Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Water: Planning

Definitions, reporting methodologies, and contacts for FY 07 Program Activity Measures (PAMs) - Subobjective: Water Quality

 

Subobjective: Water Quality

WQ-1 [related to WQ-1 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of new or revised pollutant criteria documents published in draft of final by HQ annually that assist states and tribes to better control water pollution through improved water quality standards and ecological/human health risk assessment under the Clean Water Act.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: HQ

Responsible OST Division: Health and Ecological Criteria

Definition/How to Report:
Under this PAM, we will only count EPA products for which the direct end effect is the adoption of a water quality criterion by the States or Tribes into their water quality standards. This can include:

  • numeric or narrative water quality criteria, or other forms of criteria designed to protect the designated uses of the water bodies of a State or Tribal nation related to both
  • any recommended water quality criterion which can be adopted by the States and Tribes directly, or after site-specific modifications, or any methodology that is a final product from EPA with which the States and Tribes can derive and implement their own scientifically defensible water quality criteria tailored to State-specific or Tribal-specific needs
  • any new, revised, draft or final water quality criteria document issued under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act including any criteria derivation methodology such a water body-specific method for deriving biocriteria, eco-regional-specific method for deriving nutrient criteria, sediment criteria or other aquatic ecosystem characteristic such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.

Contact:
William Swietlik, OST, (swietlik.william@epa.gov), 202-566-1129

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-2 (a,b) [related to WQ-2 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of States and Territories that have adopted approved nutrient criteria into their water quality standards, or are on schedule with a mutually-agreed upon plan to adopt nutrient criteria into their water quality standards. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OST Divisions: Standards and Health Protection  and Health and Ecological Criteria

Definition/How to Report:

  1. Number of States and Territories that have adopted approved nutrient criteria into their water quality standards.

A State or Territory will be counted if it has adopted nutrient criteria for all waters needing water quality standards for nutrients and if EPA has approved those standards. To qualify, the nutrient criteria must:

  • Be numeric or narrative with quantitative endpoints; and
  • Address either both nitrogen and phosphorus or a causal/response pair of variables (e.g., phosphorus and chlorophyll-a); and
  • Apply to all applicable waters of one or more waterbody types (e.g., lakes/reservoirs or rivers/streams) in the State/Territory where it has been determined that nutrient criteria are important to protect the designated use, except multi-state waterbodies may be excluded; and
  • Have been approved by EPA.
  1. Number of States and Territories that are on schedule with a mutually agreed-upon plan to develop and adopt such criteria.

A State or Territory will be counted if it has a plan, mutually agreed-upon with EPA, to develop nutrient criteria, and it is meeting the current year milestones in the schedule in its plan. This is not a cumulative measure. Each State or Territory will be evaluated anew each fiscal year to determine whether it is on schedule compared to that year’s milestones and commitments. If there is mixed performance on multiple milestones in the current year, the Region will apply a “weight of evidence” approach to determine whether, overall, the State or Territory is “on schedule.”

States and Territories may consider unusual circumstances in other years in determining whether the jurisdiction is “on schedule” for the current year. For example, if a Region finds that a State or Territory is not likely to meet an important milestone in a future year, or has not addressed a slipped milestone in a previous year appropriately, the Region may take this into account.

Baseline:
The baseline for 2005 was a) 5 States (TN, HI) and Territories (GU, AS, CNMI) that had adopted EPA-approved criteria; and b) 24 States that were on schedule with agreed upon plans to develop criteria.

Region 1           ME, NH, VT
Region 2           NY
Region 3           DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
Region 4           AL, FL, KY, MS, SC, TN, NC
Region 5           IL, MI, MN, WI
Region 9           AZ, CA, HI, NV
Total 24 States

Universe:
The universe is 56 State and Territories: 50 States plus DC, PR, VI, GU, AS, and CNMI. OST considered but rejected extending this measure to authorized Tribes at this time. Tribes could be included in a later year, but considering the generally more limited capacity of Tribes to address complex scientific issues in their water quality standards compared to States, OST believes it would be premature to include Tribes in FY 2007. OST and the Regions will continue to work with interested Tribes who wish to pursue nutrient criteria.

Contact:
Greg Stapleton, OST, (stapleton.gregory@epa.gov), (202) 566-1028

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

 

Top of page

 

WQ-3 [related to WQ-3 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of States and Territories that have incorporated into their water quality programs for streams and small rivers, quantitative biological criteria that are used to help assess attainment of water quality standards. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OST Divisions: Standards and Health Protection and Health and Ecological Criteria

Definition/How to Report:
This is a cumulative measure and is intended to assess the progress of States and Territories in using biological data in establishing quantitative descriptions of the expected biological community in a stream or small river as the basis for:

  • interpreting the biological data they collect in their monitoring and assessment programs, and,
  • making aquatic life use attainment/nonattainment decisions in individual waters. 

The word, “criteria” as used in this measure means a threshold value used to differentiate between attainment and nonattainment, not water quality criteria as used in section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131. This measure tracks both the number of States and Territories that adopt quantitative biological criteria into their WQS and those that use quantitative biological data to make attainment decisions but have not adopted biological criteria into their WQS.

A State or Territory should only be counted as having biological criteria for streams and small rivers if all 3 of the conditions below are met:

  • The criteria are numeric or narrative with documented quantitative implementation procedures or translators, and
  • The criteria apply to some or all designated aquatic life uses, and
  • The criteria are used to make attainment decisions.

The following definitions should be used in conjunction with the above paragraph:

Numeric biocriteria - specific quantitative measures of the structure and function of aquatic communities in a waterbody necessary to protect a designated aquatic life use.

Narrative biocriteria - written statements describing the structure and function of aquatic communities in a waterbody necessary to protect a designated aquatic life use.

The criteria may be implemented on a watershed or regional basis and may not yet be applied statewide.  Therefore, States or Territories that have used biological criteria to make attainment decisions for some of their waters, but not all, should be included. 

Possible Future Enhancements:
The following enhancements are being considered for future revisions or additions to the PAM.  

