minilogo3.jpg (3741 bytes)

Workshop Summary:

Improving the Interaction of Science, Measurement Techniques and TMDL Listing Management

January 20-21, 1999 -- Las Vegas, Nevada

Published March 1999

Contents

Foreword
Acknowledgments
Agenda
Panel 1 - Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning (Federal Perspective)
Panel 2 - Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Plannign (State Perspectives)
Update on EPA TMDL Policy Development
Panel 3 - Managing the TMDL Listing Process
Summary of Break Out Group Reports (First Session)
Summary of Break Out Group Reports (Second Session)
Appendix
-- Slides from Presentation by Chris Yoder
Links to Comments on EPA Proposed TMDL Rule
Links to Useful Web Sites

Foreword

The Clean Water Act requires states to identify and list lakes, rivers and streams that do not meet water quality standards. For each of those water bodies, a state is required to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each non-attainment pollutant, including non-point source pollutants, at a level necessary to ensure that applicable water quality standards can be obtained. A TMDL is the amount of pollution a waterbody can absorb and still support aquatic life and uses such as water for drinking and recreation.

While states have primary responsibility for establishing TMDLs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with ensuring that states comply with the law and establish TMDL programs. The EPA is required to establish TMDLs if a state does not comply with the Clean Water Act. Development of state plans to implement the TMDL requirements has been slowed for a number of reasons including an early focus on point source regulation and limited resources. As a result, there are approximately 30 lawsuits pending against EPA charging that EPA has not been enforcing the law with regard to the states.

TMDLs are a priority issue for Western governors, and in 1997 the governors adopted Western Governors' Association (WGA) resolution 97-008 that directed WGA staff to facilitate state interaction on this subject. The governors noted that the unique features of the West including our hydrology, geography, water law, and land use and ownership patterns dictated an equally unique approach to TMDL implementation. Under the direction of its lead governors for lands and water issues, Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming and Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon, WGA convened a forum of the states in Jackson, Wyoming in the Fall of 1997. The issues raised and recommendations made at that forum suggested to the governors that WGA should seek funds to coordinate TMDL issues for Western states over the near term. In the Summer of 1998, WGA was awarded a grant by the EPA to design and manage a series of workshops primarily for state personnel on specific TMDL topics. The goals of the workshops are to seek through a collaborative process new and creative ways to implement the Clean Water Act regarding TMDLs, and to provide a venue for the states and other entities to enter into a constructive exchange on policy and regulatory issues associated with TMDLs.

This document attempts to capture some of the substance from WGA's first workshop: "Improving the Interaction of Science, Measurement Techniques and TMDLs Listing Management" that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 20-21, 1999. Approximately 90 persons attended. They represented 17 of WGA's 18 states, all federal agencies involved in Western public lands issues, non-governmental organizations and academia. The conference was divided into three moderated panels. The attendees participated through question and answer periods after each group of presenters. Two break out sessions tackled a series of questions and reported back to the group on their findings. Finally, the Chief of the Watershed Branch in the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds gave a breakfast address previewing the new TMDL regulations that EPA plans to issue in mid-1999.

The three panel topics that were addressed in Las Vegas were:

  1. Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning (Federal Perspectives)
  2. Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning (State Perspectives)
  3. Managing the TMDL Listing Process

Issues recommended to be addressed by the first break out groups included:

  1. identify the critical data needs and scientific methods to support decisions on impairment and development of watershed plans (Included in this issue are other issues relevant to measuring baseline data such as:)

Issues recommended to be addressed by the second break out groups included:

  1. role of sound science, including bioassessment in listing decisions (i.e., use of biological, chemical and physical data):
  2. role of citizens in the process;
  3. defining the 'floor' for reliable and credible data;
  4. use of thresholds by states (once credible data is in hand) to determine impairment or not and how threatened waters are identified;
  5. discussion of "independent applicability" and its relevance to the listing process/EPA policy on the concept;
  6. delisting issues.

Each of the presentations made during the panels and the breakfast address by EPA is presented in either outline form or text. Contact information for each of the presenters is also provided. A list of the issues raised during the two break out sessions is also included. Finally, at the end of this document we have included an agenda from the Las Vegas meeting and slides from one of the panel speakers.

