be limited by the amount of funds and human resources available, the obvious place to direct those scarce resources is to those areas where synoptic data shows the presence of so-called nonpoint "hot spots."

Those include areas in the agricultural and suburban valley bottom upstream from Flathead Lake, where the Stillwater and Whitefish rivers and Ashley Creek will initially receive the greatest attention, the belief being that the highest level of nutrient reduction can be gained there for the amount of resources expended. Dayton Creek, a highly polluted tributary to Flathead Lake, already has a nutrient reduction program underway, through the efforts of the CSKT (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), Lake County Conservation District and others. Stoner Creek, another small but polluted tributary to the lake, and the Swan River could -- and likely will -- become areas for VNRS work. At the same time, efforts will be made to work with landowners on Flathead Lake and other lakes to improve Best Management Practices (BMPs) on areas adjacent to lakes.

While efforts will continue to encourage the timber industry, municipalities and other entities to improve the effectiveness of their BMPs, the effort will initially emphasize a variety of BMPs on areas adjacent to the above-named rivers and streams, and will attempt to provide the public convincing information, through demonstration projects and other educational means, to participate in the VNRS program. Incentive-based programs will encourage residents to become actively involved in the VNRS effort.

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Seth Makepeace, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Hydrologist - P.O. Box 278 - Pablo, MT 59855 - 406.675.2700 - sethm@cskt.org

1.) With regard to interstate TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

• There is near-universal and clear recognition of the social value of Flathead Lake and tributaries. Consequently, at a fundamental level all groups share a common goal.
• The Flathead Basin TMDL effort was able to build upon the existing infrastructure of the Flathead Basin Commission. This gave a sense of longer term continuity to the effort and minimized the startup time for coordination meetings.
• The effort utilized the existing knowledge base, in terms of people with long-term involvement in the basin, for technical and coordination effort.
• Exposure - the scientific studies were well represented by the local press and there were ongoing opportunities for coordination leaders to update local jurisdictions and the Flathead Basin Commission.
• There was significant outreach in the community, in terms of volunteer monitoring and involvement of the local high schools and community college.
• Significant parts of the stakeholder - or land use community - were well represented and showed dedication to the entire process.
• At a technical level, we were able to pull together and complete a complex study and produce credible scientific results.

2.) What did not work?

• One of the significant issues was our underestimation of the scale of the project. The Flathead Basin is an approximately 6 million acre watershed with Flathead Lake as the downstream receptor for most of these acres. We never explicitly identified that the initial Flathead Lake TMDL was a framework document for more refined subbasin TMDL's, instead I think we considered that this would be an implementation TMDL. Project scale translated into a number of issues:
• It was technically difficult to coordinate monitoring programs across the basin to define nutrient wasteload allocations.
• It became difficult to use existing data or information because of the general requirement for comparability of water quality sampling.
• The resolution of monitoring was not rigorous enough to provide the type of detail required to confidently approach land users concerning their role in nutrient reduction. This became a significant issue for commercial forested lands at the conclusion of the project.
• It is very difficult to make direct cause and effect linkages between upper basin activities and lake water quality. Further, when there are exceedences of the TMDL targets, as occurred in 1997, it is extremely difficult to assign exceedences to specific land uses.
• The types of stakeholders are quite diverse in a large area and it is difficult to (1) identify all the interested parties and (2) bring them together.
• The interim TMDL targets are for mid-lake sampling stations. There is no certainty that protecting mid-lake, or pelagic water quality will protect the near-shore environment. This is a significant issue to the Tribes (1) because a large part of the south one half of Flathead Lake (located within the Reservation) contains shallow water environments, and (2) the nearshore environment is the zone which people interact with. Concern over this issue was tracked through the process, but always deferred to planned TMDL refinement, or additions.
• Unfortunately the Flathead TMDL did not have strong leadership at the staff coordinator level. This translated into a number of process issues from difficult, often unfocused meetings to lack of clarity through parts of the process.
• The interjurisdictional technical team and stakeholder group was completely dropped after completion of the technical reports. This closed the technology transfer which may have gone from this group to the individuals who will be charged with implementing subbasin TMDL's.
• The technical reports did not contain a set of tangible action items which could be carried forward into TMDL implementation.
• In hindsight, it appears the momentum developed by the technical and stakeholder workgroup was not matched by the governing jurisdictions/individuals.

3.) How were stakeholders involved? How did you bring the right people into the process?

