United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4102) EPA800-F-96-001 February 1996 vvEPA Why Watersheds? INTRODUCTION Increasingly, State and Tribal water resource professionals are turning to watershed man- agement as a means for achieving greater results from their programs. Why? Because managing water resource programs on a water- shed basis makes good sense — environmentally, financially, and socially. Better Environmental Results Because watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, they represent the most logical basis for managing water resources. The resource becomes the focal point, and managers are able to gain a more complete understanding of overall conditions in an area and the stressors which affect those conditions. Traditionally, water quality improvements have focused on specific sources of pollution, such as sewage discharges, or specific water resources, such as a river segment or wetland. While this approach may be successful in addressing spe- cific problems, it often fails to address the more subtle and chronic problems that contribute to a watershed's decline. For example, pollution from a sewage treatment plant might be reduced significantly after a new technology is installed, and yet the local river may still suffer if other North Carolina was able to monitor nearly 40 percent more waters with the same level of effort after monitoring was conducted on a more coordinated watershed basis. factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruc- tion or polluted runoff, go unaddressed. Water- shed management can offer a stronger foundation for uncovering the many stressors that affect a watershed. The result is management better equipped to determine what actions are needed to protect or restore the resource. Saving Time and Money Besides the environmental pay-off, watershed approaches can have the added benefit of saving time and money. Whether the task is monitoring, modelling, issuing permits, or reporting, a water- shed framework offers many opportunities to simplify and streamline the workload. For example, synchronizing monitor- ing schedules so that all monitor- ing within a given area (i.e., a watershed) occurs within the same time frame can eliminate duplicative trips and greatly reduce travel costs. North Caro- lina was able to monitor nearly 40 percent more waters with the same level of effort after monitor- ing was conducted on a more coordinated watershed basis. ------- Improving Environmental Management on Idaho Dairies The job of assuring environmental safeguards on 1,400 dairy farms has become much more efficient and effective in the State of Idaho as a" result of a new working relationship between EPA, the State Departments of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and Agriculture (ISDA), and the Idaho Dairy Association. Historically, EPA has only managed to inspect about 5 percent of dairies with its limited enforcement resources. However, under the new arrangement, ISDA inspections of milk quality will be expanded to , include waste management practices. In addition, inspectors will work to educate farmers about water quality and how to best achieve protection. Because all dairies are visited annually, the opportunity for identifying and addressing waste management problems will be significantly greater. This arrangement maintains EPA enforcement authority to intervene, as necessary,' in cases where public health or environmental quality are at risk. Efficiency is also increased once all agencies with natural resource responsibilities begin to work together to improve conditions in a watershed. In its truest sense, watershed protection engages all partners within a watershed, including Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies. By coordinating their efforts, these agencies can complement and reinforce each others' activities, avoid duplication, and leverage resources to achieve greater results. Data collection is one activity that is particularly ripe for greater coopera- tion and coordination. For example, a State can reduce its own monitor- ing costs by factoring in the moni- toring activities of the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Resource Conservation Service. In addition, permittees and other stakeholders that generate ambient monitoring data can form basin monitoring consortiums to pool resources and provide the State with greater consistency in collecting and reporting data. Greater Public Support Watershed protection can also lead to greater awareness and support from the public. Once individuals become aware of and interested in their watershed, they often become more involved in decision-making as well as hands-on protec- tion and restoration efforts. Through such in- volvement, watershed approaches build a sense of community, help reduce conflicts, increase com- mitment to the actions necessary to meet environ- mental goals, and ultimately, improve the likeli- hood of success for environmental programs. EPA'sRole As the primary Federal agency with responsi- bility for protecting and restoring the nation's waters, EPA has opportunities to advance water- shed protection. In recent years, considerable effort has been invested in streamUning program administoitive requirements that hinder watershed approaches and in developing useful watershed tools and services. This publication highlights EPA's actions for the benefit of water resource managers interested in adopting watershed approache s more broadly. ------- STREAMLINING Reducing Reporting Requirements EPA and the States are transitioning to a five- year, watershed-based monitoring and reporting cycle to replace the two-year Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) cycle now in effect. Under this scheme, States identify their waterbodies and assess water quality conditions in all watersheds over a five-year period. Each year, core informa- tion would be electronically reported for those watersheds assessed according to the State's schedule; a report characterizing conditions in the entire State would be produced every five years and aggregated into a national report. EPA anticipates that this change will give States greater freedom to concentrate on monitoring and assessing watershed conditions and will reduce the time spent on reporting, resulting in a more comprehensive assessment of national water quality conditions. The first five-year cycle will begin in 1996, and the resulting National 305(b) report will be released in 2002. In the interim, States will provide annual water quality updates to EPA via the modernized STORET data base. Simplifying