Top

Acknowledgments

This document memorializes some of the exchange that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 20-21, 1999 at the WGA workshop entitled "Improving the Interaction of Science, Measurement Techniques and TMDLs Listing Management." This workshop was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WGA appreciates this support and the expertise and good cheer of the EPA individuals who have worked with us. The considerable work of identifying topics, developing an agenda, selecting speakers, developing an invitation list and arranging logistics for the meetings fell to WGA's TMDLs Advisory Committee and WGA staff. The members of the advisory committee were selected because of their knowledge of TMDL issues and players, and because of their ability to capably represent the broad range of interests involved in TMDL issues. WGA aims to maintain the Advisory Committee throughout its TMDL work in order to continue reaping the benefits of the members' wisdom and insights. WGA's TMDLs Advisory Committee includes the following individuals:

Ed Anton, California State Water Resources Control Board, representing the Western States Water Council Gary Beach, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Cathy Carlson, National Wildlife Federation Tom Curtis, National Governors' Association Frank Deluise, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Art DuFault, Utah Department of Natural Resources Geoffrey H. Grubbs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Warren Harper, USDA Forest Service Eric Janes, USDI Bureau of Land Management Mike Llewelyn, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Ron Micheli, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, representing the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Don Parrish, American Farm Bureau Federation Robbi Savage, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators Jeff Vonk, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Steve Wolff, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WGA would also like to acknowledge and thank each of the speakers who gave freely of their time and experiences at the WGA workshop. An extra thanks from WGA to those speakers that devoted extra time to assist in the preparation of this report. We have attempted to capture the speakers' presentations in this report, but we urge those seeking further insights to contact them directly.

This report was prepared by Paul Orbuch, WGA Counsel. Other WGA staff that contributed to the organization and conduct of the TMDLs workshop and/or to the preparation of this document include: Bruce Flinn, Natural Resources Policy Advisor; Shaun McGrath, Program Manager; Carolyn Duffin, Senior Legislative Assistant; Jim Souby, Executive Director; Karen Deike, Communications Director; Toni McCammon, Office Manager; Debbie Kinsley, Administrative Secretary; and Sharon Dawn, Communications Staff. Jim Alder of the Western States Water Council also provided tremendous assistance at the workshop and in preparing this report.

Top

Agenda

WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
WESTERN WATERSHED/TMDL MANAGEMENT ISSUES
IMPROVING THE INTERACTION OF SCIENCE,
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
and
TMDL LISTING MANAGEMENT

January 20-21, 1999
Alexis Park Hotel, 375 E. Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada

Wednesday, January 20

8:30 a.m.
Welcome - WGA Staff
Introductory Comments - Wyoming and Oregon Governors' Representatives, Don Brady - EPA

9:00
Panel One -- Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning
Moderator -- Gary Beach, WY DEQ EPA Program Manager - Bruce Cleland - Seattle, WA Forest Service Manager - Bernie Weingardt - Salt Lake City, Utah Bureau of Land Management Manager - Jim Kenna - Burns, OR Natural Resource Conservation Service Manager - Jeff Vonk, Davis, CA

10:15
Break

10:30
Panel Two -- Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning
Moderator -- Shaun McGrath, WGA State Environmental Manager - Mel Vargas - Austin, TX State Agricultural Manager - Peter Jahraus, Pierre, SD State Game and Fish Manager - Steve Adams - Topeka, KS Scientist - Chris Yoder - Ohio EPA

Note: each panel member would be asked to specifically address the scientific methods that currently exist vs. where we have holes in the science that require more research to address key issues associated with the development of the TMDL and watershed plans. Key issues include: nutrients, sediment quantification, temperature, risk setting and determination (use of models to assess risk) and the overall quality of information available in the system to establish loads and future management decisions.

11:45
Instructions to the participants concerning breakout groups.

