-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Dear Reader:
We are pleased to share with you the Watershed Approach Framework. This document was
prepared by an interoffice team of Headquarters and Regional staff of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It has also been reviewed by many of our colleagues, particularly State and Tribal
officials, and we appreciate their input.
We are issuing this document jointly to stress the importance of good coordination and
cooperation across programs. The watershed approach is a form of community-based environmental
protection using hydrologic boundaries to define the area of interest. As such, it is characterized by a
geographic focus, an emphasis on building partnerships, and a reliance on sound scientific techniques
and management processes. We believe the watershed approach can significantly improve water
resource restoration, protection and maintenance and achieve lasting environmental results.
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Administrator for Water
With concurrence from:
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Terrance R. Williams, Director
American Indian Environmental Office
David A. Fierra, Director
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1
Richard L. Caspe, Director
Water Management Division, Region 2
William Matuszeski, Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
Alvin R. Morris, Director
Water Protection Division, Region 3
John R. Pomponio, Director
Environmental Assessment and Planning Division
RegionS
Robert F. McGhee, Director
Water Management Division, Region 4
Jo Lynn Traub, Director
Water Division. Region 5
William B. Hathaway, Director
Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
U. Gale Hutton, Director
Water, Wetlands, Pesticide Division, Region 7
Max H. Dodson, Director
Ecosystem Protection and Remediation Division
Region 8
Alexis Strauss, Acting Director
Water Management Division, Region 9
Elbert Moore, Director
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Region 10
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Watershed Approach Jramework
People working together
to protect public health and the environment
-community by community,
watershed by watershed.
Carol M. Browner, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 1996
introduction 2
What is a. Watershed Approach? 2
guiding Principles 2
Jtieed for Watershed Approaches 3
Benefits Derived from taking a Watershed Approach ..... ^
implementing the guiding Principles
through State and 'tribal Watershed Approaches 5
EPA Support to facilitate Watershed Approaches 13
frequently Asked Questions 15
-------
introduction
Environmental protection programs in the United States have success-
fully improved water quality during the last quarter century, yet, many
challenges remain. The most recent national water quality inventory
shows that, as of 1994, nearly 40 percent of surveyed waters in the US
remain too polluted for fishing, swimming and other uses. The leading
causes of impairment found in the survey include silt, sewage, disease-
causing bacteria, fertilizer, toxic metals, oil and grease.
Many public and private organizations are joining forces and creating
multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional partnerships to focus on these
problems, community by community and watershed by watershed.
These watershed approaches are likely to result in significant restoration,
maintenance and protection of water resources in the United States.
Supporting them is a high priority for EPA's national water program.
This publication explains EPA's vision for watershed approaches and
builds upon the Office of Water Watershed Protection Approach Framework,
endorsed by senior EPA managers in 1991. It emphasizes the role EPA
envisions for states and tribes. It also reflects the high priority that
individual Office of Water programs have put on developing and sup-
porting comprehensive state and tribal watershed approach strategies
that actively involve public and private interests at all levels to achieve
environmental protection.
What is a Watershed Approach?
The watershed approach is a coordinating framework for environmental
management that focuses public and private sector efforts to address the
highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic
areas, taking into consideration both ground and surface water flow.
C/uiding Principles
EPA supports watershed approaches that aim to prevent pollution,
achieve and sustain environmental improvements and meet other goals
important to the community. Although watershed approaches may vary
in terms of specific objectives, priorities, elements, timing, and resources,
all should be based on the following guiding principles.
• Partnerships—Those people most affected by management
decisions are involved throughout and shape key decisions.
-------
This ensures that environmental objectives are well integrated
with those for economic stability and other social and cultural
goals. It also provides that the people who depend upon the
natural resources within the watersheds are well informed of
and participate in planning and implementation activities.
• Geographic Focus—Activities are directed within specific
geographic areas, typically the areas that drain to surface
water bodies or that recharge or overlay ground waters or a
combination of both.