• Initially, the Flathead Basin Commission was used as a vehicle to identify affected parties. The workgroup, using member of the Basin Commission, made a very significant effort to involve any affected party.
• There was very good success at involving and maintaining involvement from county and governmental entities - State DEQ, State DNRC, Tribes, Counties, Forest Service, Park Service and more structured stakeholders - Forest Products Industry, Waste Water Treatment Plant Operators.
• There was very limited involvement from more diffuse, but equally if not more important groups - agricultural interests, development community (Realtors, builders, chamber of commerce…).
• There was no involvement from the environmental community.
• Some of the stakeholder groups participated in the process, to the extent that they were tracking issues to insure their interest group was not impacted. Recognizing this is a necessary form of advocacy, in many ways this is a negative and defensive posture. Somehow (?) these groups needed to be brought from this position to be part of the solution.
• In retrospect, it appears the workgroup did not adequately involve local governing entities.

...How did you determine how much participation was enough?

• Every group who has exposure or risk from the Flathead Basin nutrient TMDL potentially should have the ability to participate in the process. One key is that the participation needs to be consistent and dedicated. Also the participation needs to start early in the process. It is very difficult to educate and update participants mid-way into a complex effort such as a TMDL.

4.) What would you consider to be effective interstate TMDL coordination?

• The project coordinator/manager... needs to have a strong, unbiased and clearly identified leadership role.
• The project coordinator needs to manage the process always keeping in mind (1) the end goal or "deliverable" and (2) the process needs to be managed with a sense of timeliness. Projects and stakeholder involvement should not be rushed, but there is a tempo for each project where people feel they are moving forward toward an end goal. Finding this tempo makes a group work well and lends credibility to the entire effort. The Flathead Basin TMDL had difficulty finding a tempo and using participant time effectively.
• Effective coordination should take from existing basin natural resources management infrastructure, compacts or organizations to the extent that the materials promote the TMDL.
• Effective coordination recognizes that each stakeholder group cannot be completely satisfied, but helps these groups identify real versus perceived risk and finds ways to manage this risk.

There are two key items to base judgement upon:

• The TMDL process: Did the process of defining TMDL targets and management strategies form stronger local groups, heighten awareness, educate people, and stay off regulatory actions?
• Aquatic resource protection: Did the coordination process lead to a set of actions which improve water quality and aquatic habitat. This is the most basic measure of success?

5.) From the questions, identify guiding principles for effective interstate coordination.

• Build on existing infrastructure or coordination groups.
• Maintain strong leadership.
• Maintain a strong linkage between technical groups, stakeholder groups, and political/policy/governmental groups.
• Each TMDL coordination effort should produce a set of tangible action items.
• Coordination efforts should find at least one probable action item which can be successfully implemented - "the sitting duck."
• In the Flathead Basin, I think we underestimated the scale considerations, and we should have spent more time considering how to frame the technical documents and create a set of action items for subbasins.
• Finally, although it was not specifically an issue in the Flathead Basin, I can see how a basin TMDL effort could get hung up in the detritus of other basin issues - water rights, hydro-power,…, and effective coordination would (1) either find a way to promote a solution to these issues through the TMDL, or (2) severe the connections to promote TMDL success.

From: Mark Holston, Flathead Basin Commission - 33 2nd Street East - Kalispell, MT 59901 - 406.752.0081

1.) With regard to interstate TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

What is working regarding Flathead TMDLs to date is:

• The receipt of a $150,000 EPA grant to carry out stream synoptic work to identify pollution "hot spots" and help in the creation of strategy to reduce nutrients through voluntary, non-regulatory means.
• The receipt of a $100,000 MDNRC grant to fund a basin-wide education effort to advance the VNRS (Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy) being advanced by the Flathead Basin Commission.
• Coordination with key state agencies -- MDEQ, MDNRC (Montana Department of Natural Resources), UM Biological Station -- and the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes to collaborate on grant applications and carry out the two-year synoptic/data gathering effort.
• Availability of extensive data is crucial in maximizing the effective use of meager financial and human resources.
• Involvement of local NGOs, students, volunteer monitors and other members of the public in supporting the effort through additional monitoring funding, data collection and general support.

2.) What did not work?