12:00 noon
Lunch - on your own

1:15 p.m.
Four Breakout Groups -- each breakout group will identify the critical data needs and scientific methods to support decisions on impairment and development of watershed plans. Included in these considerations are issues associated with measurement of baseline data including: sediments loads (background vs. man induced), measurement of water quality values associated with mine drainage, estimating loads, etc.

3:00
Break

3:20
Breakout Group Reports -- each group will give a report of their findings and recommendations to improve the interaction of sound science and credible data to make water quality listing decisions.

5:00
Conclude for day

Thursday, January 21

7:00 a.m.
Continental Breakfast in Room

7:45
Update on EPA TMDL Policy Development -- Don Brady - EPA - DC

8:15
Panel Three -- Managing the TMDL Listing Process
Moderator - Robbie Savage, ASWIPCA Micheal McIntyre -- Idaho DEQ John Barrett - Rancher, Edroy, TX Robert Wiygul, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Denver, Colorado

The panel will 'set-the-stage' about the principle issues that states are dealing with in the TMDL listing process. The set of key questions we would ask the breakout groups to address include:

role of sound science, including bioassessment in listing decisions (ie. use of biological, chemical and physical data), role of the 305(b) report, 319 list and unified assessments in the process,

role of citizens in the process, defining the 'floor' for reliable and creditable data, use of thresholds by states (once credible data is in hand) to determine impairment or not and how threatened waters are identified, discussion of "independent applicability" and its relevance to the listing process/EPA policy on the concept, and delisting issues.

9:30
Break

9:45
Four Breakout Groups Convene -- each group would be asked to discuss 4-5 questions and develop recommendations.

11:00
Breakout Group Reports -- each group will give a report of recommendations to improve the management of the listing/delisting process.

12:00 noon
Lead Governors Representatives and WGA staff provide a summary of forum outputs and discuss with the group any follow-up actions noted.

12:30
Conclude

Top

Panel 1 - Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning (Federal Perspectives)

 

Bruce Cleland - Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Region 10 (OW-134)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
ph (206) 553-2600
fax (206) 553-0165
cleland.bruce@epa.gov

  1. Watershed Analysis to Deal with TMDL Issues
    1. Talking about resource management issues
    2. Communication
      1. With public-critical issue
      2. Communicating science makes or breaks success of program
    3. Dealing with many pieces of a puzzle
    4. Need framework - two perspectives
      1. Beneficial uses
      2. Types of processes
    5. Major components
      1. Characterization
        1. Key resources
        2. Timing
        3. Stratification-channel classification
      2. Condition assessment
        1. Data analysis
        2. Habitat analysis
        3. Other considerations
        4. Historic conditions
          1. Land management
      3. Interpretation
        1. Identifying hazards
    6. Computer Modeling
      1. Use GIS and other models to identify high hazard areas
    7. Distill information down to one-pagers for dissemination to public
      1. Identify protection needs
    8. Scale
  2. What is a TMDL?
    1. What are the issues?
      1. Many and varied
        1. Stream width/depth
        2. Stream shade
        3. Bank erosion
        4. Etc.
    2. The challenge
      1. How to blend all information together
      2. Correct with differing attitudes
      3. Reality of environment we live in
      4. Focus

 

Bernie Weingardt - Forest Service
USDA Forest Service
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
125 S. State Street, Suite 8236
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
ph (801) 524-3904
fax (801) 524-3172
bweingardt/r4_w-c@fs.fed.us

  1. Original Forest Service Mission
    1. Secure favorable water flows
  1. Natural Resources Agenda
    1. Protect healthiest watersheds
    2. Restore those that are degraded
  2. Forest Service Use of TMDLs
    1. Point sources readily discernable
    2. Non-point sources are the challenge
      1. Grazing
      2. Road building
      3. Recreation
    3. Impaired waters identified
      1. Focus is not on loading
    4. Initiate actions to improve watershed conditions
    5. Use of water quality standards other than TMDLs for water quality and watershed protection
      1. Best Management Practices
        1. Collaborative effort
        2. Planning and design
        3. Implementation and integration
      2. Data gathering
        1. What we do with it
        2. How we share it

 

Jim Kenna - Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
HC 74-12533, Hwy 20 West
Hines, OR 97738
ph (541) 573-4400
fax (541) 573-4411
jkenna@or.blm.gov

Science, Management and the 303(d) Puzzle

You have already received a good overview of the process elements and requirements for Clean Water Act TMDLs. My focus relates to the practical implications of using science to make management decisions and determinations within the 303(d) process.