• Sound Management Techniques based on Strong Science and
Data—Collectively, watershed stakeholders employ sound
scientific data, tools, and techniques in an iterative decision
making process. This includes:
- assessment and characterization of the natural re-
sources and the communities that depend upon them;
goal setting and identification of environmental objec-
tives based on the condition or vulnerability of re-
sources and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem and the
people within the community;
identification of priority problems;
development of specific management options and
action plans;
implementation; and
evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans, as
needed.
Because stakeholders work together, actions are based upon
shared information and a common understanding of the roles,
priorities, and responsibilities of all involved parties. Con-
cerns about environmental justice are addressed and, when
possible, pollution prevention techniques are adopted. The
iterative nature of the watershed approach encourages part-
ners to set goals and targets and to make maximum progress
based on available information while continuing analysis and
verification in areas where information is incomplete.
Jdeed for Watershed Approaches
Over the past 20 years, substantial reductions have been achieved in the
discharge of pollutants into the nation's air, lakes, rivers, wetlands,
estuaries, coastal waters, and ground water. These successes have been
achieved primarily by controlling point sources of pollution and, in the
case of ground water, preventing contamination from hazardous waste
sites. While such sources continue to be an environmental threat, it is
clear that potential causes of impairment of a waterbody are as varied as
human activity itself. For example, besides discharges from industrial or
municipal sources, our waters may be threatened by urban, agricultural,
or other forms of polluted runoff; landscape modification; depleted or
contaminated ground water; changes in flow; overharvesting of fish and
-------
other organisms; introduction of exotic species; bioaccumulation of toxics;
and deposition or recycling of pollutants between air, land and water.
The federal laws that address these problems have tended to focus on
particular sources/ pollutants, or water uses and have not resulted in an
integrated environmental management approach. Consequently, signifi-
cant gaps exist in our efforts to protect watersheds from the cumulative
impacts of a multitude of activities. Existing air, waste and pesticide
management, water pollution prevention and control programs and other
related natural resource programs are, however, excellent foundations on
which to build a watershed approach.
Benefits Derived from taking
a Watershed Approach
Operating and coordinating programs on a watershed basis makes good
sense for environmental, financial, social, and administrative reasons. For
example, by jointly reviewing the results of assessment efforts for drink-
ing water protection, pollution control, fish and wildlife habitat protec-
tion and other aquatic resource protection programs, managers from all
levels of government can better understand the cumulative impacts of
various human activities and determine the most critical problems within
each watershed. Using this information to set priorities for action allows
public and private managers from all levels to allocate limited financial
and human resources to address the most critical needs. Establishing
environmental indicators helps guide activities toward solving those high
priority problems and measuring success in making real world improve-
ments rather than simply fulfilling programmatic requirements.
Besides driving results towards environmental benefits, the approach can
result in cost savings by leveraging and building upon the financial
resources and the willingness of the people with interests in the water-
shed to take action. Through improved communication and coordination
the watershed approach can reduce costly duplication of efforts and
conflicting actions. Regarding actions that require permits, specific
actions taken within a watershed context (for example the establishment
of pollutant trading schemes or wetlands mitigation banks and related
streamlined permit review) enhances predictability that future actions
will be permitted and reduces costs for the private sector. As a result, the
watershed approach can help enhance local and regional economic
viability in ways that are environmentally sound and consistent with
watershed objectives.
Finally, the watershed approach strengthens teamwork between the
public and private sectors at the federal, state, tribal and local levels to
achieve the greatest environmental improvements with the resources
available. This emphasis gives those people who depend on the aquatic
resources for their health, livelihood or quality of life a meaningful role in
the management of the resources. Through such active and broad in-
volvement, the watershed approach can build a sense of community,
-------
reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the actions necessary to meet
societal goals and, ultimately, improve therlikelihood of sustaining long-
term environmental improvements.
Implementing the guiding principles through
State and tribal Watershed Approaches
From EPA's perspective, states and tribes are in a pivotal position because
they implement many existing water and natural resource protection
programs and they are situated well to coordinate among other levels of
government (e.g., local, regional and federal). For these reasons, EPA
places special emphasis on supporting our state and tribal partners in
developing and implementing comprehensive watershed approaches.
