General Introduction
The use of the watershed approach has emerged as the most cost-effective and logical approach to water resource management. There is a clear inter-relationship of the pollution sources within a watershed that demands an inter-related approach to a solution. The heart of the success of a watershed protection and/or restoration effort is the development of a sound watershed management plan for a specific watershed.

Nationally, the minimum elements of a watershed management plan have not been defined through any consensus fashion to date. Those elements may emerge over time as more experience is gained in implementing the watershed approach. The most definitive effort to define the steps needed to address degraded uses was by the USEPA's Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. In succinct summary, the TMDL FAC stated that the ultimate goal is the expeditious attainment of water quality standards including designated uses. They addressed all of the factors needed to achieve water quality standards including the physical, chemical and biological elements. They recognized there may be less certainty about how to restore water quality and uses in a waterbody and that an iterative approach will assure progress toward water quality standard attainment.

The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project (Rouge Project) working with the 48 communities and 3 Counties in the Rouge Watershed has explored the concept of developing and implementing watershed management plans that will fulfill the elements of an approvable TMDL. Therefore, upon approval of the watershed management plan by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and EPA, the plan will constitute an approved TMDL.

The following presents background information to put the above concept in context of the national program.

Background
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, most water pollution control programs have stressed the application of specific programs to address the various types of water pollution problems. The list of such programs is quite long. For example, the NPDES program focused on discharges from point sources-mainly sewage treatment plants and industries. These baseline programs have dramatically reduced water pollution and need to be maintained, and in some cases, expanded. Strengthening these baseline programs such as the non-point source program is critical to making sure that rivers, lakes, and coastal waters stay clean or are restored as needed.

There is a growing recognition of the need to seriously focus on the use of a watershed approach to addressing water quality problems. Volumes have been written on watershed approach and its strengths and weaknesses. That information will not be summarized here. Suffice it to say, use of the watershed approach has several major benefits. In February 1998, President Clinton issued the "Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters". A key element in the Action Plan is the cooperative approach using the concept of watershed protection activities. Quoting from the Clean Water Action Plan:

• A watershed approach fosters the coordinated and more efficient implementation of programs to control point source discharges, reduce polluted runoff, enhance sensitive natural resources such as wetlands and coastal waters, and protect drinking water supplies.
• A watershed approach highlights opportunities to go beyond reducing chemical contamination of water to find creative ways to enhance the overall health of the aquatic system in a watershed.
• Watershed management fosters greater accountability and involvement from the public, private landowners, and businesses who, in the end, directly implement measures to reduce polluted runoff.
• A watershed focus also helps identify the most cost-effective pollution control strategies to meet clean water goals.
• A watershed approach is often the most practical and effective way to solve multiple problems and meet diverse water quality objectives.

The Clean Water Action Plan calls for states, tribes, federal agencies, and others to affirmatively engage watershed management as a core, guiding principle for water quality management.

It is appropriate to present some background information on several programs that must become integral parts of any tie between the use of a watershed management plan and a TMDL. Those include the TMDL program, the tie between the Clean Water Action Plan and TMDLs, the water quality standards program, the TMDL Federal Advisory Committee efforts, the MDEQ General Storm Water Permit, and the elements of what constitutes a watershed management plan. Those are all discussed below in brief fashion.

The TMDL Program and the Watershed Approach
For waters identified as not meeting water quality standards, the Clean Water Act requires States and tribes to develop and implement TMDLs as the approach to restore the water quality. In briefest summary the TMDL sets the pollution loading reduction goals for the water body. Once the overall reduction targets are set, the responsibility for attaining the targets is assigned to point source dischargers, and other sources of pollution, including polluted runoff, in the form of wasteload/load allocations for the water body. States and tribes are required to submit TMDLs (including wasteload and load allocations and a margin of safety) to EPA for approval. EPA establishes the lists, priority rankings, and TMDLs where the Agency disapproves a State submission.

As far back as 1991, in its document titled "Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: the TMDL Process" USEPA recognized the tie between TMDLs and the watershed approach. It says on page 4, "However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in some situations water quality standards-particularly designated uses and biocriteria-can only be attained if non-chemical factors such as hydrology, channel morphology, and habitat are also addressed. EPA recognizes that it is appropriate to use the TMDL process to establish control measures for quantifiable non-chemical parameters that are preventing the attainment of water quality standards. Control measures, in this case, would be developed and implemented to meet a TMDL that addresses these parameters in a manner similar to chemical loads. As methods are developed to address these problems, EPA and the States will incorporate them into the TMDL process." That same document recognized the use of the phased approach to the development and implementation of TMDLs. It says on page 22, "Under the phased approach, the TMDL has LAs and WLAs calculated with margins of safety to meet water quality standards. The allocations are based on estimates which use available data and information, but monitoring for collection of new data is required. The phased approach provides for further pollution reduction without waiting for new data collection and analysis. The margin of safety developed for the TMDL under the phased approach should reflect the adequacy of data and the degree of uncertainty about the relationship between load allocations and receiving water quality."

