United States Office of Water EPA800-F-96-001

Environmenta l Protection (4102) February 1996

Agency 

# Why Watersheds?

INTRODUCTION

ncreasi ngly, State and Tribal water resource 

# I

professional s are turning to watershed man

agement as a means for achieving greater

results from their programs. Why? Because

managing water r esource programs on a watershed basis makes good se n se --env ironmentally,

financially, and socially

.



### Better Environmental Results

Because watersheds are defined by natural

hydrology, they repre sent the most logical basis

for managing water resources. The re source

becom es the focal point, and managers are able to

gain a more complete understanding of overall

conditions in an area and the stressors which

affect those conditions.

Traditionally, water quality iniprovements have

focused on specific sources of pollution, such as

sewage discharges; or specific water re sources,

such as a river segment or wetland. While this

approach may be successful in addressing specific problems

, it often fails to address the more subtle and chronic problems that contribute to a

watershed's decline. For example, pollution from

a sewage treatment plant might be reduced

significantly after a new technology is installed,

· and yet the local river may still suffer 

### if other



### North Carolina was able to monitor

nearly 40 percent more waters with the

same level of effort after monitoring

was conducted on a more coordinated

watershed basis.

factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruction or polluted runoff, go unaddressed. Watershed management can offer a stro ng er foundation

for uncovering the many stressors that affect a

watershed. The result is management better

equipped to determine what actions are needed to

protect or restore the resource.



### Saving Time and Money

Besides the environmental pay-off, watershed

approaches can have the added benefit of saving

time and money. Whether the task is monitoring,

modelling, issuing permits, or reporting, a watershed framework offers many

opportunitie s to simplify and

streamline the workload. For

example, synchronizing monitoring schedules so that all monitoring within a given area (i.e., a

watershed) occurs within the

same time frame can eliminate

duplicative trips and greatly

reduce travel costs. North Carolina was able to monitor nearly 40

percent more waters with the

same level of effort after monitor-

. ing was conducted on a more

coordinated watershed basis

.

. 

# .

### Improving Environmental

Management on Idaho Dairies : 

# T h e job of 

### assuring environme n tal 

### safeguards

on 1,400 dairy farm s b as become much more

efficient and effective in the State ofldaho as 

## a

result of a new working re l ationship between

.. EPA, the State Departments of Environmental

Quality (IDEQ) and Agriculture (ISD A ),

, and the

Idaho Dairy Association. Historically, EPA has

. .. only managed to inspect about 5 percent 

## of

dairies with its limited enfo r cement resources.

However, under the new arrangement, ISDA

inspections of milk quality will be 

### expanded to

include waste management practices. In ad d ition,

in s pe ctors will work t o educate fanners about

water quality and how to best achieve protection.

Because a ll dairies are visited annually, the

opport u nity for i d e ntifying and addressing 

### waste

management problems will be significantly

greate r. This arrangement maintains EPA ·

enforcement authority to intervene, as 

### necessary,

in cases where public health or environmental

quality nre at risk.

..

Efficiency i s also in creased once all agencies with

natural r esource respon si bilitie s begin to work

together to improve c opditions in a watershed. In

its truest sense, watershed protection engages all

partners within a watershed, inc luding Federal,

State, Tribal and local agen cies

. B y coordinating

their efforts, these age n cies can comp l emen t and

reinforce each others' activities,

avoid duplication, and lever age

resources to achieve greater results.

Data collection is one activity that i s

particularly ripe for greater cooperation and coo rdination. For examp le,

a State can reduce its own monitoring costs by factoring in the monitoring activities of the U. S

. En vironmental Protection Age n cy (EPA),

th e U.S. Geol og i cal Survey, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and the National

Resource Conservation Se rvice. In

addition, 

### pe nnitt ees and o th e r

stakeholders that generate ambient monitoring data can form basin monitoring

consortiums to pool res ources and provide the

State with g reat e r consistency in collecting and

reporting data.



