UNITED STATES ENVlRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

WATER 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Moving the NPDES Program to a Watershed Approach 

Michael B. Cook, Director 

Office of Wastewater Management 

Water Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10 

I am pleased to transmit to you our report, Moving the NPDES Program to a Watershed 

Approach. As explained during each of the 1994 Regional visits, the purpose of this report is to 

summarize the status of RegionaI efforts to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy and 

highlight the various approaches used to develop State Assessments, Regional Action Plans, and 

Internal Strategies. The Report capsulizes the Regional views on issues, needs, and expected 

benefits with regard to implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy, and discusses the types of 

activities Regions believe the Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) should undertake to 

support Regional implementation of both the Strategy and the broader Watershed Protection 

Approach. 

The Report indicates that Regional programs are making progress in implementing the 

Strategy since it was finalized in March 1994. Nine of the ten Regions projected that they would 

submit their Internal Strategies and completed State Assessments and Regional Action Plans for 

39 States and Puerto Rico in September, Assessments and Regional Action Plans for the 

remaining 12 States and the District of Columbia are expected to be completed in FY 95. Each 

Regional office has established some variations of an internal workgroup to serve as a focus for 

Regional watershed protection efforts. These workgroups tend to have multi-program 

representation from both the Water Management Division and Environmental Services Division. 

The combined list of Regional issues and needs reflect common themes such as 

coordinated leadership in the Office of Water (OW), and flexibility in implementing watershed 

protection efforts. These common issues and needs are having an impact on our activities in 

OWM, and are being shared with other OW Programs. I expect that they will also be considered 

in upcoming management discussions. 
We hope that the Report promotes ideas and stimulates discussion across the Region 

and States. Please feel free to call me or Jeff Lape, NPDES Watershed Matrix Manager, at 

(202) 260-5230 if you have any questions regarding the Report. 

Attachment 

cc. Bob Perciasepe 

Bob Wayland 

Jim Elder 

Tudor Davies 

Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-10 

Cynthia Dougherty 

Mike Quigley 

Ramona Trovato 

Jane Ephrimedes 
MOVING THE NPDES PROGRAM 

A WATERSHED APPROACH 

October 1994 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Wastewater Management 

Permits Division 

401 M Street S.W. 

Washington DC 20460 

TO 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. ........................................................................................... i 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Purpose and Methodology.. .......................................................................... 1 

1.3 Organization of this Report.. .................................................................. 2 

2.0 Regional Internal Strategies ...................................................................................... .3 

2.1 Status ............................................................................................................. 3 

2.2 Approaches .................................................................................................. .3 

2.3 Organizational Change ................................................................................... 4 

3.0 State Assessments and Regional Action Plans.. ........................................................ 4 

3.1 Status.. ........................................................................................................... 4 

3.2 Approaches.. ................................................................................................ .5 

3.3 Regional Observations.. ................................................................................. 6 

4.0 NPDES Watershed Strategy Components.. ............................................................. .6 

4.1 Statewide Coordination ................................................................................ .6 

4.3 Monitoring and Assessment ........................................................................ .7 

4.4 Programmatic Measures and Environmental Indicators. .............................. .8 

4.5 Public Participation ....................................................................................... 8 

4.6 Enforcement.. ................................................................................................ 8 

5.0 Issues and Needs. ... ................................................................................................... 9 

5.1 Issues.. ........................................................................................................... 9 

5.2 Needs.. ........................................................................................................... 10 

5.3 Headquarters Implementation Plan Feedback.. ............................................. 12 

6.0 Benefits of a Watershed Strategy.. ........................................................................... .12 

6.1 Potential Benefits of an Overall Watershed Strategy.. ................................. .13 

6.2 Examples of Watershed Successes ................................................................ 13 

7.0 Summary ................................................................................................................... 14 

Table of Regional and State Watershed Contacts ............................................................. A-1 

Table of State Progress and Highlights ............................................................................. B-1 

Table of Issues and Needs.. .............................................................................................. C-1 

Action Items for NPDES Watershed Strategy Implmentation ....................................... D-1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Watershed Protection Approach represents the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) renewed emphasis on understanding and addressing all surface water, ground water, and 

habitat stressors within a geographically defined area, instead of viewing individual pollutant 

sources in isolation. On March 21; 1994, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water signed the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Watershed Strategy. The purpose of 

the Strategy is to integrate the NPDES Program into the broader Watershed Protection Approach 

and support development of Statewide basin management approaches (BMAs)1. Basin 

management is a Statewide approach designed to meet the objectives of the broader Watershed 

Protection Approach. The Strategy identifies key action items for the NPDES Program and 

emphasizes critical areas in which the NPDES Program must coordinate its point source control 

activities with the efforts of other water programs. 

The Assistant Administrator for Water requested three products from EPA Regions in 

the NPDES Watershed Strategy transmittal memorandum: 

• State-by-State Assessments and Regional Action Plans - An assessment of 

watershed protection activities and needs in each State and, in light of that 

assessment, plans that identify how the Region will support and facilitate each 

State’s movement toward the Watershed Protection Approach; 

State/EPA Workplan Agreements - Specific activities within State/EPA 

workplans for fiscal year 1995 that promote the central components of watershed 

protection; 

. Internal Coordination - Integrated Regional strategies that describe the Regional 

decision making processes, oversight role, and internal coordination efforts of the 

various water programs necessary to ensure support for the Watershed Protection 

Approach. 

During the months of June and July 1994, representatives from the office Wastewater 

Management (OWM), Permits Division, visited each EPA Region to discuss Regional progress in 

implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy. This report represents a synthesis of the 

individual Regional reports. In particular, it discusses approaches to developing and progress 

toward completing Regional Internal Strategies, and State Assessments and Regional Action 

Plans; activities related to the NPDES Watershed Strategy components; Regional issues and 

needs concerning the Watershed Protection Approach; and expected benefits from implementing 

the Watershed Protection Approach. 