Based on my experience with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the examples I use are most closely related to salmonid fish and the way we humans organize to improve their habitat. My intent is not to diminish the importance of other water quality issues, but to illustrate the practical issues we face as we work to bring science to bear on one of the more pervasive reasons for 303(d) listing in the West.

In the limited time available, I will discuss three areas: expectations from science by the different players; the application of science; and, the relationship of science to the success of the 303(d) process.

The fundamental purpose of what we all are trying to do is to improve water quality for beneficial uses. But each constituent to Clean Water Act processes views the application of the underlying science differently.

EPA and state regulatory agencies are responsible to gather input from multiple sources, to conduct monitoring that supports state standards and load allocations, and to analyze data in an open process. This role drives the agencies toward more broadly applicable standards and measures that can be readily sorted into achieved/not achieved. The hope is to discreetly assign responsibility for progress to a known point by a known time. To achieve this purpose, science is supposed to link causes, effects and standards.

As a land management agency, BLM (or the Forest Service) finds itself with one foot in each of the two camps. On one hand, BLM collects data, which the states use, conducts water and riparian assessments on public lands, and participates in development of plans and TMDLs. Our objectives are to understand the links among the causes, effects and standards related to ecological conditions and trends. Thus many of the technical things we do relate directly to shared goals to improve water quality, watershed health and aquatic habitats. In this sense, we are close partners with the regulatory agencies.

From another perspective, BLM is more like a landowner. We have responsibility for conditions on a specific area of land, and we find the regulatory agencies looking over our shoulders with the intent of telling us if we are doing a good enough job. We are being asked to trust that their application of science under the TMDL process will fairly assess conditions and progress, across the vast acreage of public land we manage. We worry that the regulatory processes will be a barrier or a drag on positive management decisions we are already implementing. I realize my summary of viewpoints is oversimplified, but I would ask you to keep the different perspectives in mind as I talk about where we are now.

In most states, quite a bit of necessary framework for applying science is in place, including advisory groups, implementation plans, five year monitoring plans, credible data criteria, standards, rules and regulations. Much that is good, in terms of monitoring and restoration, is already happening. We are sharing data, sharing perspectives, coordinating assessment efforts, partnering in projects and working together to draft TMDLs. But we are still searching for practical, defensible applications of available science that people with multiple perspectives believe to be fair.

We need science to address three purposes: 1) Provide a basis for prioritizing restoration efforts at multiple scales and among multiple programs, 2) Provide credible support to a listing/delisting process, and 3) Measure progress toward water quality goals.

If you add all the desires of the constituents to the three basic purposes, we also want the science to show us results that are: easy to measure; numeric; allocatable; linked to standards, effects and causes; respectful of the diversity and complexity of watershed characteristics; sensitive to both short- and long-term change; and economically feasible. Those are pretty ambitious expectations.

Taking one more step--if you accept that trust in the Water Quality Standard is essential to success, and that knowledge about natural systems is continually developing, it then follows that continuous studies to improve standards will be necessary. For example:

In the Oregon example, the beginnings of the solution are also in place. Oregon DEQ has conducted studies on Lahontan cutthroat and are conducting studies on Redband trout. But if a TMDL is going to boil down to one set of numbers, experience seems to point us toward getting more-and-more site specific (rather than statewide), in response to the complexity and variability in both landscapes and land uses.

