TMDL PROGRAM RESULTS ANALYSIS
MEASURES AND METHODS REPORT
Approved TMDLS since October 1995
Fiscal Year Numhei of TMDLs Approved Percent Approved
1996
1997
.60
2.56
199B
1999 |452
~2000 \fB07
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
J1245
1.66
2.33
7.77
11.69
14.97
15.09
15.97
20.93
6.42
IMPLEMENTATION LOGIC MODEL
-------
This page intentionally left blank
11
-------
TMDL PROGRAM RESULTS ANALYSIS
MEASURES AND METHODS REPORT
August 2006
Watershed Branch (4503T)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Document posted at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
in
-------
Acknowledgements:
This report was developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds under EPA Contract No. 68-C-02-110, as a product of the TMDL
Program Results Analysis Project.
The authors are William Cooter, Jennifer Schimek and Michele Cutrofello of RTI International in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Douglas J. Norton served as the EPA Work Assignment
Manager.
This publication should be cited as:
Cooter, W., J. Schimek and M. Cutrofello. 2006. TMDL Program Measures and Methods
Report. Prepared under Contract 68-C-02-110 for the US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC. 155 pp.
IV
-------
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Goals on the TMDL Program Results Analysis Project 1
1.2 Overview of TMDL Program Results Analysis Project 1
1.3 Measures and Methods Development 3
1.3.1 Overview 3
1.3.2 Measure Types 4
1.3.3 Sources of Measure Ideas 5
1.3.4 Sources of Data for Measures 6
1.4 Summary 6
2.0 Factsheet Profiles and Measure Evaluation Criteria 8
2.1 Features of the Factsheet Profiles 8
2.2 Description of the Measure Evaluation Criteria 10
2.3 Summary of the Candidate Measure Evaluation Process 14
3.0 Recommended Target Measures 16
4.0 Relating Measures to Major Results Analysis Themes 39
4.1 Cross-walking Measures to Major Results Themes and Concepts 39
4.2 Reflections on a Work in Progress 43
4.2.1 Overview 43
4.2.2 Consideration of exploratory and explanatory indicators 43
4.2.3 Summary of Measures Development 47
Appendix A: Listing of Candidate TMDL Results Analysis Measures and Proposed
Evaluation Criteria Scoring Methodology as Applied to Candidate Measures
Appendix B: Compendium of Results Analysis Measure Factsheet Profiles
Figures
1. Number of TMDLs developed and approved per year since 1972 2
2. Why TMDL Results Information is Limited and Ideas for Increasing the Availability
of Results Analysis Information 3
3. The TMDL Program Pipeline 5
4. STORET Stations (April 2006) 44
5. Major River Basins in the National Monitoring Network Design 44
6. New Probability Survey Data from National Surveys and from State Monitoring and
Assessment Programs 46
7. Matching TMDL Implementation Data with 319 GRTS Proj ect Data 47
-------
Tables
1. Desired Results of the TMDL Program Include Both Environmental Outcomes and
Programmatic Features, Below 2
2. Template for Candidate Measure Profiles 8
3. Example of a Candidate Measure Profile 9
4. Primary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores 14
5. Secondary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores 15
6. Recommended Measure #1 16
7. Recommended Measure #2 18
8. Recommended Measure #3 20
9. Recommended Measure #4 22
10. Recommended Measure #5 25
11. Recommended Measure #6 27
12. Recommended Measure #7 29
13. Recommended Measure #8 30
14. Recommended Measure #9 32
15. Recommended Measure #10 33
16. Recommended Measure #11 35
17. Recommended Measure #12 37
18. Candidate Measures Cross-walked Against 8 Thematic Categories 39
19. Emerging TMDL Results Analysis Areas of Interest 48
VI
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures
and Methods Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Goals on the TMDL Program Results Analysis Project
Since the inception of the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads) Program the number of TMDLs
developed for 303(d) listed waters has increased exponentially, with over 20,000 TMDLs now
developed and approved by EPA. Additionally, other control measures and implementation
actions have been established in an effort to restore impaired waters. While these actions ensure
that the nation's listed waters are being addressed, an analysis of program results (i.e., changes in
impaired waters attributed to the TMDL program), has yet to be fully realized.
The TMDL Program Results Analysis Project aims to identify and develop several overarching
goals of the Watershed Branch. Most significantly, the project endeavors to:
• Review the letter and spirit of the TMDL regulatory framework
• Highlight the necessity for all elements contained under TMDL program umbrella (i.e.,
listing identification and methodology, TMDL development, application of control
measures other than TMDLs, implementation and management plans, and post-
implementation monitoring practices) to be evaluated and considered in the quest for
improved water quality
• Connect specific indicators, indicator types and measures to TMDL program elements in
an effort to develop appropriate evaluation techniques and future guidance support
• Reinforce the difference between environmental outcomes and programmatic milestones.
1.2 Overview of TMDL Program Results Analysis Project
The meaning of "results" has a number of dimensions. With respect to the TMDL program,
results are composed of environmental outcomes and related factors associated in some way with
the influence of the TMDL program. This includes programmatic activities that are important in
achieving the desired environmental outcomes. The scope of the TMDL program includes
303(d) listing, TMDL development, TMDL implementation, and TMDL alternatives such as
Category 4b actions. Each of these components may generate its own subset of overall program
results. The Watershed Branch's Results Analysis Project aims to strategically assess and define
TMDL program results and incrementally apply what we learn for continual improvement. This
project is designed to evaluate how a results feedback loop might become a permanent part of the
TMDL program and Branch operations. Table 1 provides an overview of the major types of
desired TMDL results, broken out in the two major categories of environmental responses and
programmatic features.
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 1. Desired Results of the TMDL Program Include Both Environmental Outcomes and
Programmatic Features, Below.
1.
More recovered waters: more formerly impaired waters fully meet their WQS.
2. More incremental progress on recoveries: more waters partially meet more of their WQS or fewer
stressors impair these waters.
3. Minimal new degradation rates: few waters exhibit new impairments, signifying maintenance of WQ.
4. Optimized timing to maintain resources: priorities and schedules for restoration favor conserving
and protecting the most aquatic goods and services.
1. Adequate program milestones and tracking: TMDLs completed, TMDL implementation and other
critical milestones are achieved at satisfactory rates, and state and EPA data systems store and
retrieve critical results information.
2. Scientific explanations of recoveries: factors responsible for water recoveries or maintenance have
been revealed by technical analysis methods.
3. Documented condition of impairments & recovery cases: all impaired waters, as well as all full and
partial recoveries, are well known and documented in accessible EPA data systems.
4. Efficient program spending: restoration resources are not squandered on waters with no potential for
recovery.
5. Restoration partners: appropriate collaboration of EPA with state, federal and other partners is
evident through watershed-based organizations at many sites being restored.
6. Plausible links of outcomes to CWA/TMDLs: evidence of CWA and TMDL programs wholly or partly
causing the outcome is documented.
Several factors explain the current lag between 303(d) program development and results
analysis. Primarily, the majority of TMDL development is recent; three quarters of all approved
TMDLs were completed in the past five years and nearly one-fifth of the total numbers of
TMDLs were completed in 2005 alone
(see Figure 1). Subsequently,
implementation of most TMDLs is
still in progress and few have had the
time necessary for implemented
practices to achieve a recovery.
"§ 4000 -,
O "5ROO
0.
Q. "3OOO
WOROO
Q 9000
1— -IROO
o
. 1OOO
0)
•^ ROO
Year
In the relative absence of post-
implementation monitoring
information, programmatic output
indicators (e.g., number of impaired
waters listed, number of TMDLs
completed) are often used to imply
results progress. Whereas these
programmatic milestones were
consistent with the extent of EPA
regulatory authority - EPA oversees
and approves TMDL development by states but cannot require their implementation - these
types of measures fall short of providing insights about the actual environmental results
Figure 1. Number of TMDLs developed and approved
per year since 1972.
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
attributable to the program. Better documentation of monitored environmental changes, if also
causally linked to the programs designed to bring them about, would be more valuable for
assessing the Clean Water Act's 'restore and maintain' goal as well as for improving its
component programs (Figure 2). Therefore, the Office of Water has initiated the Results
Analysis Project to help document the outcomes related to TMDLs and other control measures,
as well as identify areas in which the 303(d) program may be improved.
1
5
S
ative # of wate
s
)Ls completed
i_i
5
H
^ .Q
Incentives ft
implementa
1
Qj
w E
^ -*
E 8
F s>
1
_,
Q £
2>3 « 1.
o =f co a>
E7* "° ^
>,§ jg -a
? P 3 >- :
« OT to
CO od i Q) c
i
Monitor
results | | Assess
Figure 2. Why TMDL Results Information is Limited and Ideas for
Increasing the Availability of Results Analysis Information
1.3 Measures and Methods Development
1.3.1 Overview
The measures and methods report reflects a broadly-based understanding of the Clean Water Act
and the TMDL program. Although EPA Strategic Plan GPRA (Government Performance
Results Act) and Office of Management and Budget PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool)
measures are among sources considered, the guiding principles that distinguish the results
analysis initiative are that this effort:
• is focused on the TMDL program,
• explores a much broader variety of results metrics than the more narrow range of
outcome measures/management targets appropriate to the Strategic Plan or PART, and
• aims to analyze and explain (where possible) factors causing or related to observed
program results, not just to document the results themselves.
The TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report is a forward-looking
document that focuses attention on a set of recommended (or targeted) TMDL Results Analysis
Measures, some of which will be the subject of additional analyses and refinements. Identifying
this special set of measures has involved the examination of a large number of candidate
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
measures, the development of concise factsheets (or profiles) outlining major features of the
candidate measures and the development of an evaluation criteria methodology to help document
the rationale for the selection of the final set of targeted measures. These targeted measures
reflect a broad range of content relevant to major themes in the ongoing work of the EPA TMDL
Results Analysis Workgroup and were created to further develop the Watershed Branch's
Results Analysis initiative.
1.3.2 Measure Types
The many types of measures potentially useful in TMDL results analysis can be loosely grouped
as environmental response measures, programmatic progress measures, and explanatory
measures. Environmental response measures are needed to track the results and evaluate the
effects of Clean Water Act (CWA) programs like the TMDL program. Outcomes of the CWA
surface waters protection program can be typically generalized as
• restoration outcomes (making impaired waters unimpaired),
• incremental progress outcomes (making impaired waters less impaired), and
• maintenance outcomes (minimizing or preventing further impairment).
These measures are the most valuable empirical evidence of program outcomes, but data for
assessing these measures are often in very limited supply.
Programmatic progress measures are metrics that reflect the relative amount of work completed
in successive stages of the TMDL process (such as number of TMDLs developed, or % of
implementation plans in place). While programmatic activities are not environmental or public
health outcomes, they can reinforce management activities and document cases where desired
TMDL results outcomes are significantly linked to major Clean Water Act programs. These
measures directly track EPA statutory responsibilities, and, in some cases, are recognized as
essential steps in restoration efforts. Further, programmatic and environmental response
measures are both considered when weighing the options for program changes and
improvements. Programmatic measures can be graphically described in "pipeline diagrams" or
"logic models" of the TMDL process. As the TMDL management issues move from well-
defined end-of-pipe permitting issues to address watershed-oriented management challenges that
involve a combination of point sources and nonpoint source stressors (blended problems) or
predominantly nonpoint source stressors, logic models are of even greater assistance in
illustrating key concepts relevant to the Clean Water Act's TMDL process . Figure 3 illustrates
the relevance of these pipeline concepts to the TMDL program.
The third measures grouping employed in the Results Analysis Project are explanatory measures.
Explanatory measures generally match water quality response information with co-occurring,
plausibly-related stressor indicators. This type of metric is designed to document whether
negative water quality effects are increasing concurrently with an increase in stressors, or if there
are signs that the effects of stressors are being held in check. Improvement, no degradation, and
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
I TMDU4B | Plan \ Implement Controls
Incremental Improvement
(Revise plan if goals not met)
Implem
Plan
Done
Reduce
sources
causes,
loads
Partially
improve
WQ
Incremental improvement in
WQ
Implementation of WQ
improvement practice(s)
Figure 3. The TMDL Program Pipeline.
degradation slower than expected in the face of increasing stressors are considered positive
results. Usually such metrics must be narrowly defined (e.g., relating one land use type to effects
from one pollutant type) to limit confounding variables, but they represent the primary analytical
approach to an increased understanding of where and why positive results may be occurring.
Understanding the factors is essential to making the connection between observed results and the
contributions of CWA related efforts. Explanatory measures generally do not provide simple
management targets or assist in the creation of strategic plans, which usually rely on response
measures. Their greatest value is in revealing the underlying drivers of successful results and
causal links to CWA programs, which in turn can be used to improve individual implementation
and management plans.
In addition, specific types of explanatory metrics may be appropriate for specific uses. Stressor
metrics, for example, may focus exclusively on observed changes in sources, stressors or
exposure in situations where a strong and consistent causal link is already understood and widely
accepted (e.g. removal vs. protection of streamside buffers). Calibration metrics might assess
factors that are neither stressors nor responses, but may help explain the influence of outside
factors in situations of unexpected results. For example, a major increase in state monitoring and
detection of new impairments might be misunderstood as a decline in maintenance unless the
increased monitoring was acknowledged in a calibration metric.
1.3.3 Sources of Measure Ideas
The report draws on an understanding of EPA databases and other sources from which a variety
of programmatic and environmental measures may be extracted. Ideas for the candidate
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
measures were drawn from a number of existing EPA and non-EPA sources. These sources
included the following:
• The white papers (incremental, maintenance, watershed, restoration) and other outputs of
the EPA Measures Workgroup
• Other EPA strategic planning metrics, e.g., Watershed Sub-Objective and related
Program Activity Measures (PAMs)
• The ongoing State dialogue on results measures
• Regional studies, such as a Region 10 implementation study on a set of TMDLs in
Washington (Implementation of Washington's TMDL Program 1998-2003 - at
http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10AV ATER.NSF/TMDLs/TMDL+Program#rlO)
• Virginia Tech Center for TMDL and Watershed Studies reports including case study
analyses of 17 watershed-oriented TMDLs (www.tmdl.bse.vt.edu/research)
• TMDL Review volumes conducted through the Water Environment Research
Foundation (e.g., Freedman, P.L., D.W. Dilks, H.P. Holmberg, P. Moskus, G .McBridge,
C. Hickey, D. Smith, and P.L. Striplin. 2004. Navigating the TMDL Process: Method
Development for Addressing Narrative Criteria. Water Environment Research
Foundation Report: Project 01-WSM-l. Published by the Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, Virginia and IWA Publishing, London, United Kingdom.)
1.3.4 Sources of Data for Measures
Several studies and information products helped provide insights on data sources relevant to the
measure definitions. These sources involve both established EPA data systems as well as data
sources incorporating innovative approaches or new types of explanatory content. Major sources
used to define useful data include the following:
• EPA's WATERS databases, e.g., NTTS (National TMDL Tacking System) , ADB
(Assessment Database) and PCS (Permit Compliance System)
• Bioassessment approaches as represented in the new Wadeable Streams Assessment
(WSA)
• Habitat data from the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) Database
(http ://nrrss. nbii. gov/)
• The EPA Watershed Branch's 100 TMDLs review
• Information from the Results Analysis sponsored recovery potential project's inventory
of recovered waters
• Old and New TMDL success stories/case studies
• 319 success stories
• Other useful "large area" geographic datasets
1.4 Summary
This project is not creating new measures for required state or regional reporting of their results
under the EPA Strategic Plan; rather, it aims to produce results analyses that can help EPA
improve the TMDL program. In summary, the paper highlights measures and methods that
reflect environmental outcomes and related factors from TMDL and similar programs, the
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
assessment of which would help explain these outcomes in ways that will help EPA improve
program success.
-------
2.0 Factsheet Profiles and Measure Evaluation Criteria
2.1 Features of the Factsheet Profiles
The organization for the measure profiles is adapted from a template previously used by
members of the TMDL Program Results Analysis Workgroup for related work in support of the
development of EPA's new Strategic Plan. While the primary measure elements are consistent
with the ideas developed in an EPA whitepaper on Maintenance Measures, the current results
analysis measure evaluations have been modified to include additional categorizations and
specifications on CWA and Strategic Plan Relevance.
The profiles also document the predominant measure type (response, explanatory or
programmatic). For some more complicated (integrated) measures, a combination of types will
exist. For instance, explanatory measures can easily have a relationship with response outcomes
or with programmatic considerations. Similarly, some programmatic measures can contain
content relevant to building measures that would then deal more directly with responses or
outcomes.
The integration of categorization and element definition resulted in a standard candidate measure
template, as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Template for Candidate Measure Profiles
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
# MEASURE TYPE (e.g., Response)
What is the actual measure?
What is the premise this measure is based on?
How is the CWA assumed to influence this measure?
Would the measure be applied to all US waters, a specific waterbody
type, a sample population of waters, impaired waters, unimpaired
waters, etc?
What data are needed? Where are they available?
What quality characteristics must these data have?
What baseline date could be used for comparisons with future
changes?
How often could the analysis be repeated or updated?
Will EPA data systems accommodate these data and analyses, or will
they need changes?
What ballpark costs (at least a high, medium, low estimate) may be
involved in analyzing this measure or in repeating the analysis?
Is this measure identical or similar to existing GPRA or PART
measures or potentially useful for future EPA strategic plans? [included
for general information purposes - this section helps to document
cases where a measure is similar or identical to ideas that fall under
GPRA or PART]
What other considerations are there (pluses, minuses, confounding
factors)?
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Within the measure development process, it was determined that several programmatic indicators
were often similar in intent and value, but focused on different sections of a process (e.g.,
progressing from the 303(d) to TMDL assignment). In an effort to include all of these measures
without overwhelming the measure documentation, "pipeline" or process measures were often
bundled together.
Table 3 illustrates an example profile for Measure 10-X, a sub-measure or portion of the TMDL
"pipeline" measure. This version of the layout illustrates how the basic text-only profile format
could be enhanced to provide an attractive factsheet. The complete measure, which outlines the
entire "pipeline" process, is available in Section 4.
Table 3. Example of a Candidate Measure Profile
MEASURE ID: 10-X
Programmatic Measure
MEASURE: Number/percent of impaired waters approved for a TMDL for which an implementation plan
has been developed.
MEANING: Tracks the completion of a stage of the TMDL life cycle (or pipeline), i.e., where development
of implementation /management plans is documented.
Assessed Winters
3 Category 5 Waters
• X
•I Category 4C Waters
• X
3 Category 4B Waters
• X
3 Category 4A Waters
3 Category 2 Waters
3 Category 1 Waters
• X
I/ Hap created by the WA State DepartTTOfrtTrf Ecology
Washington's Assessed Waters by Category as of the 2004 reporting cycle.
CWA RELEVANCE: This measure records a single master pipeline measure to help document the
overall number of 303(d)-listed waters that had move forward one or more steps in the TMDL life cycle
process compared to a set of listed waters starting from some baseline. While predominately
programmatic, this measure provides a snapshot of "life cycle" activity under the TMDL program.
STRATEGIC PLAN/PART/SUPPORTING STUDIES RELEVANCE: Promising measure for near-term
use in strategic planning or for reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and
Rating Tool (PART)
SUBPOPULATION OF WATERS ADDRESSED: All impaired waters could be addressed for portions of
the "pipeline" which require states to provide documentation (initial 303(d) listing, TMDL development or
"4b" documentation).
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Total # of Approved TMDLs for
Washington State
3361
355
I # of TMDLs with
Detailed WQ
Implementation
Plans
I # of TMDLs with
Detailed WQ
Implementation
Plans
Washington TMDLs by Existence of Water Quality Implementation Plan.
DATA NEEDS: Information from the NTTS and the NAD, where NAD data based on inputs from states
using the ADBv2 or similar compliant system would be desirable. Additional information would be
required to ensure adequate documentation of implement/management plan development. For states
using the ADBv2 or compliant system, implementation plan table facilities would provide a way to
document the lifecycle of an assessment segment for all uses and TMDL-relevant pollutant causes.
DATA QUALITY: Uncertain since many of the segments in the NTTS may not directly relate to
implementation plans.
UPDATING: Dependant upon approval dates of TMDLs and the availability of information regarding
implementation plans.
SYSTEMS: ADBv2.2; NTTS.
COST: If EPA encourages states to use the facilities now available in the ADBv2.2, the cost would be
relatively low.
OTHER COMMENTS:
2.2 Description of the Measure Evaluation Criteria
While the overarching goals of this entire project were stated up front, the expectations for the
measures developed in this. Results Analysis Project, specifically stated, are to: (1) improve
understanding of how the TMDL program and closely related activities (e.g. restoration) lead to
varying patterns of results (i.e., in terms of improved water body condition), (2) identify
information sources that can help explain these patterns, and (3) develop appropriate technical
and programmatic actions to incorporate these findings at state, regional and national program
levels.
Measures were categorized by whether the measure addressed the primary or secondary goals of
the Results Analysis project, as defined below:
10
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Primary goal interests focus on the following themes:
• Measures of water quality outcomes which constitute incremental progress or full
recovery
• Measures of water quality outcomes from within the core TMDL program (see the right
end of the pipeline diagram, Figure 2); however, some supplementation of these core WQ
outcomes with TMDL-like sources (or cross-program TMDL-relevant issues) will be
needed
• Some key types of programmatic milestones (e.g., implementation plans and watershed
management plans), also present in the TMDL pipeline diagram.
Secondary goal interests focus on:
• Programmatic milestones (e.g., measures focused strictly on listed waters, TMDLs
establishment/approval, or post-project monitoring)
• Water quality outcomes implying maintenance as compared to improvement
Next, the measures were evaluated based on their agreement with the following categories
designed based on the listed expectations:
Data Availability
(10) Ready for use now in EPA agency data systems - with provisions in place to provide for the
maintenance and updates of the datasets over time
(7) Some degree of additional processing needed to develop information in proper formats to use
in developing a measure. Provisions for maintenance and updates may also require additional
attention
(5) Data systems still under development but with the anticipation that information should be
ready for use on a "large area" basis before end of FY2008
(2) Data system only available for select states or areas and with uncertainties on maintenance
and update issues
Data Coverage (geographical extent and subpopulations)
(10) Large Area - data cover major waterbody types (at least rivers, lakes and estuaries)
(7) Large Area - data usually (often purposefully) targeted for specific waterbody types
(5) Large Area - coverage targeted for specific target audiences or groups (e.g., impaired waters
or assessed waters in national forests or waters related to areas with rare aquatic species of
interest to conservation groups)
(2) Large Area - data cover only some waterbody types - partial coverage for other types -
depending on data availability
11
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
(1) Large Area - only for select states or a single state or area
Spatial Correlation Issues With 303(d) or 305(b) Segments
(10) Information used in measure tracks with the extents of the segments for 303(d)-listed waters
or assessed waters in the NTTS or the NAD
(8) Data used in the measure can be correlated based on matches against NHD Reach IDs or
through spatial selections on NTTS or NAD segments using special small watershed polygons or
analytically defined areas of investigation
(7) Data used in measure cannot be precisely correlated with 303(d)/TMDL waters. For cases
when correlations are based on spatial selections from NTTS or NAD segments and compared
with information that can only be spatially defined using larger polygons such as WBD HUC12s
or HUClOs; also for cases where additional work needed to provide georeferencing in order to
match information against NTTS waters
(5) Data used in measure involves even more robust correlations with 303(d)/TMDL waters as
when correlations based on spatial selections on NTTS or NAD segments and compared with
information using large polygons such as Watershed boundary Dataset (WBD) sub-basins
(HUCSs) or Accounting Units (HUC6s), or other larger watersheds for state "rotating basin"
systems
(3) Limited correlation such as when information from randomly selected sites in smaller
watershed areas is correlated with the locations of NTTS or NAD waters within the same general
area
(1) Limited correlation such as when results from EMAP-style large landscape units are
compared against results from NTTS or NAD segments within the same large landscape units
Cross-Program Linkages & TMPL-Relevance
(10) TMDL-based NTTS or NAD-based response measure
(10) CWA links to OW regulatory programs for PS or Blended pollutant issues with clear
TMDL-relevance
(10) CWA links to OW (non-regulatory) programs for NFS issues with clear TMDL-relevance
(10) EPA CWA TMDL-relevant "restoration" program linkages but TMDLs not the main driver
(8) Links to OW programs for emerging criteria development or WQS Designated use
assignment issues, e.g., nutrients, sediments, UAAs (Use Attainability Analyses), or TALUS
(Tiered Aquatic Life Use Support)
(8) Links to special OW programs involving FCAs, shellfish harvesting, or BEACHES
(5) Links to special federal programs related to biocentric issues (Threatened and Endangered
species or control of invasive species)
12
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
(5) Links to other OW water programs (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act-based source water
protection or OW/ORD collaborative effort to provide inputs for the OEI Report on the
Environment)
(5) Links to other EPA (but non-OW) programs
(5) Links to other non-EPA programs (e.g., other federal/state/local agencies or NGO groups)
Implementation Plan Information
(10) Measure documents implementation (management) plan(s) with provisions that have direct
bearing on implementation measures to support to TMDL goals
(10) Measure documents implementation provisions on the "pace" of BMP/management measure
implementation or other information that allow "time to restoration" estimates (when will the
results be achieved) for TMDLs or other impaired waters
(7) Measure documents an actual implementation (management) plan with provisions that, while
based on other programs or initiatives, would support CWA restoration objectives (e.g., "4b"
cases); also for cases where additional evaluation is needed to document that restoration
measures in fact track with the pollutant concerns related to approved TMDLs
(3) Measure at least documents EPA approval of a TMDL - with the expectation that there are
implementation provisions in the approved TMDL
(zero points) Measure lacks signal on status of implementation plans (e.g., measure deals with
listed or assessed waters where TMDLs may not yet have been established or deal only with
initiatives such a monitoring efforts not clearly tied to management plans)
Innovative Features
(10) Integrated measure using NHD georeferencing or other geospatial techniques to provide
clear links with NTTS/NAD data
(10) Applies socio-economic factors or uses TMDL program and/or WQS information on special
uses, anti-degradation tiers, or other special biological, aesthetic, or ceremonial factors
(10) Applies landscape ecology-based explanatory approaches
(10) Applies model-based explanatory approaches
(10) Applies other innovative approaches (e.g., data mining or explanatory or calibration
techniques)
(10) Measure results can be "transparently" related to underlying monitoring data, e.g., in
STORET (EPA Storage and Retrieval system), NWIS (U.S. Geological Survey National Water
Information System), GLENDA (Great Lakes Environmental Database), etc.