For the purposes of this document, the terms Statewide basin management approach (BMA) and statewide 

watershed protection approach are intended to refer to the same concept; they are compatible Statewide 

approaches to managing water sources on a geographic basis. 

i 
The findings of the Regional reviews suggest that Regions are making progress in 

implementing the Strategy since it was completed in March 1994. Nine of the ten Regions 

projected that they would submit their Internal Strategies and completed State Assessments and 

Regional Action Plan for 39 States and Puerto Rico in September 1994. Assessments and 

Regional Action Plans for 12 additional States and the District of Columbia are expected to be 

completed in fiscal year 1995. Most Regional office have established some variation of an 

internal Workgroup to serve as a focus for Regional watershed protection efforts. These 

workgroups tend to have multi-program representation from both the Water Management 

Division and Environmental Services Division. 

Regions have also taken steps to implement the six NPDES Watershed Strategy 

components: (1) statewide coordination; (2) NPDES permits; (3) monitoring and assessment; (4) 

programmatic measures and environmental indicators; (5) public participation; and 

(6) enforcement. The report discusses some of the Regional efforts related to these components. 

During the mid-year visits each Region was asked to identify issues they felt may impede 

and activities they felt would assist the implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach. 

The combined list of Regional issues and needs reflect common themes such as the need for 

coordinated leadership within the Office of Water (OW) for implementing the Watershed 

Protection Approach, and flexibility in implementing watershed protection efforts. 

During the Regional visits, OWM asked the Regions to identify examples of 

environmental progress which result from the application of a watershed strategy to address 

existing issues or problems. The Regions also identified areas where they expect that a broadscale watershed strategy, such as a Statewide basin management approach, will prove beneficial 

to the environment and to Regional and State agencies. Examples from both of these areas are 

compiled in a section of this report. 

ii 
1.0 Introduction 

This section describes the Watershed Protection Approach and the NPDES Watershed 

Strategy, outlines the purpose of this report, and provides a description of organization. 

1.1 Background 

The Watershed Protection Approach is an Office of Water (OW) wide initiative which 

promotes integrated solutions to address surface water, ground water, and habitat concerns on a 

watershed basis. The Watershed Protection Approach is not a new program; rather, it is a 

decision making process that reflects a common strategy for information collection and analysis 

and a common understanding of the roles, priorities, and responsibilities of all stakeholders 

within a watershed. 

On March 21, 1994, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water signed the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy. The purposes of the Strategy are to demonstrate EPA’s commitment and 

approach for integrating the NPDES program into the broader Watershed Protection Approach 

and to support the development of Statewide basin management approaches. The Strategy 

identifies key action items for the NPDES Program and emphasizes critical areas in which the 

NPDES Program must integrate its point source control activities with the efforts of other water 

programs. 

As first steps toward implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy, the Assistant 

Administrator requested that EPA Regions complete three products by September 1, 1994. 

These three products are: 

. State-by-State Assessments and Regional Action Plans - An assessment of 

watershed protection activities and needs in each State and, in light of that 

assessment, plans that identify how the Region will support and facilitate each 

State’s movement toward the-Watershed Protection Approach; 

. State/EPA Workplan Agreements - Specific activities within State/EPA 

workplans for fiscal year 1995 that promote the central components of watershed 

protection; 

. Internal Coordination -Integrated Regional strategies that describe the Regional 

decision making processes, oversight role, and internal coordination efforts of the 

various water programs necessary to ensure support for the Watershed Protection 

Approach. 

1.2 Purpose and Methodology 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the status of implementation of the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy. More specifically, the report: 

. Highlights EPA Regions’ efforts to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy; 

1 
. Describes issues of concern and needs raised by Regions with regard to the 

Watershed Protection Approach and the NPDES Watershed Strategy; 

. Provides information to EPA Regions About the various approaches being used by 

their counterparts to conduct the State Assessments, Regional Action Plans, and 

Internal strategies: 

. Provides feedback to EPA Headquarters on desired support for implementing the 

Watershed Protection Approach; and 

. Offers Regional perspectives on the successes that may result from applying the 

Watershed protection Approach to protect and restore water resources. 

During the months of June and July 1994, representatives from the Office of Wastewater 

Management (OWM), Permits Division, visited each EPA Region to discuss Regional progress in 

implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy. These visits were different from those of 

previous “mid-years” or “Regional reviews” years in four ways. First, the discussions 

concentrated on planning and future events rather than past performance. Second, the main 

topics of discussion centered on the NPDES Watershed Strategy and the Watershed Protection 

Approach. Third, the Headquarters representatives used common questions and Regional report 

format to maintain consistency in information gathering across Regions. Finally, this year’s 

Regional visits addressed not only on the status of Regional efforts in implementing the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy, but also afforded the Regions the opportunity to express their needs and 

concerns relative to the Strategy and the Watershed Protection Approach. During each visit, 

Headquarters representatives prepared a substantially complete draft of the Regional report and 

discussed it with each Region. Any Regional comments were incorporated and a final draft 

report was prepared for each Region. This report represents a synthesis of the individual 

Regional reports. 

1.3 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows: 

. Regional Internal Strategies - Summarizes the status of the Regions’ efforts to 

establish Internal Strategies to ensure support for the Watershed Protection 

Approach or its approach to developing one. It also discusses the various 

procedural and organizational approaches used by the Regions. 

State Assessments and Regional Action Plans - Summarizes the status of 

completion of the State Assessments and Regional Action Plans and describer the 

range of approaches taken by the Regions to develop the assessments and plans. 