It is far too early to adequately assess what has not worked well in this process, as we are just beginning the implementation phase of the Flathead Lake TMDL effort. However, some concerns are:

• Need to enhance cooperation and coordination by agencies and government entities in the watershed. This effectiveness of this process is somewhat exacerbated by a lack of cordial relations between county and tribal government and typical "turf" concerns.
• Need to more effectively involve members of the public in issue, first through an education effort designed to increase awareness of the TMDL issue, then through a process designed to actively involve members of the public in efforts that will be part of the TMDL "solution."

3.) How were stakeholders involved?

To date, extensive involvement of "stakeholders" has been somewhat limited. The Flathead Basin Commission (FBC), in a general way, represents "stakeholders" through the direct involvement of six citizen members, and numerous agency representatives. As the implementation phase will focus on a number of smaller, sub-watersheds, it is anticipated that a more genuine "stakeholder" involvement will be achieved once the process evolved to activities at the neighborhood level.

4.) What would you consider to be effective interstate TMDL coordination?

This will be gauged by the ability of involved agencies to work effectively together in a highly collaborative manner to advance TMDL/nutrient reduction efforts at the sub-watershed level, working loosely with neighborhood-level "stakeholders," and in sharing information and resources to carry out such initiatives as demonstration projects.

5.) From the questions, identify guiding principles for effective interstate coordination.

Concerted, ongoing, sincere efforts must be undertaken to achieve the highest level of inter-agency cooperation and coordination.

...Other Thoughts:

• The Flathead Basin Commission was identified by MDEQ as the local watershed group to carry out the Flathead Lake TMDL. The TMDL process provides an excellent opportunity to carry out projects that have the potential of greatly enhancing the water quality of the entire Flathead watershed.
• The design, collection and interpretation of data has always been viewed as being essential to this process. The watershed is enormous and resources are scarce. Political/social/cultural aspects are daunting (i.e., anti-government, anti-regulation sentiments of many local residents). I can briefly discuss the nature of data collected, how it was collected, what's being done with it.
• We are just beginning. Our initial Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Strategy (VNRS) effort is just getting underway. It will primarily involve an education effort designed to engage members of the public and groups whose involvement is essential to achieving the program's goal of reducing nutrient input to Flathead Lake and reaching the interim TMDL targets.

From: Roxanne Lincoln, Montana DEQ - P.O. Box 200901 - Helena, MT 59620-0901 - 406.444.7423 - rolincoln@mt.gov

David H. Getches addresses successful watershed initiatives in an article entitled the same. He states that to be successful you need four things:

1) A Clear Focus - He states "efforts to solve problems that are too complex, too controversial, or that involve too many factors outside the control of the watershed group will almost surely end with disappointment, frustration and failure." This may be some of the reasons that FBC hasn't made much progress toward a TMDL for the lake and DEQ is frustrated by the lack of action. The problem covers a large area and encompasses many issues.

2) Committed Participants - I'm not so sure of the commitment of all members of the FBC. Some are on the Commission to protect their own special interest and not necessarily to protect water quality. Others on the commission are very committed. So there is some polarization.

3) Leadership Capacity - a lot of politics comes into the decisions that the FBC has to make. This may have an effect on how productive they can be.

4) Sound Structure and Capacity - I think the FBC lacks several key items needed to be successful: facilitation, external relations, and a sound decision making process.

DEQ is frustrated with the lack of on-the-ground controls being implemented in the basin. A lot of time and money has been expended to study the problems but a strategy to address sources has yet to be addressed. This effort started back in 1990 and we still are studying issues. The FBC knows where the problems are but is reluctant to make the final steps toward resolving them.

The Upper Clark Fork River Steering Committee another governor established group is much more effective than the commission. They have a facilitator who keeps the meetings on track. They have established ground-rules as to how they will conduct themselves and have agreed to make decisions using a collaborative process. They have an annual work plan which helps them stay focused and accomplish goals. And Lastly, they have established a working relationship with citizens and agencies in the basin.

Bio's

Mark Hoston

Flathead Basin Commission

Mark Holston is Public Information Officer of the Flathead Basin Commission, and is the Commission's sole employee and a member of the staff of the Office of the Governor of Montana. His primary duties involve public information, the production of reports and carrying out education programs for area schools and community groups. He also coordinates the FBC's Volunteer Monitor Program, an effort involving over 70 area citizen volunteers working on lake and stream monitoring projects. The program is the largest of its kind in the Northern Rockies region. His background is not science but journalist. He has worked as a network television news director and freelance contributor to CNN, NBC and other networks. He is a contributing editor to several national and international publications.