In addition to standards, measures suitable to incorporate into a TMDL also present a difficult problem. I can see four possible strategies:

  1. Measure stream system attributes - This has the advantage of quantifying dominant system attributes that are related to the standard. However, it assumes a precise knowledge about how system variables will interact under future conditions and about cause-effect relationships with land uses under a variety of ecological and physical settings. The number of variables can be reduced by getting specific to a stream reach, but the cost of assessing and monitoring then increases. Many techniques are available including green line riparian monitoring, view-to-sky, bank stability measures, etc.
  2. Assess watershed and stream function - Rapid assessment of watershed and streams for proper functioning condition has the advantages of being interdisciplinary, considering a larger number of factors influencing whole systems, being applicable across large landscapes and providing a good basis for shared prioritization of restoration work. However, rapid assessment for proper functioning condition uses presence/absence kinds of questions and does not yield a numeric result that can be readily allocated.
  3. Measure anthropogenic attributes - Measuring attributes directly related to the land use such as utilization on woody species or stubble height or regrowth has the advantage of directly tying to the anthropogenic source. However, it assumes the measured standard will yield the desired results in system function, in turn, resulting in improvements in the water quality standard. This link can be improved by timing the measurement to a system function such as high flow patterns.
  4. Tie TMDLs directly to the beneficial use - In the case of ongoing conservation efforts under the Endangered Species Act, this approach has obvious advantages. It avoids potential duplication or conflict between government processes and standards. It gets directly to the heart of the intent of both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. But it has the drawback of setting the keepers of the regulatory processes into an awkward "chicken and egg" sort of search for how to begin to satisfy both sets of process requirements.

In most cases, the technical tools themselves are probably not the most serious limitation. Tools are available to measure or assess change in the stream environment. The problem is in sorting out which things are most important to measure, where, and when. We also need to make decisions about the degree of numeric rigor we require, at what cost, and at what scale, remembering that cost includes the work we forego in order to fund the monitoring we want. And to have trust, we will need to clearly articulate how we sorted out the linkages implied by our decisions to human uses, as well as natural events and cycles.

Finally, applying science to complex systems requires judgement and good working relationships. In a BLM/Forest Service science meeting on the Interior Columbia Basin, Jack Ward Thomas spoke of natural systems this way, "They are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think." Our science is not perfect and it will never be perfect. Our data cannot fully describe and explain conditions and trends at all scales across vast landscapes. Our computer models are limited by the assumptions we make in programming them. While we will continue to learn, some of what we are certain is true today, will be questioned in 10 or 20 years.

My point is this. There is no perfect technical fix. There is no silver bullet. There is only the best technical answer we have right now with the best data we have now. From there, we will continue to rely on the analytical judgement of good people who approach natural systems both with a passion to see improvement and with some humility about the perfection of their own knowledge.

To compensate for our imperfections in applying scientific knowledge to complex natural systems, the relationships among the players are the key to taking our application of science beyond the most elementary level. BLM in Oregon has arrived at this sort of relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Service, interest groups and landowners in ESA projects like the Trout Creek Mountains and South Steens Mountain in the Pacific Northwest. In working through issues, we came to understand that restoration action could not wait on lining up all the regulatory science to force action and that we all had to share some risk in order to act. The results in both projects have rewarded all the parties, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This I think is the model. The strength we gain from shared commitment to improve ecosystem health can protect our ability to proceed with restoration on a landscape scale. In our experience, progress in improving watershed conditions has stemmed, primarily, from our ability to reach agreement to act. The data and standards then become the gauge of what we are seeing and learning together. The science becomes an expression of what we know now and is there to support our efforts for cleaner water and more native fish. The scientific and the regulatory processes draw their most potent value and meaning from their ability to create shared knowledge and direction. That would be my vision of successful application of science in the 303(d) process.

 

Jeff Vonk - Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Conservationist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
430 G Street
Davis, CA 95616
ph (530) 792-5601
fax (530) 792-5790
Jeff.Vonk@ca.usda.gov