  • There is no guidance at this time on assessing the robustness of the bioassessment methods and the data used to support attainment decisions.  This issue is not addressed in the PAM.  However, over the past two years, Region 5 has been piloting with their states draft guidelines on technical program assessments. These assessments are designed for a state, territory or tribe to evaluate the strengths and limitations of their technical program and then determine priorities and a strategy for strengthening their program.   Regions 1 and 8 will be road testing these draft guidelines in their TALU pilots beginning this year.  These pilots can provide insights and options that we all may want to consider, and potentially incorporate, into future PAM measures and computation guidance.
  • Add tracking of authorized Tribes that use biological assessments in their water quality program to assess attainment of their designated aquatic life uses and support attainment/nonattainment decisions
  • Track States, Territories or Tribes that have taken additional steps to enhance their program capabilities or improve the technical quality of their assessments
  • Track States, Territories or Tribes that have adopted quantitative biological criteria into their water quality standards
  • Track States, Territories or Tribes that have developed and applied biocriteria for other waterbodies in addition to streams and small rivers (headwater streams, rivers, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and reservoirs)

Baseline:

The 2002 Baseline is 14 States/Territories:

Region 1 CT, VT, ME
Region 4 TN, GA, FL, NC, SC, KY
Region 5 OH
Region 6 NM, TX, OK
Region 7 KS
Region 10 None (Region 10 has since determined that OR and ID should have been included in the 2002 baseline and reporting through 2005. These changes have not been made in ACS or Office of Water tracking charts because it was deemed too cumbersome and confusing to do so. The Region plans to include them in FY 2006 and subsequent reporting.)

Straw Target for FY 2007:

The following information was used in developing the national straw target of 34 for this measure.

States/Territories Meeting PAM WQ-3 (revised computation guidance & PAM) 2/13/06

  Feb 2006 (current status 2007 2008
Region 1: CT, VT, ME, NH ---- MA or RI?
Region 2: NY, NJ ---- ----
Region 3: PA, DE, WV, VA, MD DC? DC?
Region 4: TN, GA, FL, NC, SC, KY MI or AL? MI or AL?
Region 5: OH, MI, MN, IL, IN ---- WI?
Region 6: NM, TX, OK ---- ----
Region 7: KS IA? NE? ----
Region 8: & MT UT or WY WY &/or CO
Region 9: 0 AZ ----
Region 10: OR, ID ---- ----

06 Computation Guidance Revised 2007 Computation Guidance

Region 05 Actual 06 Target Feb’06 Status 07 Straw Target
1(3)*
4
4
4
4
2(0)
0
0
2
2
3(0)
0
0
5
5
4(6)
6
6
6
7
5(1)
1
1
5
5
6(3)
3
3
3
3
7(1)
3
3
1
3
8(0)
0
1
1
2
9(0)
0
0
0
1
10(0)
0
2
2
2
Total(14)
17
20
29
34

*(2002 baseline)

Contact:
Greg Stapleton, OST, (stapleton.gregory@epa.gov), (202) 566-1028

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page

 

 

WQ-4 [related to WQ-4 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of Tribes that have water quality standards approved by EPA. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OST Division: Standards and Health Protection

Definition/How to Report:
This is a cumulative measure.

A Tribe should be counted as having EPA-approved WQS if all three of the following criteria have been met:

  • The Tribe has been authorized to administer its own water quality standards program (i.e., EPA has found it eligible for treatment in the same manner as a state, TAS); and
  • Tribe has adopted and submitted an initial set of water quality standards to EPA; and
  • EPA has approved the initial standards.

In addition, Tribes having EPA-promulgated federal standards will count under this measure.

Because this is a cumulative measure, the FY 2007 targets should count the number of authorized Tribes expected to have approved water quality standards at the end of FY 2006 and add to this figure a challenging but realistic number of additional Tribes expected to receive EPA approval for their water quality standards during FY 2007.

The 2002 Baseline was 22 Tribes:
Region 4- Seminole, Miccosukee
Region 5- Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa, Mole Lake Band of Chippewa
Region 6- Pueblos of: Isleta, Sandia, San Juan, Santa Clara, Picuris, Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque, Acoma
Region 8- Salish & Kootenai (Flathead Reservation), Ft. Peck Tribes
Region 9- White Mountain Apache, Hoopa Valley Tribe
Region 10- Puyallup, Chehalis, Warm Springs, Umatilla; Colville (via promulgation)

Contact:
Greg Stapleton, OST, (stapleton.gregory@epa.gov), (202) 566-1028

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-5 (a,b) [new measure for FY 07]

Measure: Number, and national percent, of States and Territories and authorized Tribes that within the preceding three year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other resources not considered in the previous standards.
[conforms with 106 PART annual output measure]

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OST Division: Standards and Health Protection

Definition/How to Report:

  • Acceptable to EPA means that EPA has approved the new or revised criteria for that State, Territory, or Tribe.
  • Three year period means May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2007, to allow at least 5 months for EPA approval.
  • New scientific information from EPA includes, but is not limited to, draft or final water quality criteria documents, and updated information posted on https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/. It could also include revised criteria implementation guidance, and scientific information provided by EPA Regions or other EPA Offices to assist State, Territorial, or Tribal adoption of statewide or local criteria. 

Methodology for Computing:
Regions will identify in the Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA) any submissions or submission parts that include one or more new water quality criteria or revised criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new scientific information not considered in the previous criteria.  Adoption and EPA approval of initial Tribal standards that include water quality criteria will enable a Tribe to be counted under this measure.
 
The WATA system will be used to identify all submissions received May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2007, that meet the above criteria, and can therefore be reported as meeting the measure. 
If a State or territory has not adopted any such criteria, the State or Territory can nevertheless be counted under this measure if:

  1. EPA has not issued any new or revised water quality criteria applicable to that state’s water including revisions to the published table of EPA recommended criteria at https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria that would trigger this measure.  For toxic pollutants, “applicable to that state’s water” includes pollutants that are reasonably expected to interfere with designated uses; OR
  2. the State or Territory completed a defensible scientific review of the new scientific information EPA has issued and has determined that no changes are needed to their existing water quality criteria. This would be counted for FY 2007 if the associated public review and comment occurred within the past three years.