This emphasis should not be construed as a lack of support for the in-
volvement of other parties in watershed management, especially local
stakeholders. As stated in the guiding principles, partnerships that
promote the active participation of concerned parties from all levels of
government and from across the public and private sectors is essential to
the watershed approach.
EPA recognizes that each state or tribe may approach watershed manage-
ment differently. The agency will not prescribe their actions; rather it
supports watershed approaches that are tailored to the needs of the
jurisdictions.
The agency has both a national interest in and responsibility for support-
ing watershed approaches. The interest stems from the belief that the
diverse sources of aquatic ecosystem impacts will best be brought under
control through a combination of cooperative and mandatory measures
tailored to the needs in specific watersheds with wholehearted support
from watershed stakeholders. EPA's responsibility includes definition
and ensured compliance with basic water programs; development of
national standards and tools; funding; and national assessment of status
and progress.
For the long term, EPA envisions locally-driven, watershed-based activi-
ties embedded in comprehensive state and tribal watershed approaches
all over the United States. Based on observation of the development of
such comprehensive approaches in several jurisdictions, there are four
key elements of state and tribal watershed approaches. These reflect and
provide the operating structure for these guiding principles described
earlier. They are:
Stakeholder- involvement
(providing structure for the Partnership principle)
geographic JVlanagevnent Units
(providing structure for the Geographic Focus principle)
-------
Coordinated Management Activities
(providing structure for the Sound Management principle)
/I Management Schedule
(providing further structure for the Sound Management principle)
The following describes in more detail how the key elements implement
the guiding principles.
Stakeholder involvement
Broad involvement is critical. In many cases, the solutions to
natural resource problems depend on voluntary actions on the
part of the people who live, work and play in the watershed.
Besides improving coordination among their own agencies,
the watershed approach calls upon states and tribes to fully
engage local government entities, sources of watershed im-
pacts, users of watershed resources, environmental groups,
and the public in the watershed management process to help
them better understand the problems, identify and buy into
goals, select priorities, and choose and implement solutions.
States and tribes work with other partners on watershed
management issues in geographically-based watershed
"teams." As appropriate, partnerships include representatives
from local, regional, state, tribal, and federal agencies, conser-
vation districts, public interest groups, industries, academic
institutions, private landowners, concerned citizens, and
others. There are a great many watershed partnerships al-
ready in effect across the country. Ideally, states and tribes will
commission or build on these. Some examples of partnerships
that have been formed under existing programs are:
• Local Wellhead Protection Programs or other source
water protection efforts, including cooperative efforts
to meet requirements to avoid filtration under the
Surface Water Treatment Rule.
• National Estuary Program Management Conferences.
• Clean Lakes Program management teams.
• Tributary teams in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Watershed alliances formed through conservation
districts and under various state and federal programs,
for example the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (P.L.83-566) and comprehensive re-
source management teams working on forestry issues.
-------
geographic Management Units
The entire jurisdiction is divided into geographic management
units. Ideally, these units are determined on the basis of
hydrologic connections, as described under the geographic
focus principle. Other factors such as political boundaries and
existing partnership program areas are often factored into
decisions about geographic management units, as well.
The size of the management unit is an important consideration
because, depending on scale different parties may take differ-
ent roles. For example, for large river basins or lakes, state and
tribal agencies are likely to lead watershed planning efforts,
while local government, conservation districts, and watershed
councils may take the lead in developing and implementing
solutions in smaller watersheds. "Nesting" smaller water-
sheds areas (such as those designated as drinking water source
water protection areas or special management areas for wet-
lands protection) within larger watershed or river basins
allows those involved at every level to scale their efforts up or
down to address specific concerns and still maintain consis-
tency with related efforts.
Coordinated Management Activities
State and tribal agencies have responsibility for many of the
management activities described in the guiding principles.