13
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
(10) Measure incorporates multi-media aspects (e.g., groundwater-surface water or air-water
interactions)
2.3 Summary of the Candidate Measure Evaluation Process
This section presents the results of the evaluation criteria methodology as applied to a set of 48
candidate measures developed for the TMDL Program Results Analysis Project. Each measure
was ranked according to the accumulation of points assigned according to the criteria. As a
result, twenty-one candidate measures were highlighted with cumulative scores at or above the
median (see Tables 4 and 5). The calculations are represented in a series of scoring tables that
document the application of the evaluation criteria in the primary and secondary results analysis
goals categories (see Appendix A). The complete factsheet profiles for all the candidate
measures are contained in Appendix B to this report.
Table 4. Primary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores
MEASURE
ID
1
2
3
17
19
23
25
34
38
51
64
MEASURE NAME
Track the number of designated uses currently listed
as impaired which reattain use standards by a given
year.
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of
causes removed by a given year.
Track the number of designated uses currently listed
as impaired which reattain use standards by a given
year if mercury and other legacy pollutants are
excluded as impairments in the analysis of use
attainment.
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in
riparian vegetation
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in
Impervious Surface Cover
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented
which now attain water quality standards for the
causes addressed in the TMDL
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by
designated use and by pollutant
Degree of improvement (using monitoring data)
Number of TMDLs where a watershed management
plan was developed
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully
support contact recreation due to non-attainment of
bacteria water quality standards, which now attain
contact recreation standards after approval of a
TMDL
National River Restoration Science Synthesis
(NRRSS) Projects (TMDL-related)
RESULTS
GOALS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Response
Explanatory
Response
Explanatory
Explanatory
Response
Response
Response
Explanatory
Response
Explanatory
14
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE
ID
71
77
83
MEASURE NAME
Incidence of impaired waters involving pollutants
possibly regional in nature (e.g., mercury from
atmospheric deposition) for which alternative
measures have been approved or where TMDL
Category 5 development priority/ranking status is
rated as "low"
IR baseline of category 4b waters that had at least
one use impaired that now have at least one cause of
impairment no longer listed as a cause
Improvements in WQ designated use attainment for
major Section 101 (a) "fishable-swimmable" uses
RESULTS
GOALS
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Explanatory
Response
Response
Table 5. Secondary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores
MEASURE
ID
10
22
63
69
70
73
84
MEASURE NAME
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in
baseline which progressed at least one step in the
TMDL lifecycle "pipeline."
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs. TMDL
Development
Percentage of impaired waters addressed by a TMDL
and 319 Nonpoint Source projects (CRTS Projects)
Control measures and/or programs applied to 4b
listings that can be documented to result in water
quality standards attainment
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b) development in geological
sensitive areas (e.g., areas with extensive karst
topography)
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and
sediment issues relevant to coastal Coho Salmon
recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Percentage of waters with decreased water quality,
no change in water quality, or improvements in water
quality for waters with implementation actions
underway related to TMDL implementation plans as
compared to waters without TMDL approvals
RESULTS
GOALS
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
MEASURE TYPE
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Explanatory
Programmatic
Programmatic
15
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
3.0 Recommended Target Measures
As referenced in the previous section, the entire set of 48 were narrowed down to an initial focus
group of twenty-one candidate measures was developed using a set of evaluation criteria and
scoring techniques. While these methods are useful in providing a first cut, numerical summary
ranking scheme tend to oversimplify complex characteristics capable of making or breaking a
candidate measure. Therefore, measures were further assessed by the TMDL Program Results
Analysis workgroup for content, feasibility and relevance to near-term TMDL Program
initiatives. Subsequently, twelve measures met the numeric and subjective criteria applied
during the selection process for final recommended measures. These measures are presented in
Tables 6 through 17.
Table 6. Recommended Measure #1
MEASURE ID
001
Response
MEASURE
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired
which reattain use standards by a given year.
MEANING
Approximately 55,000 designated uses divided among 354 use description
variants and 38 states, according to 2004 draft NAD data provide a baseline
for this measure.
By tracking designated use attainment, incremental improvements will be
demonstrated for all assessment segments initially listed under Category 4
or 5. If data allows, this measure may be broken out into cause or source
type or may be scaled by segment or watershed for future analysis.
CWA RELEVANCE
Directly corresponds to Result II, More Incremental Progress on
Recoveries; documents maintenance (and incremental progress) of
impaired waters; takes into account impaired waters where pollutant
concerns are addressed by alternative TMDL processes and also where
waters are impaired by pollution (i.e., Category "4b" and "4c").
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
This measure targets assessed waters known to be impaired.
DATA NEEDS
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Isolate designated uses and use attainment status by assessment for
any two reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the
comparison cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences found in attainment statuses between reporting
cycles
Spatial analysis of these components would require georeferencing
information and spatial analysis software.
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
DATA QUALITY
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
16
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
BASELINE
Suggested baseline of 2002.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
SYSTEMS
NAD or surrogate data system. Additional elements of the NAD and NTTS
can enhance results and allow breakout of components.
Designated Use Attainment Changes Across One
Reporting Cycle
Fully
Supporting
Insufficient
Information
Not
Supporting
Not
Assessed
Example Draft Data from the 2004 NAD.
COST
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Promising measure for near-term use in Office of Water Strategic Plan or
for reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and
Rating Tool (PART). Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed
waters are improving. Additional analysis can track how close waters are to
being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem and more waters should
be assessed.
OTHER COMMENTS
This measure may identify which uses are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
17
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 7. Recommended Measure #2
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
2 Explanatory
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of causes removed
by a given year.
Approximately 82,000 causes among 55,000 designated uses and 38 states,
according to 2004 draft NAD data provide a baseline for this measure.
By tracking the cause, incremental improvements will be demonstrated for all
assessment segments initially listed under Category 4 or 5. If data allows,
this measure may be broken out into cause or source type or may be scaled
by segment or watershed for future
Directly corresponds to Result II and VI, documents incremental progress of
impaired waters and has the capacity to evaluate stressordata by elements
such as pollutant source (i.e., point or nonpoint source) and pollutant type.
303(d) list of impaired waters - This measure targets assessed waters known
to be impaired.
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Isolate causes of impairment by assessment for any two reporting
cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the
comparison cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences in cause numbers, types between reporting cycles
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states. Otherwise, state IR databases would
have to be mined and compiled.
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1 998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
Could be used in the next strateqic plan if concerted effort was made to
more completely populate the geospatial data and pollutant impairment data
for either a 1998/2000, 2002, or 2004 baseline.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of impaired
waters
ADB and other state data migrated into the NAD and NTTS.
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART).
Allows the decision-makers to see whether assessed waters are improving,
how close they are to being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem and
more waters should be assessed.
18
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
Explanatory
MEASURE
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of causes removed
by a given year.
OTHER COMMENTS
Further Data Issues: limited monitoring and assessment within each
reporting cycle. States and Tribes assess about 20% of their streams and
40% of their lakes in any two-year assessment cycle, according to an oft-
cited metric. Also, State assessments in a given listing cycle may
sometimes be based in whole or in part on information gathered during the
previous cycle. This means that neither the States/Tribes nor the EPA may
have a significant amount of new data available to support trend analysis
across assessment/listing cycles.
Timing Issues: States submit integrated assessment/listing data in April of
even-numbered years. Significant improvement in current business
processes would be needed to make these data available in time for end-of-
year reporting under the strategic plan or PART in the following odd-
numbered year. For mid-year and even-numbered year end-of-year reports,
States and the EPA would have to estimate progress.
19
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 8. Recommended Measure #3
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
3 Response
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired
which reattain use standards by a given year if mercury and other
legacy pollutants are excluded as impairments in the analysis of use
attainment.
This measure aims to review the recovery of waters from all causes except
legacy pollutants, such as mercury, due to the long abatement times for
mercury and other legacy pollutants.
It addresses recovery of waters while taking into account the fact that some
pollutants are more persistent in the environment than others and that these
pollutants can bias the study of rates of recovery of impaired waters.
All waters impaired for causes other than mercury and other legacy
pollutants (e.g. PCBs).
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Make a copy of the NAD databases for the reporting cycles of interest
• Remove all causes and cause information for all legacy pollutants from
the database
• Run an update query to flag any designated uses which are no longer
impaired for any causes in the database
• Isolate all other causes of impairment by assessment for any two
reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the
comparison cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences in cause numbers, types between reporting cycles
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1 998/2000 segments.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
Assessment Database (ADB) or surrogate data system information entered
in the National Assessment Database (NAD)
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed waters are improving
without the bias of legacy pollutants. Promising measure for near-term use
in strategic planning or for reporting progress to OMB as required by the
Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART).
20
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
Response
MEASURE
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired
which reattain use standards by a given year if mercury and other
legacy pollutants are excluded as impairments in the analysis of use
attainment.
OTHER COMMENTS
This measure may identify which causes are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
21
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 9. Recommended Measure #4
MEASURE ID
10
Programmatic
MEASURE
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in baseline which
progressed at least one step in the TMDL lifecycle "pipeline."
The TMDL life cycle (or pipeline) involves stages, beginning with the initial
303(d) listing, prioritization to decide when to undertake TMDL analyses;
inclusion of the originally listed 303(d) waters in a TMDL approval (with
identification of pollutant reduction targets for one or more pollutants);
decision to use "4b" approaches to address problems using methods that
do not require formal TMDLs; development of implementation /management
plans; post-implementation assessments to document incremental
progress; and finally, documentation of designated use recovery. This
measure could be broken out into a number of separate (sub-) measures,
but a single master pipeline measure can help document the overall
number of 303(d)-listed waters that move forward one or more steps in the
TMDL life cycle process starting from some baseline.
MEANING
Logic Model for the IMPS TMDL Development Process
22
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
NT'S TMDL Implementation - DRAFT
tnpufc
Logic Model for the IMPS TMDL Implementation Process
CWA RELEVANCE
While predominately programmatic, this measure could provide a
convenient summary of overall "life cycle" activity under the TMDL program.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
All waterbody types would be covered for the entire country.
DATA NEEDS
Information from the NTTS and the NAD, where NAD data based on inputs
from states using the ADBv2.x or similar robust data system would be
desirable. Additional information would be desirable to ensure adequate
documentation of implement /management plan development. Incremental
progress signals could potentially be obtained from a combination of NTTS
and NAD data. For states using the ADBv2.2 or compliant system, delisting
table facilities would provide a way to document the eventual recovery of an
assessment segment for all uses and TMDL-relevant pollutant causes.
DATA QUALITY
Uncertain since not all States use the ADBv2.x or a compliant system, or
completely enter all relevant data. Also, many of the segments in the NTTS
that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have since been
resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or information
to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
The NTTS also lacks certain aspects of the necessary information (i.e. it
does not track use impairments).
BASELINE
Likely a 2002 baseline.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
23
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
10
Programmatic
MEASURE
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in baseline which
progressed at least one step in the TMDL lifecycle "pipeline."
SYSTEMS
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
COST
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART).
Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed waters are improving,
how close they are to being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem and
more waters should be assessed.
OTHER COMMENTS
The two main issues involve tracking initially listed segments overtime
(when states are still undertaking complete overhauls in the "geometry" of
their IR assessment units overtime period less than 5 years) and
addressing the complexities of blended and nonpoint sources. Concepts
which may be applied when developing measures of improvement in typical
point sources include confirmation that a NPDES permit has been
examined and, if necessary, adjusted to touch base with the pollutant
reduction goals of an approved TMDL. For blended or NPS-oriented
TMDLs, however, the dispersion of sources typically inhibits a simple
examination or adjustment of load allocations. This presents a major
challenge when defining strategic pipeline checkpoints where results
measures could be most usefully implemented. The potential complexities
of TMDL development and implementation in NPS-dominated context are
illustrated in the logic models.
24
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 10. Recommended Measure #5
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
19 Explanatory
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in Impervious
Surface Cover
Impervious cover indicator values in excess of 1 0% are generally felt to
show major human alterations in natural runoff or groundwater infiltration
patterns (generally based on a HUC12 scale). Human alterations can
increase pollutant loadings, impact stream channel conditions, or disrupt
aquatic life. Impervious cover statistics developed over large areas based
on units such as HUC12 subwatersheds can be used as both explanatory
metrics and stressor metrics in conjunction with TMDL data. Similar
"landscape modeling" approaches could be developed for the entire country
as the Watershed Boundary Dataset is completed over the next year or so.
Appropriate land use controls to address impacts from urbanization (or
other human activities that adversely impact water quality) is a major goal of
the Clean Water Act and a key consideration in nonpoint source control and
NPDES-based urban stormwater management. Impervious cover could be
used as a convenient assessment tool of management measures
developed to address stresses from urbanization.
Percent impervious indicators can be applied to watershed-based analyses
for rivers, lakes, and to some extent for larger open water systems such as
estuaries. This method seems most useful when applied to problems
related to urbanization ("suburban sprawl development") and impacts to
streams.
NTTS information and a framework that allows land cover information to be
compared for a current baseline period and 5-10 year intervals several
decades into the future are required. Impervious surface indicators can be
developed using detailed land use data, land cover based on processed
remote sensing information, estimates based on multiple data source
(MDS) methods, or empirical predictive equations to provide predictions
related to changes in master variables such as population density.
While other approaches are possible, EPA Region 3 has utilized multiple
data source methods to enhance a 1992 NLCD land cover baseline and
then applied predictive equations with population density to estimate of
state population growth (at the census block or block group level) and
change in percent impervious cover for HUC12 polygons.
The impervious cover information can then be compared with the NTTS
data to help target TMDL development work or to help understand the
importance of maintenance and incremental progress signals in HUC12
watershed areas.
If the impervious cover information is develop for units such as the HUC12
subbasins, there can be some degree of spatial scale difference when
aligning NTTS data with the subwatershed information.
2002 baseline for Region 4 where the impervious cover information is
currently available.
Based on biennial NTTS updates and large area impervious cover
information for several decades.
NTTS data, CIS mapping of 303(d) waters and approved TMDLs, and large
area impervious cover materials.
25
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
19
Explanatory
MEASURE
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in Impervious
Surface Cover
COST
In areas such as Region 4, the start-up costs would be low to moderate
since the impervious cover materials are already available. Cost could be
moderate to high to extend the Region 4 methods to cover the rest of the
country.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Since other major EPA programs such as OWM's urban stormwater,
OCPD's coastal "smart growth" initiatives and OGWDW source water
protection efforts use impervious cover as a useful indicator, integrated
TMDL results would help build cross-program linkages from AWPD
programs to initiatives throughout the Office of Water.
Exum, L., S. Bird, J. Harrison, C. Perkins. 2005. Estimating and Projecting
Impervious Cover in the Southeastern United States. U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA and Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-05/061.
OTHER COMMENTS
The widespread use of the impervious cover concept in urban planning
related to both water quality and water supply helps make this type of
landscape ecology/remote sensing tool easier to explain to a wide audience
of agencies and groups interested in watershed protection.
Percent impervious cover can be a powerful tool to set up TMDL results
measures related to current and future response, incremental progress, or
maintenance for urbanized and urbanizing areas. Innovative work
supported through EPA Region 4 has led to impervious cover predictions at
the HUC12 level from several decades into the future for Region 4 states.
26
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 11. Recommended Measure #6
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
22 Programmatic
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs. TMDL Development
Number/percent of waters for which a TMDL has been approved by EPA
and TMDL initiatives are now being implemented.
Demonstrates incremental progress of water quality restoration
This measure specifically deals with TMDL lifecycle tracking. In addition,
possible subcategories may be specified by control measure under this
topic.
No data system currently exists that adequately houses or tracks TMDL
implementation information. This data must be mined from state and local
agencies. A data system must be created which is capable of linking to
information residing in the NTTS as well as linking to narrative information
gained through multiple resources regarding TMDL implementation.
This measure may be numeric or narrative, depending on how TMDL
implementation is determined and if a standard set of criteria is used (e.g.,
is a TMDL considered implemented if there is increased monitoring? if there
is a restoration technique employed?).
The statistical reliability will depend on the ability to track TMDL
implementation and development through a standard set of criteria for
determining implementation. All TMDL documents can be accessed through
the NTTS and are therefore well represented. Tracking the implementation
of TMDLs, however, may involve several techniques and resources and
representation may be variable.
Since TMDLs can be established on a watershed basis (clustered or
clumped approaches) fordifferent waterbody types, the calculation formula
likely needs to be set up in terms of number of waterbodies).
For national purposes, likely a 2002 baseline - although consideration is
needed on how to handle TMDL work going back to a 1 998 or even a 1 996
baseline in many states - especially states and EPA Regions involved in
federal court consent decrees.
This measure may be updated as frequently as TMDL implementation
information is gathered. Complexity lies in the diversity of narrative
information that could be collected.
National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) and likely some additional
information from ADBv2.x entered into the National Assessment Database
(NAD). Enhancements to these data systems and links to other data
systems are likely required. Making sure implementation information on
NPS issues is adequately reflected is another matter to consider. The EPA
319 CRTS system, for instance, contains some relevant implementation
information.
If nonpoint sources are considered thoroughly, the cost to develop the
resources and a sufficient data system to track this information may be
high. Cost of maintaining the implementation data would depend on the
relative ease in obtaining and validating implementation data.
27
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
22
Programmatic
MEASURE
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs. TMDL Development
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
This measure would be extremely beneficial in promoting data flow, best
management practice information, and basic TMDL lifecycle data. The
measure highlights the final steps of the TMDL program indicating that it
may be beneficial for pollutants of high concern.
The use of a database to store basic implementation information, as well as
the status of TMDLs could make this measure invaluable to decision
makers.
OTHER COMMENTS
Very little TMDL implementation guidance or regulations are available in the
Clean Water Act or provided by EPA. Some state and local agencies have
attempted to develop individual guidance materials for implementation
plans, but coverage of these programs is variable and in some cases,
limited to only point sources. This measure could help establish a best
practices document. Further evaluation is needed to clarify issues on costs
and baseline period for when such a system could be implemented on a
national basis. Pilot studies could be feasible for select regions or some
states. For some sources of regional data (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay),
progress related to a "4b" approach would need to be considered as
opposed to the ordinary TMDL process where Category 5 waters lead to
Category "4a" waters with approved TMDLs.
28
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 12. Recommended Measure #7
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
23 Response
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented which now attain
water quality standards for the causes addressed in the TMDL.
This measure aims to review the recovery of waters after TMDL
implementation.
Demonstrates the progress of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented by
tracking causes of impairment information.
All waters impaired for causes which TMDLs have been developed and
implemented.
The NTTS would be used to find all 303(d) listed waters with
implementation plans. Cause of impairment information, most likely mined
from in EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD), would then be
needed to determine whether the causes addressed in the TMDL were no
longer impairing the waterbody.
The quality of data obtained from this measure is uncertain and depends on
how TMDL implementation is determined, if a standard set of criteria is
used in determining implementation (e.g., is a TMDL considered
implemented if there is increased monitoring, if there is a restoration
technique employed), and determination of cause of impairment status.
Likely 2002 for national purposes.
Based on updates to NTTS, the ability to locate and determine TMDL
implementation information, and biennial water quality assessment
reporting cycles. Updates could occur in intervals no more frequently that
on a biennial basis, and realistically, at a frequency not exceeding every
four years.
NTTS and ADB 2.x.
As data become available, the costs should be high because of the data
mining required to obtain implementation action information as well as
analysis of water quality status.
Allows the decision-makers to quantify the abatement of causes in waters
with implemented TMDLs. If implementation information can be mined
(which is an essential pipeline step in determining the effectiveness of
developing TMDLs), this is a promising measure for near-term use in the
reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and
Rating Tool (PART).
This measure may identify which causes are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
29
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 13. Recommended Measure #8
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
25 Response
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by designated use and by
pollutant
Recovery involves the re-attainment of previously unmet water quality
standards (WQS) designated uses for listed waters that are part of EPA-
approved TMDLs. The TMDL program presently focuses on tracking the
pollutants that require reductions in loadings or concentration so that the
WQS goals - and implicitly the designated uses - would be attained. By
measuring the frequency of recovery or rate of improvement for specific
water pollutants, one can determine the success of States in attaining their
TMDL goals.
Of central relevance to the CWA's TMDL program. Tracking TMDL results
by major types of pollutants is an effective ways of presenting progress is
achieving program objectives.
All waters of the U.S. reported in biennial integrated assessment reports.
These are commonly presented at segments of rivers/streams, lakes,
estuaries/oceans and wetlands.
Data would ideally be available in the Assessment Database (ADB) or
compliant system that could be placed into the NAD. Use of pollutant
reporting using the ADB would significantly improve the meaningfulness of
the reported pollutants since the ADB requires that pollution causes reflect
well-defined items that could be correlated with STORET (WQX)
characteristics or items found in the OlE's registry systems. The ADB also
requires at the assessments be anchored on EPA-approved designated
uses.
Not all states may use the ADB, so research into state-designed databases
will also be required. States have the option of placing segments into more
than one category. Although this may complicate interpretation of
segments' status, it does allow one to track progress as segments
incrementally attain some, but not all water quality standards. States have
the option of creating new or additional subcategories which may further
complicate interpretation of segments' status. The quality of data used for
this measure should be relatively sound given that it originates directly from
states. EPA's provides guidance to states on data quality in its Integrated
Reporting Guidance Manual. EPA recommends states use the NHD coding
scheme to georeference their segments; however, states are allowed to
design their own CIS system but EPA requests that the state provide
information to allow consistent georeferencing. In this case, EPA would still
have to evaluate each state's system rather than having a common way to
evaluate all states' systems.
Develop of this measures could start using information from the 2002
baseline.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
30
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
25
Response
MEASURE
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by designated use and by
pollutant
COST
Implementation cost may be moderate - and with potential for operating
costs to become fairly minimal as more states use the ADB and as transfer
of data are implemented using CDX templates.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
This measure could enhance the credibility of current EPA HQ reporting
based on materials in the NTTS or the NAD that lack credible
documentation as to the meaning of the listed pollutants.
OTHER COMMENTS
While the current NTTS and NAD can achieve reporting along these lines,
the cause/impairment codes used in the NTTS and the NAD are in many
cases very poorly defined and in some cases reflect significant alterations
on the part of EPA HQ staff that have created severe degrees of mismatch
with what EPA Regions view as the correct cause/impairments entries.
This significantly diminishes the value of the EPA HQ systems to assist
Regions faced with Federal consent decrees where the HQ materials
become legally moot. The use of the ADBv2 as a tool to improve the
reliability and meaningfulness of the pollutant entities that then become part
of the NTTS would be very helpful in progressively eliminating these sever
defects in the HQ data systems.
31
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 14. Recommended Measure #9
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
34 Response
Degree of improvement (using monitoring data)
This measure could be calculated in two ways. (1) A very generic
measurement of reduction in all pollutants. Simply compare the degrees of
improvement, not actual pollutant concentrations, across all pollutants. For
example, reduction in suspended solids from 1 ,000 ppm to 1 0 ppm would
be 99% and reduction in nitrogen from 30 pm to 20 ppm would be 30%.
Mean improvement would be 64% if unweighted by the miles or acres of
waterbodies represented. OR (2) A comparison of data within one pollutant
category, i.e., compare sediment reduction in all waters of the U.S. with
sediment TMDLs.
Can potentially cover all water quality criteria as well as permit programs as
an incremental progress measure.
All 303(d) waters - but likely most useful for river and streams.
Baseline and current water quality measurements (e.g., in the
STORET/WQX system) of pollutants for which waters are assigned TMDLs.
Georeferencing of both 303(d) listed waters and STORET monitoring
stations will be needed as well as geospatial analysis to show relevance of
monitoring station data to the TMDL waters (e.g., station located within or
immediately downstream of TMDL listed waters).
Input data would be good quality. However, comparison of improvement
across pollutants would be vague unless "option 2" is followed that would
require correlating the monitored parameters with the TMDL pollutant
causes.
Baseline would likely be 2002 and then followed by tracking conditions over
several subsequent cycles to represent a span of years to capture
baselines of all individual pollutants.
Information can be updated at any time. This measure may need to be
treated as a rolling estimate given that so many parameters are involved
and sampling and analysis schedules are so varied. Successful
implementation of this measure depends on the future of STORET/WQX.
REACH data files from all states, monitoring data to support biennial and
triennial reviews, monitoring data from basin-wide management plans. Also
requires merging multiple databases.
Moderate to High
Could be extremely valuable as a way of applying data mining techniques
using STORET/WQX data to compare with TMDL information.
Would take time to get buy-in of the reasonable of the findings - would
likely need to work with each Region. Perhaps easier to implement if set up
to handle only the more common pollutants figuring in 303(d) listings.
32
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 15. Recommended Measure #10
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
38 Explanatory
Number of TMDLs where a watershed management plan was
developed
Watershed management plans outline sources of pollution, pollution
reduction methods, timeframes for meeting water quality standards,
interim targets for achieving standards, and monitoring procedures. In
Washington state's TMDL program, an increased success of TMDLs
have been suggested when watershed management plans are
developed. This measure could be expanded to track whether a TMDL
is more likely to achieve completion when it either has been or is part of
a watershed management plan.
Has the potential to address all of CWA goals
All 303(d) waters
All States would have to adopt ADB version 2.x or a compatible data
system. Data would be needed from regions, states, or local
organizations that have developed watershed management plans,
especially in regards to which TMDL-listed waters are included in each
plan. Creating the database for watershed management plans would
present the major challenge.
Incomplete since not all States use ADB or a compatible data system.
Also, all necessary data would have to be entered into the system for
this measure. The data on which TMDLs are included in watershed
management plans are also incomplete. Creating the database for
watershed management plans and cross-walking these to approved
TMDLs would present the major challenge The latter data could be
potentially time-consuming to assemble.
Likely a 2002 baseline
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired/threatened waters, as well as coordinating information
exchange between organizations developing watershed management
plans
Assessment Database (ADB) and National TMDL Tracking System
(NTTS). Also the not-created-as-yet database of watershed
management plans. Assembling a list and/or database of all the TMDLs
which are included in a watershed management plan could be
potentially time-consuming and costly.
Costs to establish a database for watershed management plans could
be initially high. Subsequent monitoring over future assessment cycles
has the potential to be low, as it could be performed in tandem with the
biennial water quality assessment cycles, provided there is an adequate
exchange of information between the assessors and the organizations
developing the management plans.
33
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
38 Explanatory
Number of TMDLs where a watershed management plan was
developed
Promising measure for future use in strategic planning in that if this
measure supports the conclusion that TMDLs that are part of watershed
management plans are more "successful" then watershed management
plans should be made a high priority for water quality initiatives.
Similarly, this measure will allow the decision-makers to see how
developing a watershed management plan very often aids the overall
improvement in water quality, while additionally decreasing the
continued impairment of waters.
Do the watershed management plans include local volunteer groups
that monitor the water quality according to their own plans? If so,
details on the groups will be needed to qualify the management plan.