Note the overlap in time periods: a state that made such a submittal, in, say, July 2007, would get counted in FY 2007, 2008, and 2009.  Conversely, a state that last adopted such criteria, say, November 2004, would get counted in FY 2007 but not in FY 2008. Biocriteria that are reflected explicitly in designated uses would count.

Note that the measure allows EPA from 5 to 41 to approve the criteria, depending on the date of submission during the three-year period specified above.

The universe that OST will use for calculating percentages is:

  • 56 States and Territories (DC, PR, VI, GU, CNMI, AS)
  • The number of Tribes with EPA-approved water quality standards as of the end of FY 2006. SHPD will circulate a list of such Tribes at that time. As of January 20, 2006, there were 27 such Tribes, which is the number shown on the WQ-5 slide in the National Water Program Guidance. Note that adoption and EPA approval of numeric water quality criteria in the initial Tribal standards will enable that Tribe to be counted under this measure. The Universe excludes tribes with EPA-promulgated standards.

Contact:
Greg Stapleton, OST, (stapleton.gregory@epa.gov), (202) 566-1028

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-6 (a,b) [related to WQ-6 in FY 06]

Measure:
Percent of State/Territorial and Tribal water quality standards submissions (received in the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by EPA. Partial approvals receive fractional credit.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Standards and Health Protection

Definition/How to Report:

  • Tribal water quality standards means standards adopted and submitted by a Tribe that EPA has found eligible for “treatment in the same manner as a state (TAS)” to administer a water quality standards program.
  • Submission means a single package of new or revised water quality standards duly transmitted to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR parts 131 or 132. Typically the submission would be the set of documents transmitted by one letter from a State, Territorial, or Tribal official, including a certification from the Attorney General or equivalent. A submission can include triennial reviews, statewide WQS revisions, use attainability analyses or site-specific criteria for individual waters, general policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and variances. In short, anything duly submitted to EPA pursuant to 131.20 that we must act upon.

Partial approvals receive fractional credit means that partial approvals count proportionally. The proportion is determined by the number of provisions approved compared to the total number of provisions in a submission. For example, a submission would receive a credit of 0.85 submission if the Region approved 17 of the 20 provisions in the submission. Use a default of 0.50 submission for a partial approval if the number of provisions in a submission cannot be readily estimated. 

Methodology for Computing
The purpose of this measure is to provide insight into the “approvability” of state submissions.  A disapproval or a “no action” does not count toward meeting this measure.

This measure will be computed using information in the WATA system.

The universe changes annually based on the number of submissions. For FY 2007 the number of new or revised submissions during May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007, will be the universe.  The WATA system will count the number of such submissions or fractions of submissions that EPA approved through September 30, 2007.  Note that this measure allows from 5 to 17 months for an approval to occur, depending on the date of submission.

Contact:
Greg Stapleton, OST, stapleton.gregory@epa.gov, (202) 566-1028

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-7 [related to WQ-7 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of States and Territories that have adopted and are implementing their monitoring strategies in keeping with established schedules.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed

Definition/How to Report:

Monitoring language from the Watershed Subobjective Implementation Plan (PDF), 203KB, 4 pages, about PDF)

Contact:
Francoise Brasier, OWOW, (brasier.francoise@epa.gov), 202-564-1214

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-8 (a,b) [related to WQ-10 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of Tribes that currently receive EPA funding under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act that have developed and begun implementing monitoring strategies that are appropriate to their water quality program consistent within EPA Guidance, and the number that are providing water quality data in a format accessible for storage in EPA's data system.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact:
Peter Grevatt, OWOW,grevatt.peter@epa.gov, (202) 564-1925

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-9 [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Number of national probabilistic monitoring assessments completed.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: HQ

Responsible OWOW Division: (n/a)

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact:
Joan Warren, OWOW, (warren.joan@epa.gov), (202) 566-1215

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-10 [related to WQ-8 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of States and Territories that provide Integrated Reports consistent with EPA's Guidance for Assessment, Listing, and Reporting requirements pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:
Criteria for meeting the Measure:
State, Interstate Agency, or Territory provided an Integrated Report that meets the following criteria:

  • One report is submitted that satisfies the reporting requirements of Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314. Reporting requirements (as distinct from non-required preferences) for these sections of the CWA are provided in Sections II and III of the 2006 Integrated Report guidance.
  • A single assessment methodology was used to make water quality attainment determinations, e.g., the status of a particular waterbody is not reported as attaining standards under one section of the CWA, but impaired under another section.
  • Water quality attainment status (e.g., meeting water quality standards, not meeting water quality standards, not enough data and information is available) is reported for all segments in the state. EPA's recommended 5 reporting categories in the 2004 (placing waters in one of five categories) and 2006 (placing waters in more than one category) Integrated Report guidances are both examples of acceptable formats for presenting this information.

Contact:
Sarah Furtak, OWOW, (furtak.sarah@epa.gov), (202) 566-1167

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-11 [related to WQ-9 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of States and Territories using the Assessment Database (ADB) (or compatible electronic format) to record their assessment decisions (Integrated Report/303(d)/305(b)) and provide geo-referencing information for assessment unit locations. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

Definition/How to Report:
This measure counts States and Territories using ADB Version 2 (or compatible electronic format) and providing georeferencing information on the assessment unit locations for the 2006 Integrated Report/305b/303d report that they submit to EPA. Compatible electronic format means having the same data elements/fields as ADB Version 2. This measure is cumulative. If States and Territories have used the ADB and provided georeferencing information for the 2006 report, and are expected to continue to do so, they should be counted toward this measure in FY07.

A State or Territory may also be counted as meeting this measure if it is using Version 2 in FY 07 and will submit its 2008 IR/303d/305b report using ADB Version 2.0 (or newer). We expect that a State's 2008 IR/303d/305b report could be viewed via the Agency's website with minimal reworking by EPA or our contractor and without lengthy discussions with State staff about the accuracy of their data.