  1. USDA-NRCS
    1. Work through local conservation districts -history of voluntary, incentive based conservation assistance to private landowners
    2. Solutions to natural resource management problems are based on the best available science, localized to fit local situations and contained in the local Field Office Technical Guide which is available to the general public
  2. TMDLs
    1. Regulatory framework -incentive based solutions can be part of implementation strategy
    2. Credibility with local people is imperative for success. Can only be achieved with trust and science based criteria
    3. Science needs
      1. Baseline data
        1. Document natural vs. man induced contributions to impairment
        2. Document current situation vs. historic, accumulated contributions to impairment
      2. Best Management Practices
        1. Better documentation of connection and positive impact of BMP in alleviating impairment
      3. Integration (or lack thereof) of TMDL identification and solutions
        1. Critically important to connect and relate all impairments so that solutions and implementation plans work in concert and not in conflict with each other on any given stream segment
      4. Monitoring
        1. Better science and realistic monitoring systems need to be in place
          1. Biologic indicators
          2. Physical characteristics
      5. Communications (not necessarily scientific but critically important)
        1. Clearly defined criteria and data requirements for listing needed
        2. Need for much more stakeholder involvement up front in the TMDL listing process
          1. Coordinated Resource Management Planning Process
          2. Doctrine of the Western Governors' Association
  3. Four "Cs" for success
    1. Credibility
    2. Coordination
    3. Collaboration
    4. Communication

Top

Panel 2 - Sound Science in State Watershed/TMDL Planning (State Perspectives)

 

Mel Vargas - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
TNRCC
12100 Park 35 Circle, Bldg. F
Austin, TX 78753
ph (512) 239-4812
fax (512) 239-4410
MVARGAS@TNRCC.state.tx.us

Goal: TNRCC is working to apply TMDL tools that are:
scientifically valid
technically sophisticated
acceptable to stakeholders
flexible
widely applicable
easy to use

  1. Eleven dissolved oxygen TMDLs recently approved, a number of others currently underway, all of those underway incorporate extensive public involvement
  2. Because of agency resource limitations (funding and staff), TNRCC is looking to out-source TMDL preparation to river authorities, consultants, companies.
    1. Creates a number of quality control issues
    2. Expands agency oversight responsibilities
  3. Use of BASINS 2.0 for modeling in Texas
    1. TNRCC believes that BASINS provides the basic conceptual framework to support TMDL development, with some modification
    2. Customization and reprogramming required
      1. BASINS default data not sufficient enough
        1. No site specific soil data used for calculation of non-point source (NPS) loadings
        2. Default land use data is dated and coarse
        3. Weather data too coarse
      2. BASINS currently not flexible enough
        1. Needs to allow for incorporation of user-defined data
        2. No existing capability to model lakes and estuaries
    3. TNRCC working with EPA Region VI, EPA headquarters, USGS, and the contracted lead BASINS software developer to address BASINS shortfalls, incorporation of corrections, and subsequent training
  4. Use of Raster (Grid) GIS method
    1. Method developed at TNRCC via EPA grant
    2. Coupled with steady-state receiving stream water quality model for assessments of dissolved oxygen impaired watersheds
    3. Uses Digital Elevation data (DEMs) for watershed delineation
    4. Calculates NPS load as the product of rainfall runoff and land use-based Event Mean Concentration (EMC) data
  5. Major concerns of TMDL program in Texas
    1. Stakeholders want more and more information
    2. Stakeholders typically want most extensive technical analysis
    3. Limited data and lack of funding and staff to obtain additional data
    4. Limitations of available modeling techniques
  6. Development of TMDL Guidance Document
    1. Explains out-sourcing of TMDL projects
    2. Ensures best chances of a project's success
    3. Ensures consistency between TMDL projects
    4. Provides for quality assurance of TMDL projects

References:

1999 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (draft) 1/28/99
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/tmdl/draft99.pdf

Guidance for Development of Total Maximum Daily Load Projects in the State of Texas (draft) 1/7/99

 

Pete Jahraus - South Dakota Department of Agriculture
South Dakota Dept. of Agriculture
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
ph (605) 773-3623
fax (605) 773-4003
petej@state.sd.us

SCIENTIFIC METHODS/MODELS CURRENTLY BEING USED

  1. Agricultural Non-point Source Model (ANPS). A watershed is delineated into 40-acre cells, each cell has 21 parameters, which need to be collected and put into the computer, (parameters include such things as cropping factors, slope, drainage, soil type, etc.). The model calculates soil loss and delivery for each cell and produces empirical (relying on experience or observations and not system or theory) loading and routes the load to a watershed outlet utilizing the Universal Soil Loss Equation. This model will also produce a load for phosphorus and nitrogen and by using some different parameters can be used to evaluate animal feeding areas.

