December 5,
2001
·
Integrated Water
Quality Assessment and Monitoring---For the
first time, EPA is providing states and tribes with guidance for integrating
their development and submission of 305(b) water quality reports and 303(d)
lists of impaired waters. The
November 21 guidance calls for states and tribes to submit a 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Report by October 1, 2002.
That report should include a delineation of water quality assessment
units (AUs); status of and progress toward achieving comprehensive assessments
of all waters; water quality standard attainment status for every AU; basis for
the water quality standard attainment determinations; additional monitoring that
may be needed to determine water quality standard attainment status and support
development of TMDLs; schedules for additional monitoring; pollutant/AU
combinations still requiring TMDLs; and TMDL development schedules reflecting
the priority ranking of each pollutant/AU combination. EPA’s new guidance memo explains that
all of this information was requested in previous guidance, with the exception
of the monitoring schedules and delineation of AUs. “The data and information
will simply be arrayed in a different manner in the 2002 integrated
report.” The request for monitoring
schedules in this guidance is in direct response to recommendations from the
National Research Council (NRC). In
its 2001 report to Congress on TMDLs, the NRC emphasized the importance of state
monitoring programs. While the
Clean Water Act requires that all waters be assessed every two years, EPA has
indicated, “it is not necessary nor practicable for states and territories to do
site-specific monitoring of all waters to be able to make such an assessment of
all waters.” Instead EPA encourages
states and territories to use a probabilistic monitoring design. The guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2002wqma.pdf.
·
Confined Animal
Feeding Operations---In the November 21 Federal Register, EPA published a Notice
of Data Availability regarding its proposed regulations for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs). EPA had
published a proposal to revise and update two CAFO regulations on January 12,
2001. The November 21 notice makes available for public review new data and
information submitted to EPA during the public comment period on its January
2001 proposal and describes how EPA intends to use the data in developing its
final CAFO regulations. The
proposed regulations in question include a) the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) provisions defining which operations are CAFOs and
establishing permit requirements and b) the Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(ELGs) for feedlots, which establish technology-based effluent discharge
standards for CAFOs. In particular,
the November 21 notice seeks comments on the proposed ELG requirements, EPA’s
cost and economics model, EPA’s nutrient loading and benefits model, and the
proposed NPDES requirements.
Comments are due by January 15, 2002. Additional information and the Federal Register notice are available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/noda.cfm?program_id=7.
·
Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring---EPA recently
published guidance on how public water systems, analytical laboratories, states,
and EPA offices should report results of monitoring done under the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR).
The guidance describes what information must be reported to EPA and how
those data are to be reported. It
also describes the reporting obligations of public water systems to their
consumers. The guidance issued in
November 2001 is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/reporting_guidance.pdf.
·
Cooling Water
Intake Structures---On November 9, 2001, EPA
established standards for the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures at new facilities. The regulations are intended to minimize
the adverse impacts that such intakes can have on fish or other aquatic
organisms that may be impinged on intake screens or entrained into cooling
systems where they may be subject to thermal, physical, and chemical
stresses. The new rule is projected
to affect 121 facilities to be built over the next 20 years. Regulations for existing electric
generating plants will be developed in the next rulemaking phase. Additional background information and
the final rule are available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/316b/.
·
Aquatic
Nuisance Species---In the November 21 Federal Register, the U.S. Coast Guard
published its final regulations, pursuant to the National Invasive Species Act
of 1996, for controlling the invasion of aquatic nuisance species. In particular, the rule finalizes
regulations for the Great Lakes ecosystem and voluntary ballast water management
guidelines for all other waters of the United States, including mandatory
reporting for nearly all vessels entering waters of the United States. Additional information is available on
the Coast Guard web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/mso4/bwbrochure.html#records.
·
H.R.
3255 “Bioterrorism
Protection Act”---Addresses a wide range of issues
related to bioterrorism prevention and response. Authorizes the following water supply
safety spending: $66.0 million in
FY 02 for EPA to assess the vulnerability of drinking water supplies and
wastewater treatment systems to chemical, biological, and radiological attacks;
directs EPA to review drinking water systems’ emergency response plans and
authorizes $55.0 million in FY 02 for technical and financial assistance to
systems that do not have response plans; $3.0 million for research and
development on contaminant monitoring and detection for drinking water systems;
$60.0 million to assist drinking water systems with basic security enhancements;
and $80.0 million to prevent and defeat electronic attacks on drinking water
systems. All FY 02 amounts would
remain available until expended.