. NPDES Watershed Strategy Components - Discusses actions being taken by 

the Regions to address Strategy components such as statewide coordination, 

2 
NPDES permits, programmatic measures and environmental indicators, monitoring 

and assessment, public participation, and enforcement 

. Issues Needs and - Summarizes isues raised by Regions with regard to 

implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy and the Watershed Protection 

Approach; needs indicated by Regions as necessary to successfully implement the 

Watershed Protection Approach; and feedback on potential OWM activities 

intended to support the Strategy. 

0 Expected Benefits - identifies examples of success resulting from application of a 

watershed strategy to existing issues or problems. 

2.0 Regional Internal Strategies 

The Assistant Administrator for Water requested that each Region submit to the Office of 

Wastewater Management (OWM) an Internal Strategy dealing with how it plans to make 

decisions, provide oversight, and coordinate its water management programs to ensure support. 

for the Watershed Protection Approach. A portion of the Regional visits focused on the 

progress made and approaches taken to develop these strategies. 

2.1 Status 

Nine Regions projected that they would submit an Internal Strategy in September 1994. The 

remaining Region expects to complete its strategy in the first quarter of fiscal year 1995. This 

delay is due to extensive State involvement in the strategy development process. 

Most Regions have taken two basic approaches in developing an InternaI Strategy: 1) internal 

workgroup; and 2) State coordination. All Regions are developing an Internal Strategy 

document to coordinate implementation of Regional watershed activities and to support States’ 

efforts to implement the Watershed Protection Approach. Most Regions have involved the 

following programs in the development of their Internal Strategy: NPDES; Nonpoint Source; 

Wetlands; Ground Water, Drinking Water, Enforcement; Water Quality; geographically targeted 

programs, such as the National Estuary Program and the Great Lakes Initiative; State Revolving 

Fund; and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In most cases, either the Water Quality 

Branch or the Wetlands and Watershed Branch has the overall Regional lead for watershed 

implementation. In addition, all but one Region has identified an NPDES watershed lead to serve 

as point of contact for NPDES involvement in watershed implementation. The NPDES leads are 

often the Permits Branch Chief or the Permits Section Chief. Attachment A provides a list of 

Regional and State Watershed Point of Contacts. 

Internal Workgroup: Most Regions have established some variation of an internal workgroup to 

serve as a focus for Regional Watershed Protection efforts and to develop their Internal Strategy. 

3 
These workgroups tend to be well represented from across the Water Management Division and 

from the water-related programs in the Environmental Services Division. 

State Coordination: Many Regions have held State meetings to discuss and to exchange ideas on 

how to implement the Watershed Protection Approach. Sane Regions have taken a more active 

approach to involving their States in the decision making process. Region 5 has established a 

State workgroup to comment on and approve the Region’s Internal Strategy. Region 5 also has a 

State Quality Action Team which, among its other responsibilities, serves as a means for 

developing watershed implementation actions within the Region. Region 1 has created State 

Coordinator Groups, which include representatives from most of the Region’s water programs, to 

support each State. These groups are responsible for relaying information about the Watershed 

Protection Approach to the State on a program-by-program level. 

2.3 Organizational Change 

As a result of the Internal Strategy development process, several Regions have made 

organizational changes to help improve internal coordination. Region 1 is conducting a pilot 

reorganization of one of its NPDES program sections to better support the State of 

Massachusetts’s implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach The former MA 

NPDES Section is now the MA Watershed Section and includes both water quality and water 

modeling staff. As part of this organizational change, Region I has funded a position for a 

“Resource Protection Specialist” responsible for identifying critical resources in the Region and 

targeting regional efforts to address those priorities. Region 10 created a "Watershed 

Coordinator” position to oversee the NPDES program’s implementation of the Watershed 

Protection Approach The Coordinator is specifically responsible for assisting States in the 

development of a Statewide basin management approach 

3.0 State Assessments and Regional Action Plans 

State Assessments are intended to examine a State’s current watershed protection activities and 

needs. Regional Action Plans then identify how the Region will support and facilitate 

implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach in each State based on the results of the 

State Assessment. A portion of the discussion during OWM's Regional visits centered on 

progress made and approaches taken to develop the State Assessments and Regional Action 

Plans. 

3.1 Status 

The Regions projected that they would submit State Assessments and Regional Action Plans for 

39 of the States and Puerto Rico in September 1994 and for 12 additional States and the District 

of CoIumbia in fiscal year 1995. There are currently no plans to develop a State Assessment or 

Regional Action Plan for the remaining territories. 

Some Regions have developed well planned strategies for completing State Assessments and 

Regional Action Plans, but believed that submissions for one or more States should be delayed 

until after September 1994 for a number of reasons, including: insufficient time to complete 

4 
through reviews of all States; inadequate travel funds in 1994 for State visits that would form 

the basis of the assessment; and present difficulties entering a dialogue with the State concerning 

watershed protection Attachment B lists the scheduled completion dates for each State 

Assessment and Regional Action Plan and highlights progress in each State at the time of the 

Regional visit. 

3.2 Approaches 

Regions have taken at least one of four basic approaches to conducting State Assessments and 

developing Regional Action Plans: 1) internal teams; 2) State meetings; 3) State questionnaires; 

and 4) facilitated workshops. Some Regions selected different approaches for different States. 

Most Regions made use of the May 1994 “Regional Guidance for Development of State-by-State 

Assessments and Action Plans” provided by OWM to complete the State Assessments and 

Regional Action Plans, and several Regions added contributions from other programs to the 

material included in the guidance. 

Internal Teams: By far the most common approach taken is convening internal Regional teams to 

complete both the Stare Assessments and Regional Action Plans. Five Regions have formed 

internal teams for one of more of their States. In general, these teams cut across program lines 

and include staff and management from the Environmental Services Division in addition to several 

water programs. Region 10 held a workshop to develop the State Assessment and Regional 

Action Plan for Idaho. Sixteen staff from the Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch, 

Surface Water Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, and the Ground Water/Drinking Water 

program participated in this workshop. The State Assessment was largely completed by the end 

of the first day; a conference call on the second day with representatives from the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality was used to fill information gaps. 