Contact:
Joan Warren, OWOW, (warren.joan@epa.gov), (202) 566-1215

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-12 [related to WQ-11 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of methods developed or validated for new or emerging biological or chemical contaminants.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: HQ

Responsible OST Division: Engineering and Analysis

Definition/How to Report:
We will report the number of EPA-approved analytical methods, newly available this year, for biological and chemical contaminants, as the number of methods we approve by rulemaking. Our analytical methods planning process reflects the needs identified in effluent guidelines, in water quality standards, and by other Office of Water customers.

Contact:
Richard Reding, OST, (reding.richard@epa.gov), (202) 566-2237

Top of page


WQ-13 (a,b) [related to WQ-12 in FY 06]

Measure:
WQ-13a: Number of TMDLs, and national percent, that are established by states or EPA on a schedule consistent with national policy.

WQ-13b: Number of TMDLs, and national percent, that are established by states (and approved by EPA) on a schedule consistent with national policy.

Type: Target

Who reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:

WQ-13a: TMDLs developed by states or EPA

Regions develop and document their annual pace in line with national policy on a State-by-State basis as follows:

(1) Using the most current state 303(d) list and/or relevant court orders or consent agreements, determine the total number of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) that need to be approved/established. This number is the "Universe of all TMDLs needed" in Row C of Table 1, below. (Note: This table shows FY05 numbers as reported that year)

(2) Sum the state-by-state figures for pace to determine the number of TMDLs to be completed in FY 07 to yield the Regional pace. Define your individual state paces and how they add up to a Regional pace. State pace is based on state litigation or other schedules or straight-line rates that ensure that the national policy is met (typically within 13 years of listing). This number should be reported in Row A. Two "examples" are shown for Region 1 (171) and Region 2 (115).

(3) Identify the total number of TMDLs in the Region expected to be completed in FY 07 (Row B, below). The HQ policy has been that Regions should maintain an annual pace between 80% and 100%.

(4) HQ Watershed and Monitoring Branches are continuing to work on improving the National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) and Assessment Data Base (ADB) systems by which states and Regions report their TMDLs approved/established and their 303(d) waters. Regions must use the NTTS as the basis to record their TMDLs approved/established and generally should be entered no later than 30 days after approval. Sufficient time will be given to the Regions to add into NTTS TMDLs that were approved late in the year (e.g., end of September).

(5) At the close of the fiscal year, Regions may submit to HQ a summary of how the Regional pace denominator (Row A) may have changed during the year to affect the pace. For example, if R2 approved 100 TMDLs, and another 15 TMDLs were no longer needed (e.g., 5 were placed in Category 4b, another 10 were shown not to need a TMDL because water quality standards are met), then R2 could adjust their pace number from 115 to 100. For 2006 and 2007, Region 3 is adjusting pace to account for the multiple segment changes in Pennsylvania. Nationally, further improvements to the pace calculation are being considered.

Three factors for calculation adjustments follow, including increased percentage of assessed waters, large number of delistings, and other adjustment factors. Please be sure to communicate any proposed adjustments, in advance of calculations, with HQ.

  1. Increased percentage of assessed waters: Based upon the Year 2000 National Water Quality Inventory Report (available at www.epa.gov/305b), 33% of the nation’s waters have been assessed (FY00 baseline is 33% averaging across water body types; in 2004 this increased to 38% because the national coastal condition report assessed 100% of coastal waters using a statistically-valid probability design). For reasons such as consent decrees or program investments, a state may have assessed a much larger percentage of its waters than this national average. Assessment results may yield a need for a large number of TMDLs. In limited circumstances, TMDLs needed in that Region may thus be disproportionate in relation to other Regions due to a state’s (or states´) proportion of assessed waters. Below are two methods for adjusting Regional pace:
  2. (Consent decree)
    The Region may adjust the Regional pace by substituting the particular state’s pace with its legal obligation for the year in question for the year in question. An example follows for state "x":

    Regional pace:  
    2,000
    		  TMDLs
    Minus state "x" pace:  
    500
    		  
    Plus state "x" legal obligation:  
    300
    		  
    Adjusted Regional pace:  
    1,800
    		  

    (Adjustment for high proportion assessed)
    Where a state has assessed two times the national average of about 30% of waters assessed (i.e., a state has assessed 60% or more of its waters), the Regional pace may be adjusted. The difference between the national average percentage of waters assessed and the state percentage of waters assessed may be subtracted from the state’s pace. The adjusted state pace then creates an adjusted Regional pace. An example follows for state "x":

    Regional pace:   3,000 TMDLs
    State "x" pace:   500
    State % of waters assessed (greater than 2 times the national average):   80%
    Minus national average % of waters assessed:   ˜30%
    State pace may be reduced by:   50% (250 TMDLs)
    Adjusted Regional pace:   2,750 TMDLs

  3. Large number of delistings: It is possible that a state may delist a significant number of waters over the course of a given fiscal year (e.g., with the adoption of new water quality standards or assessment methodologies). The number of delistings may be so great that if deducted from the pace number it would yield a negative number. The delisted TMDLs may then be deducted from the total TMDLs needed for the Region (i.e., universe) and the TMDLs needed for the fiscal year proportionally. Two examples follow:

  4. Example #1

    Regional pace:  
    230
    		  TMDLs
    Universe:  
    3,015
    		  
    Minus delistings:  
    1,127
    		  
    Adjusted universe:  
    1,888
    		  
     230  =  x 


    3,015  1,888


    x = 144


    Adjusted Regional pace: 144


    Example #2

    Regional pace:  
    213
    		  TMDLs
    Universe:  
    2,769
    		  
    Minus delistings:  
    1,015
    		  
    Adjusted universe:  
    1,754
    		  
     213  =  x 


    2,769  1,754


    x = 135


    Adjusted Regional pace: 135


  5. Other adjustment factors: In addition to the above factors, there may be other valid reasons for adjusting annual pace. For example, it may be appropriate to set a lower annual pace for states in which TMDLs are developed concurrent with implementation plans or for which the TMDLs under development are particularly complex or cover large geographical scales. It may also be appropriate to adjust annual pace to account for the specific TMDL development schedules set by states. These state schedules should be generally consistent with EPA’s 1997 policy guidance (available at https://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/ratepace1997guid.pdf, 8 pp, 664 KB, about PDF) concerning pace. If a Region proposes changes in the annual pace calculation based on these, or other reasonable factors, the Region should briefly note these factors in the comment field of the Annual Commitment System (ACS) Database. Such proposed changes should also be discussed, in advance of calculations, with Sarah at HQ.

