Watershed PAM background information

back to Water Quality Standards PAM background information

PAM #41

Methodology for Computing:

This is a cumulative measure, so each year’s targets should count how many States and Territories, in total, will have adopted biological criteria for streams and small rivers by the end of that year. For example, the FY2005 straw targets should equal the number of States and Territories that currently have the criteria plus all the States and Territories that will adopt criteria during FY05. It is important that the targets are not reported as the number of States and Territories that have adopted criteria solely during that year.

A State or Territory should only be counted as having biological criteria for streams and small rivers if:

the criteria are numeric OR narrative with quantitative implementation procedures or translators;
the criteria apply to some or all designated uses;
the criteria may be in WQS and approved by EPA and where that is not the case, the criteria are used to implement or support WQS.

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

Narrative Biocriteria - written statements describing the structure and function of aquatic communities in a waterbody necessary to protect a designated aquatic life use.
Numeric Biocriteria - specific quantitative measures of the structure and function of aquatic communities in a waterbody necessary to protect a designated aquatic life use.

The 2002 Baseline is 22 States/Territories*:
Region 1- CT, VT, ME
Region 3- DC
Region 4- TN, GA, FL, NC, SC, KY
Region 5- MN, OH
Region 6- AR, NM, TX, OK
Region 7- IA, NE, KS
Region 9- AZ
Region 10- OR, ID

* see Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes, and Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers, December 2002, EPA-822-R-02-048, Figure 2b, page 2-7; also on the web at:
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/table_contents.html

back to Water Quality Standards PAM background information

PAM #42

Methodology for Computing:

This is a cumulative measure, so each year's targets should count how many authorized Tribes, in total, will have EPA-approved WQS by the end of that year. For example, the FY2005 straw targets should equal the number of authorized Tribes that currently have EPA-approved WQS plus all the authorized Tribes for which EPA will approve WQS during FY05. It is important that the targets are not reported as the number of authorized Tribes for which EPA will approve WQS solely during that year.

A Tribe should be only be counted as having EPA-approved WQS if the:

Tribe has been authorized to administer its own WQS program; and
Tribe has submitted WQS to EPA; and
EPA has approved them.

The 2002 Baseline is 23 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, Spokane, Colville

Nonpoint Source

Additional description of PAMs #48 and #49

In FY 02, States started to develop “watershed-based plans” that address nine elements specifically articulated in the grants guidelines. (PAM #49) These criteria were slightly revised in the program’s FY03 Section 319 Grants Guidelines. The plans are mainly designed to remediate impaired waters (with or without TMDLs), although they should encompass protective actions as well in watersheds that have a mix of impaired and threatened waters. “Substantially implemented” means that the actions called for in the initial plan have been completed. However, given that an adaptive management approach is common when it comes to watershed restoration, it is possible that completing the actions called for in the initial plan may not be enough to restore the watershed. Thus, an iterative approach may be necessary. Since that is a process that may continue for a substantial amount of time, we have used the words “substantially implemented” rather than “completed implementation.”

Watershed-based plans being developed, being implemented, and that have been substantially implemented will each be counted separately by States and listed in State NPS annual reports, March 4, 2004 Watershed Subobjective 2.2.1 which are required by Section 319 of the CWA (PAM #48). Furthermore, for each plan, the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) project identification number will be listed (the assumption here is that nearly every plan will have 319 dollars involved in some way).

These project ID numbers can then be searched in GRTS, and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) reach codes for each plan will be identified by a link in the project form to WATERS, which stores reach codes in the Reach Address Database. WATERS will then be used to tally the miles/acres for each plan.

Additional description of PAM #56 and # 57

For PAM # 56, The baseline of 5, 967 waterbodies was calculated using information from EPA’s Draft Report on National Costs to Implement TMDLs. EPA added all NPS-only waters (4,749) to 50% of mixed point source (PS)/NPS (1,218 = 50% of 2,437 PS/NPS waters) to derive a total of 5,967 waters. It should be noted that States did not identify sources for about half of the 1998/2000 303(d) - listed waters. The numbers will be listed in State annual reports in those years that coincide with the 303(d)- listing cycle. EPA is asking States to use best professional judgment to ascertain which waters are “NPS” or “mixed-impaired.”

PAM #57 only counts load reductions realized from 319h grant funded projects, unlike PAM #56, which measures the effects of the NPS program as a whole.