34
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 16. Recommended Measure #11
MEASURE ID
51
Response
MEASURE
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully support contact
recreation due to non-attainment of bacteria water quality
standards, which now attain contact recreation standards after
approval of a TMDL
MEANING
Focuses on designated uses geared towards public health and safety
and identifies the numbers of waters impaired by bacteria (or microbials
usually documented using pathogen indicators)
CWA RELEVANCE
Speaks to the CWA goal to have all waters in the U.S. attain swimming
and fishing standards. The BEACHES Act provides special emphasis
on major public bathing areas for both marine and Great lakes coastal
waters. Since there are similarities in the CWA numeric criteria
guidance for microbials and the national standards for microbial issued
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as CWA ambient water
criteria to protect drinking water designated uses under state WQS,
management of risks form pathogens (bacteria) provides a major
cross—program linkage between important Office of Water programs.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
The population of waters (all waterbody types) in the U.S. which exceed
primary contact recreation standards due to impairment by bacteria.
DATA NEEDS
Using EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD) or equivalent
system and National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). :
• Isolate recreation-focused designated uses impaired for bacteria in
a baseline reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses to a comparison cycle
assessment information
• Analyze differences found in attainment statuses between reporting
cycles
• Check NTTS for presence or absence of TMDL for identified
assessment identifiers
Additional information form major coastal public bathing areas is
available through the OST BEACON/PRAWN system1.
Voluntary Reporting Required Reporting
1997 1998 1999 2DDD 2001 2002 2003* 2004 2005
Number of monitored beaches 1,021 1,403 1,891 2,354 2,445 2,823 1,857* 3,574** 4,025
Number of beaches affected by advisories or closings 230 353 459 633 672 709 395* 942** 1,109
23 25 24 27 27 25 21* 26** 28
Percentage of beaches affected by advisories or
closings
Table extracted from BEACH program web site,
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2005/
While the types of pathogen indicators may differ, NPDES discharge
permits from POTWs provide regulatory reporting for indicators such as
fecal conforms and may provide some reference as well.
35
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
51 Response
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully support contact
recreation due to non-attainment of bacteria water quality
standards, which now attain contact recreation standards after
approval of a TMDL
Data quality for the major public bathing areas coved by the BEACHES
Act will generally be of good quality. For inland waters, the quality and
the availability of data will vary. Given the stringent holding time
limitations for fecal coliform and related tests for enteric pathogen
indicators, data may be sparse in rural or other remote areas. The usual
WQS criteria stipulations requiring five or more samples collected within
a period of about a month to develop the geometric means and other
duration/frequency provision in the criteria also complicate having great
confidence in ambient water samples taken at much less frequent
intervals. A new generation of quick-turnaround pathogen indicator tests
being developed to support the BEACHES Act may improve this
situation. Tests to help confirm that pathogen indicator are likely to
come form human enteric wastes as opposed to microbials from birds,
wildlife, pets, or farm animals are also becoming more practical to
implement in ambient monitoring programs.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
The National Assessment Database (NAD) with applicable information
entered into the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). Elements of
both the NAD and the NTTS are necessary to track this measure. Data
mining using information form the OST PRAWN/BEACION system or
data mining against permit compliance information in PCS can also be
helpful. Watersheds with CSOs or areas with CAFOs can also help to
focus attention on areas that may have elevated risks for pathogen
exposures.
If the NTTS and NAD are the major information sources, cost could be
low. Checks against other useful data systems could increase the costs,
but these more complicates types of integrated measures would likely
have greater precision and credibility.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for
reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and
Rating Tool (PART). It may help to uncover the primary sources of
bacteria impairment in the U.S. by highlighting recovered waters. This
measure also focuses on an issue of high public importance and
visibility.
This measure could be expanded to look at specific sources of bacteria
impairments and/or successful methods of restoration for contact
recreation areas.
36
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 17. Recommended Measure #12
MEASURE ID
63
Programmatic;
Explanatory
MEASURE
Percentage of impaired waters addressed by a TMDL and 319
Nonpoint Source projects (GRTS Projects)
MEANING
This measure would use information from NTTS and Nonpoint Source
Control Branch's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS) to identify
319(h) grant projects that directly supported TMDL implementation.
Additionally, recovery, recovery time, project type and could be evaluated
as subsets of this measure
CWA RELEVANCE
The CWA Section 319 established a national goal to address nonpoint
source pollution concerns working on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
Since the late 1990s, EPA has worked with the states to target a portion of
319 implementation work to address TMDL issues. EPA's Grants
Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) provides the database and CIS
mapping tools to correlate 319 implementation projects with the
management needs for approved TMDLs. Since the 319(h) grant program
is EPA's largest grant program to the states, leveraging this resource to
achieve TMDL results can provide an exemplar for cross-program initiatives
with other EPA or non-EPA water quality and natural resource management
programs.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
The 319 program is applicable to watershed-oriented management
measures that can be relevant to any waterbody type. Most of the activity
under the 319 program is directed, understandably, to inland rivers and
lakes, although the 319 program is also an important management tool
under NOAA-approved state coastal zone management programs.
DATA NEEDS
Information from the NTTS database and CIS mapping layers to correlate
with database information and CIS mapping layers form GRTS for projects
involving actual implementation projects.
DATA QUALITY
In cases where NHD-based georeferencing of the locations of 319
implementation projects are lacking, there can be uncertainty in spatially
correlating the 319 projects with approved TMDLs.
BASELINE
Could be implemented fora 2002 baseline.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments and updates to the NTTS and on
updates and maintenance for GRTS.
SYSTEMS
NTTS database and CIS mapping layers and similar database and CIS
layers in GRTS.
COST
Costs could be low to moderate since NTTS and GRTS are major Office of
Water systems.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Information on BMP effectiveness from analyses conducted under the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program can be applied
to make estimates on the time needed after implementation before WQ
improvements would be expected. EPA is conducting special studies based
on 319 projects in Illinois and California to verify this sort of time to recovery
prediction approach.
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program: Successes and
Recommendations (2000) (available on the Web at
http://www.ncsu.edu/waterquality/section319/index.html)
37
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
MEASURE ID
63
Programmatic;
Explanatory
MEASURE
Percentage of impaired waters addressed by a TMDL and 319
Nonpoint Source projects (CRTS Projects)
OTHER COMMENTS
Information on BMP effectiveness from analyses conducted under the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program can also be
applied to make estimates on the time needed after implementation before
WQ improvements would be expected.
Progress in developing this measure would help in pursuing similar cross-
program linkages correlating TMDL program data with TMDL-relevant
program conducted through the USDA or BMP tracking programs
sponsored through the Chesapeake Bay program or systems maintained by
Chesapeake Bay states such as Maryland or Pennsylvania.
38
-------
4.0 Relating Measures to Major Results Analysis Themes
4.1 Cross-walking Measures to Major Results Themes and Concepts
In terms of the measures that were evaluated, at least eight (8) major themes emerged. These
themes include the following:
(1) Measures related to outcome indicators (recovery)
(2) Measures related to incremental progress concepts
(3) Measures relevant to 4b issues
(4) Measures relevant to cross-program issues
(5) Measures involving issues that are very important in some EPA Regions
(6) Measures involving explanatory tools
(7) Measures using important non-EPA information relevant to implementation and
recovery
(8) Measures involving programmatic issues that would usually be viewed as output
indicators
The distribution of the complete set of candidate measures cross-walked against these 8
categories is summarized in Table 18. Measure IDs rated as of relatively higher significance are
flagged in red bold.
Table 18. Candidate Measures Cross-walked Against 8 Thematic Categories
Measure
ID
Measure Name
(1) Measures related to outcome indicators (recovery)
1
2
3
6
23
25
47
77
81
82
83
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired which reattain use
standards by a given year.
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of causes removed by a given year.
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired which reattain use
standards by a given year if mercury and other legacy pollutants are excluded as
impairments in the analysis of use attainment.
Percent of stream miles, lake acres, etc. where biological assessments that are part of
EMAP national surveys show incremental improvements
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented which now attain water quality
standards for the causes addressed in the TMDL
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by designated use and by pollutant
Tracking impaired waters from a baseline year for which TMDLs have been developed and
the water quality has been restored.
IR baseline of category 4b waters that had at least one use impaired that now have at least
one cause of impairment no longer listed as a cause
Water Quality Accounting Measures using Watershed Boundary Dataset for Inland Waters
Water Quality Accounting Measures for Near Coastal/Open Water Areas
Improvements in WQ designated use attainment for major Section 1 01 (a) "fishable-
swimmable" uses
(2) Measures related to incremental progress concepts
1
2
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired which reattain use
standards by a given year.
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of causes removed by a given year.
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Measure
ID
3
6
8
17
19
25
34
46
48(49)
50
51
58
68
77
79
81
82
83
Measure Name
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired which reattain use
standards by a given year if mercury and other legacy pollutants are excluded as
impairments in the analysis of use attainment.
Percent of stream miles, lake acres, etc. where biological assessments that are part of
EMAP national surveys show incremental improvements
Number (%) of impaired waters that still do not meet standards but in which the
concentrations of a pollutant (e.g. fecal coliform) have improved by a given percent over a
specified time period
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in riparian vegetation
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in Impervious Surface Cover
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by designated use and by pollutant
Degree of improvement (using monitoring data)
Percent of assessed waters impaired by nutrients or sedimentation is decreasing
Success in using either BMPs or NPDES permits to reduce/remove source pollutants as
stated in approved TMDLs and/or at least 80% of the source loading (focus on common
conventional pollutants)
Changes in percentage of stream miles, lake acres etc. with fish tissue concentrations above
health based thresholds (for Hg and other persistent bioaccumulative contaminants)
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully support contact recreation due to non-
attainment of bacteria water quality standards, which now attain contact recreation standards
after approval of a TMDL
Percent of TMDLs which address predicted changes in the land use, population growth,
confounding variables, etc.
TMDL approval and recovery for stream systems with significant recovery potential
IR baseline of category 4b waters that had at least one use impaired that now have at least
one cause of impairment no longer listed as a cause
Percent of stream miles where biological assessments that are part of a state probability
survey or similar landscape indicator survey system show incremental improvements
Water Quality Accounting Measures using Watershed Boundary Dataset for Inland Waters
Water Quality Accounting Measures for Near Coastal/Open Water Areas
Improvements in WQ designated use attainment for major Section 101 (a) "fishable-
swimmable" uses
(3) Measures relevant to 4b issues
69
70
71
73
80
84
Control measures and/or programs applied to 4b listings that can be documented to result in
water quality standards attainment
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b) development in geological sensitive areas (e.g., areas with
extensive karst topography)
Incidence of impaired waters involving pollutants possibly regional in nature (e.g., mercury
from atmospheric deposition) for which alternative measures have been approved or where
TMDL Category 5 development priority /ran king status is rated as "low"
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment issues relevant to coastal
Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Percent of stream miles where hyporheic exchange was taken into consideration with an
initial focus on thermal or dissolved oxygen impairments
Percentage of waters with decreased water quality, no change in water quality, or
improvements in water quality for waters with implementation actions underway related to
TMDL implementation plans as compared to waters without TMDL approvals
40
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Measure
ID
Measure Name
(4) Measures relevant to cross-program issues
50
51
62
63
67
70
71
73
75
80
Changes in percentage of stream miles, lake acres etc. with fish tissue concentrations above
health based thresholds (for Hg and other persistent bioaccumulative contaminants)
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully support contact recreation due to non-
attainment of bacteria water quality standards, which now attain contact recreation standards
after approval of a TMDL
NPDES Permit Revision Tracking
Percentage of impaired waters addressed by a TMDL and 319 Nonpoint Source projects
(CRTS Projects)
TMDL management plan linkages with special programs to help achieve the goals of such
major stewardship and conservation groups
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b) development in geologically sensitive areas (e.g., areas with
extensive karst topography)
Incidence of impaired waters involving pollutants possibly regional in nature (e.g., mercury
from atmospheric deposition) for which alternative measures have been approved or where
TMDL Category 5 development priority /ran king status is rated as "low"
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment issues relevant to coastal
Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Success in implementing agricultural Best Management Practices for nutrient reduction in
watersheds with nutrient TMDL issues
Percent of stream miles where hyporheic exchange was taken into consideration with an
initial focus on thermal or dissolved oxygen impairments
(5) Measures involve issues that are very important in some EPA Regions
65
70
71
73
80
TMDL Development Prioritization Decisions for Special Fishery Tier Use and Recreational
Opportunities for 303(d)-listed Waters
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b) development in geological sensitive areas (e.g., areas with
extensive karst topography)
Incidence of impaired waters involving pollutants possibly regional in nature (e.g., mercury
from atmospheric deposition) for which alternative measures have been approved or where
TMDL Category 5 development priority /ran king status is rated as "low"
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment issues relevant to coastal
Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Percent of stream miles where hyporheic exchange was taken into consideration with an
initial focus on thermal or dissolved oxygen impairments
(6) Measures involve explanatory tools
9
14
17
19
54
58
70
Data mining to construct as complete a baseline as possible, then use these monitoring data
to extrapolate with statistical confidence to watersheds without sufficient monitoring data
Number of Approved TMDLs where a large-area model was used to predict methods for
reducing the cause(s) of impairment including approaches for specific sources
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in riparian vegetation
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in Impervious Surface Cover
Modeling simulation of 'uncontrolled' worst-case impairment contrasted with actual water
quality
Percent of TMDLs which address predicted changes in the land use, population growth,
confounding variables, etc.
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b) development in geological sensitive areas (e.g., areas with
extensive karst topography)
41
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Measure
ID
81
82
Measure Name
Water Quality Accounting Measures using Watershed Boundary Dataset for Inland Waters
Water Quality Accounting Measures for Near Coastal/Open Water Areas
(7) Measures makes use of important non-EPA information relevant to implementation and
recovery
64
67
73
75
81
82
National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) Projects (TMDL-related)
TMDL management plan linkages with special programs to help achieve the goals of such
major stewardship and conservation groups
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment issues relevant to coastal
Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Success in implementing agricultural Best Management Practices for nutrient reduction in
watersheds with nutrient TMDL issues
Water Quality Accounting Measures using Watershed Boundary Dataset for Inland Waters
Water Quality Accounting Measures for Near Coastal/Open Water Areas
(8) Measures involve programmatic issues that would usually be viewed as output indicators
10
13
22
30
32
36
37
38
48(49)
66
67
68
72
73
75
78
80
84
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in baseline which progressed at least one
step in the TMDL lifecycle "pipeline"
Fate of waters designated as "threatened" between reporting cycles
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs. TMDL Development
Post-implementation monitoring
Number and analysis of TMDLs which have been revised from the initial listing due to new
information (e.g. phased approaches and/or additional monitoring, model development and
reassessment of statistical modeling reliability)
Water quality standard(s) changed (e.g., UAA) related to TMDLS
Watershed Groups Formed
Number of TMDLs where a watershed management plan was developed
Success in using either BMPs or NPDES permits to reduce/remove source pollutants as
stated in approved TMDLs and/or at least 80% of the source loading (focus on common
conventional pollutants)
Incidence of 303(d) listed waters needing TMDL development that fall within counties
showing elevated "community stress" indicator levels
TMDL management plan linkages with special programs to help achieve the goals of such
major stewardship and conservation groups
TMDL approval and recovery for stream systems with significant recovery potential
Patterns in implementation plan development versus funding source.
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment issues relevant to coastal
Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the Pacific Northwest
Success in implementing agricultural Best Management Practices for nutrient reduction in
watersheds with nutrient TMDL issues
Percent of stream miles where biological assessments that are part of a state probability
survey or similar landscape indicator survey system show incremental improvements
Percent of stream miles where hyporheic exchange was taken into consideration with an
initial focus on thermal or dissolved oxygen impairments
Percentage of waters with decreased water quality, no change in water quality, or
improvements in water quality for waters with implementation actions underway related to
TMDL implementation plans as compared to waters without TMDL approvals
42
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
4.2 Reflections on a Work in Progress
4.2.1 Overview
The TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report has evaluated a wide range
of candidate measures which draw from currently utilized indicators as well as concepts that
would expand the content and features for useful measures. Many measure ideas were derived
from work carried out over the last year for EPA's Strategic Plan and the Office of Water
performance measures related to Goal 2 for Clean and Safe Water. Additionally, several program
efforts within the Office of Water, other EPA programs, or other agencies such as the USDA
Forest Service were influences for the TMDL Program Results Analysis project. Cross-program
coordination can be a critical element in the success of any implementation effort and represents
an integrated approach to the research, financial and regulatory complexities surrounding many
environmental issues.
Multimedia stressors, where Clean Water Act management requires assistance from outside
programs, were also addressed in measure development. Cross-program themes often reflect
issues that are of particular concern for specific parts of the country, affect similar types of land
uses (e.g., urban or agricultural areas), are legacy pollutants, or typically employ alternative
management approaches to impaired waters (Category "4b" waters). For example, percent
impervious cover is an invaluable explanatory indicator used for urban stormwater management,
smart growth provisions in Comprehensive Conservation, management plans of National Estuary
Programs, and other programs which focus on water quality issues related to urbanization. Many
initiatives and lessons learned from these projects can be directly applied to the Results Analysis
project.
For a number of problems involving legacy pollutants (often from mining activities) the
Superfund program has taken on watershed scale remediation responsibilities. These pollution
issues are frequently candidates for 4b classification in terms of the management options most
appropriate to the corresponding water quality impairments. Coordinating the project-specific
and ordinarily site-based tools of programs such as CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) with the Clean Water Act's principal regulatory
programs geared to control ongoing source activity presents many challenges, but can often
provide the only feasible approach to developing exploratory measures and tackling
contamination issues (most notably legacy pollutants) on a watershed scale (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2006. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds EPA-
540-R-05-013. Office of Water and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC).
4.2.2 Consideration of exploratory and explanatory indicators
Improvements in tracking environmental responses hinges in large part on the development of
several types of explanatory tools to help translate underlying environmental signals into
indicators which document the progress of restoration techniques related to approved TMDLs.
At present, EPA is dependent for most of its response indicators on assessment databases such as
the NTTS or the NAD, where available monitoring, survey, modeling, or other useful primary
information is packed into assessment conclusions on the designated use attainment status for
specific assessment units. While a wide range of results tracking indicators can be developed
from the information contained in the NTTS and the NAD, a more transparent way to relate
43
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
STORET Ambient Stations - April 2006
these assessment conclusions to the actual monitoring data, landscape ecology analyses, data
mining or modeling simulations, or other types of more primary explanatory information sources
would clearly be desirable.
Establishing explanatory measures on a large area basis involves a number of uncertainties in
terms of estimating costs or the extent of possible data gaps. For instance, being able to access
monitoring data from STORET (or the new Water Quality Exchange national data warehouse)
would greatly facilitate
implementing a number of
measures related to increm9tal
improvements that require the
comparison of results obtained
from STORET-based analyses
against the water quality goals in
approved TMDLs. Presently,
however, STORET may not
contain all the monitoring
information used to make 305(b)
assessment or 303(d) listing
decisions. Figure 4 shows the
distribution patterns and possible
data gaps in water quality data
contained in STORET as of April,
2006.
Figure 4. STORET Stations (April 2006).
For explanatory indicators requiring access to gaging station data required to estimate pollutant
loadings, the national Water Quality Monitoring Council has proposed a National Monitoring
Network (http://acwi.gov/monitoring/network/design/) that aims to efficiently pool efficiently
the available USGS and EPA flow and monitoring data for rivers. This data network would
account for over 90% of the pollutant loadings to estuarine and coastal waters. As illustrated in
Figure 5, the proposed network clearly has a number of gaps in terms of comprehensive
coverage. While modeling tools such as SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regressions On
Watershed Attributes) could build on the National Monitoring Network (NMN) framework to fill
in some the data gaps, for estimates down to smaller headwater watersheds, richer data coverages
would clearly be desirable.
Probability survey approaches provide emerging tools to ensure a more comprehensive and
unbiased assessments of water quality conditions and help track status and trends over time. The
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) has helped define how such approaches
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/index.html) could be initialized and then
institutionalized by anchoring the core on-going monitoring efforts on state National Estuary
Programs. The Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA)
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/) extends these approaches to perennial wadeable
streams and provides mechanisms to standardize bioassessment protocols and analysis
approaches to benefit national status and trends reporting as well as EPA and State Clean Water
Act programs. WSA monitoring data has been entered into STORET as a trial exercise in how to
44
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
National Water-Quality Monitoring Network
Figure 5. Major River Basins in the National Monitoring Network Design
expand the data storage and retrieval capabilities of STORET beyond traditional physical and
chemical parameters. Additional work is needed to make sure STORET (and the Water Quality
Exchange) can adequately accommodate state bioassessment information. At smaller watershed
scales, the probability survey data can be integrated with other types of explanatory tools such as
landscape ecology models, data mining models, and outputs from watershed-oriented screening
models. Figure 6 illustrates how states such as West Virginia are creating probability survey
information that, when integrated into STORET, could significantly help in implementing
TMDL results measures.
45
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Wadeable Streams Assessment Sites
West Virginia
Probability Survery
Bioassessment Sites
Sites Sampled
1997-2004
'•••**-i'.* -'^'^K^V
.' . .'- "VU
\
Figure 6. New Probability Survey Data from National Surveys and from State Monitoring and
Assessment Programs
The main challenge in making good use of explanatory data to develop TMDL results measures
is that information is available on a "large area" basis but not always for the entire country.
Matching database information on implementation plans with the information in the NTTS is
very difficult unless the database information includes georeferencing to either small watershed
polygons or to features in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Figure 7 highlights the
need for additional attention to GIS materials to select relevant subsets of both the NTTS and the
GRTS data. The data must be then be examined to confirm that the Section 319 projects
addressed pollution issues relevant to the TMDLs or that there is other documentation to confirm
that the 319 project was actually incorporated as part of the TMDL implementation plan. Similar
geospatial and database matching exercises are in order for other types of programmatic
information, for instance, in matching habitat restoration information from the National River
Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) Database (http://nrrss.nbii.gov/).
46
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
(A) | 303(d)-Listed Waters and CRTS Projects
Approved TMDLs Using a Watershed (Clustered)
Development Approach
Figure 7. Matching TMDL Implementation Data with 319 GRTS Project Data
Regardless of the data availability and spatial variability, enough information is available to help
document the significant advantages for TMDL program results analysis for these explanatory
measures. This knowledge can help in encouraging more and more states to start using these
tools and to make their findings available to EPA and other states.
4.2.3 Summary of Measures Development
The Results Analysis Methods and Measure Report is a component in a multi-year Results
Analysis initiative. The goal for this longer term project within the Watershed Branch is to
establish a management outlook capable of adapting as more information becomes available and
is understood so that the objectives can evolve to serve the needs of audiences within the Office
of Water, other Headquarters programs, and the EPA Regions. In Table 19 (adapted from
Table 1, "Desired TMDL Program Results"), the TMDL results analysis area of interest that
were the focus of the measure development work reflected in this report are highlighted in a gray
font color. Other areas of interests involving environmental responses and programmatic
features where this report has only been able to scratch the surface in terms of measure
development or evaluation are highlighted in a red font color.
47
-------
TMDL Program Results Analysis Measures and Methods Report
Table 19. Emerging TMDL Results Analysis Areas of Interest
Environmental Outcomes
1. More recovered waters: more formerly impaired waters fully meet their WQS.
2. More incremental progress on recoveries: more waters partially meet more of their WQS or
fewer stressors impair these waters.
3. Minimal new degradation rates: few waters exhibit new impairments, signifying maintenance of
WQ.
4. Optimized timing to maintain resources: priorities and schedules for restoration favor conserving
and protecting the most aquatic goods and services.
Programmatic Features
1. Adequate program milestones and tracking: TMDLs completed, TMDL implementation and
other critical milestones are achieved at satisfactory rates, and state and EPA data systems store
and retrieve critical results information.
2. Scientific explanations of recoveries: factors responsible for water recoveries or maintenance
have been revealed by technical analysis methods.
3. Documented condition of impairments & recovery cases: all impaired waters, as well as all full
and partial recoveries, are well known and documented in accessible EPA data systems.
4. Efficient program spending: restoration resources are not squandered on waters with no potential
for recovery.
5. Restoration partners: appropriate collaboration of EPA with state, federal and other partners is
evident through watershed-based organizations at many sites being restored.
6. Plausible links of outcomes to CWA/TMDLs: evidence of CWA and TMDL programs wholly or
partly causing the outcome is documented.
48
-------
Appendix A
-------
-------
Appendix A
LISTING OF CANDIDATE TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES AND
PROPOSED EVALUTION CRITERIA SCORING METHODLOGY
AS APPLIED TO CANDIDATE MEASURES
SUMMARY LISTING OF CANDIDATE TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES
LISTING OF CANDIDATE TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES WITH
RELATIVITY HIGHER EVALUTION CRITERIA SCORES
MEASURE SCORING FOR PRIMARY TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS GOALS
MEASURE SCORING FOR SECONDARY TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS GOALS
A-l
-------
Appendix A
A-2
-------
Appendix A
SUMMARY LISTING OF CANDIDATE TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES
This section presents a complete set of summaries for 48 candidate measures.
This is followed by a series of scoring tables that document the application of the
evaluation criteria to identify measures in the primary and secondary results analysis
goals categories with relatively higher evaluation scores that are recommended for
additional analysis. A final section provides tables listing the higher scoring measures
organized in one set for primary goals and another set for secondary goals. The
measures in each group (primary and secondary) with scores at or above the median
levels are recommended as the targets for follow-on analysis. This provides a set of 26
primary goal measures (most of these response measures) and 22 secondary goal
measures (most of these programmatic with some explanatory measures). The
complete factsheet profiles are contained in Appendix B.
Measure Meets Primary or Secondary Results Analysis Goals
(A) Primary Goals - WQ outcomes (restoration or incremental improvement); clear
relevance to core TMDL programs or highly relevant TMDL-like program;
documentation of implementation plans
(B) Secondary Goals - mostly output-oriented (useful programmatic or "pipeline"
information but not geared to outcomes); involves only maintenance measures
Predominant Measure Type (Response, Explanatory or Programmatic)
Note: Some measures may have integrated features so that they can display aspects
of several of these major measure categories.