In summary, the TMDL therefore can specify the amount of pollution or other stressors that need to be reduced to meet water quality standards, and can allocate pollution control or management responsibilities among sources in a watershed.

The Clean Water Action Plan and TMDLs
The Clean Water Action Plan proposes that, for those watersheds identified as having the greatest need for restoration, States and tribes should develop a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for that watershed. The following summarizes how the Clean Water Action Plan ties to the TMDL requirements of the Clean Water Act.

In most cases, the development of TMDLs and wasteload allocations for specific impaired waters within the watershed will form the core of a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. By taking a watershed approach, however, States and tribes will be able to consolidate existing efforts to address problems on specific water bodies. By developing response plans on a "watershed" scale, rather than a smaller "water body" scale (as used historically in the TMDL program), States and tribes will be able to better account for cumulative effects of diffuse pollution sources and for pollution in one river segment that comes from upstream segments.

Use of the concept of developing Watershed Restoration Action Strategies can be a smarter, more effective and cost-efficient way to implement TMDLs and wasteload/load allocations. The TMDL process is generally used to address violations of chemical standards in rivers and streams. A Watershed Strategy creates an opportunity to bundle TMDLs, to strike an appropriate balance between controls over discharges and polluted runoff, and to consider other water-related problems in the watershed, including wetland loss, sediment contamination, aquatic species habitat degradation, drinking water protection, and health of riparian areas. By taking a more comprehensive approach to restoring the health of the aquatic system in the watershed, a Watershed Strategy can result in improvements in environmental conditions that are mutually reinforcing, with higher long-term success rates. Water bodies impaired by polluted runoff in most instances will require a watershed-wide effort to achieve the necessary restoration and clean water goals. Development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies is also an opportunity to identify and demonstrate innovative approaches to restoring water quality and protecting public health and the environment.

A water quality restoration effort on a watershed scale, rather than river segment scale, also offers citizens and other stakeholders better opportunities to participate in a water management process that is understandable and meaningful. Watershed Restoration Action Strategies should specifically identify funding needed to implement actions.

Development of aquatic system restoration strategies on a watershed basis is a chance to meet the existing obligations of the current Clean Water Act and other federal laws in a cost-effective and common sense manner. Nothing in the current law requires a watershed approach to addressing water quality problems, but federal agencies want to offer incentives to develop Watershed Restoration Action Strategies.

Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses
At the heart of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water Action Plan, and their subset programs is undertaking those actions necessary to meet water quality standards and the related designated uses. The most important water quality standard is meeting public health protection criteria. Instituting the control programs needed to meet public health criteria is technologically fairly straightforward. However, meeting the aquatic life designated use is more complex. This requires some discussion because of the tie between use of the watershed approach and achieving water quality standards.

At present the State designates an aquatic life use, usually expressed as a fishery use. In almost all cases that designation is established as the endpoint of the final water quality standard to be met. It assumes that if the designated water quality is met, the full range of aquatic life will be achieved. Often that is not a valid assumption.

The quality and quantity of aquatic life, especially any freshwater fishery, is closely tied to the environmental conditions of the water body in question and the surrounding lands that drain into it (i.e., the watershed). Physical, chemical, and biological factors in both the waterbody and the watershed act in concert to control the numbers and types of fish. For example, low dissolved oxygen in the water is influenced by many factors including stream channel morphology, water temperature, organic pollution, and microbial respiration. Furthermore, the connections between the health of a fishery and the health of its watershed are apparent at all stages of a fish's life cycle. For example, fish may spawn in riparian wetlands, feed on macroinvertebrates in riffle areas as larvae and in near-shore weed beds as juveniles, and on other fish in open-water lake environments as adults. Serious disruption of any of the physical, chemical, or biological attributes of any of these habitats at any point in a fish's life cycle may jeopardize the survival of the species.

For these reasons, maintaining a suitable fishery requires management of both a water body and its watershed. Management of any natural resource has two components- protection and restoration. Watershed protection- those actions which prevent degradation of the physical, chemical, and biological components of the watershed-is the most cost-effective and long-term approach to watershed management. Maintaining a sustainable fishery in many watersheds, however, often involves restoring some degraded or missing attribute important to fish survival. These could include a specific habitat important at some point in a fish's lifecycle, or some aspect of water quality or water quantity such as dissolved oxygen or the seasonal water flow regime.

In summary, the designated uses assigned to a waterbody must not ignore the balance between the physical, chemical, or biological conditions needed for the specific species of fish to be protected, i.e., warm water or cold-water.

