Search

Watershed Management

EPA Releases Draft Framework for Unified Watershed Assessments, Restoration Priorities...

Background: In response to a vice-presidential directive, the Clean Water Action Plan, released in February 1998, presents a broad vision of watershed protection in which protections for coastal, estuarine, wetlands, freshwater, and America's natural resources are integrated with traditional water quality and human health objectives. A key element of the Action Plan is a new, cooperative approach to restoring and protecting water quality through a unified watershed assessment process. State, federal, tribal, and local governments are asked to work with stakeholders and other interested citizens to: identify, by October 1998, watersheds needing restoration (i.e., those not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals); identify the highest priority watersheds requiring restoration to be addressed beginning in the 1999-2000 period; and develop a preliminary schedule for the long-term efforts needed to restore the watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals. Most of the most new resources requested in the President's FY 1999 Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Budget Initiative are targeted to watersheds in most need of restoration.

Status: Although the Action Plan provides a general overview of the watershed assessment process, it does not describe the process in detail. A key issue is what kind of framework is needed to help ensure that the task of creating these unified watershed assessments is well understood, and that the roles of the states, interstate commissions, tribes, federal agencies, local governments, conservation districts, and the public are adequately defined. On May 11, 1998, EPA released a draft "Framework for Unified Watershed Assessments, Restoration Priorities, and Restoration Action Strategies," which proposes flexible approaches for the development of unified watershed assessments, watershed restoration priorities, and watershed restoration action strategies. The draft includes:

    1) a summary of the framework, which provides an overview of the major elements and products of the unified watershed assessment, restoration priorities, and restoration action strategies;
    2) a detailed framework; and
    3) appendices providing information on examples of existing assessment processes, a map of 8-digit hydrologic cataloging units, and a list of some existing assessment data and tools.
The draft is an initial product of preliminary discussions among a number of federal and state agency staff.

The Framework calls for States and tribes to assess their watersheds into four categories:

    1) Category I - Watersheds in Need of Restoration;
    2) Category II - Watersheds Needing Preventative Action to Sustain Water Quality;
    3) Category III- Watersheds with Pristine or Sensitive Aquatic System Conditions on Lands Administered by Federal, State, And Tribal Governments, and;
    4) Category IV - Watershed with Insufficient Data to Make an Assessment.
Category I watersheds include any 8-digit watershed in which reasonably current information shows nonattainment of clean water or other natural resource goals in more than about 15% - 25% of the assessed waters or natural resource components of the watershed. Where pollutants substantially exceed safe levels or where water quality or other natural resource problems are especially severe, watersheds with a smaller percentage of assessed waters or natural resource components not meeting goals may be considered impaired.

Based upon the assessments, specific watershed restoration action strategies focus on the appropriate portions of the priority watersheds, in order to achieve the identified watershed goals. Most of the new federal resources proposed for FY 1999 are targeted to watersheds in most need of restoration (Category I watersheds). States and tribes are asked to provide draft unified watershed assessments and watershed restoration priorities for federal and broad public review by August 1, 1998. Final unified watershed assessments and watershed restoration priorities are expected to be completed by October 1, 1998. A copy of the draft strategy is available http://www.epa.gov/cleanwater/uwadraft. CONTACT: John Meagher, EPA 202/260-1917 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA TMDL Advisory Committee to Complete Recommendations in June

Background: Due to lawsuits filed in over 30 states by environmental groups against EPA concerning TMDL program oversight requirements under CWA Section 303, 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. Under Section 303, EPA must develop TMDLs when states fail to do so. 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 has been represented on the Committee which is composed of twenty representatives from states, municipalities, environmental groups, academia, industry, agriculture, and forestry interests . The group hopes to finalize and submit recommendations to EPA in June 1998. EPA plans to propose revisions to its TMDL program regulations and accompanying guidance in November 1998 and will finalize these revisions in October 1999.

Status: EPA has requested that all members of its total maximum daily load (TMDL) advisory committee submit their signatures by May 29th to finalize the Committee report to EPA. AMSA still has serious concerns with the final report language concerning the TMDL allocation process and its references to "enforceability" of controls. The AMSA/CASA representative on the Committee does plan to sign the final report based on the overall progress the Committee has made in developing recommendations to EPA, however, will include a letter highlighting continuing municipal concerns regarding "enforceability" and the need to address the lack of enforceable controls on nonpoint sources of pollution. AMSA also plans to send a separate letter to EPA highlighting this issue. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Don Brady, EPA 202/260-5368.