MEASURE ID
MEASURE NAME
RESULTS
GOALS
MEASURE TYPE
IR Baseline that had more than one
use (or WQS activity) impaired that
now has at least one impaired use
restored
Response
IR baseline that had at least one "use"
impaired that now has at least one
cause of impairment no longer listed as
a cause
Explanatory
IR Baseline that had at least one use
impaired that now has at least one
cause of impairment no longer listed as
a cause censored for mercury or other
legacy pollutants
Response
A-3
-------
Appendix A
MEASURE ID
6
8
9
10
13
14
17
19
22
23
MEASURE NAME
Percent of stream miles, lake acres,
etc. where biological assessments that
are part of EMAP national surveys
show incremental improvements
Number (%) of impaired waters that still
do not meet standards but in which the
concentrations of a pollutant (e.g. fecal
coliform) have improved by a given
percent over a specified time period
Data mining to construct as complete a
baseline as possible, then use these
monitoring data to extrapolate with
statistical confidence to watersheds
without sufficient monitoring data
Number/percent of waters identified as
impaired in baseline which progressed
at least one step in the TMDL lifecycle
"pipeline"
Fate of waters designated as
"threatened" between reporting cycles
Number of Approved TMDLs where a
large-area model was used to predict
methods for reducing the cause(s) of
impairment including approaches for
specific sources
Impairment rates associated with rates
of change in riparian vegetation
Impairment rates associated with rates
of change in Impervious Surface Cover
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs.
TMDL Development
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs
implemented which now attain water
quality standards for the causes
addressed in the TMDL
RESULTS
GOALS
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Response
Response
Programmatic
Programmatic
Response
Explanatory
Explanatory
Explanatory
Programmatic
Response
A-4
-------
Appendix A
MEASURE ID
25
30
32
34
36
37
38
46
47
48(49)
50
MEASURE NAME
Recovery (or improvement)
frequencies by designated use and by
pollutant
Post-implementation monitoring
Number and analysis of TMDLs which
have been revised from the initial listing
due to new information (e.g. phased
approaches and/or additional
monitoring, model development and
reassessment of statistical modeling
reliability)
Degree of improvement (using
monitoring data)
Water quality standard(s) changed (e.g.,
UAA applying TALU concepts) related to
TMDLS
Watershed Groups Formed
Number of TMDLs where a watershed
management plan was developed
Percent of assessed waters impaired
by nutrients or sedimentation is
decreasing
Tracking impaired waters from a
baseline year for which TMDLs have
been developed and the water quality
has been restored.
Success in using either BMPs or
NPDES permits to reduce/remove
source pollutants as stated in approved
TMDLs and/or at least 80% of the
source loading (focus on common
conventional pollutants)
Changes in percentage of stream
miles, lake acres etc. with fish tissue
concentrations above health based
thresholds (for Hg and other persistent
bioaccumulative contaminants)
RESULTS
GOALS
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Response
Explanatory
Programmatic
Response
Programmatic
Explanatory
Explanatory
Programmatic
Response
Response
Response
A-5
-------
Appendix A
MEASURE ID
51
54
58
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
MEASURE NAME
Percent of waters from a baseline that did
not fully support swimming due to non-
attainment of bacteria water quality
standards, which now attain swimming
standards after approval of a TMDL
Modeling simulation of 'uncontrolled'
worst-case impairment contrasted with
actual water quality
Percent of TMDLs which address
predicted changes in the land use,
population growth, confounding
variables, etc.
NPDES Permit Revision Tracking
CRTS Projects (TMDL-related)
National River Restoration Science
Synthesis (NRRSS) Projects (TMDL-
related)
TMDL Development Prioritization
Decisions for Special Fishery Tier Use
and Recreational Opportunities for
303(d)-listed Waters
Incidence of 303(d) listed waters
needing TMDL development that fall
within counties showing elevated
"community stress" indicator levels
TMDL management plan linkages with
special programs to help achieve the
goals of such major stewardship and
conservation groups
TMDL approval and recovery for
stream systems with significant
recovery potential
Control measures and/or programs
applied to 4b listings that can be
documented to result in water quality
standards attainment
RESULTS
GOALS
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
MEASURE TYPE
Response
Explanatory
Explanatory
Programmatic
Programmatic
Explanatory
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
A-6
-------
Appendix A
MEASURE ID
70
71
72
73
75
77
78
79
MEASURE NAME
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b)
development in geological sensitive
areas (e.g., areas with extensive karst
topography)
Incidence of impaired waters involving
pollutants possibly regional in nature
(e.g., mercury from atmospheric
deposition) for which alternative
measures have been approved or
where TMDL Category 5 development
priority/ranking status is rated as "low"
Patterns in implementation plan
development versus funding source.
Progress in TMDL establishment for
temperature and sediment issues
relevant to coastal Coho Salmon
recovery audiences in the Pacific
Northwest
Success in implementing agricultural
Best Management Practices for
nutrient reduction in watersheds with
nutrient TMDL issues
IR baseline of category 4b waters that
had at least one use impaired that now
have at least one cause of impairment
no longer listed as a cause
Rate of recovery of impaired waters
with numeric standards vs. waters with
narrative standards (focus on nutrients)
Percent of stream miles where
biological assessments that are part of
a state probability survey or similar
landscape indicator survey system
show incremental improvements
RESULTS
GOALS
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Explanatory
Explanatory
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Response
Programmatic
Response
A-7
-------
Appendix A
MEASURE ID
80
81
82
83
84
MEASURE NAME
Percent of stream miles where
hyporheic exchange was taken into
consideration with an initial focus on
thermal or dissolved oxygen
impairments
Water Quality Accounting Measures
using Watershed Boundary Dataset for
Inland Waters
Water Quality Accounting Measures for
Near Coastal/Open Water Areas
Improvements in WQ designated use
attainment for major Section 1 01 (a)
"fishable-swimmable" uses
Percentage of waters with decreased
water quality, no change in water
quality, or improvements in water
quality for waters with implementation
actions underway related to TMDL
implementation plans as compared to
waters without TMDL approvals
RESULTS
GOALS
B
A
A
A
B
MEASURE TYPE
Programmatic
Explanatory
Explanatory
Response
Programmatic
A-8
-------
Appendix A
PROPOSED EVALUTION CRITERIA SCORING METHODLOGY
APPLIED TO RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES
A-9
-------
Appendix A
Measure Scoring for Primary TMDL Results Analysis Goals
NOTE: Relatively Higher Scores in BOLD
R (RESPONSE); X (EXPLANATORY); P (PROGRAMMATIC)
MEASURE ID
RESULTS GOALS
MEASURE TYPE
DATA AVAILABILITY
DATA COVERAGE
SPATIAL CORRELATION
CROSS-PROGRAM/TMDL-RELEVANCE
ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
INNOVATIVE FEATURES
SCORE
1
A
R
10
10
10
10
0
0
B
2
A
X
10
10
10
10
0
0
40
3
A
R
10
10
10
10
0
0
40
6
A
R
2
2
1
5
0
10
20
8
A
R
2
1
8
10
0
0
21
13
A
R
5
10
10
10
0
0
35
14
A
X
2
2
10
10
3
10
37
17
A
X
5
10
7
10
3
10
45
19
A
X
10
10
8
10
0
10
48
23
A
R
10
10
10
10
10
0
50
25
A
R
5
7
10
10
10
0
42
34
A
R
2
7
8
10
3
10
40
38
A
X
2
5
7
10
10
10
44
47
A
R
5
10
10
0
3
0
28
48/9
A
R
2
1
10
10
10
0
33
A-10
-------
Appendix A
Measure Scoring for Primary TMDL Results Analysis Goals - (Continued)
NOTE: Relatively Higher Scores in BOLD
R (RESPONSE); X (EXPLANATORY); P (PROGRAMMATIC)
MEASURE ID
RESULTS GOALS
MEASURE TYPE
DATA AVAILABILITY
DATA COVERAGE
SPATIAL CORRELATION
CROSS-PROGRAM/TMDL-RELEVANCE ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
INNOVATIVE FEATURES
SCORE
50
A
R
5
7
1
10
0
10
33
51
A
R
2
2
8
10
10
10
42
64
A
X
7
10
7
10
7
10
51
71
A
X
7
10
10
10
7
10
54
77
A
R
7
10
10
10
3
0
40
79
A
R
2
7
5
10
3
10
37
81
A
X
2
2
5
10
7
10
36
82
A
X
2
2
5
10
7
10
36
83
A
R
10
10
10
10
10
3
53
A-ll
-------
Appendix A
Measure Scoring for Secondary TMDL Results Analysis Goals
NOTE: Relatively Higher Scores in BOLD
R (RESPONSE); X (EXPLANATORY); P (PROGRAMMATIC)
MEASURE ID
RESULTS GOALS
MEASURE TYPE
DATA AVAILABILITY
DATA COVERAGE
SPATIAL CORRELATION
CROSS-PROGRAM/TMDL-RELEVANCE ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
INNOVATIVE FEATURES
SCORE
9
B
P
7
7
8
0
0
10
32
10
B
P
7
10
10
10
10
0
47
22
B
P
7
10
10
10
10
0
47
30
B
X
2
1
8
10
10
10
41
32
B
P
7
10
10
0
0
0
27
36
B
P
2
10
1
8
0
10
31
37
B
X
2
5
7
5
0
10
29
46
B
P
7
7
10
10
3
0
37
54
B
X
2
2
7
10
3
10
34
58
B
X
2
2
10
10
3
10
37
62
B
P
10
10
10
10
3
0
43
63
B
P
10
10
10
10
3
3
46
A-12
-------
Appendix A
Measure Scoring for Secondary TMDL Results Analysis Goals - (Continued)
NOTE: Relatively Higher Scores in BOLD
R (RESPONSE); X (EXPLANATORY); P (PROGRAMMATIC)
MEASURE ID
RESULTS GOALS
MEASURE TYPE
DATA AVAILABILITY
DATA COVERAGE
SPATIAL CORRELATION
CROSS-PROGRAIWTMDL-RELEVANCE ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION
INNOVATIVE FEATURES
SCORE
65
B
P
1
1
7
10
3
3
25
66
B
P
10
10
7
5
0
10
42
67
B
P
2
5
7
10
3
10
37
68
B
P
2
1
10
10
3
10
36
69
B
P
5
10
10
10
10
10
55
70
B
X
7
10
10
10
3
10
50
72
B
P
2
10
10
0
10
10
42
73
B
P
7
7
10
10
3
10
47
75
B
P
2
2
7
10
10
0
31
78
B
P
7
10
10
10
3
0
40
80
B
P
7
7
7
10
0
10
41
84
B
P
10
10
10
10
3
10
53
A-13
-------
Appendix A
LISTING OF CANDIDATE TMDL RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURES
WITH RELATIVITY HIGHER EVALUTION CRITERIA SCORES
• Primary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores
• Secondary Goal Measures with Relatively Higher Evaluation Criteria Scores
A-14
-------
Appendix A
PRIMARY GOAL MEASURES WITH RELATIVELY HIGHER EVALUATION
CRITERIA SCORES
MEASURE ID
2
3
17
19
23
25
34
38
51
64
MEASURE NAME
IR baseline that had at least one "use"
impaired that now has at least one
cause of impairment no longer listed as
a cause
IR Baseline that had at least one use
impaired that now has at least one
cause of impairment no longer listed as
a cause censored for mercury or other
legacy pollutants
Impairment rates associated with rates
of change in riparian vegetation
Impairment rates associated with rates
of change in Impervious Surface Cover
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs
implemented which now attain water
quality standards for the causes
addressed in the TMDL
Recovery (or improvement)
frequencies by designated use and by
pollutant
Degree of improvement (using
monitoring data)
Number of TMDLs where a watershed
management plan was developed
Percent of waters from a baseline that
did not fully support swimming due to
non-attainment of bacteria water quality
standards, which now attain swimming
standards after approval of a TMDL
National River Restoration Science
Synthesis (NRRSS) Projects (TMDL-
related)
RESULTS
GOALS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Explanatory
Response
Explanatory
Explanatory
Response
Response
Response
Explanatory
Response
Explanatory
A-15
-------
Appendix A
PRIMARY GOAL MEASURES WITH RELATIVELY HIGHER EVALUATION
CRITERIA SCORES
MEASURE ID
71
77
83
MEASURE NAME
Incidence of impaired waters involving
pollutants possibly regional in nature
(e.g., mercury from atmospheric
deposition) for which alternative
measures have been approved or
where TMDL Category 5 development
priority/ranking status is rated as "low"
IR baseline of category 4b waters that
had at least one use impaired that now
have at least one cause of impairment
no longer listed as a cause
Improvements in WQ designated use
attainment for major Section 1 01 (a)
"fishable-swimmable" uses
RESULTS
GOALS
A
A
A
MEASURE TYPE
Explanatory
Response
Response
A-16
-------
Appendix A
SECONDARY GOAL MEASURES WITH RELATIVELY HIGHER EVALUATION
CRITERIA SCORES
MEASURE ID
10
22
63
69
70
73
84
MEASURE NAME
Number/percent of waters identified as
impaired in baseline which progressed
at least one step in the TMDL lifecycle
"pipeline."
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs.
TMDL Development
CRTS Projects (TMDL-related)
Control measures and/or programs
applied to 4b listings that can be
documented to result in water quality
standards attainment
Patterns in TMDL (also 4b)
development in geological sensitive
areas (e.g., areas with extensive karst
topography)
Progress in TMDL establishment for
temperature and sediment issues
relevant to coastal Coho Salmon
recovery audiences in the Pacific
Northwest
Percentage of waters with decreased
water quality, no change in water
quality, or improvements in water
quality for waters with implementation
actions underway related to TMDL
implementation plans as compared to
waters without TMDL approvals
RESULTS
GOALS
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
MEASURE TYPE
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Programmatic
Explanatory
Programmatic
Programmatic
A-17
-------
Appendix B
-------
-------
Appendix B
CANDIDATE RESULTS ANALYSIS MEASURE
FACT SHEET PROFILES
B-l
-------
Appendix B
B-2
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
1 Response
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired
which reattain use standards by a given year.
Approximately 55,000 designated uses divided among 354 use description
variants and 38 states, according to 2004 draft NAD data provide a
baseline for this measure.
By tracking designated use attainment, incremental improvements will be
demonstrated for all assessment segments initially listed under Category 4
or 5. If data allows, this measure may be broken out into cause or source
type or may be scaled by segment or watershed for future analysis.
Directly corresponds to Result II, More Incremental Progress on
Recoveries; documents maintenance (and incremental progress) of
impaired waters; takes into account impaired waters where pollutant
concerns are addressed by alternative TMDL processes and also where
waters are impaired by pollution (i.e., Category "4b" and "4c").
This measure targets assessed waters known to be impaired.
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Isolate designated uses and use attainment status by assessment for
any two reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the
comparison cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences found in attainment statuses between reporting
cycles
Spatial analysis of these components would require georeferencing
information and spatial analysis software.
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
NAD or surrogate data system. Additional elements of the NAD and NTTS
can enhance results and allow breakout of components.
B-3
-------
Appendix B
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
Designated Use
l«no
- 1 fiOO
~! 1400
T? 1900
n mnn
^ ann
.- sou
Si finn
t Ann
* ">nn
i 1
^
Attainment Changes Across One
Reporting Cycle
i — i
i^
^
•
•
•
•
F\
m
D2002
• 2004
::: • , i • , i • , i • i
Fully Insufficient Not Not
Supporting Information Supporting Assessed
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Promising measure for near-term use in Office of Water Strategic Plan or
for reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment
and Rating Tool (PART). Allows the decision-makers to see which
assessed waters are improving. Additional analysis can track how close
waters are to being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem and more
waters should be assessed.
This measure may identify which uses are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
B-4
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS
ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPOR
TING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
2 Explanatory
Using a baseline reporting cycle, track the number of causes removed
by a given year.
Approximately 82,000 causes among 55,000 designated uses and 38 states,
according to 2004 draft NAD data provide a baseline for this measure.
By tracking the cause, incremental improvements will be demonstrated for
all assessment segments initially listed under Category 4 or 5. If data
allows, this measure may be broken out into cause or source type or may be
scaled by segment or watershed for future
Directly corresponds to Result II and VI, documents incremental progress of
impaired waters and has the capacity to evaluate stressor data by elements
such as pollutant source (i.e., point or nonpoint source) and pollutant type.
303(d) list of impaired waters - This measure targets assessed waters
known to be impaired.
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Isolate causes of impairment by assessment for any two reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the comparison
cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences in cause numbers, types between reporting cycles
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states. Otherwise, state IR databases would
have to be mined and compiled.
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1 998/2000 segments.
Could be used in the next strateqic plan if concerted effort was made to
more completely populate the geospatial data and pollutant impairment data
for either a 1998/2000, 2002, or 2004 baseline.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of impaired
waters
ADB and other state data migrated into the NAD and NTTS.
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART).
Allows the decision-makers to see whether assessed waters are improving,
how close they are to being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem and
more waters should be assessed.
B-5
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
Further Data Issues: limited monitoring and assessment within each
reporting cycle. States and Tribes assess about 20% of their streams and
40% of their lakes in any two-year assessment cycle, according to an oft-
cited metric. Also, State assessments in a given listing cycle may
sometimes be based in whole or in part on information gathered during the
previous cycle. This means that neither the States/Tribes nor the EPA may
have a significant amount of new data available to support trend analysis
across assessment/listing cycles.
Timing Issues: States submit integrated assessment/listing data in April of
even-numbered years. Significant improvement in current business
processes would be needed to make these data available in time for end-of-
year reporting under the strategic plan or PART in the following odd-
numbered year. For mid-year and even-numbered year end-of-year reports,
States and the EPA would have to estimate progress.
B-6
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
3 Response
Track the number of designated uses currently listed as impaired
which reattain use standards by a given year if mercury and other
legacy pollutants are excluded as impairments in the analysis of use
attainment.
This measure aims to review the recovery of waters from all causes except
legacy pollutants, such as mercury, due to the long abatement times for
mercury and other legacy pollutants.
It addresses recovery of waters while taking into account the fact that
some pollutants are more persistent in the environment than others and
that these pollutants can bias the study of rates of recovery of impaired
waters.
All waters impaired for causes other than mercury and other legacy
pollutants (e.g. PCBs).
Using the NAD or equivalent system:
• Make a copy of the NAD databases for the reporting cycles of interest
• Remove all causes and cause information for all legacy pollutants from
the database
• Run an update query to flag any designated uses which are no longer
impaired for any causes in the database
• Isolate all other causes of impairment by assessment for any two
reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses from one cycle to the
comparison cycle assessment information
• Analyze differences in cause numbers, types between reporting cycles
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
Uncertain since not all States have assessment information entered into
NAD or completely enter all relevant data. Also, approximately one-half of
the segments that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have
since been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
Assessment Database (ADB) or surrogate data system information entered
in the National Assessment Database (NAD)
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed waters are improving
without the bias of legacy pollutants. Promising measure for near-term use
in strategic planning or for reporting progress to OMB as required by the
Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART).
B-7
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
This measure may identify which causes are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
B-8
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
Response
MEASURE
Percent of stream miles, lake acres, etc. where biological
assessments that are part of EMAP national surveys show
incremental improvements.
MEANING
Will show incremental improvement in water quality for biological factors
that can be relevant to 303(d) listings
CWA RELEVANCE
This is an example of a level 6 response indicator reflecting changes in
ecological condition. It incorporates the CWA goal of supporting a
balanced population offish, shellfish, and wildlife.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
Conventional probability-based site selection surveys aim to collect data
on biological conditions. They can support statements about national
conditions (+/- 5%) and eco-region conditions (+/-15%) with 95%
confidence. The surveys also are designed to recognize the success of
the Surface Water Program in maintaining the quality of waters while
preventing new non-attainment of designated use. Maintenance effects
on impaired as well as unimpaired waters are investigated.
DATA NEEDS
To ensure transparency of findings, all States should be encouraged to
make available their data in the STORET (Exchange) national data
warehouse, ensuring that collected data is efficiently analyzed and
migrated. Ideally, data for all five major categories of surface waterbodies
(coastal waters, wadeable streams and rivers, large rivers, lakes, and
wetlands) are needed. One approach might be to perform a survey on
one of the major waterbody types each year, on a rotating basis, so that
trend information becomes available once every five years once the
baseline is established.
DATA QUALITY
A national probabilistic sample, repeated periodically, would be needed to
accurately estimate maintenance or incremental rates for all US waters
without current assessment/reporting biases (such data are not yet
available).
Results for estuaries are available from the NCCR, and ongoing tracking is
anticipated form major estuaries with National Estuary programs.
Wadeable Streams Assessment provides a proof-of-concept for smaller
perennial streams, however there are still several years before results
become available for other waterbody types (e.g., large rivers or lakes).
BASELINE
Data is available now to serve as a baseline for estuaries and coastal
waters (although the underlying monitoring data is not yet migrated to
STORET). Data for a wadeable stream/rivers baseline should be available
during FY2006. Data is not yet available for other waterbody types, but the
projected baselines for EMAP-style national pilots are:
• Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in 2008
• Large and great rivers in 2010
• Wetlands in 2012
NOTE: These EMAP national surveys (for streams, rivers and lakes) will
be implemented using sparse station networks to develop indicators over
large aggregated ecoregions or macro-regions , and these results cannot
be directly related to 303(d)-listed waters.
Change/trend information is currently available for estuarine and coastal
waters, with some new data coming in 2007. The first change/trend data
for other waterbody types is expected beginning in 2011.
B-9
-------
Appendix B
UPDATING
Based on an intermittent, 5-year rotating cycle for all types of surface
waterbodies. EPA is pursuing ways to require states to earmark portions
of their 106 grants to support data flows to allow to status and trend
tracking of these EMAP indicators.
SYSTEMS
STORET (Exchange)
COST
The calculation costs should be generally low once the national surveys
have been executed. The cost to implement national surveys of this
design, however, could be significant. For State-scale surveys, if they
implement with the same parameters and meet the same data quality
objectives described for the national/regional scale, total sampling sites
will increase with related costs increases for sampling, analysis, and other
support). Watershed-scale surveys with the same parameters and data
quality objectives would cost even more. Many issues are therefore
involved in trying to expand this type of approach to smaller watershed
units.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
This measure could help correlate results based on a national probabilistic
approach for large ecoregion/macro-regions with results derived from the
much more site specific assessments that usually appear as 303(d)
listings.
OTHER COMMENTS
The surveys document water quality improvements that do not fully
restore a use or fully address the pollutant(s) causing impairment.
It will be several years before a baseline becomes available for all
major waterbody types
If a spatial scale even down to the size of a state is desired, then the
costs for consistent State-scale implementation of surveys exceeds the
EPA's and many State's current budgets. Watershed-scale costs using
a consistent EMAP-style model are likely not possible in foreseeable
future.
The EMAP national assessment should help in standardizing or
providing crosswalks to improve the precision of bioassessment
protocols
The EMAP national initiatives should help in defining reference
conditions that will then increase the application of bioassessment to a
variety of other CWA-related initiatives, many of which can be applied
on a more site-specific bases and do not require the experimental
design and project links to large-area indicators
B-10
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
8 Response
Number (percent) of impaired waters that still do not meet standards
but in which the concentrations of a pollutant (e.g. fecal coliform)
have improved by a given percent over a specified time period
Tracks incremental improvements in waters that have not been fully
restored for a designated use or cause. Looking at a range of
improvement levels may indicate the feasibility of restoration over the
specified time periods. May identify varying rates of improvement by
pollutant type or concentration.
Helps to identify timelines for restoring impaired waters. May have
implications in permitting requirements and water quality criteria. Could
help further discussion on degrees of impairment with respect to tiered
uses.
All waters known to be impaired for which quantitative monitoring data is
available - This measure targets assessed waters known to be impaired
and does not attempt to represent the status of all waters in the U.S.
The National Assessment Database (NAD) is needed to determine list of
impaired waters as well as:
• The designated use (or activity) status of all assessed waterbodies
• All causes of use (or activity) impairment
• Date of assessment or reporting cycle information
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
STORET (WQX) or other surrogate systems also required to obtain water
quality monitoring data. Information from the OST BEACON/PRAWN
system for major coastal public beach areas also relevant.
Because this is a numeric measure which requires analysis of monitoring
data the data quality should be high.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters. Monitoring data is STORET (WQX) or surrogate system)
also required to tack incremental progress. Information from the OST
BEACON/PRAWN system for major coastal public beach areas also
relevant.
National Assessment Database (NAD) and STORET (WQX). Information
from the OST BEACON/PRAWN system for major coastal public beach
areas also relevant.
As data become available, the calculation costs should be relatively low.
Measure could be explored on a pilot basis using OST BEACHES data
supplemented with available STORET/WQS information for coastal and
Great Lakes states. Some moderate costs would be required to cross-
walk locations of BEACHES georeferenced materials and STORET sites
(which have still not been georeferenced to the NHD) to the locations of
303(d) waters.
B-ll
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating
Tool (PART). Allows the decision-makers to see which impaired waters
are improving, how close they are to being de-listed, or if the rate of
improvement has changed.
OTHER COMMENTS
Makes use of actual water quality monitoring data in the assessment
process. Data flows related to the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH or BEACHES) Act of 2000 would allow pilot
implementation in the near term. Implementing such a measure for the
entire country would take some time and there could be persistent data
gaps in rural or other remote areas. Some issues in matching monitoring
sites to 303(d)-listed waters. BEACHES locations are currently
georeferenced to the NHD - but STORET sites are not.
B-12
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
9 Programmatic
Data mining to construct as complete a baseline as possible, then
use these monitoring data to extrapolate with statistical confidence to
watersheds without sufficient monitoring data
Various techniques are available to develop empirical prediction equations
that can then applied to fill in data gaps. For instance, for watersheds with
good quality information assembled through data mining operations for
available federal, state or other data sources, predictive expressions can
be developed for relating water quality conditions. For instance, the levels
of pollutants such as phosphorus, total nitrogen or even bioassessment
index in streams from data can be predicted based on land cover
vegetation in streamside buffer zones. For other watersheds where the
condition of streamside buffers is known, estimates can be made of
"response variables" (e.g., types of designated use attainment indicators or
pollutants in the TMDL program). These approaches for filling in data gaps
can be used to compare the patterns of actual 303(d) listing with the
pollutant predictions to suggest other potential candidates for 303(d)-
listing. When combined with tools such as EMAP-style aquatic system
integrity measures of large watershed units, the data-mining predictive
expression can be valuable to screen a larger watershed unit for targeted
follow-up detailed monitoring attention in a tiered (or nested) monitoring
design. These data mining tools could also be used as a robust test to
determine whether most of the likely impaired waters have already been
listed or whether additional "detective work" is needed to identify other
impaired segments.
More extensive use of these data mining approaches could help make
monitoring and assessment efforts more comprehensive and provide ways
to build confidence that impaired waters in areas with sparse monitoring
data are not being overlooked in the TMDL program. This type of
comprehensive perspective is central to the spirit and letter of Clean Water
Act goals.
Potential application to all waters - although streams and rivers would
likely be the most attractive short term targets.
Pilot studies would be valuable to demonstrate the ways information in
STORET or NWIS could be applied in data mining analyses which would
then be compared with patterns based on "current state assessment
conclusion in the NTTS.
The predictive empirical expressions will have statistical
precision/confidence levels associated with their predictive quality or would
have available other types of validation check information based on
simulation runs or similar tests.