TMDLs

PAM #52

Using the State’s current list, determine when each waterbody pollutant (w/p) combination was initially listed. Using this date, determine the total number of TMDLs that remain to be established or approved.
Take the total number of TMDLs that remain to be established or approved and determine the annual number of TMDLs required to meet the 13 year pace based on the initial date of listing.

For example, TMDLs listed in 1998 need to be completed no later than 2011. For the 2005 target the TMDLs that are still not completed would have to be spread over 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,2009,2010 and 2011. If the current list includes 12 TMDLs first listed in 1998, then a straight-line projection would require that 1.7 TMDLs be completed per year.

The 2005 commitment would be calculated as follows:

Year First Listed	End date of 13 Year Pace	# of TMDLs still required *	# Years to complete TMDLs	Annual # (assuming an annual pace)**
1998	2011	12	7	1.7
2002	2015	12	11	1.2
2004	2017	12	13	0.9
The number of TMDLs that would have to be completed in 2005 to maintain a 13 year pace.				3.8

So, if the Region projected to complete 4 (rounded up from 3.8) TMDLs in 2005, it would commit to achieve 100 percent of its annual target.

* Waters will be listed and removed from the list prior to completion of reporting for 2005. It is expected that commitments and performance will be revised due to these changes in listed waters.

** Some States have committed to an actual schedule for doing TMDLs rather than a pace. These numbers should be reflected in these commitments.

PAM #55

Use Draft Report on National Costs to Implement TMDLs to develop initial estimates of waters that are impaired by nutrients and where some conditions exist that may provide potential for trading; adjust this estimate for factors that would affect the feasibility of trading in 2004-2008.
From the universe of waters identified by the above analysis, apply a policy decision that 25% of TMDLs/watershed plans for such waters should reflect the feasibility of trading and include provisions to make it easier to implement trading. This results in the 2008 target of 200 TMDLs/watershed

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program

PAM #59

[See March 5 Hanlon memo to WDDs (PDF, 89KB, 8 pages), defining the universe of priority permits to be "as scheduled."]

There is no single definition of "priority permit," rather, we have issued a set of factors to be considered in identifying them, with the caveat that only permits that have been expired for more than 2 years can be considered. Thus, the universe of priority permits will be a subset of permits expired for more than 2 years.

By July 31, 2004, all the Regions will tell HQ which permits they have identified as "priority." The Regions will also give us their projection on when they expect the permits to be issued, which should be in either 2005 or 2006, and if they think it will take longer than that they must explain why.

Each year, the universe of priority permits will change, due to the fact that permits expired more than two years are to be evaluated in this manner.

The GPRA measure should be "95% will be issued as scheduled" as indicated in the March 5 memo (attached). Thus, they must achieve the 95% based on the schedules they give us beginning with this July's submission.

PAM #60

Revised rule published February 12, 2003

Part 1: The universe is the number of all authorized States that have CAFOs, including those that do not need to make changes to their regs or statutes. [R1: Rhode Island has no CAFOs so is not counted. R10: Alaska is not an authorized State and has no CAFOs so is not counted. Five additional states are not authorized for CAFOs and are not counted: MA, NH, NM, OK, ID. R2: Puerto Rico is not counted.]

Part 2: The universe is all States with CAFOs. [R1: Rhode Island has no CAFOs so is not counted. R10: Alaska has no CAFOs so is not counted. R2: Puerto Rico is counted.]

PAM #63

Part 1: Report the total number of SIUs/CIUs and report the number of SIUs with control mechanisms.

Part 2: Report the total number of CIUs and report the number of CIUs with control mechanisms. 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.

PAM #65

HQ will calculate loadings based on # and types of permits as reported by regions. Regions should project # of permits to be issued in all States in FY2005 to reflect effluent guidelines promulgated between 1999 and 2003, as well as first time permittees for effluent guidelines promulgated from 1992-1998.

Guidelines promulgated 1999-2003 include: Pharmaceutical, Landfills, Hazard Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment, Transportation Cleaning Equip., Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Iron and Steel, and CAFO (specify whether large or medium/small CAFO).

For guidelines promulgated prior to 1999, report first time permittees only, including: Pulp & Paper, Offshore Oil & Gas, Coastal Oil & Gas, Pesticide Manufacturing, and Pesticide Formulating.

(see list of industry categories and SIC codes for FY04 end-of-year reporting and FY05 commitments (PDF, 61KB, 1 page).

Regions do not need to report CSOs, Stormwater or POTWs. HQ will calculate.