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

Environmental Protection (4102) February 1996 

Agency 

Why Watersheds? 
 

INTRODUCTION 

ncreasingly, State and Tribal water resource I professionals are turning to watershed management as a means for achieving greater 

results from their programs. Why? Because 

managing water resource programs on a watershed basis makes good sense --environmentally, 

financially, and socially. 

Better Environmental Results 

Because watersheds are defined by natural 

hydrology, they represent the most logical basis 

for managing water resources. The resource 

becomes the focal point, and managers are able to 

gain a more complete understanding of overall 

conditions in an area and the stressors which 

affect those conditions. 

Traditionally, water quality iniprovements have 

focused on specific sources of pollution, such as 

sewage discharges; or specific water resources, 

such as a river segment or wetland. While this 

approach may be successful in addressing 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 stronger foundation 

for uncovering the many stressors that affect a 

watershed. The result is management better 

equipped to determine what actions are needed to 

protect or restore the resource. 

Saving Time and Money 

Besides the environmental pay-off, watershed 

approaches can have the added benefit of saving 

time and money. Whether the task is monitoring, 

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

opportunities 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 : 

The job of assuring environmental safeguards

on 1,400 dairy farms bas become much more

efficient and effective in the State ofldaho as a

result of a new working relationship 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 enforcement resources.

However, under the new arrangement, ISDA 

inspections of milk quality will be expanded to

include waste management practices. In addition,

inspectors will work to educate fanners about

water quality and how to best achieve protection.

Because all dairies are visited annually, the 

opportunity for identifying and addressing waste

management problems will be significantly 

greater. This arrangement maintains EPA· 

enforcement authority to intervene, as necessary,

in cases where public health or environmental 

quality nre at risk. .. 

Efficiency is also increased once all agencies with 

natural resource responsibilities begin to work 

together to improve copditions in a watershed. In 

its truest sense, watershed protection engages all 

partners within a watershed, including Federal, 

State, Tribal and local agencies. By coordinating 

their efforts, these agencies can complement and 

reinforce each others' activities, 

avoid duplication, and leverage 

resources to achieve greater results. 

Data collection is one activity that is 

particularly ripe for greater cooperation and coordination. For example, 

a State can reduce its own monitoring costs by factoring in the monitoring activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the National 

Resource Conservation Service. In 

addition, pennittees and other 

stakeholders that generate ambient 

monitoring data can form basin monitoring 

consortiums to pool resources and provide the 

State with greater consistency in collecting and 

reporting data. 

Greater Public Support 

Watershed protection can also lead to greater 

awareness and support from the public. Once 

individuals become aware of and interested in 

their watershed, they often become more involved

in decision-making as well as hands-on protection and restoration efforts. Through such involvement, watershed approaches build a sense of 

community, help reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the actions necessary to meet environmental goals, and ultimately, improve the likelihood of success for environmental programs. 

EPA's Role 

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

waters, EPA has opportunities to advance watershed protection. In recent years, considerable 

effort has been invested in streamlining program 

administrative requirements that hinder watershed 

approaches and in developing useful watershed 

tools and services. This publication highlights 

EPA's actions for the benefitofwaterresource 

managers interested 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 which those grants are 

meant to support. A final approved PPG will be 

the result of negotiations between the State and its 

EPA Regional Office. 

Allowances for NPDES Permit Backlogs 

EPA is allowing States that are reorienting 

programs on a watershed basis to have short-term 

backlogs on NPDES permit review --without 

penalty. This .flexibility gives States time to 

synchronize the reissuance of major and minor 

permits within a watershed. By managing 

NPDES permits on a watershed basis, all the 

permits for discharges to the waterbody can be 

coordinated and the most efficient and equitable 

allocation of pollution control responsibility can 

be made. 

Longer Cycles for NPDES Permits 

EPA suppports legislative changes to the CWA 

that would allow States who are implementing 

watershed management plans to issue NPDES 

permits for up to 10 years in place of the current 

5-year cycle. This longer cycle would reduce the 

resource burden of reissuing permits known to be 

adequately protective of human health and the 

environment 

Longer Cycles for Issuing Water 

Quality Standards 

Similarly, EPA supports legislative changes to 

the CWA that would allow States to review and 

issue water quality standards over a five-year 

timeframe in place of the current three-year cycle. 

This cycle would allow States to synchronize 

standard. review and, if appropriate, revision with 

overall watershed plans that include five-year 

cycles for monitoring and reporting. The longer 

cycle would free the States to spend more time 

and resources on higher priority activities. 

Facilitating Changes in Agency Waste 

and Pesticide Programs 

EPA is providing greater management flexibility to States in administering various media 

programs if States have Comprehensive State 

Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). 

CSGWPPs, which reflect the same principles as a 

watershed approach for surface waters, call for 

5 

States to define ground water uses, values, and 

vulnerabilities. Rather than developing separate 

plans under various environmental statutes, EPA 

is allowing the CSGWPPs to be used for priority 

setting and management purposes in other media 

efforts. For example, CSGWPPs can be used as a 

basis for selecting appropriate ground water 

clean-up remedies 

under Superfund and 

for setting priorities for 

site assessments under 

Superfund and RCRA. 

The Underground 

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 effluent trading 

and is developing a handbook to 

assist those communities that would 

like to implement trading programs 

more aggressively. By allowing . 

dischargers to take advantage of 

various economies of scale and 

treatment efficiencies, effluent 

trading can lead to a more costeffective achievement of water 

quality goals. Estimated cost savings for the regulated community 

range from the hundreds of millions 

to the billions of dollars. EPA 

recognizes that watershed management plans are an essential step in developing and 

implementing effluent trading programs. 

Effluent trading requires a complete understanding of all pollution sources affecting a watershed, 

and a watershed management plan is the most 

logical means for generating this type of information. EPA issued its trading policy in January 

1996 and expects to release a draft handbook later 

in the 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 '