Introduced November 8, 2001 by Robert Menendez ((D-NJ) and more than 100
others, including Jerry Costello (D-IL), Danny Davis (D-IL), Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), Ron Kind (D-WI), Bill Luther (D-MN), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim Oberstar
(D-MN), David Phelps (D-IL), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), and Ike Skelton
(D-MO).
Committee Action
· Farm
Bill---On November 15, the Senate Agriculture
Committee approved its Farm Bill, capping a mark-up session that spanned two
weeks. On November 27, the
Committee’s bill was introduced as an original measure (S.1731), with no written
report. The Committee’s bill is
based largely on S. 1628, originally introduced
by Chairman Harkin. The
conservation title includes $18 billion over five years, in contrast to the
10-year time span used in the House bill.
The centerpiece of the conservation title is a new voluntary Conservation
Security Program that provides payments to producers who adopt or maintain
conservation practices on lands in production. Producers are encouraged to adopt
comprehensive conservation plans, but have the flexibility to choose which
practices they use. In addition,
state and local groups provide guidance on implementation of the program,
including establishing local conservation priorities. There are three tiers of participation
from which to choose, reflecting graduated levels of practices. The practices are aimed at protecting
natural resources, including soil, water, air, and wildlife, but also include
practices that lead to sound management of invasive species, enhancement of
carbon sequestration, and wetland enhancement or restoration.
The bill also reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through 2006, increases the acreage limit to 40 million acres from 36.4 million acres, and prohibits enrollment of lands that do not have a cropping history during the last 3 of 6 years. The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is reauthorized as well, with an increased acreage cap of 2.325 million acres. As part of the WRP, a new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP) is established, similar to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Under WREP, USDA would be authorized to enter into agreements with state or local governments and private organizations to develop wetland restoration activities in watershed areas. EQIP is reauthorized through 2006, as is the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), the resource conservation and development program (RC&D), and the Farmland Protection Program (FFP). A new Watershed Risk Reduction Program is authorized, providing $15 million annually for USDA to carry out projects, including purchase of floodplain easements, to safeguard lives and property from floods.
The Administration and some farm groups have urged that Congress wait until next year to deal with the Farm Bill. However, Senate Democratic leaders have expressed their commitment to bringing the bill to the Senate floor prior to adjournment later this month. When it comes to the floor, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) intend to offer their conservation title (S. 1727) as an amendment. The Reid/Leahy amendment is similar to the conservation proposal sponsored by Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) that was defeated during floor debate in the House. It would increase conservation spending to an average of $5 billion annually and, according to Reid, “make the Farm Bill more regionally equitable.”
· Water
Security---On November 15, the House Science
Committee approved H.R. 3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research
Development Act. The bill authorizes EPA to make grants for research,
development, and demonstration projects that increase security of drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure.
Prevention, detection, and response technologies for both physical and
cyber threats would be eligible for grants. Appropriations of $12 million/year
for five years are authorized.
Companion legislation (S. 1593) passed out of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee on November 8.
The only differences between the bills are that the House version
authorizes funding for 5 years, rather than 6 years, and the Senate bill
includes an additional $20 million to help rural communities meet the 10
parts-per-billion arsenic standard.
At
a hearing the day prior to mark up, the House Science Committee heard from
scientists and water agency officials, all of whom endorsed the bill and called
for increased coordination, as well as research, to protect water supplies from
terrorist activities. Committee
Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said
“Guard dogs and fencing may help address these issues in the short-run,
but in the long-run only a focused research and development program will enable
us to guard against and combat terrorism successfully. And right now, we simply do not invest
enough in R&D on the most basic questions in water security.” Background on the hearing is available
at http://www.house.gov/science/full/nov14/full_charter_111401.htm.
· TMDL
Hearing---The
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water
Resources held a hearing on November 15 to receive testimony from G. Tracy
Mehan, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, regarding EPA’s plans for managing
the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. In his testimony, Mehan described
the history of TMDL rulemaking, including the Bush Administration’s decision to
delay the effective date of the TMDL rule proposed by the Clinton
Administration. Mehan announced
that EPA intends to propose a new TMDL rule in Spring 2002 and promulgate a
final rule before April 30, 2003.