Ideally, the various agencies with responsibilities for wetlands
protection, drinking water source protection, waste manage-
ment, point and nonpoint source pollution control, air pollu-
tion, pesticide management and other programs such as water
supply, agriculture, navigation, and transportation (in any
given jurisdiction, these might be several different agencies)
would jointly compare their lists of high priority areas, meet
with each other and other stakeholders, and look for opportu-
nities to leverage their limited resources to meet common
goals. Watershed approaches should not be viewed as an
additional layer of oversight; rather watershed approaches
should constitute improvements in coordination of current
programs, processes and procedures to increase efficiency and
efficacy.
Working together cooperatively, state and tribal programs can
support and facilitate many of the management activities
likely to be taken by watershed teams. The activities described
below suggest some of the ways that EPA-related water
programs can support watershed approaches. It is important
to keep in mind that many other activities and programs, both
public and private, at all levels, may need to be included in
watershed planning and management.
-------
1. Assessment and Characterization of Aquatic Resources, Problems,
their Causes and Sources
Ideally, monitoring parameters would be determined by water
quality standards and other watershed goals and indicators,
which are specified according to the needs and conditions of
the area and reflect Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act goals and build on the environmental indicators that EPA
and its public and private partners have adopted.
The state or tribal monitoring program should have a
multiyear strategy to portray existing information on physical,
chemical, biological, and habitat conditions and comprehen-
sively monitor waters. Ideally, the strategy should recognize
that responsibilities can be shared by many stakeholders and
that monitoring must be done to fulfill distinct purposes:
characterizing the watershed; identifying and locating specific
problems; and determining if actions are effective and goals
are met. A strong monitoring program should include:
• An inventory of key existing information on resources,
including priority ground water, sources of drinking
water, habitat, wetlands and riparian acreage, function
and/or restoration sites.
• A monitoring design that confirms or updates existing
information or fills gaps and can report trends.
• Reference conditions for biological monitoring pro-
grams to provide baseline data for water quality
assessments and development of biological and nutri-
ent criteria.
• Data collected using comparable methods to allow
aggregation of data at various scales and stored so as to
be readily accessible to others (e.g., in EPA's database
STORET).
• Geographic references (using Reach File 3) so that
monitored waters can be mapped using a Geographical
Information System (GIS), allowing information to be
aggregated on a watershed basis.
• Key information on condition of waters (e.g., impaired,
in need of special protection, endangered species
present, threatened sources of drinking water) and
causes of impairment are reported in the national
water quality inventory (305(b) report).
-------
• Collaborative efforts on existing and planned monitor-
ing activities with other public and private institutions
to share information when goals are similar.
2. Goal Setting
In the process of identifying goals, water quality standards
provide a legal baseline or starting point. These goals clearly
identify the uses to be made of the waters, for example the
protection and propagation of a warm water fishery. Water
quality standards also include the appropriate chemical,
physical and biological criteria to characterize and protect the
uses and an antidegradation policy to preserve the uses and
water improvements attained in the waters of their water-
sheds. As an outcome of watershed planning processes, a
state or tribe may also adopt new or revised water quality
standards for the waters within a watershed to reflect agree-
ments made by the stakeholders to meet the watershed goals
(this would likely take place as part of the triennial review
process required by law). Actions by states and tribes that
support watershed efforts include:
• Reviewing, and if appropriate, revising water quality
standards within the watershed framework, consulting
the other stakeholders involved in the watershed.
• Adopting precisely defined uses given the chemical,
physical and biological characteristics of the
waterbody.
• Expanding the suite of tools applicable to the develop-
ment and implementation of their water quality stan-
dards and management programs. The expanded suite
should include tools to address multiple stressors and
their cumulative impacts, including criteria to protect
human health, aquatic life, wildlife and sediment
dwelling organisms; methodologies for sediment and
whole effluent toxicity testing; and assessment meth-
ods for establishing Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) or waste load allocations, and evaluating
ecological risk, nutrient enrichment and habitat.
3. Problem Prioritization and Resource Targeting
Staff in the various water-related programs in the state or tribe
should work with other stakeholders to jointly set priorities
for the particular suite of water resources concerns present in
each identified management unit. Deliberations should
consider:
-------
• Drinking water source protection for both ground and
surface water sources;
• Wetlands and riparian area protection and other eco-
logical values;
• Nonpoint source pollution control;
• Point source pollution control;
• Living resource needs; and
• Other issues, such as waste and pesticide management,
air pollution affects on water resources, and water
supply, as appropriate.