State Meetings Three Regions held or are planning to hold meetings with one or more of their 

States. The format for these meetings ranges from requesting information to supplement existing 

data, such as during a Region 8 State program directors’ meeting, to formal assessments, such as 

those planned by Region 5 during the fiscal year 1995 annual State performance evaluations 

State Questionnaires: Two Regions are developing their State Assessments and Regional Action 

Plans based on the results of detailed questionnaires sent to each of their States. The 

questionnaires are modeled after the OWM guidance on State Assessments and Regional Action 

Plans. Regional teams follow-up with States either to get additional information or to allow the 

State to review the draft assessments and action plans. 

Facilitated Workshop: Two Regions are using outside facilitators to help them develop State 

Assessments or Regional Action Plans or both. The facilitator, provided through OWM contract 

funding, helps Regional teams walk through the process of developing a State Assessment and 

Action Plan based on the OWM guidance. 
3.3 Regional Observations 

Regions generally believe the State Assessments and Regional Action Plans are helpful tools for 

evaluating States' progress in developing watershed approaches and for guiding Regional work 

plans for Fiscal Year 1995. Some Regions commented that developing these products is both 

the consuming and labor intensive, but they are finding the process beneficial, 

The Assistant Administrator for Water asked Regions to include specific watershed protection 

activities in fiscal year 1995 State/EPA work plans. Most Regions indicated that they would be 

better able to influenced the fiscal year 1996 planning process due to the scheduled completion 

date for the State Assessments and Regional Action Plans (late fiscal year 1994). 

4.0 NPDES Watershed Strategy Components 

The NPDES Watershed Strategy identified six components that should be addressed to fulfill the 

purpose and objectives of the Strategy: (1) statewide coordination; (2) NPDES permits; 

(3) monitoring and assessment; (4) programmatic measures and environmental indicators; (5) 

public participation; and (6) enforcement Associated with each of these six components are 

actions that EPA Regions may take to support the purpose and objectives of the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy. OWM assumed that most Regions would undertake such activities after 

developing State-by-State assessments and action plans. During the Regional visits, however, 

OWM found that a number of Regions are already making progress in supporting the six Strategy 

components. 

A number of Regions are supporting their States in developing or implementing Statewide basin 

management approaches that allow them to integrate management activities (monitoring, 

assessment, TMDL development, permitting, nonpoint source controls, ground water 

protection) aimed at aquatic ecosystem protection within the boundaries of a given basin. These 

approaches are tailored to the unique circumstances of each State, and not ail programs or 

agencies are participating in each State. Support from the Regions for developing, expanding, and 

implementing Statewide basin management approaches is critical to the success of the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy. Region 4 is drafting a Statewide Watershed Protection Approach that could 

be a basis for implementation by Florida Department of EnvironmentaI Protection of the NPDES 

Strategy upon authorization of the Florida NPDES program. Additionally, Region 4 is actively 

supporting Georgia in their efforts to develop a Statewide basin management framework 

document. 

Regions also are directing 104(b)(3) money to projects that promote Statewide coordination and 

development of Statewide basin management approaches. Oklahoma received $100,000 to 

establish an administrative process that will integrate and coordinate point and nonpoint source 

pollution control activities within a basin; develop a Statewide basin management framework 

document; and conduct facilitated workshops that will promote acceptance of the Statewide 

Watershed Protection Approach at all levels of government. Utah received $31,000 and Oregon 

received S44,251 to develop a Statewide basin management framework document. Montana 
received $20,000 to develop educational materials and a training curriculum to facilitate Statewide 

watershed planning at the local, State, and Federal levels. 

4.2 NPDES Permits 

In most Regions and at EPA Headquarters, the NPDES program is a relatively new stakeholder in 

the Watershed Protection Approach. The NPDES Watershed Strategy represents an attempt by 

OWM to define the role that the NPDES program can play in developing an integrated 

geographically based approach to water resource management In most Regions, the NPDES 

program is now playing a role on a Regional watershed team. As Regions develop their internal 

watershed strategies and assist their States in developing watershed approaches, the NPDES 

program will be a key contributor. This is evidenced by examples such as the Watershed 

Coordinator hired within the Region 10 NPDES program and by the pilot reorganization within 

Region l’s Water Management Division to support MA’s implementation of a Statewide BMA 

Regions have also begun to address specific NPDES permitting issues on a watershed basis. For 

example, Region 6 successfully identified and issued “minor” NPDES permits to several shrimp 

processors that were contributing to a water quality problem on Bayou Grand Calliou, Louisiana 

In setting permitting priorities, the Region focused on the watershed and the known water quality 

problems rather than the distinction between "major" and “minor” permittees. Region 9 is 

working with the State of Arizona to demonstrate the utility of NPDES permitting on a 

watershed basis. The Region and State will work with Iocal stakeholders to sequence the 

standards and permits process with other wafer qualify management efforts. 

To meet the objectives of the NPDES Watershed Strategy, States should develop a Statewide 

monitoring strategy that assures the most effective targeting of limited monitoring resources and 

coordinates collection and analysis of NPDES, nonpoint same, and other watershed data. 

Additionally, the Strategy encourages ambient monitoring requirements in NPDES pamits, 

where appropriate, to support assessment or watershed conditions. Regions have not begun to 

implement the Monitoring and Assessment component of the NPDES strategy. However, the 

Regions are supporting their States are implementing or developing watershed monitoring 

and assessment programs. For example: 1) Illinois has a monitoring program which is based on 

a basin management cycle and; 2) Arizona, with EPA grant assistance, is conducting the 

monitoring, assessment, and planning activities in the Middle Gila Basin necessary to develop 

and issue multiple NPDES permits in the targeted basin. 

