Comprehensive Watershed Management Issues
AMSA Participates in EPA's National Watershed Assessment Project Experts MeetingBackground: EPA's Office of Water and its many public and private partners are using joint information to characterize the conditions of the 2,150 watersheds in the continental United States. According to EPA, the purpose of the project is fourfold: (1) characterize the condition of 2,150 watersheds in the U.S.; (2) to stimulate and empower citizens who will now have access to this aggregated information; (3) provide a baseline for a dialogue among water managers; and, (4) to measure progress towards a goal of healthy watersheds. EPA stresses that the project is a general guide to watershed conditions, designed to open the door to further dialogue and obtain more detailed information. EPA stresses that NWAP is not a site-specific, detailed, high quality data source on which to base individual activities such as establishing permit limitations. Results of the assessment will be posted on EPA's Internet "Surf Your Watershed" Web site (http://www.epa.gov/surf) via maps and 2-page summary assessments for each watershed. Assessments are expected to be ongoing as new data are identified or added.
Status: On March 12-13, EPA convened a meeting of approximately 40 experts to discuss issues, concerns, and next steps relating to its National Watershed Assessment Project (NWAP). The March 12-13 meeting focused on making recommendations for improving the quality and usefulness of the data presented and what additional data layers may be needed to provide accurate assessments of watershed health. Bob Wayland, Director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds indicated that his office has received over 90 pages of comments from the Regions, the states, and other Federal agencies on the preliminary data maps and watershed characterizations (distributed to the AMSA membership via Regulatory Alert RA97-2). He indicated that EPA intends to be responsive to all comments, and expressed confidence for a spring 1997 completion of Phase I of the project. Fred Stiehl, Director of EPA's Enforcement, Planning, Targeting, and Data Division also spoke to the group and highlighted the vision of EPA's enforcement office that NWAP be used as an enforcement screening or targeting tool. "Lawyers appreciate the maps," Steihl remarked, highlighting the ease in which enforcement staff will be able to identify problem areas. He also emphasized that NWAP will "help EPA to move towards risk-based, multimedia, and sector-based enforcement approaches, and help focus activities by priority watershed." Stiehl also remarked on the two data layers which are of most concern to AMSA members. He indicated that the "loads over limits" data layer map, which compares point source loading data with permitted loads, is opportunity to look at potential violations, but also emphasized that enforcement staff will still need to "get behind" the data and examine actual reported discharges, significant non-compliance (SNC), and enforcement actions taken before determining whether enforcement is warranted. When addressing the issue of how nonpoint agricultural impairments may be addressed when identified, Stiehl indicated that "compliance assistance efforts will be directed at agricultural sources." Other data layers that Stiehl hoped would be in the offing included data on landfills and mine drainage. The group held several breakout discussions on individual data layers used to characterize watershed condition and vulnerability. Two of the data layers, which compared point source discharge loading information with permitted loads, were discussed in the "loads over limits" breakout, in which AMSA participated. AMSA, as well as EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, and some states are concerned that the preliminary loading data maps inaccurately portray actual compliance rates. Several issues were discussed including how to handle data below detection, and how to estimate monthly loadings from daily maximums when no monthly average is reported, especially in the case of residual chlorine. EPA hopes to complete Phase I and have it available for public release by late spring 1997. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Geoff Grubbs, EPA 202/260-7040.
EPA's Draft Framework for Watershed Based Trading
Background: On June 10, 1996, EPA released a draft effluent trading framework document detailing information on the types of trading that can occur within a watershed, such as point-point source, intra-plant, pretreatment, point-nonpoint source and nonpoint-nonpoint source. It lays out the conditions necessary for allowable trading to ensure that waters receive the same or better levels of protection that would be attained without trading, stressing that "total pollutant reduction must be the same or greater than what would be achieved if no trade occurred." The document lists eight principles of effluent trading that pollutant sources must follow in order to meet water quality standards. For example, trades must be developed within a total maximum daily load process or other equivalent analytical and management framework, and affected industry involvement and public participation are crucial components to trading.
Status: AMSA submitted its comments on EPA's "Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading." on September 6, 1996 (see September 1996, Regulatory Update). EPA offices are internally discussing their concerns, as well as comments received on the framework, including those from AMSA, and will solicit additional stakeholder input through public meetings, potentially in Spring 1997. Assistant Administrator for Water, Bob Perciasepe, has re-stated his commitment to finalize the Framework in his recent National Water Program Agenda (distributed to the membership via RA 97-5). CONTACTS: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/ 833-9106, or Mahesh Podar, EPA 202/260-5387.
EPA's TMDL Federal Advisory Committee
Background: Due to the number of lawsuits being filed by environmental groups against EPA and states which have not met TMDL development/implementation requirements under CWA Section 303(d), EPA continues to develop a broad strategy to reinvent the TMDL process. Under CWA Section 303(d), states are required to identify waters in which technology-based effluent limitations are not sufficient to meet water quality-based standards, and requires states to develop TMDLs for these waters which will ensure that applicable water quality standards are met. EPA has formed a federal advisory committee of stakeholder interests to develop recommendations concerning needed changes to the agency's TMDL program implementation strategy, as well as TMDL-related policies, guidance, regulations and priorities. AMSA is represented on the Committee and has formed an internal TMDL working group to help identify priority issues among AMSA member agencies.
Status: The EPA TMDL advisory committee held its second meeting on Feb. 19-21 in Galveston, Texas. Participants discussed the vision and mission of the committee as well as the status of the listing, and science & tools workgroups. The listing workgroup has held several conference calls and has been addressing several questions such as: (1) should streams be subject to listing if there is a failure to meet any component of the applicable water quality standard (designated use, numeric, narrative, antidegradation, wetlands criteria, flow standards, etc.)? (2) how should impairments be identified, and what is the appropriate geographic scale? (3) how should exceptions to the listing requirement be implemented for situations where existing controls are seen as adequate to assure attainment of water quality standards? (4) how should "threatened waters" be defined and addressed, and (5) how should EPA address inconsistency between state listing decisions, while retaining flexibility for states facing different types of problems. The science & tools workgroup has held several conference calls and has focused on the "degree of rigor" issue, or how and when to proceed with decision-making in light of uncertainty and the degree of data quality necessary for decision-making. The group has not reached any agreement thus far is this area, but recognizes that it is important to assure a higher degree of rigor when the consequences of the decision are greater. Several approaches have been discussed which include: phased TMDLs, complex TMDLs, simple TMDLs, and the possibility of taking uncertainty into account in scheduling (targeting) TMDL development. The next advisory committee meeting will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 11-13, 1997. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Don Brady, EPA 202/260-5368
Related Items of Interest
The U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will conduct a National Watershed Project Symposium in Washington, D.C. to highlight the achievements in water quality through watershed projects. Slated for September 22-26, 1997, the symposium will present accomplishments of local projects funded under EPA's Section 319 National Monitoring Program and USDA's Demonstration, Hydrologic Unit Area Programs, and Management Systems Evaluation Areas. The symposium will also feature lessons learned in the Farm*A*SST/Home*A*SST programs. The syposium will be held at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. For a copy of the agenda, contact the Conservation Technology Information Center at 765/494-9555, e-mail ctic@ctic.purdue.edu, or visit the Internet Web site at www.ctic.purdue.edu.