The watershed approach should take into consideration the
findings of and priorities established under preexisting initia-
tives, such as the Comprehensive State Ground Water Protec-
tion Program (CSGWPP), Wellhead Protection Program, State
Wetlands Conservation Plans, NPDES watershed or basin
strategy, National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conserva-
tion Management Plan, or Clean Lakes projects. In addition,
states and tribes should take into consideration the goals and
plans of relevant large-scale projects, such as the Chesapeake
Bay, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico programs and the North-
west Forest Plan and Everglades initiative. These projects may
provide significant opportunities for "nesting" smaller projects
within larger frameworks, yielding benefits to both.
The composition of watershed partnerships should reflect the
agreed upon priorities for the watershed areas. Similarly,
Clean Water Act funds, both grants and loans, should be
applied to the development and implementation of watershed
plans.
4. Management Option Development and Watershed (or Basin) Plans
Each watershed partnership should develop management
options and set forth a watershed or basin management plan
that should:
• Establish environmental objectives that are consistent
with all applicable state, tribal, and federal statutes and
regulations, including water quality standards and
drinking water maximum contamination levels and
health advisories. The environmental objectives
should reflect the needs and concerns of the watershed
stakeholders and thus may include objectives unre-
lated to EPA programs.
-------
• Identify environmental indicators compatible or
complementary to national indicators that can be used
to monitor and report on attainment of the environ-
mental objectives. (In June 1996 the agency issued
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United
States EPA 841-R-96-002.)
• Identify specific implementation actions, including
voluntary, mandatory, and educational efforts, that will
attain and maintain the goals.
• Set forth milestones, assign responsibility, specify who
will implement actions, and identify existing and
potential sources of funding for implementation.
5. Implementation
Due to the participatory nature of watershed approaches,
responsibility for implementation of watershed plans will fall
to various parties relative to their particular interests, expertise
and authorities. To the maximum extent possible, state and
tribal water-related programs should support the implementa-
tion of watershed plans through their actions. They should
consider the full range of tools available to them in programs
as diverse as water quality protection, pesticide management,
waste management, air pollution control, as well as natural
resources protection, agriculture programs, water supply,
transportation and other related programs. For example,
under water quality and natural resource protection programs
they may:
• Support watershed approaches to water quality per-
mitting, nonpoint source pollution control, habitat
protection and other water resource protection and
restoration activities using Total Maximum Daily Load
analyses.
• Issue NPDES permits in accordance with the state or
tribal watershed management schedule.
• Tailor their Clean Water Act §319 nonpoint source
management program to respond to watershed needs
and ground water connections.
• Direct activities in the State Wetland Conservation Plan
toward reducing wetland impacts from land and
water-based activities.
• Integrate federal, state and/or local wetland permit
programs with individual watershed plans that contain
adequate wetland protection provisions.
11
-------
• Promote the establishment of mitigation banks by
providing funding for bank sponsors, identifying and
prioritizing potential bank sites, and providing appro-
priate direction.
• Use their watershed approach to target overall source
water protection areas and approved Wellhead Protec-
tion Program protection areas as high priority for
various federal and state programs.
• Direct federal and state activities toward protection of
high priority ground water (e.g., wellhead protection
areas or other areas designated under endorsed Com-
prehensive State Ground Water Protection Program).
• Develop or use approved program under primacy for
Phase I/II/V National Primacy Drinking Water Regu-
lations for granting monitoring waivers under Public
Water System Supervision program.
• As authorized, monitor, verify implementation, and,
when necessary, enforce management actions.
6. Monitoring and Evaluation
To evaluate the effectiveness, the watershed management cycle
should include monitoring to ascertain both the environmental
and socioeconomic impacts of implemented watershed plans.
Progress should be reported and results of monitoring help
guide decisions about continued implementation. See Assess-
ment and Characterization of Aquatic Resources, Problems,
their Causes and Sources, above.