Several States received 104(b)(3) funds for monitoring and assessment projects that support the 

NPDES Watershed Strategy. California received $100,000 for a comprehensive watershed 

project which includes water quality assessment and monitoring far all the Los Angeles regional 

watersheds. Iowa received $25,000 to develop a Statewide monitoring strategy which will reflect 

the program needs of NPDES permits, non-point source controls, TMDL/WLA, and support a 

watershed based approach to water quality management. 

7 
. . 

4-4 RR 

The Regions rm the need for measures of success that better demon&rate me progress of 

Water&& Appmactt implementation and the environmental gains aad successes withillspecific 

warentrtds and on a nationai basis. There did not appear to be a consistent view, hos,vever, of 

what the short and long term measures should be. One Region plans to hold an internal retreat to 

discuss use of the 33 environmental indicators developed by the office of water. This region 

believes that environmental measures needtobetailoredtoeachwatershedandexpressedinclear 

terms that the public can understand. TWO Regions indicated that the State Assessments and 

RegionaI Action Ptanaccnrid mol benchmarks foe progress. Anotk Region has selected fax 

“indicatcx basins” which will be t~aluated against a cumprehakve set of measures. At least two 

Regions cxprwsed concern regardingtheplanneduseoC”loadingreductions”asanational 

eovironm~talindicatorfor~eralressons,~aSdatr~tyand~muginalnahneofthe 

remaining reductions. One Region suggested that future Branch Chiefs’ meetings may be a good 

forum in which to discuss the development of national programmatic m-es of success. 

. . . . er pubAll Regions understand the importance of and need for efktive public participation throughout 

the watershed assessment and impkmentation process. Several Regions have begun to undertake 

new oc changed a&as to i.mpruv&public participatiar and stsJc&okkimx@cment- In 

Region 1, Basin Teams have begun conducting public meetings with wmtmhd stakehdders. 

Region 5 intends to build on the public participation experience gained &an development of 

RAPS and LaMPs. Region IO is frequently called upon to facilitate stakeholder involvement and 

has also awarded IO4@)(3)grantatfdzyear for watershed councils. Region 6 has modified the 

public participation process for NPDES permitting Before hdding a public hearing on a 

proposed permit, the Region invites the public to an informal question and answer session. At 

least one Region expressed concern, however, that increased public participation may not lead to 

effkiency in the permit process or better quality permits. 

4.6 Enforcemtnt 

The NPDES Watershed Strategy encourages a watershed approach to enforcement This 

approach includes cmphaskhg enforcanent for both major and min~NPDES dischargers in 

selected watersheds and using enforcement authorities to correct violations by dischargers that 

are causing thy greakst degradation in a basin or watershed. A few Regions are implementing 

their own watenhed approaches to enforcement and supporting their States in doing the same. 

Region 10 supported the &egoa Department of Agriculture (ODA) in obtaining 104(b)(3) grant 

funding for a watershed enforcerneat initiative. ODA is conducting enforcement initiatives in 

three separate watersheds in western and southern Oregon that fti to meet water quality 

standards. ODA intends to raise compliance awareness among Coahcd Animal Feeding 

Operations (CAFOs) that are significant sources of pollution to these watersheds. This work 

augments the existing statewide complaint-driven enforcement program. By targeting a small 

watershed in each of three regions of the State, ODA will increase compliance awareness in the 

regulated community while maintaining local technical capabilities. 

8 
Region 3 is implementing the Environmentally Targeted Enforcement Strategy. This strategy 

utilizes State-generated information in the Waterbody System to identify waterbody segments 

impaired by point source discharges. The Region uses information from Permit Compliance 

System (PCS) and from State data bases on both major and minor point sources in those 

waterbodies to identify potential linkages to water quality impairments. Contributing facilities 

are potential enforcement candidates if violations (Significant Noncompliance or other, non-SNC, 

violations) are found, or may be candidates for further scrutiny of their NPDES permits. 

Region 2 was able to convince the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

that more than major point sources were contributing to water quality impairment in the reservoir 

system north of New York City. NYSDEC now focuses on minors within the watershed and has 

committed resources to input effluent monitoring reports for minor dischargers into PCS. 

5.0 Issues and Needs 

During the mid-year visits, each Region was asked to identify issues they feIt may impede and 

needs they felt would assist the implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach and the 

NPDES Watershed Strategy. Additionally, the Regions were asked to comment on a potential 

list of Headquarters action initiatives. 

5.1 Issues 

Summarized below are the top five issues that the Regions raised as an impediment to 

implementing the Watershed Protection Approach. They are listed in descending order according 

to the number of times they were raised by different Regions {the number is in parentheses). See 

Appendix C for a complete list of the Regional issues. 

Coordinated/Consistent Leadership at EPA Headquarters: (6) The primary issue with 

implementing the Watershed Protection Approach is the lack of a coordinated strategy within the 

OW at EPA Headquarters. As stated by the Regions, the NPDES Watershed Strategy attempts 

to pull in all water quality programs, but is still fundamentally an “NPDES Watershed Strategy” 

The Regions suggest that the Assistant Administrator needs to encourage all OW programs to 

take a coordinated approach if the overall Watershed Protection Approach is to succeed. 

Flexibility in implementing the Watershed Protection Approach: (5) Flexibility was raised as an 

issue in relation to several aspects of the NPDES Watershed Strategy. For example, the decision 

about whether to implement a Statewide basin management approach or targeted approach 

should be afforded to each State. A Statewide basin management approach may not be feasible in 

States with drastic differences in hydrology, population distribution, and land ownership (e.g., 

80% of Nevada lands are owned by federal agencies or Indian Tribes). States that decide to 

implement a Statewide watershed protection approach, should to be allowed to move at their 

own pace. Additionally, States and Regions need to have permission to fail and to learn from 

those failures as well as the successes. The timing for implementation was also raised as an issue. 