Glossary of Pace

Pace, Annual pace, Regional pace, Total pace – TMDLs needing to be done in a given fiscal year. A Regional aggregation of state pace figures (see "state pace", below).

State pace – Number of TMDLs needing to be completed in a given state in a given fiscal year (these TMDLs may eventually be developed either by the state and approved by EPA or developed and approved by EPA). State pace is based on state litigation or other schedules or straight-line rates that ensure that the national policy is met. National policy states that TMDLs are typically established and approved within 13 years of the water having been listed on the impaired waters list [lists compiled to satisfy Clean Water Act section 303(d) requirements].

State-developed (TMDL) pace – Number of state-developed (EPA-approved) TMDLs needing to be completed in a given fiscal year. Like "state pace" above, state-developed pace is based on state litigation or other schedules or straight-line rates that ensure that the national policy is met, but does not include those TMDLs developed and approved by EPA.

Target – Number of TMDLs projected to be completed in a given fiscal year. Targets are usually set by Regions in March. The HQ policy has been that targets should be 80-100% of the pace.

Commitment – Number of TMDLs that states promise to complete in a given fiscal year. Targets evolve into draft commitments in July and final commitments in September. The HQ policy has been that commitments should be 80-100% of the pace.

Universe -- All TMDLs needed according to the most current state 303(d) list and/or relevant court orders or consent agreements.

Table 1: How to Calculate WQ-13(a)

   
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
TOT
A. 2007 Pace: Number of TMDLS (both state-developed and EPA-developed) to be completed in FY07 on schedule consistent with national policy [EXAMPLE]
171
115
                  
B. 2007 Target: Number of TMDLs projected to be completed in FY07 [EXAMPLE]
171
100
523
275
325
399
452
262
310
350
3,177
C. Universe ALL TMDLs needed [EXAMPLE]
3,354
2,288
12,248
6,528
9,913
3,015
1,704
2,733
2,391
1,700
46,054

HQ calculates national percent by comparing the number of projected TMDLs to pace (i.e., total of Row B divided by total of Row A).

WQ-13(b): TMDLs developed by states

This portion of the measure is calculated using the same methodology as indicated above, but considers only state-developed TMDLs approved by EPA (WQ-13(b) annual pace is determined by subtracting the number of EPA-developed TMDLs from the total pace (i.e., EPA-developed and state-developed sum or "2007 Pace" in the table above).

For example, if Region 1 reported that zero of its TMDLs would be EPA-developed, Region 1 state-developed TMDL pace would still be 171. If Region 2 reported that 5 of its TMDLs would be EPA-developed, Region 2 state-developed pace would be 110 (see these hypothetical examples in the table below).

Table 2: How to Calculate WQ-13(b)

   
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
TOT
A. 2007 State-Developed TMDL Pace: Number of state-developed TMDLS to be completed in FY07 on schedule consistent with national policy [EXAMPLE]
171
110
                  
B. 2007 Target: Number of state-developed TMDLs projected to be completed in FY07 [EXAMPLE]
171
95
                  

HQ calculates national percent by comparing the number of projected TMDLs to pace (i.e., total of Row B divided by total of Row A).

Contact:
Sarah Furtak, OWOW, (furtak.sarah@epa.gov), (202) 566-1167

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-14 [related to WQ-13 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of TMDLs for impaired waterbodies which affect Tribal waters approved by EPA where the Tribe participated in the TMDL or comparable watershed restoration planning process.

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:
Participation by tribes may range from leading the development of the TMDL to making some contribution to its development (e.g., reviewing relevant documentation).

Contacts:
Sarah Furtak, OWOW, (furtak.sarah@epa.gov), (202) 566-1167

Top of page


WQ-15 (a,b,c) [related to WQ-14 in FY 06]

Measure:
Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies (Section 319 funded projects only).

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: HQ

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:
EPA collects this information in its Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) for Section 319-funded on-the-ground implementation projects where one or more of these three pollutants is addressed by the project. States are not strictly required to enter this information into GRTS until after one full year of project implementation, although they may enter data prior to the one-year period if they so choose. Therefore, load reduction data entered into GRTS in a particular year usually reflect the results of a project that was implemented during a previous grant year.

EPA HQ will provide this information based on data entry in GRTS. No Regional breakdown of load reductions will be provided.

Contact:
Dov Weitman, OWOW, (weitman.dov@epa.gov), (202) 566-1207

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-16 [related to WQ-15 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000) or subsequent years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully restored. (cumulative)

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: * HQ reports results by Region

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:

This is the main long-term environmental results measure for the NPS program.

By "fully restored," EPA means that all designated uses are now being met.
By "partially restored," EPA means either of the following two conditions are being met:

a) A waterbody that has a use that is initially impaired by more than one pollutant, but after restoration efforts meets the criteria for one or more (but not all) of those pollutants,
or
b) A waterbody that initially has more than one use that is less than fully supported, but after restoration efforts one or more (but not all) of those uses becomes fully supported.

The target of 250 waters by 2008 and 700 by 2012 refer to partially and fully restored waterbodies combined.

Since the main referent for this measure will be State 303(d) or Integrated Reports, States which did not submit 2000 303(d) lists may substitute the 1998 list for their base year. "Waterbodies" therefore refer to 303(d)-listed segments or category 4 or 5 waters on the Integrated Report. The measure is meant to include not only waterbodies restored by 319-funded projects, but instead counts all primarily NPS-impaired waterbodies that a state restores subsequent to the base year of 1998/2000, regardless of funding source. The water must have been impaired as of the year 1998/2000.