Management Schedule
A schedule for carrying out coordinated management activi-
ties within each of the management units helps organize the
work states and tribes need to undertake. The schedule would
lay out a long-term program for maintaining, restoring, and
protecting water resources and provide other interested
parties an opportunity to plan for their involvement.
To most effectively create an orderly system for focusing and
coordinating watershed management activities on a continu-
ous basis, the schedule should contain two features:
• A sequence for addressing watersheds that balances
workloads from year to year; and
-------
• A specified length of time planned for each major
management activity (e.g. assessment, management
option development, implementation).
The schedule should reflect the magnitude of activities to be
carried out within any particular watershed or basin, which
depends largely on the range and severity of problems found
within that management unit. For example, some watersheds
may require minimal actions to maintain high environmental
quality, whereas others may require substantial effort to
restore environmental quality.
Reorganizing workloads to take a watershed approach may
take a considerable amount of time. During the early phases
of reorientation (before the entire jurisdiction is covered by the
watershed schedule), existing program activities to address
high priority restoration, remediation and/or protection
concerns, such as wellhead protection, may need to proceed in
some places independently of the watershed schedule. Ideally,
however, over time all relevant programs would be carried out
within a jurisdiction-wide watershed approach.
e/2/Z Support to facilitate Watershed Approaches
EPA's National Water Program has examined its work in order to identify
•ways that the agency can better support watershed approaches. Besides
the provision of basic national programs upon which watershed ap-
proaches are built, specific operational changes have been suggested.
These include reduced water quality reporting requirements, priority
consideration for Clean Water Act grants for watershed activities, use of
funds under the Safe Drinking Water Act for source water protection,
simplified wetlands permitting, allowances for NPDES permitting back-
logs, longer cycles for reviewing and, if appropriate, revising water
quality standards, reduced monitoring under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, TMDL assistance, and facilitated development of wetlands mitiga-
tion banks and effluent trading. These programmatic changes are de-
scribed in more detail in another EPA publication entitled, Why Water-
sheds? (EPA800-F-96-001)
The Office of Water offers assistance to help water quality managers and
staff throughout the public and private sectors develop and implement
watershed approaches. The four main areas covered include watershed
management training, statewide watershed approach facilitation, water-
shed program scoping, and technical analysis assistance. Training and
facilitation have been the most actively requested services of the water-
shed assistance program.
Watershed management training is available through the Water-
shed Academy, which offers a set of core courses and related refer-
13
-------
ence materials about basic watershed management principles and
techniques as well as contact information on more specialized and
advanced courses. The core courses address watershed manage-
ment fundamentals, watershed tools, the statewide approach to
watershed management, and an executive overview course.
During 1995, the two-day Statewide Watershed Management
Course was offered in five locations to over 300 people. Comple-
tion of the other core courses is planned for late 1996. Although
EPA itself offers only a few courses, dozens of watershed training
opportunities exist. The Watershed Academy will continually
update its Catalogue of Watershed Training Opportunities (available
on internet) to spread information about watershed-oriented
training courses offered by other local, state and federal agencies
and private organizations. Participation in an interagency water-
shed training workgroup will be another source of joint planning,
shared training materials and expertise.
Watershed approach facilitation is generally provided to states
and tribes that intend to reorient their water resources manage-
ment programs along watershed lines. Facilitation involves
several onsite working meetings with water program managers
and decision makers to help them develop a transition plan,
schedule, and comprehensive organizational framework based on
major river basins and their component watersheds. Twelve states
contacted EPA for some form of facilitation assistance during 1995,
and several have completed significant reorientations of their
programs to implement a watershed approach.
In addition to training and facilitation, the Office of Water offers
assistance in watershed program scoping and technical analysis to
states and tribes. Scoping projects are preliminary to full-scale
reorientation and involve one or two meetings with managers to
determine what form a watershed approach might take, the effort
involved, and the next steps needed. Technical analysis projects
focus on scientific, economic or programmatic analysis as related
to specific watershed management issues.
