watershed planning in texas ling
TRANSCRIPT
Ward LingTexas A&M AgriLife ExtensionJuly 25, 2016
WATERSHED PLANNING IN TEXAS:LESSONS LEARNED
AGRILIFE’S WPP EXPERIENCE
Plum Creek WPP – 2009 Geronimo Creek WPP - 2012 Mill Creek WPP – 2016 All received EPA acceptance
PLUM CREEK WPP PROCESS Pre-emptive Work
Met with local media, County Extension Agents Identified potential steering committee members Watershed characterization and set up model Data collection
WPP Development public meetings and sought input on development presented chapters multiple times, presented complete draft
plan twice at the end of period
1 ½ year delay to achieve EPA acceptance Some implementation started during the long interim
period between development and acceptance EPA accepted in June 2009
PLUM CREEK WPP PROCESS
Pre-emptive work – 5 months WPP development – 25 months Some implementation started before EPA acceptance EPA review – 17 months
Time = 3.8 yrs
Pre-emptive
Development
EPA Review
GERONIMO CREEK WPP PROCESS
Pre-emptive work Met with local media, County Extension Agents Identified potential steering committee members Watershed characterization and set up model Data collection (drought started)
WPP Development Used report model from Plum WPP presented draft sections to public as developed
Delays – Was put on hold by funding entity over modeling issues
EPA approval September 2012
GERONIMO CREEK WPP PROCESS
Pre-emptive work – 4 months Development – 16 months Delays – 16 months EPA review – 2 weeks
Time = 3 yrs
Pre-emptiveDevelopmentDelayEPA Review
MILL CREEK PROCESS
Pre-emptive Work Met with local media, County Extension Agents Identified potential steering committee members Watershed characterization and set up model Data collection
WPP Development Public meetings and sought input on development Ran model and presented outputs Submitted sections to public as developed
EPA approval delay– took longer due to internal restructuring
MILL CREEK WPP PROCESS
Pre-emptive work – 4 months Development – 6 months EPA review – 8 months
Time = 1.5 yrs
Pre-emptive
WPPDevelopmentEPA Review
THINGS TO DO
Preemptive work Set up the model—have it ready—easy to
understandMeet with potential Steering Committee membersHave a document template ready
Value your stakeholders Communicate with them Value them - Name them in press releases,
websites, and keep them informed
Engage approving agencies starting at day 1
THINGS TO AVOID
Long development phase— no re-running the model or recalibration, please…
Time lags between development and implementation
Long approval or acceptance process These can all lead to:
Turnover of elected officials and city managementStakeholder “fatigue”
SUGGESTED POLICY CHANGES
Match Flexibility - allow steering committee member time to count towards match
Refreshments – allowance for meetings—“if you feed them, they will come…”
Travel funds – increase funding to allow federal and state personnel to attend stakeholder meetings Reduce “us and them” feelings by stakeholders Would help to keep them engaged in the development and
reviewing the document as it is developed
