• AREMP Strategy
• Process, timeline, and IAC involvement
• Next Steps

• Update on current status of the effort
• Proposal for IAC Subcommittee Advice
• Interagency Steering Committee Meeting

• Present the draft process for IAC feedback
• Next Steps

• Forest Service Roadless Area Initiative
• Litigation Update
• PAC Hosted IAC Meeting
• California IAC Subcommittee

1. Approve the AREMP document and the recommendations and strategies contained therein. The Plan will be finalized and published in the PNW research series and made available on the Internet. The basic scientifically-credible strategy outlined in AREMP recommends:
1. monitoring 50 sixth-field watersheds a year over a five-year repeat cycle for a total of 250 watersheds,
2. measuring a core set of 20 indicators across the NFP region, which may be supplemented locally as needs and capabilities dictate,
3. characterizing regional aquatic/riparian system status using both frequency distributions of individual indicator data, as well as frequency distributions of overall watershed condition from the AREMP knowledge-based decision support tool,
4. making provision for biotic indicators in AREMP sampling and analyses using information from evaluations conducted during the pilot phase on the value of macroinvertebrate, amphibian, or fish indicators,
5. integrating AREMP and Implementation Monitoring analyses of watersheds to provide information for the adaptive management process, and
6. carrying-out the monitoring with a dedicated, centralized interagency team that will utilize information and feedback from both regional and provincial advisory teams.
   
2. Continue pilot testing and early implementation of AREMP. Cost projections through FY 2004 from AREMP have been integrated into the interagency monitoring budget process.
 
3. Initiate interagency planning for full implementation of AREMP beginning in FY 2002.
   
4. As with other monitoring modules currently being implemented, the Monitoring Program Managers (MPM) will have responsibility for coordinating the interagency implementation of AREMP. The RIEC should continue to utilize input from the MPM on courses of action, budget, and personnel to make future decisions about implementing AREMP. The MPM will, in turn, continue working on these issues with the AREMP implementation lead, the Regional Implementation Advisory Team (RIAT) for aquatic/riparian systems monitoring, the Regional Monitoring Team (RMT) program lead, and the Research and Monitoring Group (RMG).

• Provide the IAC copies of the Final SEIS as one of the first deliveries from the printer about September 18.
• Make SEIS Team members available to meet with the IAC to answer questions.
• Receive advice from the IAC at a special RIEC meeting about October 20.

The RIEC would like advice on:

• Does the IAC agree with the preferred alternative in the Final SEIS? If not, why does the IAC disagree? What changes would the IAC recommend to improve the selected alternative in the ROD?

Decision sought:

• Does the IAC want to provide advice to the RIEC on these questions? If so, who would be interested in being on an IAC S&M Subcommittee to address these questions?

• Strengthen States' ability to clean up polluted waters by identifying pollution reductions needed to meet clean water goals;
• Provide for a comprehensive listing of all the Nation's polluted waters;
• Encourage cost-effective clean-up by ensuring all sources of pollution are considered in the development of cleanup plans;
• Assure that TMDLs include implementation plans that define specific actions and schedules for meeting clean water goals.

Components of the Final Rule
Identification of polluted waters

• States develop more comprehensive lists of all polluted waterbodies so that the public will have a clear picture of which waters are polluted and scheduled for clean up/
• States are required to develop their lists every four years instead of the current two years.
• Threatened waters may be included on the list at the State's discretion.

Prioritized Schedule:

• States will establish a schedule for clean-up plans for polluted waters within ten years or be given an additional five years if needed.
• EPA is requesting that higher priority be given to polluted waters that are sources of drinking water or support endangered species.
• States can explain why a higher priority is not appropriate.

Eight Key Elements of a TMDL:

1. Waterbody name and location.
2. Identification of the pollutant and the water quality standard for the waterbody.
3. Amount of pollutant allowable to meet standards.
4. Load reduction needed to meet standards.
5. Sources of pollutant.
6. Wasteload allocation for point sources.
7. Load allocation for runoff and other sources of pollution.
8. An Implementation plan that accounts for a margin of safety; consideration of seasonal variation; and allowance for reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loads.

Note: There is a transitional period so states can phase in new TMDL elements over time. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the methodology, lists, prioritized schedules, and TMDLs prior to submission to EPA. EPA will back-stop state efforts to develop TMDLs.

Implementation Plan:
The key new provision is the requirement for an implementation plan, thus requiring a look at the capabilities of the state/local authorities to meet water quality standards, not just a paper exercise of loading analysis/reduction. (Note: For Oregon and Washington, this has little impact since the states have voluntarily been submitting implementation plans pursuant to settlement agreements.) The implementation plan should reflect point sources, nonpoint sources, and other sources of pollution, including:

• A list of actions needed to reduce pollutant loadings and a time line for implementation;
• Reasonable assurances that implementation will occur;
• A monitoring or modeling plan and milestones for measuring progress;
• Plans for revising the TMDL if progress on cleaning up the waters is not made; and
• The date by which water quality standards will be met generally within ten years.

Note: Runoff controls should be put in place five years after the implementation plan is developed, if practicable.

Reasonable Assurance:
For point sources, reasonable assurance is to be provided through National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits. For nonpoint and other sources, load allocations in each TMDL must apply to the pollutant; will be implemented expeditiously; will be accomplished through effective programs; and will be supported by adequate water quality funding.

State Flexibility:

• States have maximum flexibility to make their own choices about which sources of pollution to clean up, and in what manner, and to produce their own plans for local cleanups to ensure the full protection of public health.
• States set the water quality standards that waters need to meet.
• States develop the TMDLs to decide how to clean up their polluted waters.
• States will have more time to learn the problems, tailor implementation to local conditions, and give full credit to voluntary or incentive-based programs.

Key Improvements in the Final Rule:

• The rule has been upgraded to "major rule" status under the Congressional Review Act, allowing Congress ample time to review it if they choose. (Note: Congress has signaled via appropriation rider that no EPA funds may be used for implementation of the new regulation. This provision presumably does not apply to states, who may receive increases in their budgets via grants for the additional workload.)
• The proposed public petition process for review of lists or TMDL implementation has been dropped.
• States are not required to list "threatened waters."
• The proposal to require "offsets" before new pollution can be discharged to impaired waters prior to TMDL establishment has been dropped.
• The final rule does not include specific permit requirements for forestry, and EPA withdraws its proposed provisions for expanded authority for permitting aquaculture and animal feeding operations.

For additional information regarding the final rule, please refer to EPA's TMDL web site at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl or for the regional update, please contact the appropriate State Program Manager as listed:
Alaska - Jayne Carlin, 206-553-6977, (carlin.jayne@epa.gov)
Idaho - Leigh Woodruff, 208-378-5774, (woodruff.leigh@epa.gov)
Oregon - Jannine Jennings, 206-553-2724, (jennings.jannine@epa.gov)
Washington - Laurie Mann, 206-553-1583, (mann.laurie@epa.gov)
California - David Smith, 415-744-2012, (smith.davidw@epa.gov)

Recruitment of leads for the monitoring program, as well as for the LSOG, Aquatic/Riparian, and IM modules is progressing well.

Turnover on the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team has slowed the production of an FY 1999 report, but the agencies have made provisions to staff-out production of this report. Most of the FY 2000 IM field reviews of watersheds have been scheduled. A briefing on a five-year strategy for IM is planned for the November IAC meeting.

The MPM has recognized the importance of information management to the NFP monitoring strategy, as well as the interconnections of this topic with other programs such as that for Survey & Manage species. The MPM is working to define the information management role for monitoring, in anticipation of possible recruitment of a person to carry out this function.