### Greater Public Support

Watershed protection can also lead to greate r

awareness and support from th e public. Once

individuals become aware of and int erested in

their watershed, they often become more involved

in decision

- making as well as hands-on protec

tion and restoration efforts. Through such involvement

, wate rs hed approac h es buil d a sense of

comm unity, help reduce conflicts, increase commitmen t to the actions neces sary t o meet envir on

mental goals, and ultimate l y, improve the likelihood of success for environmental pro grams.



### EPA's Rol e

As the primary Federal agency with responsibility for protecting and restoring the nation's

waters, EPA ha s opportunities to advance watershed protection

. In recent years, considerable

effort has been invested in strea mlining program

administrative requirements that hinder watershed

approaches and in deve l oping u se ful waters hed

tools and services. Thi s publication highlights

EPA's actions for the benefitofwaterresource

managers intere sted in adopting watershed

approaches more broadly.

2

# STREAMLINING

Reducing Reporting Requirements

EPA and the States are transitioning to a fiveyear, watershed-based monitoring and reporting

cycle to replace the two-year Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section 305(b) cycle now in effect. Under

this scheme, States identify their waterbodies and

assess water quality conditions in all watersheds

over a five-year period. Each year, core information would be electronically reported for those

watersheds assessed according to the State's

schedule; a report characterizing conditions in the

entire State would be produced every five years

and aggregated into a national report.

EPA anticipates that this change will give States

greater freedom to concentrate on monitoring and

assessing watershed conditions and will reduce

the time spent on reporting, resulting in a more

comprehensive assessment of national water

quality conditions.

The first five-year cycle will begin in 1996, and

the resulting National 305 (b) report will be

released in 2002. In the interim, States will

provide annual water quality updates to EPA via

the modernized STORET data base.



### Simplifying Wetlands Permitting

States can use watershed planning to help

simplify the CWA Section 404 wetlands regulatory program in several ways. First, Advanced

Identifications or similar watershed planning tools

can identify areas within the watershed as either

suitable or unsuitable for development, improving

the predicitability of permitting decisions. Second, watershed plans can lead to greater use of

general permitting. General permits substantially

decrease the time necessary for individual permit

review. The CWA allows use of general permits

to authorize activities that have only minor individual or cummulative environmental impacts.

Impacts can be evaluated best when a complete

understanding of all resources and conditions

within the watershed is available. Third, watershed plans can facilitate collective

wetlands permitting procedures among government agencies. Such collective permitting allows

local, State, regional, and federal permitting to be

processed in tandem to avoid duplicative requirements and unnecessary delays.



# PROVIDING FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE

EPA is administering CWA grant programs in

ways that encourage watershed protection.



### Nonpoint Source Grants

EPA has changed the nonpoint source grants

program (CWA Section 319) to provide more

flexibility to States to focus on high priorities

within watersheds. Under new guidance currently being developed by EPA in close cooperation with the States, each State would identify

waters and their watersheds that are impaired by

nonpoint source pollution and identify important

unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk because of nonpoint sources. Each

State would establish a process to progressively

address these identified waters by developing

more detailed watershed assessments and watershed implementation plans and then begin implementing the plans. States can use Section 319

funds to support these activities.



### State Revolving Fund Loans

EPA is working with the States to determine

how the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) (CWA

Section 604(b)(3)) can be used to better support

watershed protection activities. Traditionally the

SRF has been used to finance municipal sewage

treatment plant projects. However, in recent

years, States have been using the SRF to fund a

variety of other water quality projects including

nonpoint source, estuary, habitat restoration, and

storm water projects.

EPA and the States are currently negotiating a

framework to improve planning and priority

3 'setting and clarify eligibilities under the SRF

program. The framework, if adopted, would

make it possible for States to expand their flexibility even further 

### in making SRF funding decisions while ensuring that critical State water

quality objectives continue to be addressed.



### Watershed Planning Grants

States may use funds from their CWA Section

604(b) planning grants to develop a state watershed planning framework and individual watershed plans and to conduct assessments of environmental conditions that are essential to effective

watershed planning.