Calling it an “ambitious schedule,” Mehan described the key issues the
agency is weighing as it undertakes the new rulemaking. They include the scope, timing, and
methodology for impaired waters listings; the inclusion within a TMDL itself of
an implementation plan with reasonable assurances; the timeframe for completion
of a TMDL; the role of stakeholders in TMDL development; and EPA’s role in
backstopping when a state fails to act.
Mehan
also described a variety of steps EPA is taking to improve the TMDL program
under the current rules. In that
regard, Mehan highlighted efforts to improve water quality monitoring, including
the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) issued in May 2001
and the 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance
released a week after Mehan’s testimony. He also explained that EPA is
pushing to have a portion of each state’s Section 319 nonpoint funding used to
develop TMDLs and is increasing its emphasis on effluent trading. In particular, Mehan suggested that
allowing states to implement water pollution trading could be the “sugar that
makes the Medicine of [the TMDL program] go down.” Background information about the
hearing, with a link to Mehan’s testimony is available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/11-15-01/11-15-01memo.html.
· Water
Supply---On
November 14, the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife and Water held a hearing on national water supply issues. Federal witnesses included
representatives from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Geological Survey, EPA, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Also testifying were representatives
from the National Drought Council, Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, and Resources for the Future. Each witness was asked to address three
issues: the extent to which water supply is considered to be a problem in the
U.S., the extent to which federal programs are meeting current water supply
needs, and recommended Congressional actions to facilitate an effective and
efficient federal role in water supply.
In his statement, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Michael
Parker emphasized the need for integrated regional management of water
resources, the importance of science-based choices and cost-benefit analyses,
and the primacy of state water law. USGS Assistant Director for Water Robert
Hirsch described the importance of science in alleviating water supply problems
and highlighted the role of the streamgaging network, in particular. Testimony from the hearing is available
at http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm#11-14a01.
·
Science at EPA---On November 30, the House Science
Committee filed its report on H.R. 64 “Strengthening Science at the
Environmental Protection Agency Act,” after having approved the bill nearly a
month ago. Based on the findings of
a June 2000 National Academy of Sciences report, H.R. 64 establishes
environmental science and technology research as a central mission of EPA and
directs that such research "be used to help initiate, formulate, and carry out
the Agency’s agenda." The bill creates two new EPA positions: Deputy
Administrator for Science and Technology and Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development. In it’s
report (H.Rpt. 107-311), the Committee indicates that the new Deputy
Administrator for Science and Technology is expected “to help strengthen the
role that science plays in EPA's decision-making process by demanding rigorous,
balanced, peer reviewed, and transparent scientific analysis throughout the
entire regulatory process. The new Deputy should foster a culture within the EPA
where science is used as a foundation for regulatory decisions.” EPA Christine Whitman has expressed
concern about the bill, claiming that many of its provisions are “unnecessary
and would make inappropriate staffing decisions.” In particular, she argues that the new
position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology “would create
another layer of bureaucratic review and, rather than promoting the role of
science in every EPA program office, it would suggest that the responsibility
for sound science resides somewhere other than in each program
office.”
Floor Action
· Emergency
Supplemental---On
November 28, the House passed the FY 02 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3338),
which, in addition to funding the Defense Department, also allocates $20 billion
appropriated by the emergency supplemental spending package (P.L. 107-38)
enacted after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Included in those supplemental funds are
$139 million to enhance security
at Corps of Engineers facilities, $144.9 million for Coast Guard security
operating expenses, and $109.6 million for EPA drinking water vulnerability
assessments. On December 4, the
Senate Appropriations committee reported its version of the bill. While details are not yet available, it
reportedly does not include the funding for water infrastructure security or
water vulnerability assessments.
· Economic
Stimulus Package---On
November 14, the Senate took up the economic stimulus package (H.R. 3090) passed
by the House October 24. However
procedural objections stalled further action. The Senate Finance Committee had
reported its version of the bill on November 9. In contrast to the House bill, which
focused primarily on tax cuts, the Senate Committee added other provisions
including an emergency agriculture assistance title. That title includes $1.4 billion for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
·
FY 02
Transportation Appropriations---On November
29, the Conferees for the FY 02 Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 2299)
approved their report (H. Rpt. 107-308), having finally resolved the issue of
Mexican trucks’ access to U.S. highways, which had stalled the bill for
months. On November 30, the House
approved the conference report on a vote of 371-11, followed by Senate approval
on December 4 by a 97-2 vote. The
final bill provides $5 billion for the Coast Guard, an increase of $418 million
(9 percent) over fiscal year 2001 enacted levels and $25 million below the
budget request. This includes an
increase of $200 million for the Coast Guard’s
operating.