Regions felt that the time frame between the final Strategy (March 1994) and State Assessment 

Guidance (May 1994) and the due date for State Assessments and Regional Action Plans 

9 
September 1, 1994) was not feasible given available resources and present fiscal year 1994 

commitments. 

Multiple Agencies or Regional Offices within States: (3) The coordination required for effective 

implementation of a basin management approach, such as agreement within the State on a 

framework for basin management, can be difficult where water resource management programs are 

divided among different State agencies. In addition States which have regional offices often 

create the appearance of separate States, each with their own water quality programs and 

watershed efforts. 

Lack of Statutory Authority: (2) Implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy would be 

simplified if the Approach were specifically authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA); Regional 

implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy can be difficult since it is voluntary on the 

part of the States especially in authorized States. 

Consolidated Grant and Reporting Requirements: (2) Multiple reporting requirements on 

different reporting cycles were listed as an impediment to effectively implementing the 

Watershed Protection Approach Specifically, Regions identified the need to consolidate §303(d) 

and §305(b) reporting requirements. As a first step towards grant consolidation, it was 

recommended that Headquarters enable the Regions to make §319 and §104(b)(3) grant decisions 

at the same time. 

5.2 Needs 

Summarized below are the top five needs that the Regions stated were important to their efforts 

to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy and the Watershed Protection Approach. See 

Appendix C for an overview of all the needs that the Regions expressed. 

Additional Resources and Contract Support (9) Most Regions stated that present resource and 

staffing constraints will hinder the full implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy. 

Regions indicated they do not have the necessary travel funds or contractor support to provide 

adequate guidance and outreach to States on implementing the Watershed Protection Approach. 

Additional resources, both EPA positions and contract support, are needed to complete 

comprehensive assessments and action plans for States, develop State framework documents, 

conduct watershed training to expand State monitoring capabiIities, and develop GIS capabilities. 

Data Management/Integration: (8) Most Regions also indicated that EPA needs to play a more 

aggressive role in addressing data management issues since high quality, reliable data is necessary 

to effectively implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy. Several Regions identified specific 

areas where discharger data is either suspect or non-existent (e.g., PCS, STORET). Where data 

does exist, it often does not integrate well with other data management systems (i.e., GIS). At 

this time, several Regions do not use USGS basin codes in PCS and conversion to these codes is 

essential; there is question as to whether PCS can accommodate entry of USGS basin codes for 

minor discharges. 

10 
HQfhidnacHi~ (6) EPA HeadqraParssnou~a SeNe as a ckdng&w and trainer to 

promote techndogy transfer and to communicate watershed prorecti~a swcusu: 

. Pr6decaJestudiuwhichdoatmslffspccifIc~ofStatewat&ed 

protection approaches including: &ernativu for daling with pamit. 

synchronizatim and badlogs, thecast cfktivcn~oftisting approaches, and 

changes in the level of effort and ef&iaxiu realized in various program areas 

(e.g., ambient monitoring); 

. Conduct workshops for Regions and States which pruent the amcepts of basin 

management; provide technical guidance to support implementation of the 

NPDES Watershed Strategy on areas such as altemative permitting mechanisms, 

ambient monitoring, and coordinating NPDES permit davdopment with TMDL 

prioiiti~on; and 

. Sponsa a national meeting invdving Regions and States across several water 

programs to discuss issues rdated to devdopment and impiementation of 

comprehensive watershed protection programs. 

Rejnements to Accoutndili~ s)?srerrr (%t@giic Torgerc4ActMies$r Resuks $utem (STARS) 

and ofpce of W~ewaw A!ikybrmti mi compfm Ac4mmhg sys&?m (Qm)): (5) The 

Regions recommend that Head- accountability muaxes be revised to reflect the emphasis 

being placed on implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy; continuing the use of 

accountability measures that are not aligned with the Strategy does not reinf&e the message that 

the Permits~Division is committed tomting the NPDES program on a watershed basis. 

Several Regions proposed that accountability measure4 bcrevisedtorcflectaqualitative,or 

narrative nature. Program measurun ent discussions that foam a~ number of permits issued and 

the admkistrative distinction between majors and minars have become too much of an institution 

and are not representative in the context of watershed protectim 

Finally, EPA Headquarters’ expectstioru and program measurements should tak~jnto 

consideration a period of transitioa (e.g., decrease in perma ssuame, karning &-es, and 

coordination issues with other pv). States and Regions must also have “permission to fail’ 

and learn f&n failures as well 83 swccssu. 

Coordination with OECA: (3) Full coordination with and buy-in to the Watershed Protection 

Approach by the Of&e of Enforcement and Compliance Asswme (OECA) is essential; 

compliance assessmcnt~, enforcement reviews and e&rccment actions are almost exclusively 

based upon a facility being classified as a major discharger. The lack of infbrmation for minor 

dischargers impedes and limits the ability to deal with ali NPDES facilities within I watershed. 

~dditiocdly, it was suggested that OWM initiate actions, as part ofthe curad actions undev 

to negotiate a memorandum of agreement with OECA on PCS, to address the data 

managementintegration needs to support the transition of the NPDES Program to a watershed 

approach. 

11 
5.3 Headquarters Implementation Plan Feedback 

Regional staff and management were presented with a list of 26 action items that EPA 

Headquarters could undertake to support the Regions in implementing the NPDES Watershed 

Strategy. Each Region was asked to select the top five activities that they felt would be most 

helpful to them. Summarized below are the top six EPA Headquarters' Action Items that the 

Regions voted to have Headquarters undertake. See Appendix D for for more details on how each 

Region voted on the complete list of potential Headquarters Action Items. 

Regulatory/Policy Support for the Strategy:(6) Evaluate impediments to implementation of the 

NPDES Watershed Strategy as a result of the existing regulatory and policy framework. 