### National Estuary Program Grants

EPA, under CWA Section 320, provides

substantial financial and technical resources

through the National Estuary Program (NEP) to

help protect and restore valuable estuarine watersheds. Once selected, these areas receive Federal

funding for three to five years to support a consensus-based management process that includes

representatives of major stakeholders. The

process includes technical and management

characterizations of the estuary and its watershed;

identification of pollutant sources, impacts, and

trends; and then the establishment of priorities for actions to correct those problems identified.

NEPs also receive support to demonstrate implementation of these actions. The NEP is often

regarded as a model for how to implement a

watershed management.approach, and areas

developing or implementing watershed plans have

an advantage when competing for designation in

the program.



# PROVIDING GREATER

FLEXIBILITY

Increased Grant Flexibility

In FY 1996, if authorized by Congress, EPA

will begin to offer Performance Partnership

Grants (PPGs) to eligible States and Tribes. A

PPG is a multi-program grant made to a State or

Tribal agency from funds otherwise available for

categorical grant programs. PPGs are intended to

provide States and Tribes with greater flexibility

to address their highest environmental priorities,

improve environmental performance, achieve

administrative savings, and strengthen partnerships between EPA and the States or Tribes.

A State or Tribe can combine funds from two or

more of sixteen categorical,

environmental grant programs into one or more

PPGs. PPGs can fund any

activity that is within the

cumulative eligibilities of the

16 categorical grant programs.

Through PPGs, States can

combine funding from eligible grants to target high

priority problems and address

multi-media problems within

the States' watersheds. States

that combine categorical

grants into PPGs must continue to address the core

4 'program requirements whic h th o se grants are

meant to s u pport

. A final approved P PG will b e

the res ul t of negotiations betwee n th e S tate and its

EPA R egional Office.



### Allowanc es for N PDES Permit Backlog s

EPA 

### is allowing States that are reorienting

programs on a watershed basis to h ave short-term

backlogs on NPDES permit rev i ew 

### --without

penalty. This .flexibility gives Sta te s time to

s ync hr onize th e reissuance of major and minor

p e rmi ts within a watershed. B y m ana ging

NP D ES permi t s o n 

### a w a t ers h e d bas is

, all th e

p e rmit s for di scharges to the water bod y can be

coor din ate d and th e most efficie nt and e qui table

allocation of pollution control res po nsi b ility c an

be made.



### Longer Cycles for N PDES Permits

EPA s u ppports legislative changes t o th e CWA

that would allow Sta t es w h o are imple m e nti ng

watershed management pl ans to issue NP D ES

permits fo r u p to 1 0 year s in place of the current

5

- year cycle. This longer c ycle would reduce the

re so urce burden of rei ssuing permits known to be adeq u ately protective of human he alth and th e

e n viro nm e n t



### Long e

r Cycle s

for I ss uing Water

Quality 

### Standard s

Similarly, EPA s upports legislative c h ange s to

the CWA that would allow States to review and

issue water qu ality standards over a fi ve

- year

timeframe in place of the current three-year cycle.

This cycle woul d a ll ow States to sync hr onize

s t andard. review and, if appropriate, revision with

ove r all watershed plans that inclu d e five

- year

cycles fo r monitoring and reporting. The l on ger

cyc l e wo ul d free the States to spe nd mo re time



### and r eso ur ces o n higher priority activ iti es.



### F

acilitating Chang es in Agency Waste

and Pesticide Programs

EPA is p r ovidi n g greater manage m en t fl exib il

ity to States in admini s tering vario u s media

programs if State s ha ve Comp r ehensive State

Gro u nd W ater Protection Programs (CSG WP Ps).

CSGWPPs, which reflect the s ame princ i ples as a

watershed approach for surface waters

, call for

5States to define ground water uses, values, and

vulnerabilities. Rather than developing separate

plans under various environmental statutes, EPA

is allowing the CSGWPPs to be used for priority

setting and management purposes in other media

efforts. For example, CSGWPPs can be used as a

basis for selecting appropriate ground water

clean-up remedies

under Superfund and

for setting priorities for

site assessments under

Superfund and RCRA.

The Underground

Storage Tank Program

is using CSGWPPs in

making decisions about inspections and enforcement priorities and actions.