Could be implemented starting with 2002.
Based on biennial NTTS updates and predictor information needed for
empirical predictive expressed based on data mining analyses.
B-13
-------
Appendix B
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
The NTTS in conjunction with other predictive systems based on data
mining analyses. The profile for Measure 19, "Impairment rates associated
with rates of change in Impervious Surface Cover," gives an example how
predictive expression relates population densities to impervious cover
levels for a current baseline period and can then be applied using
estimates of population growth to predict percent impervious cover levels
into the future. Genetic Algorithm for Rule Set Production (GARP)
simulation systems are another possibility (the GARP algorithm and code
were originally developed by David Stockwell at the San Diego
Supercomputer Center and are now available in a wide range of
implementations, including the LIFEMAPPER desktop system from the
University of Kansas . GARP
systems are now being used to estimate the spread of invasive species or
impacts form climate change - but scenarios are also possible geared to
forcing factors highly relevant to the TMDL program. Simulation systems
such as SLEUTH have been applied in alternative future growth scenario
analyses on the
relations between land use and water quality for the Chesapeake Bay
area, and these types of landscape modeling approaches are also central
to the Environmental Decision toolkit in ORD's Regional Vulnerability
Assessment (ReVA) program. New features being incorporated into
BASINS (especially the USDA AGWA and KINEROS systems) or new
application using the USGS SPARROW framework also incorporate many
data mining analysis concepts.
Cost could be moderate to high.
These approaches may be too experimental at present to consider using
as GPRA or PART measures. These techniques are showing promise in
regional planning, in policy studies on impacts from climate change or
invasive species, and sophisticated systems combining data modeling and
epidemiological simulation models are used by the CDC and increasingly
for natural resource applications such as SLEUTH.
Data mining tools are becoming increasingly powerful and ubiquitous in the
Business Intelligence packages that will soon be a routine part of EPA
desktop dashboard portal systems. Application of these data mining tools
to define information products relevant to tracking TMDL results should be
considered as an important emerging technology.
B-14
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
10
Programmatic
MEASURE
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in baseline which
progressed at least one step in the TMDL life cycle "pipeline."
MEANING
The TMDL life cycle (or pipeline) involves stages, beginning with the initial
303(d) listing, prioritization to decide when to undertake TMDL analyses;
inclusion of the originally listed 303(d) waters in a TMDL approval (with
identification of pollutant reduction targets for one or more pollutants);
decision to use "4b" approaches to address problems using methods that
do not require formal TMDLs; development of implementation
/management plans; post-implementation assessments to document
incremental progress; and finally, documentation of designated use
recovery. This measure could be broken out into a number of separate
(sub-) measures, but a single master pipeline measure can help document
the overall number of 303(d)-listed waters that move forward one or more
steps in the TMDL life cycle process starting from some baseline.
NT'S TMDL Development
Logic Model for the IMPS TMDL Development Process
B-15
-------
Appendix B
NFS TiYlDL Implementation - DRAFT
Logic Model for the NPS TMDL Implementation Process
CWA RELEVANCE
While predominately programmatic, this measure could provide a
convenient summary of overall "life cycle" activity under the TMDL
program.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
All waterbody types would be covered for the entire country.
DATA NEEDS
Information from the NTTS and the NAD, where NAD data based on inputs
from states using the ADBv2.x or similar robust data system would be
desirable. Additional information would be desirable to ensure adequate
documentation of implement /management plan development. Incremental
progress signals could potentially be obtained from a combination of NTTS
and NAD data. For states using the ADBv2.2 or compliant system,
delisting table facilities would provide a way to document the eventual
recovery of an assessment segment for all uses and TMDL-relevant
pollutant causes.
DATA QUALITY
Uncertain since not all States use the ADBv2.x or a compliant system, or
completely enter all relevant data. Also, many of the segments in the
NTTS that were listed by the States as impaired in 1998/2000 have since
been resegmented, in some cases without the necessary data and/or
information to recreate or back-track to the 1998/2000 segments.
The NTTS also lacks certain aspects of the necessary information (i.e. it
does not track use impairments).
BASELINE
Likely a 2002 baseline.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
SYSTEMS
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
B-16
-------
Appendix B
COST
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART).
Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed waters are improving,
how close they are to being de-listed, or if there is a continued problem
and more waters should be assessed.
OTHER COMMENTS
The two main issues involve tracking initially listed segments overtime
(when states are still undertaking complete overhauls in the "geometry" of
their IR assessment units overtime period less than 5 years) and
addressing the complexities of blended and nonpoint sources. Concepts
which may be applied when developing measures of improvement in
typical point sources include confirmation that a NPDES permit has been
examined and, if necessary, adjusted to touch base with the pollutant
reduction goals of an approved TMDL. For blended or NPS-oriented
TMDLs, however, the dispersion of sources typically inhibits a simple
examination or adjustment of load allocations. This presents a major
challenge when defining strategic pipeline checkpoints where results
measures could be most usefully implemented. The potential complexities
of TMDL development and implementation in NPS-dominated context are
illustrated in the logic models.
B-17
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
13 Response
Fate of waters designated as "threatened" between reporting cycles
Will track between assessment cycles whether waters previously
designated as "threatened" have had their conditions improve (and are no
longer threatened), or deteriorate (and are now candidates for listing under
303(d)), as well as any condition between these two ends of the spectrum.
This measure can be viewed as a type of incremental progress measure.
Can potentially cover all water quality criteria as well as permit programs.
It especially pertains to the CWA goal of supporting a balanced population
offish, shellfish, and wildlife.
All 305(b) waters
Baseline and current water/habitat quality measurements by which waters
are designated as "threatened". Also need a ranking matrix to evaluate the
"threat" remaining after each assessment cycle. All States would have to
adopt version 2.x of the Assessment Database (ADB) or a comparable,
compatible data system.
Incomplete since not all States use the ADB or a compatible data system.
Also, all necessary data would have to be entered into the system for this
measure.
Likely a 2002 baseline..
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired/threatened waters.
ADBv2.x information entered into the National Assessment Database
(NAD) and National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS)
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation tracking
issues could be moderate to high.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART).
It also allows the decision-makers to see which assessed "threatened"
waters are improving, how close they are to being listed/de-listed, or if
there is a continued problem and more waters should be assessed. This
"threatened" use support category has seen intense debate over the years,
and there have been differing philosophies on the definition of this concept.
B-18
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
Measure units are miles/acres [or % of miles/acres] of waters [or number/%
of segments]
Further Data Issues: limited monitoring and assessment within each
reporting cycle. States and Tribes assess about 20% of their streams and
40% of their lakes in any two-year assessment cycle, according to an oft-
cited metric. Also, State assessments in a given listing cycle may
sometimes be based in whole or in part on information gathered during the
previous cycle. This means that neither the States/Tribes nor the EPA
may have a significant amount of new data available to support trend
analysis across assessment/listing cycles.
Timing Issues: States submit integrated assessment/listing data in April of
even-numbered years. Significant improvement in current business
processes would be needed to make these data available in time for end-
of-year reporting under the strategic plan or PART in the following odd-
numbered year. For mid-year and even-numbered year end-of-year
reports, States and the EPA would have to estimate progress.
B-19
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
14
Explanatory
MEASURE
Number of Approved TMDLs where a large-area model was used to
predict methods for reducing the cause(s) of impairment including
approaches for specific sources.
MEANING
The NTTS contains fields that can be used to provide summary information
on the types of modeling approaches used to estimate the pollutant
reduction targets deemed appropriate to allow for recovery of impaired
uses. This measure would encourage needed enhancements to the NTTS
tracking facilities to document whether large area models (applied over
watershed units that could be the size of a HUC12, or larger if applicable to
a given TMDL context, and the targets are broken out by source categories
with greater specificity than the very general 'PS, Blended, NPS"
categories. The tracking should be in terms of both 303(d)-listed waters
and for potential clustering of 303(d)-listing for EPA approved TMDLs. The
tracking could be further organized by major pollutant (cause) categories.
This approach would likely focus on TMDLs involving multiple smaller
303(d)-listed waters where the TMDL approach involves a watershed
perspective.
CWA RELEVANCE
As the TMDL program exhausts its backlog of "simple" TMDL issues
involving end-of-pipe permit renewals and primarily affecting small reaches
of stream, watershed approaches tackling blended and NPS issues will
become progressively common. At least for many types of conventional
pollutants, a grouped/clustered approach can sense. To be of maximum
value in promoting progress beyond the TMDL approval state in devising
an following through on implementation/management plans, the
capabilities of watershed-oriented models and decision support systems
should be applied to allocate pollutant reduction targets for different land
use types or other fairly specific human activities (i.e., pollutant sources).
Providing this type of pollutant source specificity can help make the fullest
possible use of different programs under the CWA in achieving the
recovery targets. Target by specific sources instead of simply overall goals
by pollutant can also facilitate watershed accounting for implementation of
both effluent controls and NPS BMPS to help track incremental progress
and help identify bottleneck or other issues that could warrant mid-course
adaptive management adjustments.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
Can be applied to all subpopulations of waters.
DATA NEEDS
The NTTS with suitable enhancement to make sure standard shorthand
codes or other tracking facilities are defined to document the use of
watershed-oriented models and the inclusion of pollutant reduction targets
broken out by specific source categories. The NAD could also assist in
providing information on the relation of pollutant causes to specific
sources.
DATA QUALITY
The main quality issues would involve making sure EPA Regions are in a
position to enter the needed watershed modeling-by-source category
inputs. More widespread use of the ADBv2 or compliant systems would
assist in providing the NTTS with well-defined cause and source
information related to the waters related to approved TMDLs.
BASELINE
Starting from a 2002 baseline, the needed extra information could often be
back-filled using information available to the regions or in BLOB files in the
NTTS storing documentation related to individual approved TMDLs.
B-20
-------
Appendix B
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
SYSTEMS
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS). NAD inputs based data flows from the ADBv2 or
compliant systems would be desirable. Additional inputs from a growing
number of special Regional tacking systems or through Regions manually
entering information from paper records could also be needed.
COST
Costs could be moderate to high.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
This could help improve the TMDL programs grasp of expectations for
specific source categories to carry out management measures to make
possible the desired TMDL results. Most of this information would be
organized according to at least implicit watershed units. This type of
information, well largely programmatic, can relate to output measures for a
wide range of major OW regulatory, management, sinking fund, and grant
programs.
OTHER COMMENTS
This measure can help document the degree to which EPA is successful in
encouraging states to go beyond mere "technical TMDLs" define din terms
of overall pollutant reduction targets and provide the additional breakouts
by source categories to articulate the TMDL modeling and analysis work
with the features needed in meaningful implementation/management
plans.
B-21
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
17 Explanatory
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in riparian
vegetation
Will track the correlation between water quality impairment/ listing under
303(d) and the change in the amount (%) of riparian vegetation within the
standard 100ft. buffer surrounding each water body.
Has the potential to address major CWA goals. Useful for programs in
both rural and urban settings.
All 303(d) waters - possibly examine 305(b) and "threatened" waters as
well. Information would likely be focused on river waterbody types.
Baseline of impaired waters (and possibly 305(b) and "threatened"
waters). All States would have to adopt version 2.x of the ADB or a
comparable, compatible data system. Percent riparian vegetation
coverages, especially within the 100ft buffer zone, would also have to be
obtained and analyzed by each state.
Incomplete since not all States use the ADB or a compatible data system.
Also, all necessary data would have to be entered into the system for this
measure. As part of the biennial assessment cycle, States would also
have to record the percentage of riparian vegetation present within the
buffer zone around each assessed water body.
Likely a 2002 baseline for 303(d)-related data (in NTTS ortheNAD). A
baseline for percent riparian vegetation coverage could be potentially
time-consuming and costly to assemble.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired/threatened waters
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered into the national
Assessment Database (NAD) and National TMDL Tracking System
(NTTS)
As IR data become available, the costs for the database content should
be relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation
tracking issues could be moderate to high. Costs to establish a baseline
for percent riparian vegetation coverage could be initially high.
Subsequent monitoring over future assessment cycles would be fairly low,
as it could be performed in tandem with the biennial water quality
assessment cycles.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning. Allows the
decision-makers to see how the rate of water impairment correlates to the
percentage of riparian vegetation cover. This, in turn, could help influence
more water-friendly urban planning measures.
B-22
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
Measure units are % of buffer covered by riparian vegetation and the
change in rate of water quality impairment between assessment cycles.
Further Data Issues: limited monitoring and assessment within each
reporting cycle. States and Tribes assess about 20% of their streams and
40% of their lakes in any two-year assessment cycle, according to an oft-
cited metric. Also, State assessments in a given listing cycle may
sometimes be based in whole or in part on information gathered during
the previous cycle. This means that neither the States/Tribes nor the EPA
may have a significant amount of new data available to support trend
analysis across assessment/listing cycles.
Timing Issues: States submit integrated assessment/listing data in April of
even-numbered years. Significant improvement in current business
processes would be needed to make these data available in time for end-
of-year reporting under the strategic plan or PART in the following odd-
numbered year. For mid-year and even-numbered year end-of-year
reports, States and the EPA would have to estimate progress.
B-23
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
19 Explanatory
Impairment rates associated with rates of change in Impervious
Surface Cover
Impervious cover indicator values in excess of 10% are generally felt to
show major human alterations in natural runoff or groundwater infiltration
patterns (generally based on a HUC12 scale). Human alterations can
increase pollutant loadings, impact stream channel conditions, or disrupt
aquatic life. Impervious cover statistics developed over large areas based
on units such as HUC12 subwatersheds can be used as both explanatory
metrics and stressor metrics in conjunction with TMDL data. Similar
"landscape modeling" approaches could be developed for the entire
country as the Watershed Boundary Dataset is completed over the next
year or so.
Appropriate land use controls to address impacts from urbanization (or
other human activities that adversely impact water quality) is a major goal
of the Clean Water Act and a key consideration in nonpoint source control
and NPDES-based urban stormwater management. Impervious cover
could be used as a convenient assessment tool of management measures
developed to address stresses from urbanization.
Percent impervious indicators can be applied to watershed-based analyses
for rivers, lakes, and to some extent for larger open water systems such as
estuaries. This method seems most useful when applied to problems
related to urbanization ("suburban sprawl development") and impacts to
streams.
NTTS information and a framework that allows land cover information to be
compared for a current baseline period and 5-10 year intervals several
decades into the future are required. Impervious surface indicators can be
developed using detailed land use data, land cover based on processed
remote sensing information, estimates based on multiple data source
(MDS) methods, or empirical predictive equations to provide predictions
related to changes in master variables such as population density.
While other approaches are possible, EPA Region 3 has utilized multiple
data source methods to enhance a 1992 NLCD land cover baseline and
then applied predictive equations with population density to estimate of
state population growth (at the census block or block group level) and
change in percent impervious cover for HUC12 polygons.
The impervious cover information can then be compared with the NTTS
data to help target TMDL development work or to help understand the
importance of maintenance and incremental progress signals in HUC12
watershed areas.
If the impervious cover information is develop for units such as the HUC12
subbasins, there can be some degree of spatial scale difference when
aligning NTTS data with the subwatershed information.
2002 baseline for Region 4 where the impervious cover information is
currently available.
Based on biennial NTTS updates and large area impervious cover
information for several decades.
NTTS data, CIS mapping of 303(d) waters and approved TMDLs, and
large area impervious cover materials.
B-24
-------
Appendix B
COST
In areas such as Region 4, the start-up costs would be low to moderate
since the impervious cover materials are already available. Cost could be
moderate to high to extend the Region 4 methods to cover the rest of the
country.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
Since other major EPA programs such as OWM's urban stormwater,
OCPD's coastal "smart growth" initiatives and OGWDW source water
protection efforts use impervious cover as a useful indicator, integrated
TMDL results would help build cross-program linkages from AWPD
programs to initiatives throughout the Office of Water.
Exum, L, S. Bird, J. Harrison, C. Perkins. 2005. Estimating and Projecting
Impervious Cover in the Southeastern United States. U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA and Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-05/061.
OTHER COMMENTS
The widespread use of the impervious cover concept in urban planning
related to both water quality and water supply helps make this type of
landscape ecology/remote sensing tool easier to explain to a wide
audience of agencies and groups interested in watershed protection.
Percent impervious cover can be a powerful tool to set up TMDL results
measures related to current and future response, incremental progress, or
maintenance for urbanized and urbanizing areas. Innovative work
supported through EPA Region 4 has led to impervious cover predictions
at the HUC12 level from several decades into the future for Region 4
states.
B-25
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
22 Programmatic
Rate of TMDL Implementation vs. TMDL Development
Number/percent of waters for which a TMDL has been approved by EPA
and TMDL initiatives are now being implemented.
Demonstrates incremental progress of water quality restoration
This measure specifically deals with TMDL lifecycle tracking. In addition,
possible subcategories may be specified by control measure under this
topic.
No data system currently exists that adequately houses or tracks TMDL
implementation information. This data must be mined from state and local
agencies. A data system must be created which is capable of linking to
information residing in the NTTS as well as linking to narrative information
gained through multiple resources regarding TMDL implementation.
This measure may be numeric or narrative, depending on how TMDL
implementation is determined and if a standard set of criteria is used (e.g.,
is a TMDL considered implemented if there is increased monitoring? if
there is a restoration technique employed?).
The statistical reliability will depend on the ability to track TMDL
implementation and development through a standard set of criteria for
determining implementation. All TMDL documents can be accessed
through the NTTS and are therefore well represented. Tracking the
implementation of TMDLs, however, may involve several techniques and
resources and representation may be variable.
Since TMDLs can be established on a watershed basis (clustered or
clumped approaches) for different waterbody types, the calculation formula
likely needs to be set up in terms of number of waterbodies).
For national purposes, likely a 2002 baseline - although consideration is
needed on how to handle TMDL work going back to a 1 998 or even a 1 996
baseline in many states - especially states and EPA Regions involved in
federal court consent decrees.
This measure may be updated as frequently as TMDL implementation
information is gathered. Complexity lies in the diversity of narrative
information that could be collected.
National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) and likely some additional
information from ADBv2.x entered into the National Assessment Database
(NAD). Enhancements to these data systems and links to other data
systems are likely required. Making sure implementation information on
NPS issues is adequately reflected is another matter to consider. The EPA
319 CRTS system, for instance, contains some relevant implementation
information.
If nonpoint sources are considered thoroughly, the cost to develop the
resources and a sufficient data system to track this information may be
high. Cost of maintaining the implementation data would depend on the
relative ease in obtaining and validating implementation data.
B-26
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
This measure would be extremely beneficial in promoting data flow, best
management practice information, and basic TMDL lifecycle data. The
measure highlights the final steps of the TMDL program indicating that it
may be beneficial for pollutants of high concern.
The use of a database to store basic implementation information, as well
as the status of TMDLs could make this measure invaluable to decision
makers.
OTHER COMMENTS
Very little TMDL implementation guidance or regulations are available in
the Clean Water Act or provided by EPA. Some state and local agencies
have attempted to develop individual guidance materials for
implementation plans, but coverage of these programs is variable and in
some cases, limited to only point sources. This measure could help
establish a best practices document. Further evaluation is needed to
clarify issues on costs and baseline period for when such a system could
be implemented on a national basis. Pilot studies could be feasible for
select regions or some states. For some sources of regional data (e.g., the
Chesapeake Bay), progress related to a "4b" approach would need to be
considered as opposed to the ordinary TMDL process where Category 5
waters lead to Category "4a" waters with approved TMDLs.
B-27
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
23 Response
Percent of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented which now
attain water quality standards for the causes addressed in the TMDL.
This measure aims to review the recovery of waters after TMDL
implementation.
Demonstrates the progress of impaired waters with TMDLs implemented
by tracking causes of impairment information.
All waters impaired for causes which TMDLs have been developed and
implemented.
The NTTS would be used to find all 303(d) listed waters with
implementation plans. Cause of impairment information, most likely mined
from in EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD), would then be
needed to determine whether the causes addressed in the TMDL were no
longer impairing the waterbody.
The quality of data obtained from this measure is uncertain and depends
on how TMDL implementation is determined, if a standard set of criteria is
used in determining implementation (e.g., is a TMDL considered
implemented if there is increased monitoring, if there is a restoration
technique employed), and determination of cause of impairment status.
Likely 2002 for national purposes.
Based on updates to NTTS, the ability to locate and determine TMDL
implementation information, and biennial water quality assessment
reporting cycles. Updates could occur in intervals no more frequently that
on a biennial basis, and realistically, at a frequency not exceeding every
four years.
NTTS and ADB 2.x.
As data become available, the costs should be high because of the data
mining required to obtain implementation action information as well as
analysis of water quality status.
Allows the decision-makers to quantify the abatement of causes in waters
with implemented TMDLs. If implementation information can be mined
(which is an essential pipeline step in determining the effectiveness of
developing TMDLs), this is a promising measure for near-term use in the
reporting progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and
Rating Tool (PART).
This measure may identify which causes are more likely to be addressed
and/or restored. Additionally, the statistical information gained from this
measure may open other areas of study for Integrated Reporting and
uncover other issues or data needs for development of the Integrated
Reporting process.
B-28
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
25 Response
Recovery (or improvement) frequencies by designated use and by
pollutant
Recovery involves the re-attainment of previously unmet water quality
standards (WQS) designated uses for listed waters that are part of EPA-
approved TMDLs. The TMDL program presently focuses on tracking the
pollutants that require reductions in loadings or concentration so that the
WQS goals - and implicitly the designated uses - would be attained. By
measuring the frequency of recovery or rate of improvement for specific
water pollutants, one can determine the success of States in attaining their
TMDL goals.
Of central relevance to the CWA's TMDL program. Tracking TMDL results
by major types of pollutants is an effective ways of presenting progress is
achieving program objectives.
All waters of the U.S. reported in biennial integrated assessment reports.
These are commonly presented at segments of rivers/streams, lakes,
estuaries/oceans and wetlands.
Data would ideally be available in the Assessment Database (ADB) or
compliant system that could be placed into the NAD. Use of pollutant
reporting using the ADB would significantly improve the meaningfulness of
the reported pollutants since the ADB requires that pollution causes reflect
well-defined items that could be correlated with STORET (WQX)
characteristics or items found in the OlE's registry systems. The ADB also
requires at the assessments be anchored on EPA-approved designated
uses.
Not all states may use the ADB, so research into state-designed databases
will also be required. States have the option of placing segments into more
than one category. Although this may complicate interpretation of
segments' status, it does allow one to track progress as segments
incrementally attain some, but not all water quality standards. States have
the option of creating new or additional subcategories which may further
complicate interpretation of segments' status. The quality of data used for
this measure should be relatively sound given that it originates directly
from states. EPA's provides guidance to states on data quality in its
Integrated Reporting Guidance Manual. EPA recommends states use the
NHD coding scheme to georeference their segments; however, states are
allowed to design their own CIS system but EPA requests that the state
provide information to allow consistent georeferencing. In this case, EPA
would still have to evaluate each state's system rather than having a
common way to evaluate all states' systems.
Develop of this measures could start using information from the 2002
baseline.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
Implementation cost may be moderate - and with potential for operating
costs to become fairly minimal as more states use the ADB and as transfer
of data are implemented using CDX templates.
B-29
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
This measure could enhance the credibility of current EPA HQ reporting
based on materials in the NTTS or the NAD that lack credible
documentation as to the meaning of the listed pollutants.
OTHER COMMENTS
While the current NTTS and NAD can achieve reporting along these lines,
the cause/impairment codes used in the NTTS and the NAD are in many
cases very poorly defined and in some cases reflect significant alterations
on the part of EPA HQ staff that have created severe degrees of mismatch
with what EPA Regions view as the correct cause/impairments entries.
This significantly diminishes the value of the EPA HQ systems to assist
Regions faced with Federal consent decrees where the HQ materials
become legally moot. The use of the ADBv2 as a tool to improve the
reliability and meaningfulness of the pollutant entities that then become
part of the NTTS would be very helpful in progressively eliminating these
sever defects in the HQ data systems.
B-30
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
30 Explanatory
Post-implementation monitoring
A well-balanced state monitoring and assessment program aims to
achieve efficient and effective approaches to generate data that serve
major management decision needs (Elements of a State Water Monitoring
and Assessment Program EPA 841-B-03-003
http://www.epa.aov/owow/monitorina/elements/). The objective of
supporting the evaluation of program effectiveness is one of these critical
objectives, and tracking the degree to which approved TMDL
implementation/management plans include a commitment to post-
implementation monitoring that is then put into practice is a vital
programmatic measure of TMDL program effectiveness.
A water quality assessment program involves an iterative set of processes
where monitoring helps target management actions, the helps to track
incremental progress, and ultimately documents program effectiveness. A
major problem in many water quality initiatives under the CWA - but also
under other agencies such as the USDA - is that in an effort to maximize
the resources put into implementation, inadequate allowance is made for
monitoring activities to confirm post-implementation success. NPS
oriented examples include the joint EPA-USDA watershed Model
Implementation Projects from the 1970s and subsequent Rural Clean
Water Program projects that did not include Comprehensive Monitoring
and Evaluation (CM&E) components. EPA technology-based permitting
initiatives have not typically encouraged monitoring confirmations of
success, and the USDA Farm Bill programs have typically provided little
support for post-implementation monitoring. Encouraging these types of
monitoring activities seems critical in demonstrating the success of the
highly "distributed' TMDL program.
Could be applied to all subpopulations of waters.
Enhancements could be added to features in the NTTS to document post-
implementation monitoring provisions in EPA approved TMDLs.
Information in the NAD could help confirm recovery of impaired uses -
which would in theory reflect posy-implementation monitoring. Potentially,
adequate information might show up in STORET (WQX) or NWIS so that
data analyses could be performed that would transparently confirm the
information form post-implementation monitoring efforts that confirm the
TMDL results.
Most information would likely come from executive summary systems
such as the NTTS or NAD.
Likely 2002.
Biennial updates from the NTTS and NAD would be the most likely update
mechanisms.
NTTS and NAD. Additional information form STORET (WQS) and NWIS
would be very helpful, but such information is presently not typically
available through these monitoring data systems.
B-31
-------
Appendix B
COST
Low to moderate if based solely on NTTS and NAD materials. Moderate
to high if there would be the expectation that information should be
transparently available in STORE! (WQX) or NWIS where analyses could
be run to confirm the TMDL results.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUP-
PORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Evidence that claims of TMDL recovery results can be tied to actual post-
implementation monitoring would add a great deal of credibility to GRPA
or PART measures.
OTHER COMMENTS
Currently, the NTTS contains quite a bit of information on state monitoring
efforts designed to demonstrate to the EPA Regions that initial 303(d)
listings were made erroneously. As this type of "noise" is purged form the
NTTS, more resources might be available to provide more inputs to
document findings from post-implementation monitoring activities.