Waters listed after 1998/2000 which are then de-listed from the 303(d) list (for some or all pollutants) or which move from categories 4 (which includes waters impaired by "pollution") or 5 to category 1 or 2 may also be counted against this measure. In other words, although 1998/2000 is the base year, the 303(d) lists for those years need not be the only referent lists.

On an ad hoc basis, EPA may approve counting a water against this measure that has been partially or fully restored, but not yet removed from the 303(d) list. This will only occur if the water has actually been restored; EPA will not count cases where the State merely believes the water will be restored by the time of their next 303(d) listing.

Please note that a water cannot be counted simply because it has been de-listed from a state 303(d) list, or moves from categories 4 or 5 to 1 or 2, for reasons other than actual restoration (e.g., it is determined that it was inappropriately listed in the first place, it has a TMDL done for it, etc.).

There may be times when a water does not actually change categories, but a use has been restored. Take the following situation: a water is listed under both categories 2 and 5 in one reporting year, and then under these same categories the next reporting year, even though one of the water’s uses has gone from not supported to fully supported. For example, if a water has three uses, and in the first reporting year has one use fully supported and two uses not supported, it might be listed under both categories 2 and 5. If in the next reporting year, one of the two uses that was previously not supported becomes fully supported, then the water would still be listed under categories 2 and 5 - but a use will have been restored (i.e. the bar for "partially restored" will have been met). If a use has actually been restored, then this water may be counted against this measure, regardless of whether or not the categorization of the water stays static.

In addition, a water will not be counted towards this measure if no specific management activities have been taken (by any party) within the watershed to improve water quality. Furthermore, a given water cannot be counted twice under this measure if it goes from impaired to partially restored, and then from partially restored to fully restored. Any given water may only be counted once under this measure.

For a water to be counted as "partially or fully restored," it must be described by a story on EPA's NPS Success Story Website (https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319/). On the Success Stories web site, the heading "Stories about partially or fully restored water bodies" is the section that refers to this measure. Without such a story, the water will not be counted against this measure.

Success stories submitted for the States (or Tribes) will vary in length and complexity, but should include the following:

  • Title
  • Problem
  • Project highlights
  • Results (monitoring data or a narrative description of improvements, consistent with state 303(d) listing and delisting methodologies)
  • Partners and funding
  • Photos and/or Table/graph/chart showing water quality data (where applicable and available)
  • Contact information

Requirements for new stories as of winter 2006:

  • GRTS project number(s) (where applicable)
  • Date de-listed from 303(d) list, or list date it will be de-listed (i.e. next 303(d) list)

A story may include more than one waterbody, where appropriate.

As for determining whether or not a water is "primarily" NPS-impaired, this will be left to the best professional judgment of the States. EPA does not expect that the State should do a detailed analysis when making a judgment on whether a given water is "primarily" NPS-impaired, when a precise determination would be exceedingly difficult (such as, for example, when a single listed water moves through both permitted MS4 areas as well as through non-permitted areas).

Finally, it is important to note that the criteria for WQ-17 and measures L and W are not the same; therefore, a waterbody may be credited under one of these measures but not the others.

Contact:
Dov Weitman, OWOW, (weitman.dov@epa.gov), (202) 566-1207

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-17 [related to WQ-17 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of follow-up actions that are completed by assessed NPDES programs. (cumulative)

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions, consistent with HQ tracking system

Responsible OWOW Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
Assessed programs:
45 States (all except NH, MA, NM, AK, ID)
3 territories (including VI, PR, DC)
10 Regions

Universe of actions is maintained in HQ tracking system

Report number of actions that have been completed, consistent with HQ tracking system. Enter Regional percent in the "Comments" field. HQ will generate national percent.

HQ will email results based on HQ tracking system for Regions to enter into GPRA ACS. Regions should ensure tracking system is up-to-date by submitting their Action Item Status Forms to HQ.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(State Actions Tracking System) Danielle Meunier, OWM, (meunier.danielle@epa.gov), (202) 564-0759

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-18 (a,b) [related to WQ-18 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of non-tribal NPDES permits that are considered current, and number, and national percent, of tribal permits that are considered current.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions (using HQ generated number)

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
Report universe of permits and the target or actual number of permits that are current. Enter Regional percent in the "Comments" field. HQ will generate national percent.

For national consistency, HQ will produce a report showing results for this measure from PCS and E-PIFT. HQ will email the results (including universe, number of permittees, and percent current) to Regions for entry in GPRA ACS. If Regions have concerns about results, please contact HQ to discuss the methodology used to pull the data from PCS and E-PIFT.

      Target = 90%

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Permits Issuance) Pravin Rana, OWM, (rana.pravin@epa.gov), (202) 564-1909

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-19 (a,b,c) [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Number and national p ercent of Phase I and Phase II stormwater permits that are issued and current for: (a) industrial stormwater general permit; (b) construction stormwater general permits; and (c) MS-4 general and individual permits.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
* Report universe of permits and the target or actual number of current permits. Enter Regional percent in the "Comments" field in ACS. HQ will calculate national percent.

      Target = 100%

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Stormwater) Jack Faulk, OWM, (faulk.jack@epa.gov), (202) 564-0768

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-20 (a,b,c,d) [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of facilities covered under either an individual or general permit by type: (a) MS-4s (including co-permitees); (b) industrial storm water permitees; (c) construction storm water permitees; and (d) CAFOs.

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits Division

Definition/How to Report:
For measures (a), (b) and (c), report number of dischargers covered under the permits reported in WQ-20. For measure (d) (CAFOs) report all CAFOs covered by an NPDES permit.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Stormwater) Jack Faulk, OWM, (faulk.jack@epa.gov), (202) 564-0768
(CAFO) Nina Bonnelycke, OWM, (bonnelycke.nina@epa.gov), (202) 564-0764

Top of page




WQ-21 (a,b) [related to WQ-21 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of (a) Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) in POTWs with Pretreatment Programs that have control mechanisms in place that implement applicable pretreatment requirements; and, (b) Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) in non-pretreatment POTWs that have control mechanisms in place that implement applicable pretreatment requirements.