Seth MakePeace

Supervisory Hydrologist for the Salish and Kootenai Tribes

undergraduate degree - University of Washington, Geology - emphasis geomorphology

graduate degree - University of Montana, Geology - emphasis ground water

Hydrologist for CSKT last 9 years. Role is to supervise and maintain QA/QC for data collection programs, design and implement surface and ground water quality and quantity projects, provide

technical support for a number of ongoing efforts including water rights, hydro-power re-licensing and mitigation programs, irrigation management, and aquatic restoration/ rehabilitation projects. Role in Flathead TMDL was to be the Tribal representative. In addition, I completed the nearshore nutrient loading study which was submitted to EPA Region VIII and my self and my crew provided support for data collection efforts. In addition I have worked for CSKT as Hydrologist and for one year as acting Manager for the Environmental Division. Prior to employment with Tribes had a variety of contract positions with mining industry and research mapping programs as a field geologist. emphasis on hydrology.

Dr. Bob Erickson

Environmental Scientist

EPA, Region 8

Academic: MS and PhD in Aquatic Ecology & Radiation Biology - Univ. of Washington

Consulting Biologist for 18 years - Wrote & reviewed EIS's, Field work in fish, benthos, habitat, streamflow, expert witness. Projects in 26 states, Bikini Worked for EPA past 10 years. Water quality standards, TMDL, EIS. Presently WQS work primarily with Tribes in Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming.

Roxanne Lincoln

Watershed Coordinator

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Established and implemented the state storm water permitting program. Wrote guidance documents, storm water permits, rules and policy, created application forms and established procedures for the program. Issued authorizations under general permits, inspected facilities for permit compliance, responded to complaints, recommended enforcement actions, evaluated sample data, and evaluated the use of best management practices for water quality protection.

Also, worked as an Environmental Specialist at the Montana Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences, Soil Scientist at the Soil Conservation Service, a Soils Technician for the Montana State Univ. Testing Lab, and Soil Scientist with the Yakima Indian Nation

EDUCATION

1979-1981 A.A. Degree, Columbia College
1983-1986 B.S. in Soil Science, Montana State University

Certified Professional Soil Scientist through the American Registry of Certified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops and Soils.

Columbia/Snake Mainstem

The Columbia River

After traveling 1,200 miles through two countries (Canada and the United States), two states (Washington and Oregon), a number of tribal jurisdictions, over agricultural lands, forests and urban areas, the Columbia River reaches the Pacific Ocean. Before doing so its waters have traveled past eight federal hydroelectric projects, which apart from generating electricity for the region also provide flood control, and navigation on the river.

Water Quality Problems:

The Columbia River is listed by the States of Washington and Oregon for a variety of pollutants. Chief among them are total dissolved gas and temperature, both of which adversely impact aquatic life. A number of native species are already listed under the federal Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered. In addition parts of the river are listed for bacteria, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, as well as toxins, including dioxin, PCBs, and DDE.

The most pervasive problems, though are total dissolved gas and temperature. States' standards for Total Dissolved Gas concentration are 110 percent of saturation relative to atmospheric pressure. This standard is routinely exceeded at hydroelectric facilities spilling water either for flood control, due to lack of power market, due to exceeding hydraulic capacity of the dam, or voluntary spill for outmigrating salmonid smolts. Violations for the latter reason have been covered in recent years through the States granting standards waivers to the National Marine Fisheries Service in support of its biological opinion for threatened and endangered species.

Temperature remains a problem for cold water fish such as salmonids. The States' standards for the Columbia River are 68ºF. This is routinely exceeded during the summer months. Specific temperature difficulties have been experienced in fish ladders designed to assist both outmigrating smolts and returning adults, and at collection points for the collection of outmigrating smolts for barging down the river past the dams.

The Snake River

A major tributary of the Columbia and a significant river in its own right, the Snake River spans three States (Idaho, Oregon and Washington). It too, has four federal hydroelectric projects in the State of Washington and a number of privately operated hydroelectric projects between the States of Oregon and Idaho. The Snake River, too, is listed for temperature and total dissolved gas, and also has federally listed threatened and endangered species.