B-32
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
32 Programmatic
Number and analysis of TMDLs which have been revised from the
initial listing due to new information (e.g. phased approaches and/or
additional monitoring, model development and reassessment of
statistical modeling reliability)
This programmatic measure seeks to identify and dissect the frequency
and grounds forTMDL revision.
This measure would help to document the attention assigned to existing
TMDLs and establish the primary reasons TMDLs require amendment or
where there are difficulties in moving quickly toward TMDL establishment
due to uncertainties over the information available at the initial 303(d)-
listing stage.
Any impaired water for which a TMDL has been completed and
subsequently revised.
National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) and TMDL revision information,
most likely mined from individual TMDL documents.
Data quality is uncertain and depends on the availability of revision
information. If this information can be mined consistently across the NTTS,
the data should be of good quality.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on updates to the NTTS and TMDL revision history.
National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS)
Data mining of TMDL revision documentation would be the primary
expenses. Cost might be moderate to high to attempt to implement this
measure if the amendments are not readily included in the TMDL
information entered into NTTS by the regions.
This measure primarily looks for phased approach plans and/or continued
attention to impaired waters after a TMDL has been established. The main
benefit to PART lies in the ability to track the most likely reasons for
revision. This may allow EPA to provide further guidance in TMDL
planning and documentation.
This measure may be very difficult to implement with respect to the
relevant information gained. A cursory investigation of TMDL revision data
availability is strongly advised if this measure is to be implemented.
B-33
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
34 Response
Degree of improvement (using monitoring data)
This measure could be calculated in two ways. (1) A very generic
measurement of reduction in all pollutants. Simply compare the degrees of
improvement, not actual pollutant concentrations, across all pollutants. For
example, reduction in suspended solids from 1 ,000 ppm to 1 0 ppm would
be 99% and reduction in nitrogen from 30 pm to 20 ppm would be 30%.
Mean improvement would be 64% if unweighted by the miles or acres of
waterbodies represented. OR (2) A comparison of data within one
pollutant category, i.e., compare sediment reduction in all waters of the
U.S. with sediment TMDLs.
Can potentially cover all water quality criteria as well as permit programs
as an incremental progress measure.
All 303(d) waters - but likely most useful for river and streams.
Baseline and current water quality measurements (e.g., in the
STORET/WQX system) of pollutants for which waters are assigned
TMDLs. Georeferencing of both 303(d) listed waters and STORET
monitoring stations will be needed as well as geospatial analysis to show
relevance of monitoring station data to the TMDL waters (e.g., station
located within or immediately downstream of TMDL listed waters).
Input data would be good quality. However, comparison of improvement
across pollutants would be vague unless "option 2" is followed that would
require correlating the monitored parameters with the TMDL pollutant
causes.
Baseline would likely be 2002 and then followed by tracking conditions
over several subsequent cycles to represent a span of years to capture
baselines of all individual pollutants.
Information can be updated at any time. This measure may need to be
treated as a rolling estimate given that so many parameters are involved
and sampling and analysis schedules are so varied. Successful
implementation of this measure depends on the future of STORET/WQX.
REACH data files from all states, monitoring data to support biennial and
triennial reviews, monitoring data from basin-wide management plans.
Also requires merging multiple databases.
Moderate to High
Could be extremely valuable as a way of applying data mining techniques
using STORET/WQX data to compare with TMDL information.
Would take time to get buy-in of the reasonable of the findings - would
likely need to work with each Region. Perhaps easier to implement if set
up to handle only the more common pollutants figuring in 303(d) listings.
B-34
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
36 Programmatic
Water quality standard(s) changed (e.g., UAA) related to TMDLS
In most states less than 10% of the waterbodies have gone through any
evaluation processes to conduct site-specific surveys and evaluations to
confirm that designated uses and related criteria are appropriately
assigned in ways that identify attainment goals and also tailor the WQS
protections to take into account special regional features. These types of
studies also help document cases where various types of virtually
irreversible alterations in habitat or other stress factors place limits on the
types of uses that are attainable. Since most waters in each state are
"unlisted" or "un-classified" - many 303(d) listing have been based on very
robust comparison to narrative criteria or other observable effects. EPA
has encouraged states to take advantage of provisions in the Clean Water
Act that allow states to conduct studies and make alterations to either the
water numeric criteria are operationalized for particular waterbodies or
regions in a states, or after EPA-approved Use Attainability Analyses
(UAAs).
The sharpening of tools under the WQS program that can help clarify the
listing and delisting process under the TMDL program are highly relevant
to Title III provisions in the CWA.
All subpopulations of waters.
The NTTS has facilities now that can capture these sort sof changes in
WQS provisions. It would also help if better compendiums could be
developed in the Regions and shared with HQ to document EPA approval
actins for UAAs. Since the UAA process does not ordinarily get FR
notices, documentation on UAAs is very difficult to identify or analyze.
Another issue of concern is the current precarious nature of OST support
for even the core designated use tracking component of the OST WQS
database and mapping system. If this OST WQS data system becomes
inactive, then even the task of confirming current lists of EPA approved
designated uses for each states will become a highly cumbersome manual
document extraction process.
The primary tools would likely be the NTTS and the NAD which could
provide a digital executive summary docket system containing this type of
information in a highly condensed form.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS). Additional information form OST and Regional WQS
programs would be very helpful.
Costs low if the only data flows come from the NTTS and NAD.
B-35
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
The TMDL program as a trigger to help support a sensible application of
tools such as UAAs and the new TALUS framework could help reduce a
good deal of the uncertainty in the current TMMDL program as 303(d)-
listed waters finally come up for TMDL analysis attention but where there is
often the need to go through a "phased approach" to confirm that there
was even a problem in the first place. The lack of thoughtfully applied
designated use goals and ambiguities on how to apply numeric criteria to
unlisted/unclassified waters creates significant inefficiencies for the TMDL
program.
OTHER COMMENTS
Help from the OST WQS program in documenting EPA approval actions
from state WQS provisions and actions on UAAs in ways that could be
efficiently "data mined" would be very helpful to make the best used of this
type of TMDL results measure.
B-36
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
37 Explanatory
Watershed Groups Formed
A watershed group may consistent of state and local environmental
agency representatives, as well as academics, farmers, point source
dischargers, and environmental interest groups for example. The group
may be established for any number of reasons such as nutrient or metals
trading, attaining compliance with a state mandate, public and
environmental interest in restoration of watershed ecosystem, etc. This
measure will highlight public involvement in the TMDL program.
Relevant if the watershed group's mission includes TMDL-related issues
such as response to a TMDL. Other relevant activities may include grass
roots campaigns to establish a TMDL, contributions to the development of
a management plan or major elements needed for a successful
management plan, or ongoing results monitoring and analysis.
Any impaired waterbodies; groups should be active on a sufficient
"community" scale (i.e., larger than a small neighborhood group) to be
relevant to the geographical units related to the approved TMDL.
Listing of watershed groups in the U.S.; name, size, and location of
watershed; action items and their status for each group; TMDL-relevant
water quality data collected by the group; other contributions such as
support for management plan development.
The watershed groups should be recognized in state water quality agency
management plans. Certification or similar approval from state water
quality agency would be desirable if the group specializes in services such
as lay person monitoring.
Must select a calendar year (likely 2002) from the EPA TMDL history upon
which to begin tabulating the formation and accomplishments of
watershed groups.
Maximum of every 5 years - in line with NPDES permit renewals and
some states' basin-wide management planning system.
No current national system is readily identifiable on EPA's website or
elsewhere. EPA's Adopt- Your-Watershed facility
is a start but would require additional
scrutiny and may lack enough QA. Information is likely available through
state water quality offices that operate basin-wide management planning
programs. An upcoming national meeting of watershed interest groups
that seem to involve the types of groups relevant to this type of measure
is described at the following Internet address:
.
Complexity lies in the diversity of narrative information that could be
collected and how to store it in a useable fashion.
Moderate to high; Potentially high to set up since there will be a good deal
of narrative information to process.
The rate of activity in watershed groups can be indicative of public
awareness and response to TMDL issues. States and local agencies will
most likely already be actively involved in or monitoring these groups.
B-37
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
Main challenge is to establish a link between a group's activities and the
issues related to 303(d) waters. Analysis of state management plan
documents related to their CPP systems may be a good starting point.
B-38
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
38 Explanatory
Number of TMDLs where a watershed management plan was
developed
Watershed management plans outline sources of pollution, pollution
reduction methods, timeframes for meeting water quality standards,
interim targets for achieving standards, and monitoring procedures. In
Washington state's TMDL program, an increased success of TMDLs
have been suggested when watershed management plans are
developed. This measure could be expanded to track whether a TMDL
is more likely to achieve completion when it either has been or is part
of a watershed management plan.
Has the potential to address all of CWA goals
All 303(d) waters
All States would have to adopt ADB version 2.x or a compatible data
system. Data would be needed from regions, states, or local
organizations that have developed watershed management plans,
especially in regards to which TMDL-listed waters are included in each
plan. Creating the database for watershed management plans would
present the major challenge.
Incomplete since not all States use ADB or a compatible data system.
Also, all necessary data would have to be entered into the system for
this measure. The data on which TMDLs are included in watershed
management plans are also incomplete. Creating the database for
watershed management plans and cross-walking these to approved
TMDLs would present the major challenge The latter data could be
potentially time-consuming to assemble.
Likely a 2002 baseline
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired/threatened waters, as well as coordinating information
exchange between organizations developing watershed management
plans
Assessment Database (ADB) and National TMDL Tracking System
(NTTS). Also the not-created-as-yet database of watershed
management plans. Assembling a list and/or database of all the
TMDLs which are included in a watershed management plan could be
potentially time-consuming and costly.
Costs to establish a database for watershed management plans could
be initially high. Subsequent monitoring over future assessment cycles
has the potential to be low, as it could be performed in tandem with the
biennial water quality assessment cycles, provided there is an
adequate exchange of information between the assessors and the
organizations developing the management plans.
B-39
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
Promising measure for future use in strategic planning in that if this
measure supports the conclusion that TMDLs that are part of
watershed management plans are more "successful" then watershed
management plans should be made a high priority for water quality
initiatives. Similarly, this measure will allow the decision-makers to see
how developing a watershed management plan very often aids the
overall improvement in water quality, while additionally decreasing the
continued impairment of waters.
Do the watershed management plans include local volunteer groups
that monitor the water quality according to their own plans? If so,
details on the groups will be needed to qualify the management plan.
B-40
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
46 Programmatic
Percent of assessed waters impaired by nutrients or sedimentation is
decreasing
This measure aims to address waters with causes of impairment that are
very common on the 303(d) lists and will often be linked to NPS runoff.
The TMDL program will increasingly need to focus blended and NPS
dominated 303(d) listings as TMDLs are approved for remaining point-
source dominated problems waters. Nutrients and sediments are a
frequent concern in assessments across the nation and are often caused
by run off- related NPS. This measure may aid in measuring the severity of
impairments caused by NPS runoff.
All waters impaired for nutrients and sediments.
Could potentially be address with information from the NTTS only. More
precision possible in cases where States use the ADB version 2.x a
compatible (surrogate) data system so that needed information would
become available in EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD). They
would then have to enter into their data system fields identifying the
following:
• All causes of use (or activity) impairment
• The georeferenced coordinates of the waterbody
• Date of assessment or reporting cycle information
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
Data quality would be enhanced if States use the ADBv.2 or compliant
system. .
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
Assessment Database (ADB) or surrogate data system information entered
in the National Assessment Database (NAD)
As data become available, the calculation costs should be relatively low.
Measure highlights the increasing problem of nutrients and sediments in
impairing waters by providing data and statistics such as setting up nutrient
or sediment criteria or guidelines. Could be used in near-term strategic
planning or for reporting progress to OMB.
The statistical information gained from this measure may open other areas
of study specifically related to non point source runoff.
B-41
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
47 Response
Tracking impaired waters from a baseline year for which TMDLs have
been developed and the water quality has been restored.
Number/percent of waters identified as impaired in a BASELINE year (e.g.,
2002) for which a TMDL has been approved by EPA and now meeting
water quality standards. This is already an OW GRPA measure.
Demonstrates incremental progress of water quality restoration and
recovery.
All subpopulations of waters covered by the TMDL program.
A modified version of the NAD would be sufficient in housing the
assessment data and NTTS data on a state, regional and/or national level.
The new element would be linking the TMDL waters specifically to the
impaired waters tracked in the NAD.
The whole population of waters known to be impaired is available through
303(d) list concatenation, and the NTTS houses all approved TMDLs.
Current 305(b) lists will indicate the current water status. Provided all data
is entered in the needed fields, data quality should be high.
Data quality will depend on information from the IR/NTTS systems and will
tend to focus on use attainment decisions stemming from status of
available information (i.e., this measure could lead to false "all is well"
signals where waters have not been comprehensively monitored and
assessed fora full range of conventional, toxic, and biological factors).
EPA has tentatively set 2002 as baseline calendar year for the assessment
data submissions, however any year in which states are required to submit
assessment data reports (even-numbered years) could be used.
After an initial data system compilation, this measure should be fairly
straightforward to implement on a biennial basis.
National Assessment Database (NAD) and National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
A modest investment would be required to construct a national list of
impaired waters from state 303(d) and 305(b) submissions and relate it to
NTTS database.
States could use the measure to compare rates of TMDL implementation
against national averages, appropriate funds accordingly, and approximate
the rate of water quality awareness. This measure follows impaired waters
to the "end of the pipeline", tracking the full restoration of waters.
This measure includes the possibility of increased data flow between state,
region, and EPA headquarters. This measure could lead to overlooking
impairments where waters have yet not been comprehensively monitored
and assessed. Comparisons with information in state monitoring strategies
would be useful to identify the degree to which state monitoring programs
have or have not yet achieved the desired degree of comprehensiveness
in their monitoring and assessment programs.
B-42
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
48(49)
Response
MEASURE
Success in using either BMPs or NPDES permits to
reduce/remove source pollutants as stated in approved TMDLs
and/or at least 80% of the source loading (focus on common
conventional pollutants).
MEANING
Because many states rely on NPDES permits and Best Management
Practices as solutions to water quality issues with TMDLs, this
measure seeks to evaluate the success in implementing these control
measures in respect to the plan stated in their respective TMDLs & to
an overall comparable pattern of 80% source reduction.
CWA RELEVANCE
This measure addresses 303(d) waters with approved TMDLs as well
as waters addressed through the CWA's CAFO NPDES permitting or
nonpoint source 319 restoration programs. It would attempt to track
TMDLs involving Point Source, Blended, and Non-Point Source
concerns.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
All impaired waters with approved TMDLs involving BMPs or NPDES
permits and impaired waters with permits through the CWA's CAFO
NPDES permitting or nonpoint source 319 restoration programs. It
might be more feasible to focus on river waterbody types and select
conventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients or sediment) where loading
estimates could be more easily made by the states and checked by
EPA using available monitoring/flow data plus estimates from models.
DATA NEEDS
TMDL data from the existing NTTS and additional tracking information
on incremental progress in achieving loading reductions as new data
elements in the NTTS. Direct access of underlying permitting, BMP
tracking, and monitoring data is likely not possible in the foreseeable
future but would be highly useful. Such data would include: activity
reports from states and watershed groups on the number, type, and
implementation rate of BMPs and data from the Permit Compliance
System (PCS) in combination with water quality standards. In the
case where incremental progress is not tracked in the NTTS, actual
monitoring data would be necessary but would require additional
analysis.
DATA QUALITY
Data would rely primarily on BMP estimates from states. It would
likely be best to approach this indicator starting from a few select
states (e.g., states in EPA Region 3) where data could be checked
against information from regional-scale studies. Working from a
small-scale study would aid in tracking data quality which will be
variable due to the range of sources from which the data will be
obtained.
BASELINE
Likely 2002.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
SYSTEMS
NTTS -with modifications. BMP Tracking Systems.
COST
Costs would be high if implemented for the entire country. A staged
approach starting with a pilot, for instance, in EPA Region 3 would
provide a good proof-of-concept test.
B-43
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
The measure would provide a check on incremental progress in
meeting TMDL load reduction goals. It could serve the purpose of
encouraging states to improve their methods for tracking loading
reductions, which are seldom explicitly included in state WQS. This
omission creates a serious challenge in correlating the loading logic of
the TMDL program with the concentration orientation of WQS criteria.
While loadings are commonly viewed as a Level 3 Stressor Indicator
(showing changes in activity impacts to receiving waters), loading
reductions would still seem to represent a major outcome measure for
the TMDL program.
While this measure might be difficult to implement nationwide, some
way of tracking incremental progress in loading reductions would be a
useful measure to estimate TMDL results.
B-44
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
50
Response
MEASURE
Changes in percentage of stream miles, lake acres etc. with fish
tissue concentrations above health based thresholds (for Hg and
other persistent bioaccumulative contaminants)
MEANING
This measure would require the availability of adequate data on fish tissue
residues such as mercury, PCBs or emerging concerns regarding flame
retardants and other persistent, bioaccumulative xenobiotic toxins. EPA's
National Lake Fish Tissue Study provides a means for drawing inferences
for very large areas for the lake waterbody types. The NCCR and new
EMAP-style surveys forwadeable streams and large rivers could
eventually provide data on other waterbody types. These national-level
surveys would not be expected, however, to correlate well with the
information in current 3093(d) lists. This measure would be "nice to have" -
but the information to implement it will not be available for the foreseeable
future.
CWA RELEVANCE
Fish consumption advisories for mercury and other persistent
bioaccumulative toxins involving human health concerns are major parts in
the 303(d) listings for a number of states. There is presently considerable
debate on whether these concerns should be viewed a "Category 4b"
affairs since the pollutant sources may involve atmospheric transport over
regional or hemispheric distances. As states adopt designated use criteria
for wildlife (e.g., raptors), the number of 303(d) listings for toxins such as
mercury can be expected to increase. States clearly are not capable of
funding tissue residue sampling for large numbers of waterbodies. 303(d)
listings for "all state waters" are now appearing based on EMAP-style
selective sampling then extrapolated in a comprehensive fashion for entire
waterbody populations. Increased use of these types of probability survey
monitoring efforts, along the lines of the methods applied in the OW/OST
National Lake Fish Tissue Study present feasible strategies to obtain
technically sound estimates of the incidence of th4se tissue residue
problems.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
Suitable probability survey tissue residue analysis approaches could be
applied to all waterbody types. The goals might involve sampling for sport
fishes in relation to protection of sports and recreational fishers - and also
sampling of species at different tropic levels to provide insights into
bioaccumulation processes and to provide protection for wildlife.
DATA NEEDS
Current state health agency fish consumption tissue residue programs
have not provided an adequate foundation to identify the actual extent of
the toxin bioaccumulation problems. New probability-based approaches
are critical to eliminate the current patterns offish consumption advisory
listings that vary significantly from state to state.
DATA QUALITY
Movement to probability-survey approaches would eliminate current
concerns on the adequacy and reliability of eh fish consumption advisory
materials that have at present been picked up in the 303(d) listing process.
BASELINE
A baseline could possibility be in place by 2008-2010.
UPDATING
Through EMAP-style surveys updates perhaps every five years.
SYSTEMS
New probability survey approaches are needed.
COST
Moderate costs for probability survey approaches for very large areas;
costs high to develop indicators at even a state level and for sub-
populations broken out by major waterbody types.
B-45
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
For the lack of credible outcome data, and in light of unrealistic
assumptions regarding the tractability of the problems, OW/OST presently
is re-thinking its GRPA/PART measures related to fish consumption
advisories. Since any mitigation to the underlying problems may hinge on
improved controls for air deposition related to large area (hemispheric)
transport processes, support from EPA's OAR/OAQP and ORD/NERL is
vital.
OTHER COMMENTS
A very difficult issue. For the TMDL program, fish consumption advisory
303(d) listings are a major factor in many states seeking to move these
issues into "Category 4b" and essentially take them out of the TMDL
program.
B-46
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
51
Response
MEASURE
Percent of waters from a baseline that did not fully support contact
recreation due to non-attainment of bacteria water quality standards,
which now attain contact recreation standards after approval of a
TMDL
MEANING
Focuses on designated uses geared towards public health and safety and
identifies the numbers of waters impaired by bacteria (or microbials usually
documented using pathogen indicators)
CWA RELEVANCE
Speaks to the CWA goal to have all waters in the U.S. attain swimming
and fishing standards. The BEACHES Act provides special emphasis on
major public bathing areas for both marine and Great lakes coastal waters.
Since there are similarities in the CWA numeric criteria guidance for
microbials and the national standards for microbial issued under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as well as CWA ambient water criteria to protect
drinking water designated uses understate WQS, management of risks
form pathogens (bacteria) provides a major cross—program linkage
between important Office of Water programs.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
The population of waters (all waterbody types) in the U.S. which exceed
primary contact recreation standards due to impairment by bacteria.
DATA NEEDS
Using EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD) or equivalent system
and National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). :
• Isolate recreation-focused designated uses impaired for bacteria in a
baseline reporting cycles
• Match assessment identifiers and uses to a comparison cycle
assessment information
• Analyze differences found in attainment statuses between reporting
cycles
• Check NTTS for presence or absence of TMDL for identified
assessment identifiers
Additional information form major coastal public bathing areas is available
through the OST BEACON/PRAWN system1.
Voluntary Reporting Required Report
iggy iggg iggg 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004
Number of monitored beaches 1,021 1,403 1,891 2,354 2,445 2,823 1,857* 3,574*'
Number of beaches affected by advisories or closings 230 353 459 633 672 709 395* 942**
Percentage of beaches affected by advisories or _ _ __ _, „ „ __ _ HJlt .-,-**
. fL-5 £.3 ^4 £i £. / ZD ZL £.0
closings
* Incomplete date from 11 states.
** /ncomptete data from four territories.
1 Table extracted from BEACH program web site,
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2005/
While the types of pathogen indicators may differ, NPDES discharge
permits from POTWs provide regulatory reporting for indicators such as
fecal conforms and may provide some reference as well.
B-47
-------
Appendix B
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
Data quality for the major public bathing areas coved by the BEACHES Act
will generally be of good quality. For inland waters, the quality and the
availability of data will vary. Given the stringent holding time limitations for
fecal coliform and related tests for enteric pathogen indicators, data may
be sparse in rural or other remote areas. The usual WQS criteria
stipulations requiring five or more samples collected within a period of
about a month to develop the geometric means and other
duration/frequency provision in the criteria also complicate having great
confidence in ambient water samples taken at much less frequent
intervals. A new generation of quick-turnaround pathogen indicator tests
being developed to support the BEACHES Act may improve this situation.
Tests to help confirm that pathogen indicator are likely to come form
human enteric wastes as opposed to microbials from birds, wildlife, pets, or
farm animals are also becoming more practical to implement in ambient
monitoring programs.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters.
The National Assessment Database (NAD) with applicable information
entered into the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). Elements of
both the NAD and the NTTS are necessary to track this measure. Data
mining using information form the OST PRAWN/BEACION system or data
mining against permit compliance information in PCS can also be helpful.
Watersheds with CSOs or areas with CAFOs can also help to focus
attention on areas that may have elevated risks for pathogen exposures.
If the NTTS and NAD are the major information sources, cost could be low.
Checks against other useful data systems could increase the costs, but
these more complicates types of integrated measures would likely have
greater precision and credibility.
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART). It may help to uncover the primary sources of bacteria impairment
in the U.S. by highlighting recovered waters. This measure also focuses
on an issue of high public importance and visibility.
This measure could be expanded to look at specific sources of bacteria
impairments and/or successful methods of restoration for contact
recreation areas.
B-48
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
54 Explanatory
Modeling simulation of 'uncontrolled' worst-case impairment
contrasted with actual water quality
Fora number of conventional pollutants (e.g., oxygen depletion, nutrients,
or suspended solids), large area screening models (e.g., SPARROW,
basic simulations using SWAT, or landscape ecology models based on
export coefficients) can provide worse-case scenario estimates for loading
and annual average concentration levels for pollutants that are common
TMDL concerns. Information from STORET (WQX) or NWIS could then be
processed to provide watershed outlet-based concentrations (or where
gaging station data are available) loadings that could be compared over
time with the worse-case scenario estimates to document (incremental
progress) trends. The proposed National Monitoring Network (NMN) for
large rivers would be one framework where such an approach could be
implemented involving river systems responsible for around 90% of the flux
delivered to estuarine and near coastal waters.
A measure of this sort based on the National Monitoring Network would
take advantage of major efforts to develop technically reliable watershed
accounting systems supported by the EPA, the USGS and NOAA.
Primarily relevant to conditions on large rivers and their watersheds.
Outputs from large-area screening models and information from the
proposed National Monitoring Network.
Systems developed for the Chesapeake Bay suggest that while there can
be uncertainties in these types of comparisons of modeling and monitoring
results, ongoing refinements can yield valuable insights into the success of
water quality management initiatives.
Portions of the gaging and monitoring stations envisioned for the entire
NWN now exist, and pilot analyses have been performed on the river
systems for several large estuaries. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxia study is
another initiative with similarities to the framework for this proposed
measure. It would likely be 201 0 or 201 2 before the NMN might be in
place.
Based on data flows in systems such as the NMN.
Large scale screening mode outputs and data flows form the National
Monitoring Network.
Costs would be moderate to high.
This measure could potentially be implemented for the conterminous
Untied States as well as for Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico. It would
complement indicators that will eventually become operational under the
EMAP large Rivers initiative. A wide range of indicators could be
developed relevant to GPRA and PART but also useful in the OEI Report
on the Environment.
This is a future-oriented concept - but the National Monitoring Network
proposal is a reality.
B-49
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
58 Explanatory
Percent of TMDLs which address predicted changes in the land use,
population growth, confounding variables, etc.
Many approved TMDLs tend to target pollutant reduction targets in terms
of current conditions only. While this can be appropriate for certain sets of
circumstances (e.g. the problem focus is on localized "hotspots" legacy
pollutants in contaminated sediments), where there is a good possibility
that factors such as increased urbanization and population growth could
increase the pollutant risks for the can impairments that figure in the
current 303(d)-listings, then it is useful to track the numbers (percent) of
approved TMDLs that take into account a suitably lengthy future planning
horizon.
Changes in the construction grants program in the early 1980s and
continuing patterns in the SRFs that have replaced the construction grants
program have pulled back significantly on encouraging attention to a long-
term planning horizon (10 years or more) in determining management
needs. This tendency to look only to current needs is a concern for
blended and NPS source management programs as well. Within
appropriate attention to likely future trends that could exacerbate pollutant
loadings, even water quality maintenance may be an elusive goal.
Can apply to all subpopulations of waters.
Could be accommodated through enhancements to the data fields in the
NTTS.