Consider changes that will foster implementation. 

Data Integration (PCS, Storage and Retrieval of Water-Related Data (STORET), Toxics Release 

Inventory System (TRIS), Waterbody Systems):(5) Evaluate current data bases and data 

management systems to determine how they should be used (i.e., data integration) or updated to 

better support a watershed approach to NPDES permitting. Work with OECA to evaluate and 

make changes to PCS that better support the Strategy, 

Coordination with OW Offices and OECA:(5) Communicate with the Office o

Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW); Office of Science and Technology (OST); Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW); and OECA on NPDES watershed activities to gain their 

needed cooperation and support. 

Conduct Regional Workshops:(4) Conduct train-the-trainer workshops for each Region in order 

to facilitate watershed protection training (concepts of basin management and the NPDES 

Watershed Strategy) for individual States. 

Oversight: Revise STARS and OWECAS Criteria to support Watershed Implementation: (4) 

EstabIish revised measures that demonstrate progress by Regions and States to implement the 

NPDES Watershed Strategy and integrate the NPDES Program and the Watershed protection 

Approach. 

Watershed Matrix Management: (4) Provide leadership and coordination to achieve the 

objectives of the NPDES Watershed Strategy. 

6.0 Benefits of a Watershed Strategy 

During the Regional visits, OWM asked the Regions to identify exampIes of environmental 

progress which result from the application of a watershed strategy to address existing issues or 

problems. Regions also identified areas where they expect that a broad-scale watershed strategy, 

such as a Statewide basin management approach, will prove beneficial to the environment and to 

Regional and State agencies. 

12 
6.1 Potential Benefits of an Overall Watershed Strategy 

Regions and States have identified and, in some cases, experienced a number benefits 

associated with operating by a broad-scale watershed strategy such as the basin management 

approach. Some of these benefits are as follows: 

Improved Basis for Management Decision: A watershed strategy can improve the scientific 

basis for decision making and focuses management effects on basins and watersheds where they 

are most needed. Some Regions believe that both point and nonpoint control strategies wilI be 

more effective under a watershed approach because the approach moves States toward timely 

and complete development of TMDLs. One Region stated that a watershed-based decision 

process will help resoIve issues related to apportionment of loadings, assimiIative capacity of 

streams, antidegradation, and other historically difficult permitting issues. 

Enhanced Program Efficiency: A basin focus can improve the efficiency of water management 

programs by facilitating consolidation of programs within each basin. For example, one Region 

noted that handling all point source dischargers in a basin at the same time should reduce 

administrative costs due to the potential to combine hearings and notices as well as allowing staff 

to focus on more limited areas in a sequential fashion. Another Region is encouraging one of its 

States to use basin plans as an efficient means for meeting the CWA mandates for §305(b) 

assessment and §303(d) listing of waterbodies. 

improved Coordination Among Programs: Regions and States have found that as they begin to 

focus on river basins, rather than the programs operating within those basins, they are better able 

to participate in data sharing and coordinated assessment and control strategies. Several Regions 

demonstrated improved coordination among their programs through the process they used to 

prepare for the OWM visit and to develop their Internal Strategies, State Assessments, and 

Regional Action Plans. Regions have formed teams for these tasks that often include program 

staff from across the Water Management Division and from other divisions as well. 

Greater Consistency and Responsiveness: goal and Developing manaement plans for a basin or 

watershed with stakeholder involvement should allow Regions and States to be responsive to the 

public and consistent in determining management actions. Stakeholders can expect improved 

consistency and continuity in decisions when management actions follow a basin plan. One 

Region noted that environmental justice issues should be more completely addressed since there 

will be more comprehensive and complete examination of environmental stressors involving all 

stakeholders in a basin. 

6.2 Examples of Watershed Successes 

The Regions provided examples where watershed strategies promoting integrated, resource-based 

decision making are helping to address specific management problems and to resolve NPDES 

permitting issues. A few of these examples are highlighted below: 

Long Island Sound: Region 2, New York and Connecticut agreed to control the discharge of 

nitrogen into Long Island Sound in order to reduce eutrophication and improve on the low levels 

13 
of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters By bringing the stakeholders together and focusing on 

environmental problems backed by data, the States focused on freezing nitrogen loadings from all 

point sources. In one instance, Westchester County, New York has explored ways to obtain 

reduction in nonpoint source nitrogen loadings in order to provide capacity for increased loadings 

at POTWs. 

Geographic Information Systems: Region 3’s Water Management Division (WMD) is leading a 

pilot effort to use environmental data to guide decision making and priority-setting in the Region. 

The Region has successfully used geographic information systems (GIS) develop Regional 

strategic objectives. For example by aggregating data from the Waterbody System up to the 

watershed level, the WMD’s GIS specialist and other scientists were able to look at the cause of 

water quality impairment throughout the Region on a watershed basis. They found that acid 

mine drainage was causing significant water quality problems in most watersheds in the western 

part of the Region. As a result of this GIS work, addressing surface water quality problems 

associated with acid pollution became part of the Region’s Strategic Plan. GIS also has been used 

to assist in the planning and implementation of geographically targeted efforts such as the 

Christina River basin interstate project; the identification of point sources in waters of concern 

for endangered species in Pennsylvania and the location of living resource areas of concern in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans. In Region 5, Remedial 

(RAPs) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) serve as watershed management plans 

addressing stressors which impact, or have the potential to impact, the beneficial uses of the 

Great Lakes, including stressors such as point and nonpoint sources of pollution critical habitat, 

and exotic species. Implementation of the plans is based upon application of base programs such 

as the NPDES program. Although RAPs and LaMPs are not by themselves reflective of an 

entire change to a State’s program, they reflect the coordinated results that may occur once a State 

reorders its program on a watershed basis. 