For information on the Watershed Academy, contact Doug Norton at 202-
260-7017. For information on the statewide watershed management
course, contact Greg Currey at 202-260-1718. For information on water-
shed facilitation, scoping, or technical analysis assistance, contact either
Doug or Deborah Nagle at 202-260-2656.
Several EPA documents may be of particular interest.
Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach (EPA841-R-95-004)
Watershed Protection: A Project Focus (EPA841-R-95-003)
14
-------
The Watershed Protection Approach 1993-94 Activity Report (EPA840-
S-94-001)
Watershed '93: A National Conference on Watershed Management
(Proceedings) (EPA840-R-94-002)
Why Watersheds? (EPA800-F-96-001)
Catalogue of Watershed Training Opportunities (available on internet)
Watershed Tools Directory (EPA841-B-95-005)
These documents are or soon will be available on the internet at
URL:http://www.epa.gov/OWOW. Printed copies of the final (non-
draft) documents can be obtained by telephone at 513-489-8190, by fax at
513-489-8695, or by written request to NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood Road,
Building 5, Cincinnati, OH 45242.
frequently risked Questions About the
Watershed Approach
How can the watershed approach address both ground water and surface water
protection?
When delineating geographic management units, boundaries should be
constructed to accommodate hydrologic connections and processes and
address the priority problems at hand. So, particular management areas
may vary depending on the priority problems to be addressed. For
example, when ground water contributes significantly to surface water
flow, the management unit should include the ground water recharge
area. When the vulnerability of drinking water to contamination is of
primary concern, then the drinking water source (e.g., reservoir or well-
head protection area) should be the area upon which attention is focused.
When the protection of an aquifer is of primary concern, the management
area should include the overlaying or recharging area and recognize
impacts upon surface water. Interesting research is now underway in the
State of Florida to delineate hydrogeological watersheds that accurately
depict ground and surface water connections. Similarly, the US Army
Corps of Engineers has developed new techniques for hydrogeomorphic
analyses related to wetlands.
How does the watershed approach relate to other programs with similar
characteristics, such as the National Estuary Program and Source Water
Protection? And, how does the NPDES watershed strategy relate to the
watershed approach?
States and tribes may want to build on the successes of geographically-
focused programs and increasingly integrate assessments, sort out and
15
-------
establish joint priorities, and coordinate actions among programs while
making a transition to the watershed approach. Whether a jurisdiction
starts with a source water protection program like Wellhead Protection, a
Wetlands Conservation Plan, a National Estuary Program, a NPDES
watershed strategy or other water resource, place-based strategy, EPA
will support them in moving to an even more comprehensive approach to
protecting water resources. These more targeted programs can provide
the community roots for broader watershed approaches. Ultimately, we
hope to see comprehensive, jurisdiction-wide, and when appropriate
cross-jurisdiction, watershed approaches that involve all appropriate
agency staff working with local stakeholders while setting goals, estab-
lishing priorities, and implementing integrated and effective solutions.
What is the relationship between the watershed approach and community-based
environmental protection?
Community-based environmental protection is an iterative approach in
which diverse stakeholders strive to achieve environmental objectives.
Typically it includes:
• Adoption of local environmental goals compatible with economic
sustainability;
• Characterization of environmental problems and solutions; and
• Implementation of solutions that are coordinated and tailored to
the goals and needs of the community.
The watershed approach is community-based environmental protection
using watershed or hydrologic boundaries to define the problem area. In
fact, the momentum and success of the watershed approach and its
"predecessors," the National Estuary Program, Great Water Bodies
programs, and the Clean Lakes Program, strongly influenced the devel-
opment of EPA's community-based environmental protection approach.
How does the watershed approach relate to the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System and Performance Partnerships Grants?
States that choose to adopt the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System could choose to set water quality protection goals and
priorities and organize their work on a watershed basis. Watershed plans
could be incorporated or referenced in the required Environmental
Performance Agreements.
Through Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), states and tribes can
combine funding from eligible grants to target high priority problems and
address multimedia problems within their watersheds. States and tribes
that combine categorical grants into PPGs must continue 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 or
tribe and its EPA Regional office.
16
------- |