Wetlands Permitting States can use watershed planning to help simplify the CWA Section 404 wetlands regula- tory program in several ways. First, Advanced Identifications or similar watershed planning tools can identify areas within the watershed as either suitable or unsuitable for development, improving the predicitability of permitting decisions. Sec- ond, watershed plans can lead to greater use of general permitting. General permits substantially decrease the time necessary for individual permit review. The CWA allows use of general permits to authorize activities that have only minor indi- vidual or cummulative environmental impacts. Impacts can be evaluated best when a complete understanding of all resources and conditions within the watershed is available. Third, watershed plans can facilitate collective wetlands permitting procedures among govern- ment agencies. Such collective permitting allows local, State, regional, and federal permitting to be processed in tandem to avoid duplicative require- ments and unnecessary delays. PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE EPA is administering CWA grant programs in ways that encourage watershed protection. Nonpoint Source Grants EPA has changed the nonpoint source grants program (CWA Section 319) to provide more flexibility to States to focus on high priorities within watersheds. Under new guidance cur- rently being developed by EPA hi close coopera- tion with the States, each State would identify waters and their watersheds that are impaired by nonpoint source pollution and identify important unimpaired waters that are threatened or other- wise at risk because of nonpoint sources. Each State would establish a process to progressively address these identified waters by developing more detailed watershed assessments and water- shed implementation plans and then begin imple- menting the plans. States can use Section 319 funds to support these activities. State Revolving Fund Loans EPA is working with the States to determine how the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) (CWA Section 604(b)(3)) can be used to better support watershed protection activities. Traditionally the SRF has been used to finance municipal sewage treatment plant projects. However, in recent years, States have been using the SRF to fund a variety of other water quality projects including nonpoint source, estuary, habitat restoration, and stormwater projects. EPA and the States are currently negotiating a framework to improve planning and priority ------- setting and clarify eligibilities under the SRF program. The framework, if adopted, would make it possible for States to expand their flex- ibility even further in making SRF funding deci- sions while ensuring that critical State water quality objectives continue to be addressed. Watershed Planning Grants States may use funds from their CWA Section 604(b) planning grants to develop a state water- shed planning framework and individual water- shed plans and to conduct assessments of envi- ronmental conditions that are essential to effective watershed planning. National Estuary Program Grants EPA, under CWA Section 320, provides substantial financial and technical resources through the National Estuary Program (NEP) to help protect and restore valuable estuarine water- sheds. Once selected, these areas receive Federal funding for three to five years to support a con- sensus-based management process that includes representatives of major stakeholders. The process includes technical and management characterizations of the estuary and its watershed; identification of pollutant sources, impacts, and trends; and then the establishment of priorities for actions to correct those problems identified. NEPs also receive support to demonstrate imple- mentation of these actions. The NEP is often regarded as a model for how to implement a watershed management approach, and areas developing or implementing watershed plans have an advantage when competing for designation in the program. PROVIDING GREATER FLEXIBILITY Increased Grant Flexibility In FY 1996, if authorized by Congress, EPA will begin to offer Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) to eligible States and Tribes. A PPG is a multi-program grant made to a State or Tribal agency from funds otherwise available for categorical grant programs. PPGs are intended to provide States and Tribes with greater flexibility to address their highest environmental priorities, improve environmental performance, achieve administrative savings, and strengthen partner- ships between EPA and the States or Tribes. A State or Tribe can combine funds from two or more of sixteen categorical, environmental grant pro- _- - , grams into one or more PPGs. PPGs can fund any activity that is within the cumulative eligibilities of the 16 categorical grant pro- grams. Through PPGs, States can combine funding from eli- gible grants to target high priority problems and address multi-media problems within the States' watersheds. States that combine categorical grants into PPGs must con- tinue to address the core ------- program requirements which those grants are meant to support. A final approved PPG will be the result of negotiations between the State and its EPA Regional Office. Allowances for NPDES Permit Backlogs EPA is allowing States that are reorienting programs on a watershed basis to have short-term backlogs on NPDES permit review -- without penalty. This flexibility gives States time to synchronize the reissuance of major and minor permits within a watershed. By managing NPDES permits on a watershed basis, all the permits for discharges to the waterbody can be coordinated and the most efficient and equitable allocation of pollution control responsibility can be made. Longer Cycles for NPDES Permits EPA suppports legislative changes to the CWA that would allow States who are implementing watershed management plans to issue NPDES permits for up to 10 years in place of the current 5-year cycle. This longer cycle would reduce the resource burden of reissuing permits known to be adequately protective of human health and the environment. Longer Cycles for Issuing Water Quality Standards Similarly, EPA supports legislative changes to the CWA that would allow States to review and issue water quality standards over a five-year timeframe in place of the current three-year cycle. This cycle would allow States to synchronize standard review and, if appropriate, revision with overall watershed plans that include five-year cycles for monitoring and reporting. The longer cycle would free the States to spend more time and