EPA Regions would need to do some research for the current crop of
approved TMDLS; they would need to encourage including documentation
of provides for these type of longer-term planning horizon projections as
part of the documentation submitted in TMDLs packages for Regional
review and approval.
2002 could be a starting point. It might be 2004 to 2008 before one might
expect this to part of the routine content in data flows that support the
NTTS.
Would depend primarily on ongoing input to the NTTS.
Primarily the NTTS. It should be possible to spot check the NTTS content
against information in the Clean Watershed Needs Survey or other types of
"gap analysis" reports and surveys. These types of more selective surveys
could serve as testing grounds to illustrate the value of having basic
information related to incorporating sensible planning horizons as a
standard component in the NTTS.
Costs would be moderate to high.
These types of information could be extremely valuable in interpreting
status and trends behavior for a wide range of GPRA and PART
measures.
This measure would be a valuable programmatic tool to help establish
basic explanatory background information for many types of incremental
progress or maintenance measures.
B-50
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
62 Programmatic
NPDES Permit Revision Tracking
Tracking the rate and nature of new and modified discharge permits within
states would enable the Agency to look for permit conditions that reflect
response to 303(d) listings where the predominant pollutant issues are
deemed to be of a Point Source (PS) nature. Categorizing and evaluating
such conditions can further characterize the type of strategies, plans, or
actions that are being used to mitigate water quality impairments.
Permit conditions for point source discharges have historically been the
most direct means of mitigating impairments. Updates to permits would
then entail a time-lag before actual water quality improvements could be
expected, but this would be a way to document programmatic responses
to the TMDL issues.
Any waterbodies that receive effluent discharge from permitted point
sources.
State and Federal permit records
Should be very representative of point source-related TMDLs.
Permit Compliance System (PCS) data for end-of-pipe discharges will
have more information content than emerging PCS general permit (often
just notice of intent) information for stormwater (construction) or CAFO
NPDES permitting issues.
Likely 2002. In setting up this measure, information should be obtained
on the anticipated permit update scheduling and whether discharge
permits are reviewed on a rotating basin review schedule.
Likely every 5 years to track with permit renewal scheduling.
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) is a national computerized
management information system that:
• automates entry, updating and retrieval of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) data
• tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other
data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES.
Relevance of permits to TMDLs could be robustly identified using NHD
reach matching with georeferenced information for PCS dischargers and
georeferenced waters from the NTTS. Other upstream analysis
approaches to identify portions of NHD networks relevant to PS-
dominated TMDLs could be accomplished fairly easily when the new
NHDPIus is operational.
Costs could be relatively minor if the information can be obtained form
EPA data systems such as PCS and the NTTS.
Knowledge about permit activity (or lack thereof) to address TMDLs can
provide important programmatic "lifecycle" information. This information
would be especially pertinent for PS-related TMDLs in the time period
before results can be anticipated. Also of importance is the fact that the
NPDES program is one of EPA's major regulatory implementation tools.
EPA has already performed analyses to identify NHD reaches with PCS
pipe reports that also have 303(d) listings. Refinements to these types of
analyses could further refine this type of TMDL results measure.
B-51
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
63
Programmatic;
Explanatory
MEASURE
Percentage of impaired waters addressed by a TMDL and 319
Nonpoint Source projects (CRTS Projects)
MEANING
This measure would use information from NTTS and Nonpoint Source
Control Branch's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS) to identify
319(h) grant projects that directly supported TMDL implementation.
Additionally, recovery, recovery time, project type and could be evaluated
as subsets of this measure
CWA RELEVANCE
The CWA Section 319 established a national goal to address nonpoint
source pollution concerns working on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
Since the late 1990s, EPA has worked with the states to target a portion of
319 implementation work to address TMDL issues. EPA's Grants
Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS) provides the database and CIS
mapping tools to correlate 319 implementation projects with the
management needs for approved TMDLs. Since the 319(h) grant program
is EPA's largest grant program to the states, leveraging this resource to
achieve TMDL results can provide an exemplar for cross-program
initiatives with other EPA or non-EPA water quality and natural resource
management programs.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
The 319 program is applicable to watershed-oriented management
measures that can be relevant to any waterbody type. Most of the activity
under the 319 program is directed, understandably, to inland rivers and
lakes, although the 319 program is also an important management tool
under NOAA-approved state coastal zone management programs.
DATA NEEDS
Information from the NTTS database and CIS mapping layers to correlate
with database information and CIS mapping layers form CRTS for projects
involving actual implementation projects.
DATA QUALITY
In cases where NHD-based georeferencing of the locations of 319
implementation projects are lacking, there can be uncertainty in spatially
correlating the 319 projects with approved TMDLs.
BASELINE
Could be implemented fora 2002 baseline.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments and updates to the NTTS and on
updates and maintenance for CRTS.
SYSTEMS
NTTS database and CIS mapping layers and similar database and CIS
layers in CRTS.
COST
Costs could be low to moderate since NTTS and CRTS are major Office of
Water systems.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
Information on BMP effectiveness from analyses conducted under the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program can be applied
to make estimates on the time needed after implementation before WQ
improvements would be expected. EPA is conducting special studies
based on 319 projects in Illinois and California to verify this sort of time to
recovery prediction approach.
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program: Successes
and Recommendations (2000) (available on the Web at
http://www.ncsu.edu/waterquality/section319/index.html)
B-52
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
Information on BMP effectiveness from analyses conducted under the
Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Monitoring Program can also be
applied to make estimates on the time needed after implementation before
WQ improvements would be expected.
Progress in developing this measure would help in pursuing similar cross-
program linkages correlating TMDL program data with TMDL-relevant
program conducted through the USDA or BMP tracking programs
sponsored through the Chesapeake Bay program or systems maintained
by Chesapeake Bay states such as Maryland or Pennsylvania.
B-53
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
64 Explanatory
National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) Projects
(TMDL-related)
The National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) database
provides a synthesis of information on over 37,099 projects related to
aquatic resource restoration projects, with a focus on inland rivers and
streams. The NRRSS database includes all stream and river restoration
projects present in several national databases as of July 2004. Web-based
facilities are available that encourage the ongoing documentation of
projects. The most commonly stated goals for river restoration in the United
States are: to enhance water quality, to manage riparian zones, to improve
in-stream habitat, for fish passage, and for bank stabilization.
Impairments involving habitat, the condition of riparian zones, and the
condition of stream banks or littoral areas play a role in a large number of
303(d)-listed waters. The NRRSS initiative is concerned with pollution
issues (e.g., fish passage) and other more general restoration issues that
are not normally part of the focus on pollutant issues for the TMDL
program, but the NRRSS is a major compendium for information aquatic
resource restoration projects, a large number of which will clearly be
relevant for the TMDL program.
Potentially all waterbody types, but with a clear preponderance of
information on projects related to rivers and streams.
NTTS information and additional work to correlate the locations of the
NRRSS projects to 303(d) waters (e.g., though NHD indexing or at least
identification of HUC12s or similar small watershed polygons) and to
confirm the relevance of the goals of NRRSS projects to the main issues
involved with approved TMDLs. Where these types of TMDL relevance
correlation linkages can be established, the NTTS information can become
a powerful explanatory tool; where the correlations are not well
documented, this could still be useful programmatic information.
The main data quality concerns would be to have confidence that the
NRRSS projects were in appropriate spatial sites and had suitable spatial
extents to be relevant to making at least incremental progress in needed
implementation work for approved TMDLs.
Likely 2002.
This would need to be explored. THE NRRSS has a web facility where new
project information can be uploaded, but major funding for the NRRSS
ended after 2004.
NTTS, attributes form the NRRSS database, and CIS materials to allow
spatial correlations between NRRS projects and the 303(d) waters in the
NTTS.
Moderate to high - with a major challenge being to decide on a cost
effective approach to georeferencing the NRRSS project locations.
B-54
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
The NRRSS provides an extensive collection of materials on aquatic
restoration projects that would be of major value to the TMDL program to
track progress in implementation work related to aquatic habitat issues.
Providing enactment features for spatial correlation with TMDL data is the
major hurdle.
B-55
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
65 Programmatic
TMDL Development Prioritization Decisions for Special Fishery Tier
Use and Recreational Opportunities for 303(d)-listed Waters
Track both the numbers of 303(d)-listed waters and related EPA-approved
TMDLs where the pollutant issues involve special types of fisheries (e.g.,
cold water fisheries or trout waters). These types of waters may be
outstanding (Tier 3) or high quality waters (Tier 2 or "Tier 2.5") related to
WQS anti-degradation provisions. Communities within about a 50-mile
distance of travel from such waters may also provide important
stakeholders to provide support for implementation and management
measures.
The main style of states applying "tiered" aquatic life use designations has
bee to identify special cold water or trout fisheries that generally have
special numeric criteria requiring higher dissolved oxygen concentrations
and lower levels of turbidity (or siltation/sedimentation) and in many case
requirements from a more "clement" pH range than for ordinary aquatic life
designations. Such fisheries are often located in scenic areas and will
often rate as Tier 2 or Tier 3 anti-degradation waters. Their recreational
amenities and sports fishing opportunities can hope mobilize the support of
broad-based stakeholder support to push for improved management to
address TMDL concerns. Failure of the TMDL program to address the
mitigation needs of these special fisheries could result in lawsuits geared
to anti-degradation themes or even litigation over the adequacy of the
CWA to address requirements under the Endangered Species Act.
Lakes and rives for sure. Since Tier 3 status seldom applied to coastal or
estuarine public trust waters - the CWA would often be a less important
driver than the endangered Species Act for estuarine and near coastal
waters.
States should use the ADBv2 or complaint systems or CIS mapping of
designated use segments in the OST WQS database is needed to identify
NTTS waters with the required special fishery designated uses.
Checks of the available ADB or WQS database information against the
most recent EPA-approved state water quality standards documents would
be worthwhile.
Could be implement started for a 2002 baseline for many states.
A biennial update cycle.
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS). Information from the OST WQS database and the OST
repository of EPA-approved WQS documents.
Costs moderate to low.
Could lead to additional GPRA/PART measures. It would be hoped that
many of these special fisheries show significant recovery potential, so that
encouraging states to focus TMDL program resources on these waters
would lead to recovery more efficiently that for many other less resilient
water in urbanized or otherwise severely human-altered settings.
B-56
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
This measure could provide linkages with program in other agencies and
with major interest groups concerns with recreation, aquatic ecology, and
sports fishing.
B-57
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTIN
G STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
66 Programmatic
Incidence of 303(d) listed waters needing TMDL development that
fall within counties showing elevated "community stress" indicator
levels.
The Sonoran Institute has developed county-level community stress
indicators for areas in the northern Rockies that can be implemented for
most non-metropolitan counties (counties with population levels less than
10,000). Special incentives may need to be considered to make sure that
there is not a backlog of TMDL development work in counties falling in,
for purposes of illustration, the lower 30% in terms of community stress
levels.
The Clean Water Act and programs under most other federal laws
contain special provisions to provide incentives for "disadvantaged
communities." This measure could help document cases where special
incentives can be justified to help promote the development of TMDLs in
such socio-economic settings.
All waterbody types. The measure could be expressed as the percent of
303(d)-listed waters (perhaps broken out by major waterbody types) in
"stressed" counties as compared to comparable levels in other counties.
The goal would be to avoid having a growing backlog in the "stressed"
counties in terms of progress on TMDL development.
NTTS information and information from the Census Bureau and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to implement the needed Sonoran Institute
Indicators. There is a "master" indicator that is based on averaging six
underlying indicators.
The 303(d) data would tend to be at a finer spatial scale than the county-
level information used to develop the community stress indicators. It
would be worthwhile experimenting with an implementation of the stress
indicator using small census boundary polygons (e.g., census tracts).
This would require slight adjustments in the stress indicator since the
tracts have only been relatively stable since the 1980 census.
Likely 2002.
The main update information could be readily obtained from the NTTS
and updates of census information.
NTTS and the stress indicator information, which could be readily added
to EPA data systems.
Data readily available so that costs should be relatively low.
Promising measure for use in strategic planning and budgeting. Provides
a way to track whether TMDL program is developing serious backlogs in
rural areas that would likely represent disadvantaged communities.
This approach could be experimented with as part of the FORWARD
West project, which is seeking ways to apply this indicator in 1 1 western
states.
B-58
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
67 Programmatic
TMDL management plan linkages with special programs to help
achieve the goals of such major stewardship and conservation
groups
Where 303(d)-listings fall within lands under the stewardship of agencies
such as the USDA forest Service or where the 303(d) listings are located in
areas and include pollutants of concern for the conservation of rare aquatic
species, the approved TMDL plans should include explicit linkage to the
assistance that can be offered through program or other initiatives
promoted by major stewardship and conservation groups.
Improving the efficiency of implementing restoration measures for waters in
lands where there are stewardship or conservation interests from groups
such as the USDA Forest Service or the nature conservancy will generally
help achieve TMDL results and also promote goals of the CWA related to
restoring the natural biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
All waterbody types - but primarily inland lakes and rivers. This measure
would document that management provisions for approved TMDLs contain
linkages documenting support from the program of major stewardship and
conservation groups where the 303(d)-listed waters are located within (or
within close upstream/downstream proximity) to resource areas of
concerns to the stewardship/conservation groups and where the TMDL
pollutants include stressors that are clearly relevant to the goals of these
stewardship/conservation groups.
NTTS stressorand CIS mapping data; materials outlining TMDL
management plan provisions; CIS layers with locations of public lands;
suitable indicators related to the presence of rare aquatic species along
with a grasp of the 303(d) stressors of highest relevance the rare aquatic
species conservation needs.
Incomplete; not all States fully enter all the necessary data for this
measure. The NTTS also lacks certain aspects of the necessary
information (i.e. it does not track stressor indicators).
Consideration of "suitable indicators" must be given. There may be
differences in how these indicators are defined or measured and what
constitutes a reliable source of this data.
Any reporting cycle may be used as the baseline granted adequate data
can be mined from the listed systems.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
NTTS, STORET, and CIS
Given the high-level expertise needed to interpret stressor indicators, the
cost of this measure is expected to be on the moderate to high side.
Information to pursue defining such a TMDL results measure (or
measures) should be forthcoming from activities to be conducted under the
FORWARD West project.
B-59
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
The TMDL program provides considerable latitude in states setting
priority/ranking levels for their 3039dO-listed waters. In the past, there has
been a tendency to place NPDES point source issues as the highest
priorities and all other nonpoint source or "hard" problems at lower priority
ratings. As the backlog of point source issues is resolved, a more
thoughtful "triage" system is badly needed to help steer TMDL program
resources to targets where recovery is clearly possible.
B-60
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
g. Programmatic
(Explanatory)
TMDL approval and recovery for stream systems with significant
recovery potential
Improvements in the number of TMDL impairments for streams with some
degree of recovery potential, usually where improvements can be related
to streamside buffer enhancements. Where streamside buffers are a
viable management measure, TMDLs that include such management
measures can be expected to help reduce the incidence of such pollutants
as nutrients or sediment and in general improve stream habitat conditions.
This measure would help track the success of ecological restoration
techniques involving enhancements to the services of streamside buffer
zones to decrease pollutant concerns fro nutrients and sediment and also
to improve habitat conditions. Such improvements are most likely for
stream where land use changes (especially urbanization) have left some
restoration potential for the streamside buffer zones.
Streams - primarily Strahler order 5 or less. Measure would focus on
targeting management efforts dealing with stressors such as sediment,
habitat, or nutrient causes for 303(d)-listed streams where an emerging set
of diagnostic tools are being developed to help select remediation targets
with higher levels of recovery potential.
NTTS data. Also the types of CIS layers and data sets being developed in
a special project using Illinois data to highlight promising tools and
diagnostics that can be applied to select remediation targets with higher
levels of recovery potential.
Value of this approach could vary from state to state - and would likely be
of less interest in very highly urbanized areas.
Could be set up starting from a 2002 baseline.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters. Other landscape ecology or socio-economic data
updated on varying time scales from 5 to 10 years.
NTTS data. Other CIS layers and datasets as reflected in a special pilot
project on recovery potential fro Illinois.
Costs could be low to moderate.
This approach could be of considerable value to help focus TMDL program
efforts on waters where there are higher chances of achieving recovery
objectives.
The TMDL program provides considerable latitude in states setting
priority/ranking levels for their 3039dO-listed waters. In the past, there has
been a tendency to place NPDES point source issues as the highest
priorities and all other nonpoint source or "hard" problems at lower priority
ratings. As the backlog of point source issues is resolved, a more
thoughtful "triage" system is badly needed to help steer TMDL program
resources to targets where recovery is clearly possible.
B-61
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION
OF WATERS
ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPP
ORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
69 Programmatic
Which control measures and/or programs applied to 4b listings can be
documented to result in water quality standards attainment
Identify the control measures and/or programs that were most effective in
restoring water quality standards in the absence of an ordinary TMDL.
This measure evaluates the ability of restoring water quality standards without
determining load allocation and defines effective control measures. Provides a
vital type of programmatic and cross-program information that EPA should have
and utilize as pressures increase to make more extensive use of the 4b option
over the ordinary TMDL process.
All impaired waters which are expected to meet water quality standards using
control measures in a given amount of time (i.e. all waters listed in the 4b
category for a specified listing period).
States would need to report using the ADBv2.x or some similar system so that
the 4b information could be picked up in the National Assessment Database
(NAD) and then the NTTS. Additional documentation concerning these waters
would need to be processed including: implementation plans, watershed
management plans, and restoration strategies.
This measure is primarily narrative unless specific numeric criteria were
developed. Forthee reasons the following quality concerns apply:
• Inconsistencies in the application of the 4b categorization.
• Was the impaired water defined based on narrative or numerical standards?
• Data quality depends on the amount and quality of implementation
documentation available and the level of effort needed to harvest and house
the data in a sufficient database.
• Rectifying inconsistencies in naming conventions of control measures.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of impaired
waters. Additionally, based on any new or updated implementation, watershed
management, and/or restoration plans.
ADBv2.x data input into the National Assessment Database (NAD) is currently
capable of tracking information on the control measures or programs justifying
the 4b status, but the system would require modifications in order to flag the
water quality standard outcome in the expected year of attainment.
Costs would be moderate to high to obtain 4b documentation to supplement the
modest information in the NAD; also EPA should make sure that 4b waters are
being georeferenced to the NHD orgeoreferenced using alternative CIS
approaches (e.g., the open water in the Chesapeake Bay listed as 4b waters
present challenges if mapped using the inland waters-based NHD).
The measure highlights successes in the CWA and would help the EPA develop
guidance in regarding reporting on implementation plans and suggested control
measures for the 4b listing category.
B-62
-------
Appendix B
Control measures suggested to date for4b listed waters include:
• CERCLA/Superfund
• NPDES
• Remedial Action Plans
• Natural Resource Damage Assessments
• Underground Injection Controls
• State Aquatic Plant Control Fund
• Forest Management Plan
Systems such as the NRRSS could provide on source of information to data
mine for implementation or management plans for these waters.
Specific examples of complex 4b issues include:
• The lower Chesapeake Bay (mostly in waters related to Virginia) was placed
on the 303(d) list (as "Category 5") by EPA Region 3 - and many people
think that many more waters in the Chesapeake Bay part of EPA Region 3
should be placed on the Category 5 list (as needing to move along under the
OTHER ordinary TMDL processes) at least for NUTRIENTS.
COMMENTS • Problems with mercury for fish consumption advisories where all evidence
suggests that the sources are from atmospheric deposition - but that other
programs (things happening under the Clean Air Act) will lead to reductions
in emissions so that there is reasonable confidence the problem will be
mitigated within the next XXX years.
• Problems with major mining pollutants. For example metals from the old
Berkeley Pit at Butte, MT, moving into aquifers that would then impact the
base flow of trout streams in the area that are already stressed from previous
runoff problems from poorly reclaimed mining millings/tailings. BUT the EPA
SUPERFUND program has stepped in to do a lot of mitigation work that is
expect to solve these problems
• Problems related to soil erosion (sediment and nutrients) in the agricultural
watershed of a reservoir. One example is the Lake Rathbun watershed on
the Chariton River watershed in Iowa. In this watershed an EPA targeted
watershed grant, a grant through the 319(h) grant program, USDA EQIP
program support, and support form several stakeholder groups in the
watershed have combined to make strides in the restoration of the lake.
There are documented management plans and evidence that management
measures/BMPs to begin the recovery effort.
B-63
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
70
Explanatory
MEASURE
Patterns in TMDL (and 4b) development in geological sensitive areas
(e.g., areas with extensive karst topography)
MEANING
Because geologically sensitive regions, such as karst topography, involve
more complicated hydrology, there is a high possibility TMDLs in these
regions are underdeveloped or developed without addressing higher level
hydrology (i.e. groundwater/surface water interactions). This measure
seeks to ensure that TMDLs are being formed in these regions and to
qualify how managers are addressing the intricate hydrology of the region.
As an example, a proposed TMDL for E. Coli in the Harpeth River in the
karst areas of Tennessee was recently completed without mention of
groundwater/surface water interactions.
CWA RELEVANCE
This measure expounds on the application of the CWA's TMDL program
to hydrologically complicated regions of the country to ensure
representation of all geologic areas of the country. It also provides ways
to track TMDL issues where groundwater/surface water interactions are of
concern. This could be an important programmatic measure that can help
ensure the credibility of the TMDL program and related 4b alternatives.
Also major cross-program issues with EPA SDWA programs, the 319
NPS program, other EPA groundwater-related programs (RCRA,
CERCLIS and USAs), and groundwater-related programs in the USGS,
theUSDAortheOPS.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
All impaired waters lying within geologically sensitive areas of the country.
DATA NEEDS
This measure needs three primary components:
• List of all impaired waters in nation from a baseline assessment (likely
2002). Must be georeferenced
• List of all TMDL development plans for these waters
• Spatial coverage of geologic regions within the country for overlay of
georeferenced, impaired waters
It may be helpful to mine information from the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) Unusually Sensitive Areas (USAs) system.
DATA QUALITY
Because this measure does not seek to quantify numeric measures of
impairment, a higher quality of data may be achieved with less effort.
Some quality issues that may arise include:
• Inconsistencies in the definition of geologically sensitive areas
• Failure to identify all TMDLs focused in geologically sensitive areas for
a given baseline
• Inconsistencies in the way hydrologic conditions are addressed in
development plans
BASELINE
Any cycle for which impaired waters have been georeferenced.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters. Additionally, based on any new or updated TMDL
development plan. When available, it may be beneficial to incorporate
new higher resolution geology layers from the USGS dealing with
sensitive geological formations such as karst topography.
B-64
-------
Appendix B
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
CIS in conjunction with the ADB or NAD will track and georeference the
impaired waters. Individual TMDL development plans identified using
ADB or NAD will need to be review individually.
Costs would be moderate to high to obtain and review TMDL development
documentation.
The measure highlights successes in the CWA and would help the EPA
develop guidance in suggesting models or methods for dealing with
hydrologic issues beyond surface water. It will also help states prioritize
upcoming assessment reports.
This measure would help identify TMDL program challenges in areas with
the potential for significant GW/SW interactions and help identify
opportunities for cross-program coordination.
B-65
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
71 Explanatory
Incidence of impaired waters involving pollutants possibly regional
in nature (e.g., mercury from atmospheric deposition) for which
alternative measures have been approved or where TMDL Category 5
development priority/ranking status is rated as "low"
Identify how many 4b remedial plans have been accepted to date. As
highlighted in recent Massachusetts mercury ruling deliberations, 4b
remedial plans may be in danger of delay due to extensive litigation and
regional pollutant concerns (case study example: Massachusetts).
This measure evaluates the status of using the 4b category listing
approach or the priority/ranking development status of Category 5 waters
with pollutants of regional concern where airtransport may be a major
issue. Important CWA/CAA cross-program considerations. In the case of
Massachusetts, the Clean Air Act mercury regulations may complicate the
state's ability to attain WQSs for mercury.
Waters currently listed in the 4b category or where there is a low priority
status for TMDL development for pollutants such as mercury a specified
listing period for which a development plan where airtransport/deposition
is a major concern.
All waters listed under category 4b would need to be extracted from either
the NAD and/or the NTTS along with Category 5 priority/ranking
information on scheduling of TMDL development primarily of pollutants
such as mercury. All documentation concerning the state of development
plans for these waters would need to be processed including:
development plans, public notices from concerned parties/groups, and
any litigation information.
Much of this information will be narrative and could involve targeted
research. Data quality will mainly hinge on the ability to capture all of the
relevant information from local, state, and federal sources.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters. Additionally, based on any new or updated development
plans, public notices, and/or legal activities.
The NAD and the NTTS are capable of tracking the priority/ranking status
for Category 5 waters and general information on 4b control measures,
but additional information on the status of the control measures would
need to be mined from other sources.
Costs would be moderate to high to obtain 4b and all other related
documentation.
This measure would help track an important sub-population of impaired
and 303(d)-listed waters where there is ongoing controversy on whether a
4b or a conventional Category 5 TMDL approach should be followed.
Important CWA/CAA cross-program dimensions.
B-66
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
72 Programmatic
Patterns in implementation plan development versus funding
source.
This programmatic measure seeks to quantify and define the different
sources of funding used to implement a TMDL. Possible outcomes
from outlining this information include relating funding sources to
outcomes or recovery time periods. This measure would also help to
document the prevalence of "technical TMDLs," where the EPA-
approved TMDL is merely an administrative exercise that is not likely
to lead to any serious implementation efforts over and beyond
activities that would have taken place without the TMDL program.
While the CWA sets forth the requirements that a state, region, or
tribe must meet, it does not specifically list how these entities should
fund the work. This measure will highlight the channels states and
tribes use to achieve the recovery of impaired water quality standards
related to specific approved TMDLs.
All impaired waters for which a TMDL has been developed.
A listing of TMDLs could be obtained from the NTTS, however,
implementation plans and data detailing the agencies, grants, etc.
which funded the work completed under the TMDL must be mined
from state and local agencies.
Data would largely be qualitative, usually aiming to abstract extra
information regarding the funding sources for identified
implementation/management plans.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters. Additionally, based on any new or updated
implementation plans or other information on funding sources.
NTTS, TMDL documentation
Data mining of TMDL establishment documentation would be the
primary expenses. Cost to attempt to implement this measure
nationally may be moderate to high.
Promising measure for use in strategic planning and budgeting.
Allows the decision-makers to see what funding channels are most
being pursued and highlights any little known but potentially important
funding channels.
There is very likely a substantial "gap" in the costs needed to
implement TMDL management measures and the available sources
of revenue targeted at TMDL implementation. Exploring this measure
would be worthwhile to see the degree to which the TMDL program
can shed light on which TMDLS seem adequately funded as opposed
to others where there are significant resource gaps.