The TMDLs

TMDL development is in its infancy for these two rivers. A number of forums, however, have been established to bring interested parties together. Frequently resembling conferences rather than committees, these forums have, at times, been characterized by sharp differences of opinion, and arguments over science. There appears little dispute over the nature of the water quality problems. However, consensus breaks down at that point, foundering on who is responsible, and what ought to be done. Major participants are federal (USACOE-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NMFS-National Marine Fisheries Service, USFWS-U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service, EPA-Environmental Protection Agency, NWPPC), state (Fish and Environmental Quality agencies) and local governments, tribal governments, industry (including aluminum, electricity generation and marketing), agriculture, and environmental groups.

Responses to Pre-Questions

From: Brian Brown, National Marine Fisheries Service - 525 N.E. Oregon Street - Portland, Oregon 97232 - 503.230.5417 -  Brian.Brown@noaa.gov

The NMFS presentation on the Columbia Basin panel described ongoing coordination mechanisms under the Endangered Species Act, rather than an interstate TMDL.  With this difference in mind, answers to the questions posed to the panel members follow:

1.) With regard to interstate TMDL coordination, what worked in your case study?

In 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System in 1995 and future years.  The opinion included a variety of measures to immediately improve the survival of migrating salmon, a program to gather and analyze additional scientific information on potential additional measures, and a commitment to a 1999 decision on long term measures.  The NMFS created an adaptive management process for decision-making under the opinion including a collaborative forum made up of the Federal operating agencies and the Federal, State and Tribal entities with management authority over fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.  The process is hierarchical and includes an Executive Committee, an Implementation Team made up of senior managers from each participant, and several subject-specific work groups.  Decisions are made by consensus at the lowest possible level.

Each entity retains its decision authority (e.g. NMFS for ESA, the Corps for project operations, etc.), but agrees to exercise it in an open, collaborative process.  The objectives are to inform agency decision-making by ensuring the broadest possible technical and policy input, to build consensus where possible, and to fully document the basis for decisions where agreement is not reached.

All meetings are accessible by conference call.  Some groups use the Internet to distribute information, seek recommendations and otherwise keep participants engaged.  Meeting notes are prepared for all meetings; a contractor is used to provide detailed notes of most meetings.  Since 1998, neutral facilitation services have also been available to all work groups.

2.) What did not work?

Previous biological opinions were developed in a relatively closed process between the Federal agencies, i.e., NMFS and three action agencies, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration.  This lead ultimately to a lawsuit on a 1993 opinion, and an order in U.S. District Court to re-initiate consultation.  A post-judgement process between May 1994 and March 1995 resulted in the 1995 opinion.\

In the first year of implementing the 1995 opinion there was an in-season management process that involved coordination with State and Tribal entities but reserved final decisions to a Federal-only process.  There were some subsequent in-season decisions in the summer of 1995 that together with other issues provided impetus for a challenge of the 1995 opinion.  By 1996, the in-season management group was re-defined to more fully include the State and Tribal managers in a collaborative decision-making process.  This process included a work group for real time, week-to-week management of project and reservoir operations and an opportunity to elevate issues for which there is no consensus at the work group level.  A subsequent decision in the case found that the specific challenge over implementation of in-season management was moot since there was no evidence that the failure in the summer of 1995 was likely to be repeated.

3.) How were stakeholders involved?  How did you bring the right people into the process?  How did you determine how much participation was enough?

In addition to Federal, State and Tribal entities, the Regional Forum process established by NMFS for implementation of the 1995 Biological Opinion is also open to the Northwest Power Planning Council, and a number of affected public and private utilities.  The non-sovereign members have the full right of participation, but cannot by themselves prevent consensus and cause an issue to be elevated (to my knowledge this limitation has never been an issue).  Most entities use the opportunity to ensure that their interests are adequately considered in decision-making.  We try to also consider the interests of groups who do not directly participate, but decisions are real time and continuous.  If an entity chooses not to participate, then the decision is made without their input.

4.) What would you consider to be effective TMDL coordination?

Based on NMFS' experience with coordination of ESA decision-making, I would consider an inclusive, collaborative process as the most effective approach.

5.) From the questions, identify guiding principles for effective interstate coordination.

• Recognize and maintain existing legal authorities.

• Use collaborative decision-making in an open and inclusive process

• Be clear about dispute resolution within the process

• Push decisions down into the hands of those closest to the relevant information

• Use neutral facilitation for tem building and meeting management

• Use technology to keep participants engaged and informed

Bio's

Brian Brown

Brian Brown is the Assistant Regional Administrator for Hydro Operations in the Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).   He has represented NMFS on Columbia Basin salmon