The TMDL Federal Advisory Committee
For a number of reasons, the States and EPA had not used the TMDL program very much for several years. As a result, a number of lawsuits were filed against EPA and some States. Those lawsuits increased the focus on the TMDL program. As part of that increased focus, the USEPA created a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) to advise EPA on ways to improve and strengthen the TMDL program. The TMDL FAC delved into the TMDL program in a very comprehensive manner through extensive public meetings and discussions. They issued their final report in May 1998.

The TMDL FAC identified 6 key principles that guided their discussions.

1. Restoring impaired waters must be a high priority for all responsible agencies and sources.
2. Implementing TMDLs is the key to program success.
3. Communication with the public is critical.
4. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL program is a key to successful implementation.
5. Governments' capacity to carry out the TMDL program needs to be strengthened significantly.
6. In case of uncertainty, an iterative approach to TMDL development and implementation will assure progress toward water quality standards attainment.

This FAC addressed the above issues in their report to EPA. In succinct summary, the TMDL FAC stated that the ultimate goal is the expeditious attainment of water quality standards. They addressed all of the factors needed to achieve water quality standards including the physical, chemical and biological elements. They recognized there may be less certainty about how to restore water quality and uses in a waterbody and that an iterative approach will assure progress toward water quality standard attainment. They stated in their report the following: "Lack of certainty is not an excuse for inaction. Rather, it is a reason to use the best possible data readily available on each impaired water and then to take a reasonable, balanced, scientifically defensible, iterative approach to setting goals and implementing actions to achieve standards. States should set goals and develop implementation plans based on reliable existing data, provide for additional data gathering and monitoring of results achieved, assess the need for revision according to specified schedules, and revise goals and implementation plans as appropriate."

The FAC recommended several key items to make the TMDL process more logical and workable. Some of them are summarized below:

• Quantitative rigor is important but a "hierarchy approach" may be followed using the "next-best" approach.
• Use the principle of "inverse proportionality" in TMDL development. In other words, where you have less quantitative rigor, the TMDL must contain a higher degree of implementation specificity and frequent/detailed evaluation of progress.
• Use of "best professional judgment" in developing TMDLs is okay.
• Where impairment is tied to a pollutant for which numeric criterion is not possible or where an impairment cannot be tied to a single pollutant, use surrogate measures for TMDL development.
• The quantified allocation of pollution may be expressed using units of measure other than daily loads. (The committee specifically referenced storm-driven flows as an example)
• Actions such as control actions and/or management measures are useful elements of the TMDL implementation process and should be used.
• In order to address uncertainty, the iterative or adaptive approach should be used tied to follow-up monitoring and evaluation and corrective actions.

The TMDL FAC spent considerable time defining the necessary components of a TMDL. They addressed and defined the interrelated components needed to appropriately develop and implement a TMDL and hence achieve water quality standard and designated uses. Those steps as defined by the TMDL FAC are briefly summarized as follows:

1. Target identification: determining the pollution of concern, and quantifying the target (or desired end-point(s)) of the TMDL process.
2. Identification of current deviation from the target: quantifying the degree to which conditions in the waterway deviate from the desired target, and the pollution load that must be reduced to meet the target;
3. Source identification: identifying the responsible sources, or categories of sources, of the pollution of concern, and quantifying the degree to which each source (or source category) contributes to the problem;
4. Allocation of pollution loads: setting quantified pollution reduction responsibilities (emphasis added) among the identified sources, along with a quantified margin of safety, any allocation for future growth, seasonal variations, and, if necessary, other factors to address variable flow conditions;
5. Implementation plan: specifying and quantifying control actions and implementation tools, methods, and authorities that will be used to achieve the allocations and eliminate the impairment, in addition to schedules and milestones for implementing the called-for actions, evaluating the TMDL (see (f) below), and correcting the TMDL (see (g) below) if the TMDL is found to be ineffective.
6. Process for follow-up monitoring and assessment of effectiveness: determining the degree of use attainment, remaining variance from the target, compliance with implementation plan, and the accuracy of sources and source contributions identified in the TMDL; and
7. Process for TMDL revision: describing how the TMDL will be modified and/or revised to ensure water quality standards are met, in response to follow-up monitoring and evaluation results.

Important items addressed and recommended by the TMDL FAC are the concepts of "hierarchy approach" and the principle of "inverse proportionality". This "hierarchy approach" allows TMDLs to be developed that will meet water quality standards for all Section 303(d)-listed waters, despite the fact that TMDLs may vary in the degree to which they can be quantified. The principle of "inverse proportionality" is applied in determining the degree of rigor or specificity needed in various TMDL components. For TMDLs that contain relatively less rigor in components a-d listed above, relatively more specificity or rigor is needed in components e through g, although some minimum, reasonable degree of quantification and progress can be measured. For example, TMDLs that contain less quantitative rigor in the target identification component must contain a higher degree of implementation specificity, and more frequent/detailed provisions for follow-up evaluation and potential revision. All implementation plans must be sufficiently detailed to lead to attainment of water quality standards.