### Avoidi1zg Filtration of Drinking

Water Supplies

The Surface Water Treatment Rule requires

public water systems to filter their water supplies

to remove pathogenic microbiological contaminants. However, if a water supply meets certain

source water quality criteria and the community

has a watershed program in place that sufficiently

protects against these contaminants, EPA allows

exemptions from the filtration requirements.

Public water suppliers that qualify for these

exemptions can avoid the expense of constructing

and operating filtration plants. Over 100 large

cities and smaller towns have already taken

advantage of this flexibility to avoid the expenses of filtration, while implementing comprehensive

watershed protection programs.



### Less Monitoring Under Safe Drinking

Water Act

EPA has modified drinking water monitoring

and reporting requirements

to allow States to grant

waivers from those requirements if an assessment of

risks in the watershed

demonstrates that contamination by certain pollutants

is unlikely. Communities

that receive waivers can reduce their monitoring

and reporting costs by 50-90 percent. State

agencies also realize savings because their

oversight costs are reduced.



### F acilitati'ng Use of Wetlands

Mitigation Banks

EPA, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, has published guidance on how to establish

and operate mitigation banks for wetlands. When

established within the context of a watershed

management plan, these banks can help communities balance the need for development with the

need for effective wetlands protection. By

establishing an overall watershed plan, communities can expect greater success with compensatory mitigation projects and a faster, simpler

permitting process. 

### Over 100 

### large cities and smaller towns

have already taken advantage of this

flexibility [in the Surface Water Treatment Rule] to avoid the expenses of

filtration, while implementing comprehensive watershed protection programs.

6 '

### Facilitating 

### Use of

Effluent Trading

EPA has endorsed effl uent trading

and i s developing a handbook to

as s ist those communities that would

like 

### to implement trading programs

more aggr es sively

. By allowing

. di s charger s to take advantage of

variou s economies of scale and

treatment efficien ci e s

, effluent

trading can l ead to a more co s t

effective achievement of water

quality goal s

. E s timated co s t s a ving s for th e regulated community

range from the hun dre d s of milli o ns

t o the billions of dollars. EPA

recognizes that watershed mana geme n t p l ans are an es s en tial step in developing and

implementing effluent tradi n g programs.

Effluent trading req u ire s a complete under standing of all p o lluti on s our ces affecting a watershed, and a w a ter s hed management plan i s the m os t

logical mean s for g enerating thi s 

### type of informa

tion. EPA i ss ued it s trading policy in Janu ary

1996 and expec ts to release a draft handbook later

in th e year

.

· 7

# FOR MORE INFORMATION

305(b) Report

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

U.S. EPA (4503F)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7040

(202) 260-1977 (FAX)



### Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Banking

Wetlands Division

U.S. EPA (4502F)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7791

(202) 260-2356 (FAX)



### General Wetlands Issues

Wetlands Information Hotline

(800) 832-7828



### Nonpoint Source Grants

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

U.S. EPA (4503F)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7040

(202) 260-7024 (FAX)



### State Revolving Fund and 604(b) Grants

Municipal Support Division

U.S. EPA (4204)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7359

(202) 260-1827 (FAX)



### National Estuary Program

Oceans and Coastal Protection Division

U.S. EPA (4504F)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-1952

(202) 260-9960 (FAX) 

### Performance Partnership Grants

Office of Water

U.S. EPA (4101)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-5700

(202) 260-5711 (FAX)



### NPDES Permits

Permits Division

U.S. EPA (4203)

401 M Str,eet, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-9545

(202) 260-1460 (FAX)



### Water Quality Standards

Standards and Applied Science Division

U.S. EPA (4305)

401 M Str,eet, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7301

(202) 260-9830 (FAX)



### CSGWPP and Source Water Protection

Ground Water Protection Division

U.S. EPA (4602)

401 M Str,eet, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7077

(202) 260-0732 (FAX)



### Safe Drinking Water Act Monitoring

Drinking Water Implementation Divsion

U.S. EPA (4604)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-3874

(202) 260-3464 (FAX)



### Effluent Trading

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

U.S. EPA (4503F)

401 M Str,eet, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7040

(202) 260-7024 (FAX)



### 8 '