Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOu40tJ <br /> <br />Unified Watershed Assessment <br /> <br />The draft "Unified Watershed Assessment" [Assessment] sent out to the Tech. Comm. for review <br />is briefly described in the attached Aug. 7, 1998 NRCS memo to Interested Parties. As stated <br />therein, the Assessment is ajoint product of the Colorado WQCC and NRCS. The Assessment is <br />required by the Clean Water Action Plan [CWAP] initiated by VP Al Gore on October 18,1997. <br />See attached Feb. 14, 1998 letter from Carol Browner [EPA] and Dan Glickman [USDA] to VP <br />Gore. I have also attached a brief [5 page] overview of the CWAP presented to the CRBSCP Fonun <br />by an EP A representative in June 1998. As I understand it, the CW AP requires that existing federal <br />water quality programs be carried out in a more coordinated manner and that unless consistent with <br />the CW AP particular programs will no longer receive the support of the Administration during <br />budget preparation. The Assessment is intended to serve the purpose of identifYing those watersheds <br />where existing programs should focus their efforts. <br /> <br />There has been widespread speculation over the viability and future of the CW AP and whether <br />Congress will provide funds for, or even allow, its implementation. Rather than me adding to the <br />speculation I'd suggest you confer directly with David Holm at the WQCC. I suspect things will <br />remain somewhat uncertain until a new Congress convenes this winter, and perhaps even through <br />the remaining 2 years of the current Administration. <br /> <br />J <br />~ <br /> <br />The draft Assessmen!..i~it~elfpirlv brief and lac~cilic_det~ perhaps because state ~ <br />~leswereunwill~~~gpiJ!.g~e(C~i~ <br />f~ watershedSin Colorado were evaluated using the 94 hydrologic units [map attached] <br />previously established by USGS and assigned to I of 4 categories: <br />1. Seriously degraded and in need of restoration where future funds will be focused [includes <br />those that impact national salinity standards]. <br />2. Water quality goals being met, but may need help to sustain quality. <br />3. Pristine and wilderness [includes habitat successfully used by endangered and threatened <br />species]. <br />4. Insufficient data as to land use and physical aquatic condition. <br /> <br />Evaluation utilized existing water quality data [primarily the state's March 1998 list of stream <br />segments requiring TMDLs to meet water quality standards], whether land in the watershed was <br />primarily under federal or private control, and evaluators impressions of the overall condition of the <br />"aquatic resource". I prepared the attached table to summarize the evaluations that make up the <br />Assessment. All of the mainstem Arkansas from Leadville to the Kansas stateline plus Fountain <br />Creek were assigned to Category I, "in need of restoration". The Eagle, Blue, Colorado below <br />Glenwood, Dolores/San Juan, and Lower Gunnison were also placed in Category I. The CRBSCP <br />will likely fare well under the Assessment since all existing project areas are in Category 1, <br />essentially by definition since impacts on national salinity standards was a criteria used for inclusion <br />in Category 1. With over half of the 94 units being assigned to category 4, "insufficient data" its <br />not clear how useful the Assessment will be or how much reliance agencies will place on it. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />C;\sRMILlERIWATl'.RQ-IICWAI'{PWA1,MEM <br />prin...^"....ll.'..' <br />