resources on higher priority activities. Facilitating Changes in Agency Waste and Pesticide Programs EPA is providing greater management flexibil- ity to States in administering various media programs if States have Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). CSGWPPs, which reflect the same principles as a watershed approach for surface waters, call for ------- States to define ground water uses, values, and vulnerabilities. Rather than developing separate plans under various environmental statutes, EPA is allowing the CSGWPPs to be used for priority setting and management purposes in other media efforts. For example, CSGWPPs can be used as a basis for selecting appropriate ground water clean-up remedies under Superfund and for setting priorities for site assessments under Superfund and RCRA. The Underground Over 100 large cities and smaller towns have already taken advantage of this flexibility [in the Surface Water Treat- ment Rule] to avoid the expenses of filtration, while implementing compre- hensive watershed protection programs. Storage Tank Program is using CSGWPPs in making decisions about inspections and enforce- ment priorities and actions. Avoiding Filtration of Drinking Water Supplies The Surface Water Treatment Rule requires public water systems to filter their water supplies Mitigation Banks of filtration, while implementing comprehensive watershed protection programs. Less Monitoring Under Safe Drinking Water Act EPA has modified drinking water monitoring and reporting requirements to allow States to grant waivers from those require- ments if an assessment of risks in the watershed demonstrates that contami- nation by certain pollutants is unlikely. Communities that receive waivers can reduce their monitoring and reporting costs by 50-90 percent. State agencies also realize savings because their oversight costs are reduced. Facilitating Use of Wetlands to remove pathogenic microbiological contami- nants. However, if a water supply meets certain source water quality criteria and the community has a watershed program in place that sufficiently protects against these contaminants, EPA allows exemptions from the filtration requirements. Public water suppliers that qualify for these exemptions can avoid the expense of constructing and operating filtration plants. Over 100 large cities and smaller towns have already taken advantage of this flexibility to avoid the expenses EPA, in conjunction with other Federal agen- cies, has published guidance on how to establish and operate mitigation banks for wetlands. When established within the context of a watershed management plan, these banks can help commu- nities balance the need for development with the need for effective wetlands protection. By establishing an overall watershed plan, communi- ties can expect greater success with compensa- tory mitigation projects and a faster, simpler permitting process. West Eugene, Oregon Mitigation Bank A s part of their comprehensive wetlands XXmanagement plan, the City of Eugene, Oregon, will utilize mitigation banking as me primary means of compensating for impacts to wetlands resulting from necessary development activities. Under this approach, the most suitable sites are identified, acquired, and wetlands restored in advance of the wetlands impacts. To satisfy mitigation require- ments, developers who operate in compliance with the wetland management plan can simply purchase ' credits froiri the mitigation bank, Jhus eliminating v - the uncertainty associated with case by case permitting and saving valuable time and resources. Because the bank is planned and develpped as a - whole, restored v^etlands can be incorporated into a ^comprehensive plan that will enhance existing wildfife habitat, more effectively manage storm ,' water runoff, and provide additional open space and a^ecreational opportunities. ------- Facilitating Use of Effluent Trading EPA has endorsed effluent trading and is developing a handbook to assist those communities that would like to implement trading programs more aggressively. By allowing dischargers to take advantage of various economies of scale and treatment efficiencies, effluent trading can lead to a more cost- effective achievement of water quality goals. Estimated cost sav- ings for the regulated community range from the hundreds of millions to the billions of dollars. EPA recognizes that watershed manage- ment plans are an essential step in developing and and a watershed management plan is the most implementing effluent trading programs. logical means for generating this type of informa- tion. EPA issued its trading policy in January Effluent trading requires a complete understand- 1996 and expects to release a draft handbook later ing of all pollution sources affecting a watershed, in the year. ------- FOR MORE INFORMATION 30S(b) Report Assessment and Watershed Protection Division U.S. EPA (4503F) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7040 (202) 260-1977 (FAX) Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Banking Wetlands Division U.S. EPA (4502F) 401M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7791 (202) 260-2356 (FAX) General Wetlands Issues Wetlands Information Hotline (800) 832-7828 Nonpoint Source Grants Assessment and Watershed Protection Division U.S. EPA (4503F) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7040 (202) 260-7024 (FAX) State Revolving Fund and 604(b) Grants Municipal Support Division U.S. EPA (4204) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7359 (202) 260-1827 (FAX) National Estuary Program Oceans and Coastal Protection Division U.S. EPA (4504F) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-1952 (202) 260-9960 (FAX) Performance Partnership Grants Office of Water U.S. EPA (4101) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-5700 (202) 260-5711 (FAX) NPDES Permits Permits Division U.S. EPA (4203) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-9545 (202) 260-1460 (FAX) Water Quality Standards Standards and Applied Science Division U.S. EPA (4305) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7301 (202) 260-9830 (FAX) CSGWPP and Source Water Protection Ground Water Protection Division U.S. EPA (4602) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202)260-7077 (202) 260-0732 (FAX) Safe Drinking Water Act Monitoring Drinking Water Implementation Divsion U.S. EPA (4604) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-3874 (202) 260-3464 (FAX) Effluent Trading Assessment and Watershed Protection Division U.S. EPA (4503F) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7040 (202) 260-7024 (FAX) ------- |