Type: WQ-21a is a Target measure / WQ-21b is an Indicator measure.

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

OST Division: Engineering and Analysis

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
WQ-21a: Report Universe of SIUs, and target or actual number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that have control mechanisms in place. Enter Regional percent in the “Comments” field. HQ will calculate national percent.

      Target = 95%

WQ-21b: Report Universe of CIUs discharging to non-pretreatment POTWs, and report the actual number of those CIUs with control mechanisms in place. Enter Regional percent in the “Comments” field. HQ will calculate national percent.

Where EPA is the Approval Authority and the state does not have CIU permitting authority, a control mechanism may consist of notification to CIUs of reporting requirements and tracking by EPA.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Pretreatment Program) Jan Pickrel, OWM, pickrel.jan@epa.gov, (202) 564-7904

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page




WQ-22 (a,b) [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Percent of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year, and of those, the number, and national percent, discharging the pollutant(s) of concern on impaired waters.

Type: WQ-22a is a Target measure / WQ-22b is an Indicator measure.

Who Reports in ACS: *Regions, based on data received from HQ

Responsible OWM Division: Municipal Support and Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
WQ-22a is a 106 PART measure.

WQ-22b: OECA HQ will implement a bridge between ICS-NPDES and AskWATERS to generate Regional level results.

Enter Universe of major dischargers and number of dischargers in SNC. Enter Regional percent in the "Comments" field. HQ will generate national percent.

*NOTE: For WQ-22a and WQ-22b: Regions and/or states enter DMR data into the PCS/ICIS-NPDES; HQ retrieves the data and performs the calculation for this measure. HQ will then send region-by-region results to Regional GPRA contacts to enter into ACS.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(106) Lena Ferris, OWM, ferris.lena@epa.gov, (202) 564-8831
(SNC) Rick Duffy, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Duffy.Rick@epa.gov, (202) 564-5014

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-23 [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards (i.e. POTWs that are not in significant non-compliance).

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: * HQ reports results by Regions

Responsible OWM Division: (n/a)

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact: (n/a)

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-24 [related to WQ-23 in FY 06]

Measure:
Fund utilization rate [cumulative loan agreement dollars to the cumulative funds available for projects] for the CWSRF.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWM Division: Municipal Support

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact:
Sylvia Bell, OWM, (bell.sylvia@epa.gov), (202) 564-0621

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-25 (a,b) [new measure for FY 06]

Measure:
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided, and number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: HQ

Responsible OWM Division: (n/a)

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact: (n/a)

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-26 [new measure for FY 06]

Measure:
EPA will work with water and wastewater utilities and other to begin implementing a strategy for promoting sustainable management practices.

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: (n/a)

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact: (n/a)

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-27 [related to WQ-27 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of watershed-based plans supported under State Nonpoint Source Management Programs since the beginning of FY 2002 that have been substantially implemented. (cumulative)

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:
Watershed-based plans are plans which include the "nine components" described in the "Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories" (October 2003) available at:

https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2003/October/Day-23/w26755.htm

These plans are primarily geared towards restoring impaired waters, though they should also address unimpaired but threatened waters as necessary. $100 million annually of the total 319 appropriation is reserved for the development and implementation of watershed-based plans, with exceptions for alternative usage of these reserved funds available only with EPA approval.

"Substantially-implemented" means either of the following two things:

a) Those actions called for in the initial plan (i.e., prior to any later adjustment to the plan that may be deemed necessary) specifically geared towards remediating the impairment(s) have been implemented. The plan in this case must include the nine components for watershed-based plans outlined in the NPS grants guidelines.

b) Sufficient management measures and practices called for in the plan have been implemented to achieve the load reductions that are needed to meet WQS, even if the plan comes close to - but falls short of - including all nine criteria articulated in the NPS grants guidelines.

In the case of condition "b," Regions and States may define what it is to be "close" to meeting the nine criteria. Furthermore, in terms of demonstrating that the implementation actions have met the load reduction target, if the State has a load reduction model it trusts that predicts that whatever actions that have been implemented should be sufficient to reach the load reduction target -- and the Region agrees with the State's judgment -- then this will be sufficient for meeting the bar of "substantially-implemented" for purposes of tracking against this measure. EPA reserves the right to ask the State to provide its evidence that the plan has met the second criterion for being a "substantially-implemented" plan.

Since watershed management typically necessitates an adaptive approach over time, watershed plans may never be fully implemented. Therefore, the term "substantially implemented" is being used.

Contact:
Dov Weitman, OWOW, weitman.dov@epa.gov, (202) 566-1207

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-28 [related to WQ-28 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of Tribes that have developed and begun to implement a watershed based-plan for tribal waters.

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Division

Definition/How to Report:
WQ-28 tracks the number of Tribes that have developed and begun to implement a watershed-based plan in relation to the Tribal Section 319 program. This measure refers to the development and implementation of watershed-based plans that include the specific information set forth in EPA's Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2006 (see https://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribal.html).

Many Tribes are still at the beginning stages of nonpoint source program implementation and need additional financial and technical support from EPA in order to successfully integrate watershed-based planning into their Tribal Section 319 programs. EPA will continue funding additional Tribal Nonpoint Source Workshops that include training on the development of watershed-based plans, and will target the use of competitive funding for the development and implementation of watershed-based plans (consistent with the FY 2006 Tribal 319 guidelines). Regional Tribal Coordinators will track the number of watershed-based plans that have been developed and are being implemented and report this progress annually to the National Section 319 Tribal Coordinator.

The total universe includes the number of Tribes that are eligible to receive nonpoint source grant funding under Section 319. To be eligible for nonpoint source grants, a Tribe must: (1) be federally recognized; (2) have an approved nonpoint source management program in accordance with Clean Water Act section 319(a); (3) have an approved NPS management program in accordance with Clean Water Act section 319(b); and (4) have “treatment-as-a-state” status in accordance with Clean Water Act section 518(e).