EPA's TMDL Program
The recommendations of the TMDL FAC were used to guide the development of proposed changes to the TMDL regulations, which EPA issued in draft in August, 1999. After a long comment period, hundreds of meetings and conference calls, much debate, and the Agency's review and serious consideration of over 34,000 comments, the final rule was published on July 13, 2000. However, Congress added a "rider" to one of their appropriations bills that prohibits EPA from spending FY2000 and FY2001 money to implement this new rule.

The current TMDL rule remains in effect until 30 days after Congress permits EPA to implement the new rule. TMDLs continue to be developed and completed under the current rule, as required by the 1972 law and many court orders. The regulations that currently apply are those that were issued in 1985 and amended in 1992 (40 CFR Part 130, section 130.7). These regulations mandate that States, territories, and authorized tribes list impaired and threatened waters and develop TMDLs.

The EPA has an extensive discussion of the TMDL program on the Agency's web site. The new TMDL regulations can be accessed thorough that site location plus extensive information about the status of the program nationwide.

A Watershed Management Plan
In numerous documents and policy statements, the most comprehensive of those being the Clean Water Action Plan, the EPA has stressed using new initiatives to promote water resource management on a watershed basis. The heart of the success of a watershed protection and/or restoration effort would be the development of a sound watershed management plan for a specific watershed. There is a clear inter-relationship of the pollution sources within a watershed that demands an inter-related approach to a solution. In order to achieve water quality standards and associated designated uses within a watershed, it has become abundantly clear that pollution management must be addressed in a holistic fashion that considers the inter-relationship between the impacts from all sources of pollution and other use impairments in a receiving water. A piecemeal approach of focusing only on sources of pollution or a group of sources will not achieve the desired results nor will it achieve the acceptance of the residents of the watershed. It is mandatory to analyze all of the various sources of stressors to the water quality problems in a watershed-physical, chemical and biological-and decide how to get a handle on the priority of dealing with those problems. It is critical to establish a hierarchy of pollution sources in a watershed-point sources and nonpoint sources-based upon the adverse water quality impacts of those sources. It is equally important to keep reinforcing, at a watershed level, the concept of prioritizing the control of those sources and the other stressors to get desired environmental protection. It may take a long time to correct some of these pollution sources or other physical, chemical or biological stressors so it is important to prioritize the control programs to get the maximum environmental improvement as soon as possible. It also is critical to assess the cumulative watershed impacts to quantitatively assess the physical, chemical and biological processes and then fashion the watershed-based solutions. Before river restoration can be completed, it is critical to understand the cause of stream disturbance and disequilibrium conditions. Without this understanding, the restoration often treats the symptoms rather than effecting a cure. The tools needed to solve water quality problems in a watershed must be geared to that watershed. The management plan that is developed must be tailored to address watershed specific problems.

MDEQ General Storm Water Permit
The MDEQ issued a statewide, watershed-based, general NPDES storm water permit on July 30, 1997 which incorporates the following elements:

• Coverage is voluntary until the final EPA Phase 2 storm water regulations are promulgated in 1999; only public agencies are provided the opportunity for coverage;
• Minimum requirements include a program to identify and address improper sanitary connections to the storm sewer system and failing on-site septic systems, and a storm water education program targeted to homeowners and businesses to change practices that contribute to water pollution;
• Long-term subwatershed storm water management plans must be developed with an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in establishing goals, action plans, and in evaluating results;
• A pollution prevention plan and schedule of actions of each public entity seeking coverage is required which documents those activities to be implemented within the first five year permit term; and
• The subwatershed storm water management plans developed by the communities and other public agencies do not require state approval; however, the individual pollution prevention plans emanating from the watershed planning process require state approval.

Elements of a Watershed Management Plan
Nationally, the minimum elements of a watershed management plan have not been defined through any consensus fashion to date. Those elements may emerge over time as more experience is gained in implementing the watershed approach.

The most definitive effort to define the steps needed to address degraded uses was by the TMDL FAC. As stated earlier, the heart of the success of any watershed protection and/or restoration effort would be the development of a sound watershed management plan. The elements listed by the TMDL FAC in items a-g listed above could provide a good framework for defining the minimum elements to be included in a sound watershed management plan. In fact, by substituting the words "watershed management plan" wherever the acronym "TMDL" appears in items a-g above, a sound framework for a watershed management plan emerges.

Please address all comments and suggestions about the contents of this Web page to rougeweb@co.wayne.mi.us.

The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project is funded, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grants #XP995743-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -08 and C-264000-01.