·
Bioterrorism Research and
Coordination---The House Science Committee will
hold a hearing on December 5 to explore federal research efforts related to
bioterrorism and questions surrounding coordination of federal bioterrorism
activities. EPA Deputy
Administrator Linda Fisher is among the scheduled
witnesses.
·
Sea
Grant Reauthorization---On December 6, the
House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will
mark up H.R. 3389, the “National Sea Grant College Program Act.” In addition to funding for the Sea Grant
scholarship program, the bill authorizes $5 billion annually for zebra mussel
research in FY 04 through FY 08.
· FY 02 Energy and Water
Appropriations---On November 12, the President signed the FY 02 energy
and water appropriations measure into law (P.L. 107-66, H.R. 2311,
H.Rpt. 107-258). The House and
Senate had both approved the compromise bill on November 1. As enacted, H.R. 2311 provides $4.5
billion to the Corps of Engineers, $600 million above the President’s
request, but $188 below last year’s funding level. In his statement upon signing the bill,
President Bush lauded spending for “water resources development and management
projects, and programs for commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and
environmental restoration and enhancement.” However, he bridled against some aspects
of the bill, emphasizing that “provisions of H.R. 2311 that purport to remove my
authority to oversee the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers will be
construed consistent with my constitutional authority to supervise the unitary
executive branch.” (See the
November 9 issue of the UMRBA Update
for details regarding specific Corps programs and
projects.)
· FY 02
Agriculture Appropriations---President Bush
signed the FY 02 agriculture appropriations bill on November 28 (P.L. 107-76,
H.R. 2330, H.Rpt. 107-275). This
followed House approval of the conference measure on November 13 and Senate
approval on November 15. The $16.02
billion total for the bill is $600 million above the President’s request, $300
million above the House version, and approximately $100 million less than the
Senate version. The measure
includes $779 million for conservation operations, which is less than either the
House or Senate originally allocated.
Other amounts include $11 million for watershed surveys and planning,
$107 million for watershed and flood prevention operations, $10 million for
watershed rehabilitation, and $48 million for resource conservation and
development. The conferees
addressed the controversy surrounding the adequacy of technical assistance for
the Conservation Reserve Program by directing the USDA to rely on a combination
of Section 11 funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation and up to $13
million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
· FY 02 Maritime
Administration and NOAA Appropriations---On
November 28, President Bush signed the FY 02 Commerce-Justice-State spending
bill (P.L. 107-77, H.R. 2500, H.Rpt. 107-278). The measure funds a wide range of
agencies, including the Maritime Administration and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. The
President’s action followed House approval of the compromise package on November
14 and Senate approval on November 15.
The FY 02 package includes $3.256 billion for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, $163 million above the original House allocation,
but $107 below the Senate amount.
NOAA’s funding includes $672.4 million for the National Weather Service;
$62.4 million for the National Sea Grant Program, including $56.4 million in
base funding and $3.0 million for aquatic nuisance species research; $2.25
million for ballast water demonstrations in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay;
and $800,000 to prevent and control invasive species. Provisions for the Maritime
Administration include $89.1 million for operations and training, $98.7 million
for the Maritime Security Program, and $33.0 million for the Maritime Guaranteed
Loan Program.
· FY 02 EPA and
FEMA Appropriations---On November 26,
President Bush signed the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill
(P.L. 107-73, H.R. 2620, H.Rpt. 107-272). The measure provides FY 02
funding for numerous agencies, including EPA and FEMA. The President’s action follows House and
Senate approval of the conference report on November 8. EPA will receive $7.9 billion for FY 02,
a slight increase over FY 01, approximately $600 million over the
Administration’s request, and higher than either the House or Senate originally
approved for FY 02. The House and
Senate split a rather large difference in disaster assistance funding for FEMA,
agreeing to provide $664 million for the basic account and an additional $1.5
million in contingent emergency funding.
Congress rejected a Bush Administration proposal to shift greater
responsibility for hazard mitigation to state and local government by changing
the cost share formula for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) from 75-25
to 50-50. (See the November 9 UMRBA Update for further details
regarding EPA and FEMA funding.)
· FY 02 Continuing
Resolution---On November 17, the President
signed the fifth FY 02 continuing resolution (H.J. Res 74, P.L. 107-70), a
measure that funds the federal government through December 7. Four of the 13 regular FY 02
appropriations bills are still pending before Congress.