B-67
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
73 Programmatic
Progress in TMDL establishment for temperature and sediment
issues relevant to coastal Coho Salmon recovery audiences in the
Pacific Northwest
Examines TMDL listed waters with characteristics identified as inhibitors
to the recovery of the Coho salmon in the Pacific Northwest, most notably:
• Soils are compacted and stripped of vegetation
• Water runs off quickly, instead of being absorbed and released slowly
• Rainfall washes sediments down into streams (this gums-up spawning
gravels)
• Streams are vulnerable to flash flooding during storms due to absence
of adequate riparian vegetation cover
• Riparian vegetation has limited access to water between rains as a
result of sheer, high-cut banks
• Stream temperatures are elevated due to inadequate riparian
vegetation cover
This measure would identify restoration techniques which enhance the
services of riparian buffer zones as well as track any improvements in
overall habitat conditions (such as decreased sediment and temperature
impairment).
All 303(d) waters with TMDLs for temperature and/or sediment in coastal
watersheds with surviving runs of coastal coho salmon (i.e., primarily
focuses on selected watersheds in Northern California, Oregon, and
Washington)
All States would have to adopt either ADB version 2.x OR a compatible
data system and include data fields identifying:
• The status of each waterbody for which a TMDL has been approved
• All pollutants for each TMDL
• The georeferenced coordinates of the waterbody
• Date of assessment
The data to support most of the above is readily available, but in many
cases, not yet entered into the ADBv2, NTTS, or compatible data
systems.
Other background information, such as the ranges for different runs of
coho, riparian vegetation, temperature fluctuations, shade cover, and
slopes along the waterbody at high-risk for landslides is often available
through federal agencies such as NOAA/NMFS, EPA, the Forest Service,
the USGS and other Interior agencies and should be compiled for
watersheds with relevant TMDL concerns.
Incomplete since not all States use ADBv2.x or a compatible data system.
Likely 2002 or later. EPA is providing technical support for CA, OR and
WA to migrate in-house assessment systems to the ADBv2. Some states
(e.g., Washington) may elect to overhaul their current data systems in the
2006 or 2008 cycles, which could complicate tracking progress from a
common multi-state baseline.
B-68
-------
Appendix B
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
Because development of TMDLs is ultimately based on biennial State
water quality assessments, it is recommended that updates occur no
sooner than every two years.
Assessment Database (ADBv2), CIS layers and National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
Additionally, a system for storing and/or integrating the data concerning
the Coho Salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest (specifically
Northern California, Oregon, and Washington State) will be needed.
Moderate to High based on complications in enhancing the assessment
data systems used in CA, OR and WA.
This measure would highlight habitat restoration accomplishments and
provide an example for developing regional integrative initiatives seeking
to address water quality, habitat and major cross-program drivers such as
the Endangered Species Act.
Many possibilities to identify other regional aquatic species protection
issues in the West - but also in other parts of the country where the ESA
is a major driver for environmental programs.
B-69
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS
ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPOR
TING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
75 Programmatic
Success in implementing agricultural Best Management Practices for
nutrient reduction in watersheds with nutrient TMDLs
In areas of the U.S. where nutrient-based TMDLs or state regulations for
nutrient sensitive waters have been adopted, programs often include
agricultural BMPsto reduce nonpoint source loading of nitrogen and/or
phosphorus to impaired waters. By documenting the implementation and
accounting tools used with agricultural BMPs as well as aquatic life and
water quality monitoring programs together, the recovery efforts for nutrient-
impaired waters can be tracked.
This measure tracks 303(d) waters as well as waters addressed through the
CWA's CAFO NPSED permitting or nonpoint source 319 restoration
programs.
Nutrient sensitive waters (rivers, lakes, and estuaries) of the U.S. impacted
by nonpoint source runoff due to agricultural practices. A few pilot states
(e.g. in Chesapeake Bay or in some Great Lakes states) may be provide
starting points to examine whether the adequacy of BMP accounting systems
can support such a measure.
TMDL data from the NTTS. BMP watershed-accounting systems should be
identified where states relate the incidence of BMP implementation in
watershed units to targets for the needed levels of implementation to achieve
water quality improvements. Activity reports from states and watershed
groups (including local sub-basin groups) on the number, type, and
implementation rate of agricultural BMPs for nutrients as well as the time
lapse from pollutant reduction to biological response.
Data will be both qualitative and quantitative (e.g., water quality monitoring
data as well as computer-based nutrient accounting tools developed for
basin or sub-basin estimates of BMP usage and effectiveness relevant to
topographic, stream conditions, farming practices, soil type, etc.).
Likely 2000
Defining the baseline for even a few pilot states should be completed before
update mechanisms are specified.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Restoration Project Tracking
Database, New NEIEN Regional Data Exchange for Non Point Source Best
Management Practices for the Chesapeake Bay States, USEPA CRTS,
other NPS project results, USDA Ag Cost Share Program (indicates
expenditures by the government costshare and incentive programs on
nutrient reducing farm practices, e.g., NC's Ag Costshare Program,
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and Section 319 grants),
state REACH files, "319 Lessons Learned" and 319 Success Story reports,
other information available through the NCSU WA program
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/wqg/319index.htm
Moderate for work on a few pilot states, however cost to address nationally
would be high.
These types of measure are worth considering over the along-term. A pilot
effort to review existing or emerging BMP accounting systems in select
states would help to define what could effectively be included under such a
measure.
B-70
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
A developmental concept.
Some states (e.g., Maryland) that already have some sort of in-house BMP
tracking systems do not use codes compatible with USDA/NRCS systems -
and integrating with CRTS is also patchy. Good background on these
problems in PPT is available at:
http://exchanqenetwork.net/archives/meetinqs/Req3 2005/Presentati
ons/PA/Reqion%203%
B-71
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
77 Response
IR baseline of category 4b waters that had at least one use impaired
that now have at least one cause of impairment no longer listed as a
cause
Will show incremental improvement in water quality according to 4b listing
Isolates and quantifies the incremental progress on impaired waters which
are expected to attain their designated uses without TMDL development.
This measure also evaluates the ability of restoring water quality
standards without determining specific load allocations. This measure is
especially significant due to the growing state interest in submitting
Integrated Reporting lists where segments appear in the Category 4b
without previous listing under Category 5. Since Category 4b waters are
still impaired, tracking restoration/recovery progress needs to be
addressed for 4b waters.
4b waters- this measure targets assessed waters known to be impaired
and are being addressed by alternative management plans to TMDLs. It
does not attempt to represent the status of all waters in the Country, or
even all impaired waters. Its strength is in examining all impaired waters
expected to attain their designated uses via alternative management
plans and comparing them to a smaller, biased sample.
All States would have to adopt either ADB version 2.x OR a compatible
data system and include data fields identifying:
• The listing of the water in the 4b category & its implementation plan (if
entered into the database).
• The status of designated uses in Category 4b or previously listed
Category 4b waters.
• All causes of use impairment
• The georeferenced coordinates of the waterbody
• Date of assessment
The data to support most of the above is readily available, but in many
cases, is not yet entered into the ADB, NTTS, or compatible data
systems.
Uncertain since not all States use the ADB, a compatible system. The
ADB may also lack certain aspects of the necessary information as
implementation actions are currently an optional entry.
Data would only be relevant starting with the 2002 cycle, when the 4b
listing became fully operational as an option in EPA data tracking
systems.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State water quality assessments and listing of impaired
waters
ADBv2.x and an enhanced version of the NTTS
As data become available, the costs for the database content should be
relatively low. Costs to address georeferencing or resegmentation
tracking issues could be moderate to high.
B-72
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING STUDIES
RELEVANCE
Promising measure for near-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating
Tool (PART).
Allows the decision-makers to see which assessed waters placed on the
4b list are improving, or if there is a continued problem and lack of
incremental progress for waters on the 4b list.
OTHER COMMENTS
A comparison between this measure and the recovery rates of listed
waters with TMDLs could help provide some insight as to the
effectiveness of TMDL development. In addition, an ROI study could be
completed if budgetary information was available to compare the relative
fiscal returns of 4b and TMDL programs.
B-73
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
OTHER COMMENTS
78
Programmatic
Rate of recovery of impaired waters with numeric standards vs.
waters with narrative standards (focus on nutrients)
Identify the recovery differences between waters impaired for nutrients
based on numeric standards and waters impaired for nutrients based on
narrative standards.
May possibly illustrate the differences between
criteria and expand discussion of standardizing
numeric and narrative
nutrient criteria.
All 303(d) listed waters impaired for nutrients (see data needs discussion).
ADBv2 and NTTS information. Information from OST WQS repository to
document states with EPA-approved numeric nutrient criteria (which
should involve, at a minimum, criteria for total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
light penetration, and a measure of algal standing crop such as
chlorophyll-a).
Data quality will vary depending on the information available in the TMDL
and state water quality documents. Data for tracking the restoration of the
water will primarily depend on the ADB and may have to be mined from
other sources if states do not participate in the ADB.
Likely 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
Assessment Database (ADB), NTTS, OST WQS repository.
Data mostly readily available and calculation costs should be relatively
low.
A useful cross-program study to track whether adoption of numeric criteria
for nutrients makes the TMDL establishment process more efficient.
A comparison between this measure and the recovery rates of listed
waters with TMDLs could help provide some insight as to the
effectiveness of TMDL development. A complication would be that
Chesapeake Bay states such as Maryland are moving their nutrient
impairment waters under 4b to side-step the ordinary TMDL process.
B-74
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/SUPPORTI
NG STUDIES
RELEVANCE
79 Response
Percent of stream miles where biological assessments that are part
of a state probability survey or similar landscape indicator survey
system document incremental improvements
Will show incremental improvement in water quality for biological factors
that can be relevant to 303(d) listings
This is an example of a level 6 response indicator reflecting changes in
ecological condition. It incorporates the CWA goal of supporting a
balanced population offish, shellfish, and wildlife. Many states have
"landscape indicator" data that are not part of EMAP or REMAP programs
that provide at least state-level indicators and in some cases indicators for
basins or other watershed units that can be helpful to guide management
programs.
Data is most commonly available for rivers (usually streams around 5th
order or smaller).
The ADBv2.2 introduces a special module to store state probability or
similar landscape indicator data. It will likely take until the 2008 cycle for
states to start making use of this assessment reporting facility. The
Wadeable Streams Assessment at the national level should help attract
interest form the states in making used of this new ADBv2.2 facility. This
landscape indicator information has not yet been implanted for inclusion in
the NAD.
Many states have adapted EMAP-style data quality approaches to the
development of their own landscape indicator programs. States
bioassessment systems help to define reference sites and reference
conditions that then make it easier to apply biassessment methods to a
wide range of more site specific monitoring and assessment needs. For
example, some states tend to re-use the same site selection locations -
and such fixed stations can be related to 303(d)-listed segments. Other
states (e.g., Ohio) do not use a probability survey design, but feel
landscape indicators are useful for watersheds at the HUC1 0 or even the
HUC12 level.
Information gathered through the ADBv2.2 is likely to be ready starting
with the 2008 cycle. Some states may be able to "back-fill" their ADB
databases with information going back to 2002.
Biennially using the ADBv2.2.
ADBv2.2; states may also enter their underlying monitoring data in
STORET (WQX).
If EPA encourages states to use the facilities now available in the
ADBv2.2, the cost would be relatively low.
This measure could provide a powerful tool to help correlate results based
on a landscape indicator approach with the much more site specific
assessment that usually appear as 303(d) listings. Increased use of
bioassessment data in major EPA programs would help promote the
incorporation of bioassessment features into state WQS and eventually
lead to a wider use of these techniques in more site-specific analyses.
B-75
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
The possibility of developing such an indicator hinges on EPA HQ and the
EPA Regions encouraging states to put their available state-level or
watershed-level landscape indicators on the table in order to explore ways
to use these information products in the TMDL process and other
important CWA programs.
B-76
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
80
Programmatic
MEASURE
Percent of stream miles where hyporheic exchange was taken into
consideration in approved TMDLs (focus on thermal or dissolved
oxygen impairments)
MEANING
Hyporheic exchange between a waterway and the aquifer below, typically
found in channels with coarse alluvial material, is an important but
complicated aspect of hydrology. These exchanges play a vital role in
temperature regulation and in some cases dissolved oxygen depletion in
surface waters. As it is a relatively new concept explored by watershed
managers, it is not expected to be completely analyzed in all cases where it
should be taken into consideration. While the exchanges can involve a wide
range of pollutants (including toxicants) as well as factors related to the
maintenance of base flow, an initial focus on basic factors such as dissolved
oxygen and temperature (thermal effects) may be warranted.
CWA RELEVANCE
TMDL investigations which include detailed analysis of hyporheic
exchanges will be a great source of knowledge for future TMDL
development in areas of expected groundwater/surface water interaction.
Currently, many TMDLs established in these areas use basic assumptions
to account for hyporheic exchange rather than in-stream measurements or
modeling results. Including analyses of hyporheic exchange in TMDL
implementation plans will provide for more scientifically defensible plans in
cases where the methods are called into question. Another aspect of this
concept is that it relates to major cross-program issues in EPA SDWA
programs, the 319 NPS program, other EPA groundwater-related programs
(RCRA, CERCLIS and USTs), and groundwater-related programs in the
USGS, the USDA or the OPS.
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
Current research suggests that hyporheic exchange is most important in
channels with coarse alluvial material, in waterways that experience periods
of extreme low flows, and in areas of stream modification.
DATA NEEDS
This measure needs three primary needs:
• List of all waters impaired for temperature or dissolved oxygen from a
baseline assessment (likely 2002). *Must be georeferenced
• List of all TMDL development plans for these waters
• Spatial coverage of geologic regions within the country for overlay of
georeferenced, impaired waters
Other possibly important locational information includes groundwater aquifer
locations and drinking water protection areas
DATA QUALITY
While this measure does not rely on numerical analysis of water quality
outcomes, it will review complex analyses of hyporheic exchange rates and
measurements. Because this concept is relatively new to applied research,
data quality is uncertain. For these reasons simple tracking of the percent
of stream miles where these analyses were undertaken is expected to be a
valuable result at this time. In the future, analyses of measurements
hyporheic exchange rates will also be valuable.
BASELINE
Likely 2002.
UPDATING
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of impaired
waters. Additionally, based on any new or updated TMDL development
plan. Consideration should also be given as new applicable geospatial
information becomes available.
B-77
-------
Appendix B
SYSTEMS
A CIS in conjunction with the ADB or NAD will track and georeference the
impaired waters. Individual TMDL development plans identified using ADB
or NAD will need to be review individually.
COST
Costs would be moderate to high to obtain and review TMDL development
documentation. If the objective of this measure expands to include review
of the hyporheic exchange analysis, costs would dramatically multiply due to
the level of expertise needed to completely understand and evaluate
analysis methods and results.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
The measure highlights successes in the CWA and would help the EPA
develop guidance in suggesting models or methods for dealing with
hyporheic exchange zones. These efforts could provide examples and
guidance for developing future, specific results measures related to
groundwater/surface water interactions to address issues important to other
programs such as the SDWA or other EPA, USGS, etc. groundwater
initiatives (groundwater withdrawal permits, groundwater injection permits).
OTHER COMMENTS
The Umatilla River in Oregon provides a case study for hyporheic exchange
considerations in TMDLs. The original TMDL by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality did not take these exchanges under consideration,
but new efforts are filling in this gap. The Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) have undertaken the task of
developing a scientifically accepted method to simulate the thermal affect of
hyporheic flows. The newly submitted TMDL (July 2005) for the Umatilla
River prepared by the CTUIR fully investigates hyporheic exchange and is
an excellent example of the analysis that should be completed for waters of
these conditions.
Additionally, the temperature modification properties of hyporheic exchange
are of high importance to salmonids living in these waters. Habitat
restoration and native species protection aspects of hyporheic exchange
lead to even more cross-program initiatives.
B-78
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
81 Explanatory
(Calibration)
Water Quality Accounting Measures using Watershed Boundary
Dataset for Inland Waters
Take advantage of an increasing amount of watershed accounting and
indicator information being organized to take advantage of the HUC10
(watershed) and HUC12 (sub-watershed) polygons in the Watershed
Boundary Dataset (WBD) to compare documented (or projected/modeled)
changes in WQ conditions against information in the NAD and NTTS
related to the status of 303(d) listings and approved TMDLs.
There is great interest on the part of EPA HQ, the EPA Regions, the USGS,
and the USDA to take advantage of a new generation of standard small
watershed polygons that will be part of the new WBD. EPA wants to
overhaul its GPRA "watershed indicator" (which was tied to the fairly large
HUC8 subbasins) into several new variants that would draw on status and
trend information worked up over the smaller HUC10/HUC12 polygons.
Many states - with backing from EPA Regional offices) have already
started major reconfigurations of the their I-R assessment units and they
way they intend to provide 303(d) information taking advantage of the
smaller WBD polygons. HUC12s seem adequately small to sever a dual
role as both problem listed units and as management areas - especially if
the problems are of a blended or nonpoint source nature.
Measures related to WBD HUC10/HUC12 units could be readily applied to
most inland rivers/streams and lake/reservoir waterbodies and for many
estuarine systems with significant fluvial drainage areas.
Measure related to HUC10/HUC12 polygons could draw on state I-R
assessment unit data. The nationally consistent definition for the WBD also
facilitates data mining against information in STORET (WQX), NWIS or
other state and federal monitoring databases available through distributed
network portals. The WBS will be compatible with the new NHDPIus
system, which will facilitate data mining against information (e.g. PCD
points and NAD and NTTS information) that is georeferenced to the NHD.
The grid accumulation designs in the NHDPIus also facilitate data mining
against raster data layers such as the NLCD.
The only point to bear in mind is that WDB is not yet available yet for the
entire country. It will likely be operational by FY2008. At this time, many
groups have pressed into service older USSDA HUC1 1 .HUC14 polygons or
have used preliminary versions of the WBD polygons. It may take
additional time to update the information set up using the non-final WBD
products.
The WBD will make it technically easy to integrate data sources that may
vary considerably in their data quality. This will encourage grater attention
to having performance-based metadata for major data sources to make
good judgments on the implication for given purposes of either using (or
electing not to use) some information.
The 2002 NTTS baseline would be the starting point in correlating new
WBD-anchored measures.
Update relevant to the TMDL program could be accomplished on a biennial
bases - starting perhaps as early as FY2008.
B-79
-------
Appendix B
SYSTEMS
Information from the existing NAD and NTTS would need to be correlated
against the new WBS-based signals. As more states use the HUC12s as
the framework of choice for their I-R reporting, the entire logic of tracking
both 303(d)-listed waters and approved TMDLs will likely need to be
completely overhauled to take advantage of what may become anew WDB
standard.
COST
Costs could be moderate to high, but the transition to watershed
accounting using the WBD framework may be inevitable.
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
EPA is looking for ways to use measures developed at the HUC12 level as
replacement for the older HUCS-related watershed indicator.
OTHER COMMENTS
The WBD "revolution" has not happened yet only because the WBD does
not presently exist for around 1/3 of the country. Rapid progress will be
made in filling these gaps in FY2007. Pilots and prototypes to anticipate
how to shift a great deal of EPA status and trend tr4akcing to this new
framework should be made a high priority.
B-80
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
82 Explanatory (Calibration)
Water Quality Accounting Measures for Near Coastal/Open Water
Areas
A new generation of accounting measures are needed based on a
standard set of useful small polygons areas - or protocols on appropriate
ways to define custom polygons - for near coastal areas or for large open
water areas. This framework for reporting on assessment and
management information would work in a similar fashion to the framework
for inland watersheds that is nearing completion based n the Watershed
Boundary Dataset (WBD).
There is a growing need to have a suitable small polygon-based reporting
framework for open water areas for larger estuaries/bays, near coastal
waters, and the Great Lakes. Presently, EPA HQ tends to force much of
this information to be represented as location on the NHD "coastal
shoreline" - and this introduces many technical distortions in dealing with
bathing water, shellfish areas, and other WQ issues where a more realistic
approach for storing and providing robust locational information on the
underlying data is important.
Most large estuaries, bays, near coastal waters, the Great Lakes and the
Great Lakes Connecting Waters, and other large open water systems such
as Lake Champlain or other large inlands seas such as Lake Tahoe or
even large reservoirs or some very complex large rivers.
An abundance of information related to these waterbody systems is
already available in state I-R data and the NTTS - much of which is
presently either lacking CIS mapping or with mapping that serious
distortion the locational information by electing to force the information onto
the NHD flowpaths or the completely artificial NHD shoreline drains.
The main "data need' is for cross-agency consensus on a framework to
accomplish as least robust spatial representations for issues located
beyond the coastal shorelines. The new National Monitoring Network
initiative has proposed a very robust approach that adapts features of the
old NOA Coastal Assessment Framework (CAF).
This type of near coastal system will make it technically easier to integrate
data sources that may vary considerably in their data quality. This will
encourage grater attention to having performance-based metadata for
major data sources to make good judgments on the implication for given
purposes of either using (or electing not to use) some information.
The 2002 NTTS baseline would be the starting point
Updates relevant to the TMDL program could be accomplished on a
biennial basis
Information from the existing NAD and NTTS would need to be correlated
against the new coastal waters signals.
Costs may be less an issue that the major hurdles in getting multi-agency
consensus form NOAA and the USGS and the EPA - but also from groups
such the ISSC and the FDA. Within EPA, perspectives can differ in ORD,
OAQPS (the Great Waters program), OWand the Chesapeake Bay and
Gulf of Mexico Program Offices.
B-81
-------
Appendix B
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
Difficulties in dealing with near coastal waters is now a major impediment
to establishing GPRA measures of BEACHES or for shellfishing areas -
and also seriously complicates developing ways to target 106 Grant
monitoring funds to equitably address the needs of Great Lakes and
coastal programs as well as program for inland waters.
OTHER COMMENTS
Within OW, improved coordination is need involving the OWOW/OCPD,
the NMN initiative anchored in the OWOW/Monitoring Branch, and
programs anchored in OW/OST. Coordination is also needed involving
ongoing initiatives where air pollutant deposition is the driver involving
OST/EAD, OAR/OAQPS, and ORD/NERL.
B-82
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
83 Response
Improvements in WQ designated use attainment for major Section
101 (a) "fishable-swimmable" uses
As more states use ADBv2-compliant databases for their I-R work, EPA
will be able to track changes in the incidence of waters with WQS concerns
according to major types of designated use categories that align state
designated uses with "national" categories such as aquatic life support,
swimming, drinking water supply, and fish consumption. TMDL results can
then be expressed in terms of the percentage of assessed waters attaining
(or not-attaining) major designated use categories. This approach can be
more effective in communication progress in TMDL results that
presentation focusing on overall WQS attainment or expressing results in
terms of pollutants.
While complete success under the TMDL program involves progress
related to all types of designated uses and pollutants related to their
association numeric or narrative criteria, it is us4ful to be able to document
"modular" or incremental progress in terms of different types of designated
uses. Recovery of designated uses is at the heart of the TMDL program,
and tracking results by major designated uses helps communicate status
and trends according to categories that are of major relevance to the Clean
Water Act.
This status and tracking approach can be applied to all waterbody types.
All States would have to adopt either version 2.0 of the ADB OR a
compatible (surrogate) data system so that needed information would
become available in EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD).
The data to support this measure is becoming available but is not yet
available in the NAD for all states.
The ability to develop national measure reporting hinges on EPA's ability to
encourage states to use the ADBv2 or a compliant system that is based on
the concept of organized assessment conclusions according to EPA-
approved WQS designated uses.
Possibly by a FY2008 baseline for most states.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters
Assessment Database (ADB) information entered in the National
Assessment Database (NAD) and then into National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS)
Moderate - will require ongoing EPA diligence in encouraging states to use
ADBv2 or compliant I-R database systems.
The ability to break-out assessment results according to major designated
use categories would provide supporting information for other GPRA or
PART measures and would also open up possibilities to develop a wide
range of new outcome measures.
B-83
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
A major concern is the future of the OST WQS Database. At the present
time, EPA HQ maintenance for the OST WQS database is scheduled to
cease after FY2006. EPA OWwill need to identify ways that current lists
of state WQS uses (activities) can be maintained and also ensure that
there is reasonable confidence that use assignments in the NAD for
specific segments are valid.
B-84
-------
Appendix B
MEASURE ID
MEASURE
MEANING
CWA RELEVANCE
SUBPOPULATION OF
WATERS ADDRESSED
DATA NEEDS
DATA QUALITY
BASELINE
UPDATING
SYSTEMS
COST
STRATEGIC
PLAN/PART/
SUPPORTING
STUDIES RELEVANCE
84 Programmatic
Percentage of waters with decreased water quality, no change in
water quality, or improvements in water quality for waters with
implementation actions underway related to TMDL implementation
plans as compared to waters without TMDL approvals.
By comparing the water quality status of waters with and without TMDL-
related implementation actions, the effectiveness of TMDL-driven
implementation processes to restore water quality can be estimated.
Looks at whether the implementation actions applied by the TMDL process
are effective in improving water quality as compared to improvements that
take place within the extra driver of an approved TMDL. Quantifies the
level of improvement that can be attributed to TMDL-based
implementation.
All impaired waters impaired by a pollutant that are not expected to meet
attainment without implementation actions (i.e. does not take into account
"4b" or"4c" waters).
All States would have to adopt either version 2.x of the ADB OR a
compatible (surrogate) data system so that needed information would
become available in EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD). NTTS
is also needed to determine which waters have approved TMDLs and
ultimately implementation actions. Additionally, any implementation action
information will need to be mined from state data sources. This measure
would be similar 1 many respects to the paired watershed and similar "side-
by-side" comparisons used in the 319 National Nonpoint Source National
Monitoring Program evaluations.
This measure could be implemented using a variety of 2-sample tests for
comparisons in differences in proportions. Breaking out impaired waters
as to whether the underlying stressors are most likely to be predominately
from point source as opposed to blended or NPS contexts should be
considered.
Suggested baseline of 2002.
Based on biennial State assessments of water quality and listing of
impaired waters as well as any new implementation action or water quality
monitoring information obtained.
Assessment Database (ADB) or surrogate data system information entered
in the National Assessment Database (NAD) with applicable information
entered into the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). Elements of
both the NAD and the NTTS are necessary to track this measure.
Additional information on implementation plans would also be helpful.
Fro information taken for the NTTS and NAD, costs could be low. Costs
would increase for data mining form available information sources
regarding implementation plans.
Promising measure for long-term use in strategic planning or for reporting
progress to OMB as required by the Program Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART). Allows the decision-makers to document the relative
effectiveness of implementation actions versus no action.
B-85
-------
Appendix B
OTHER COMMENTS
The statistical information gained from this measure may open other areas
of study for Integrated Reporting and uncover other issues or data needs
for development of the Integrated Reporting process.
B-86
------- |