Storm Water Permitting: The State of Washington is developing a watershed-based municipal 

separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is expected to cover every 

municipal storm sewer system, regardless of size, in the Green/Duwamish and Cedar River 

basins. These basins encompass Seattle and approximately 98 percent of King County, including 

some smaller municipalities. 

7.0 Summary 

The NPDES Watershed Strategy issued in March 1994 represents a statement of 

commitment and an action plan for moving the NPDES program to a Watershed and Ecosystem 

Approach. In a further demonstration of commitment to the Strategy and the Watershed 

Approach, the office of Wastewater Management fundamentally changed the focus of the Region 

reviews in fiscal year 1995 to address implementation of the NPDES Strategy. The results of 

these reviews demonstrates that Regions are making progress. Regions are evaluating State 

NPDES programs and establishing specific action plans to support the comprehensive State 

water resource protection programs. The Regions have also developed internal strategies that are 

designed to coordinate water program efforts within the Region. 

14 
Table of Regional and State Watershed Contacts 

Appendix A 
. 

. 

conlact-MD 

3 NPDE!3W- Kricrinchdatzh (215) 597-7938 

Lead-PA 

ElaimHahold (2 1 S) 5974547 

3 NPDES Watnhbd Fmkaco Cruz (215) 597-8813 

coatact - VA 

3 N-PDES Wamskd RiclmdPa&.e (215) 597439 

fCh&lCt-WV 

4 Regional wamsbcd Ibhdilh AIxkxson well=4 oceas (404) 347-2 126 

coo- XUiWatclshcd exi 6581 

BlXtEh 

4 NPDES Watcnkd Jim Patrick Chief, Permits (404) 347-30 12 

A-2 
A-3 
L 

A-4 
1 

NM NPDESWatcnbed SuspnHill (505) a273792 (505) 827XIl60 

contact 

NV NPDEswatcrsked W-W BUKSUdWaOa (702) 687-5883 (702) 885-0%68 

OK NPDESWatcskd SyIvia Ritsky (405-l 23 l-2691 (405) 23 l-269 1 

OR i$iiiWat&d AndySckdel DepuFmaQf (503) 229-6121 

cdmtixt EuvilvRl NPDES Watcrskd ALhTti Supavisor Sanibuy (4.01) 2774519 (401) 521-1230 

TX NPDES watcrskd we* Go&xl (512) 4634448 (5 12) 475-2454 

VT NF’DESWatcxhd B. Kooikcr c?lid*Disc~ (802) 241-3822 (802) 244-5141 

L CQm Fwmitlscctbn 

WA NPDEsWsmskd -wrYe (206) 4076459 

contact 

. 

WI NPDESWaoerskd sue Hopp 

A-S 
Table of State Progress and Highlights 
1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

2 

9-l-94 

Tizi 

9-1-91 

Tcr 

9-l-91 

B-2 
2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

9-30-94 

PL 

Fy 

9-l-94 

FY 95 

FY 95 

94044 

Pfzd 

Fy 

9-I-94 

FY 9s 

FY 95 

tkirI&. Rcgion3wilim#rwiththc~inJIltY1994. 

TbtRaionbmfodrstnre~ rtrmforMaryl8nd. No 
4 

4 

4 

4 

Compktbo 

SA 

N 

lT 95 

Tir 

9-1-W 

9-l-94 

9-1-W 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

9-i-94 

zzpr 

FY 95 

1STQ’l-R 

N 95 

ISTQ’IR 

m 95 

1ST QlR 

Fy 95 

FY 95 

9-1-91 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

s1-94 

9-1-94 

9-1-94 

2ND 

FY 95 

2mqrrc 

Fy 95 

2mQTF 

FY 95 

2mQTI; 

Fy 95 

ti!plmca 

FListbeodym-boriacdRcgionlvstee. Eighaalmnths 

agotbeRqioninitiatcddimssioasoont&WENwithFI+buttht 

statcwalImtillte~ FLmw cxpcususomeiaa#tin 

pur?agtkwPA~,amy~fontitumiltk~ 

ttccivu atdmiaba for the NPDES pogmm 

GAiraaivclytoga,gdinthedevdopmeaofrStpr-widcwatenbtd 

Erpmwo*- Apomidlmsuitforfdlurctodmcbp 

lI4DLsforinmairdWIOUIQYjCMd~mimxntiefortk State to 
5 

-T 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

SA 

lsrqnr 

FY 9s 

1STQ’IR 

FY 95 

9-1-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-91 

Pl-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

zir 

9-3G94 

9-3044 

9-30-94 

9-1-H 

ES 
8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

9 

10 

9-1-y 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

9-l-W 

9-1-W 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

Fy 

9-1-94 

9-l-94 

H-9) 

9-l-94 

9-1-w 

9-l-94 

9-l-94 

94-94 

Fy 

MThadevdopdaTMDLfortbeCla&Fodr:Buinformmicm. 
B-7 
Table of Iasou and Needa 
c-2 
~ctlerr Items for NPDES Watershed Strategy Impkmcntathm 
thscrlptlon 

walaahdimp6 wakda4.Mauix~anorrt Pmvidc badmhip d axdinbm to mchievr dw objmxiva of the NPD@.S 

suppat tnpbmanupian of ho NPDES Waumhai Smcgy. 
D-3 
I # I Adbn ltoma I Dorcrlptlon 

t, NPR hxitira for ti I I Divirion 

I 

mluad to NPDBS pamiu and demninc whkh luvo relovcco lo * 

intp~dtkNPDESWuuahedS~y;dov*aur~Cor 

I I 

Dofiblithof SNC b sqlpxt 

t6 wokakdImplananuicwd 

surfac4 watm Riaitier I 

which mhct rvrrld pmauioa rwodc rrd rror.,ttm SNC d&i&m 

UCdil&. 

I 

0 

D-4