· Minnesota Water
Quality Assessment and Listing---The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (PCA) will be holding a series of public meetings in
December on its preliminary draft 2002 TMDL list and guidance manual for
assessing water quality. The new
guidance manual describes in detail the methods PCA uses to assess waters for
compliance with numerical standards of pollutants, including toxics,
conventional pollutants, and bacteria.
The guidance also includes methods to assess waters for compliance with
narrative standards related to excess algal growth, aquatic community
impairment, and contaminants in fish.
PCA is also proposing changes to its state rules governing the types of
data used to determine water quality impairment. Those rule changes, proposed in response
to a public petition, would add a series of factors to be used in applying the
narrative standards. Comments are
being accepted through January 15, 2002 on the impaired waters list, guidance
manual, and proposed rule change.
Public comment will also be taken on the proposed rule change and
impaired water list when they are put on notice in the State Register. Additional information is available at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html#rulemaking.
· Mississippi
River Corridor Planning---The Twin Cities’
Metropolitan Council recently announced a 10-month collaborative planning effort
focused on the Mississippi River corridor from St. Paul to Hastings,
Minnesota. According to the Met
Council, “the goal is to put into action a broad, cross-jurisdictional vision
for growth, development and environmental protection in the river corridor over
the next 20 years.” The vision is
intended to “guide implementation of community development projects, trails and
recreation, open space and greenways, wildlife habitat, river transportation,
historical and cultural centers and the environment.” The Met Council is a regional governance
entity formed by the state. The
McKnight Foundation is providing financial support for the Mississippi River
planning effort, and participants will include 21 communities and a diverse
array of other stakeholders. The
plan is scheduled for completion in August 2002. Additional information is available at
http://www.metrocouncil.org/directions/planning_river.htm.
· Lower St. Croix
Management Plan---The three agencies charged
with cooperative management of the 52-mile Lower St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway have finalized a new
cooperative management plan for the riverway. Culminating more than five years of
effort, Wisconsin DNR Secretary Darrell Bazzell signed the record of decision
(ROD) finalizing the plan on October 11.
Minnesota DNR and the National Park Service had signed the ROD in May of
this year. According to Terry Moe,
Wisconsin DNR’s representative on the Lower St. Croix Management Commission,
“approval of the cooperative management plan is an important milestone, but this
is really just the beginning of a long process to implement the many new
concepts in the plan.” In its
November 13 Federal Register notice
of the ROD, the National Park Service explained that “the managing agencies will
emphasize protection and enhancement of the riverway’s diverse character. Long stretches of the lower riverway’s
natural and rural landscape will be maintained, while allowing limited, planned
development in communities that is consistent with [their] historic character….”
Specific proposed management changes include new land use regulations and
boating speed limits. The plan also
calls for creation of a Lower St. Croix Partnership Team as an advisory group to
the three management agencies.
However, Moe indicated that staff constraints may hamper the agencies’
ability to implement the team and manage the Lower St. Croix. The Lower St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway was designated by Congress in 1972 and extends from St. Croix
Falls/Taylors Falls to the river’s confluence with the Mississippi. Further information is available at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/on/ON011113.htm.
· St. Croix Valley
Named as “Last Chance Landscape”---Scenic
America has named the St. Croix Valley as one of the country’s 10 most
endangered scenic places. According
to the group, “rapid growth in the nearby Twin Cities is placing massive
development pressure on the St. Croix Valley.” Residential and commercial development,
telecommunications towers, and road construction, particularly in areas not
subject to protective zoning, are among the threats cited. In naming the St. Croix to its third
annual list of “Last Chance Landscapes,” Scenic America called for a “St. Croix
Corridor Regional Planning Council, made up of existing agencies, organizations,
and interested parties, … [to] provide a public forum and allow local
governments to see the value of mutual protection through complementary regional
planning.” Scenic America is a
national nonprofit organization focused on preserving and enhancing scenic
landscapes. Additional information
is available at http://www.scenic.org/pr20011115_stcroix.htm.
For more information
regarding Congressional action and links to related sites, visit
http://thomas.loc.gov/.
The
UMRBA Update is produced by the staff of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association, an organization formed by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to represent the states' common water
resource interests. Please direct questions and comments to
bnaramore@umrba.org. The Update is also available on the UMRBA’s
web site at http://www.umrba.org/newsletter.htm.