Contact:
Dov Weitman, OWOW, weitman.dov@epa.gov, (202) 566-1207

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-29 (a,b,c) [related to WQ-29 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number, and national percent, of high priority state NPDES permits; high priority EPA non-tribal NPDES permits; and high priority tribal NPDES permits, that are issued as scheduled.

Type: Target

Who Reports in ACS: *HQ reports results by Region

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
Report universe of FY 07 priority permits and the target or actual number of priority permits issued. Enter Regional percent in the "Comments" field. HQ will calculate national percent.

     National Target: 95%

WQ- 29a conforms with106 PART measure, which is: "Percentage of high priority state permits that are on schedule to be reissued."

The sum of WQ-29a, WQ-30b and WQ-29c conforms to SWP PART measure, which is: "Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued as scheduled"

At the end of Fiscal Year 2005, EPA created a new list of candidate priority permits, which are defined as permits expired more than 2 years. For 2006 the list of un-issued candidate permits from 2005 was supplemented with additional candidate permits. The priority permits website was upgraded to enable States and Regions to re-designate un-issued permits from FY 2005 and designate additional permits for FY 2006 and beyond. This re-designation exercise was completed in January 2006. A similar process will be conducted for FY07.

One key feature of the 2006 designation process that will be continued for 2007 is the requirement for States and Regions to provide a reason for why an un-issued priority permit from 2005 that remained un-issued from the previous year was de-prioritized or re-committed to another fiscal year (2006 or beyond). In addition, States and Regions are also required to provide a reason for designating a permit as high priority from a menu that includes criteria for environmental significant as well as programmatic importance. In FY07, there will be an increased emphasis on those permits needing to incorporate TMDLs or new Water Quality Standards, and permits located on impaired waters or in priority watersheds.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Permits Issuance) Pravin Rana, OWM, rana.pravin@epa.gov, (202) 564-1909

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-30 (a,b) [related to WQ-30 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of permits providing for trading between the discharger and other water pollution sources, and in those permits, the number of dischargers that carried out trades. (cumulative)

Type: WQ-30a is a Target measure / WQ-30 b is an Indicator measure.

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
(a) Report the number of NPDES permits that allow for trading.

      FY07 Target = 100      FY08 Target = 110

(b) Report the universe of potential traders, and report the number of trades that actually took place. The universe is the number of dischargers covered under the permits in WQ-30a.

Contacts:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Trading) Ginny Kibler, OWM, kibler.virginia@epa.gov, (202) 564-0596

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page


WQ-31 [related to WQ-31 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of current watershed-based permit(s) issued. (cumulative)

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWM Division: Water Permits

Definition/How to Report:
In this instance, "watershed" is defined by the State or Region. A watershed can be other than a 12-digit HUC, and may or may not correlate with rotating basins. Rotating Basins are not necessarily the same as watershed-based permitting.

NPDES Watershed-based Permit are permits that consider all sources impacting the water quality within the watershed; thereby ensuring the permit is part of the overall watershed approach (or integrated into the watershed approach). Integrating NPDES permits into a watershed approach means developing and using a watershed-based analysis as part of the permitting process. The result of a watershed-based analysis is identifying a range of NPDES implementation options and, potentially, related program options to achieve watershed goals. These options extend beyond the traditional approach of developing and issuing a single NPDES permit to an individual point source discharger or using general permits for multiple dischargers. Stakeholders may then set priorities for implementation of some or all of these options. The Fact Sheet for the permit should explain the process used to integrate/coordinate permits and other actions, and how the different sources within the watershed were considered when developing the permit.

Contact:
(GPRA) Lynn Stabenfeldt, OWM, (stabenfeldt.lynn@epa.gov), (202) 564-0602
(Watershed-based Permitting) Marcus Zobrist, OWM, zobrist.marcus@epa.gov, (202) 564-8311

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page

WQ-32 [new measure for FY 07]

Measure:
Number of impaired watersheds (at the 12 digit scale) where water quality conditions improve. (cumulative)

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report: (n/a)

Contact:
Sarah Furtak, OWOW, (furtak.sarah@epa.gov), (202) 566-1167

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page

WQ-33 [related to WQ-33 in FY 06]

Measure:
Number of water segments known to be impaired or threatened for which States and EPA agree that initial restoration planning is complete (e.g. EPA has approved all needed TMDLs for pollutants causing impairments to the waterbody or has approved a 303(d) list that recognizes that the water body is covered by a Watershed Plan (Category 4b)). (cumulative)

Type: Indicator

Who Reports in ACS: Regions

Responsible OWOW Division: Assessment and Watershed Protection

Definition/How to Report:
This is a cumulative measure. The universe for this measure consists of waters identified as impaired in state submissions in 1998/2000.  

This measure counts waterbodies for which all EPA-approved TMDLs and Category 4b plans (TMDL alternatives that recognize other required controls will lead to water quality standards attainment within a reasonable period of time) are established. Waterbodies where mercury is among multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this measure when restoration planning is complete for all pollutants except mercury.* The reason for this mercury exception is that parties should not hold off on implementing other TMDLs for a segment while waiting to complete restoration planning for mercury.

This measure does not count Category 4a segments (i.e., segments for which a TMDL to address a specific segment/pollutant combination has been approved or established by EPA) unless all causes of impairment for the segment have been addressed by TMDLs approved by EPA.  Please refer to Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act (PDF) (19 pp, 214 KB, 

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

), pp. 54-57, for details on Categories 4a and 4b.

This measure does not count segments where restoration planning is now unnecessary (i.e., restoration planning is now unnecessary because the waterbody is no longer impaired).

In order to better identify the subset of this PAM’s segments needing restoration plan implementation, please use the Annual Commitment System comment field to record measure L results [(i.e., number of waterbodies identified in 2000 as not attaining standards where water quality standards are restored (cumulative)].  For FY06, this measure L comment field note should be made for end-of-year.

* For Regions affected by mercury, all segments for which restoration planning is complete except for mercury should be reported in the Annual Commitment System comment field.

Contact:
Sarah Furtak, OWOW, (furtak.sarah@epa.gov), (202) 566-1167

Back to Water Quality PAM background information

Top of page



Jump to main content.