    Limitations: Primarily works on cropland and not rangeland, subject to variations based on individual differences in those collecting and entering the data.

  2. Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee (PSIAC). This model was designed to determine sediment yields from rangeland and is "qualitative" rather than "quantitative." It uses a team of people each with a different expertise (soil scientist, range con, agronomist, engineer etc.) The team collectively gathers information and fills out the program forms on small sub-drainages to come up with a score. This rating is then compared to an annual sediment yield chart to determine the amount of sediment coming from a certain area.

    Limitations: Designed primarily for rangeland. In order to work, you need to use people that are familiar with the watershed. Subjective based on individual and group observations.

  3. Reference Stream Program. Data collected on reference streams is used as the "baseline" for which all other waterbodies in similar ecoregions with similar soils, geology and hydrology will be evaluated against in order to determine if a specific waterbody is meeting its designated beneficial use.

    Limitations: The streams in an ecoregion may vary from one extreme to another and the monitoring data collected is a one time snapshot of the conditions of that stream reach on that day. The question is can you collect data today and then apply this data to a stream in a similar ecoregion the following year(s).

  4. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) utilized by the Bureau of Land Management. This is a method for measuring the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas to determine the overall health or condition. It is a qualitative, subjective assessment completed by an interdisciplinary team and can be supported by quantitative data, if collected.

    Limitations: PFC is not a replacement for quantitative inventory and monitoring protocols. It is meant to complement more detailed methods by providing a way to synthesize data and communicate results. PFC does not measure water quality parameters in its assessment.

  5. T-Walk utilized by the Forest Service. This is an assessment method used to determine the physical and limited biological health of a stream. A qualitative, subjective assessment that determines whether sediment is relevant to stream health, whether the sediment is natural or not, and if a stream is at risk or not.

    Limitations: Based on limited physical measurements of the stream associated with subjective judgement on chemical parameters, such as pH and temperature. T-Walk is based on a single individual's observations.

  6. Load Duration Analysis. This approach is used as a means of addressing the highly variable flows present in streams. It converts long-term historic flow data of streams into loads by applying appropriate numeric criteria (monitoring data) and making the appropriate conversions. The resulting curve represents the load distribution over time and flow conditions, which would attain and maintain water quality standards. Actual data from stream monitoring can then be compared against the curve with points above the curve representing exceedances of the water quality standards.

    Limitations: Appears to be a reasonable means of judging non-point source loading.

  7. Beneficial Use Reconnaissance. This method utilizes guidance documents available through EPA for assessing the biological condition of a system. The process uses data on a stream's biological inhabitants (macroinvertebrates and fish) and habitat (riparian area, canopy cover, solar inputs, embeddedness, ripples to runs, etc.) for a rating of the support status of the stream. EPA's index then indicates whether the stream is in full support, moderate support and non-support or, as with some data, needs verification.

    Limitations: Based on limited physical measurements and subjective evaluations.

  8. Surrogate TMDL. A "surrogate" TMDL utilizes measurements of second order phenomena, often biological, to estimate pollutant loads. For example, a surrogate TMDL may be based on the density of macroinvertebrates in a stream, the number of native tree species and their population densities along a stream bank, the fish diversity and reproductive status of the populations, etc.

    Limitations: Some biological surrogates may provide a good indication of a waterbody's overall health. However, it is difficult to relate surrogate data to non-point source inputs or to project goals for reduction in specific pollutants. Establishing a surrogate TMDL based on insufficient scientific data may be viewed as subjective and provides the potential for anyone to claim that the TMDL is not being met.

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WITH CURRENT METHODS (key issues)

  1. Nutrients:
  2. Sediment Quantification:

    Current methods are lacking in the identification of source (stream bank, cultivated field, etc.) and principle loading areas.

    There are a variety of suggested thresholds with no set numeric concentrations that will fit all situations. The available data usually deals with total suspended sediment with very limited data on the movement and effects of bed load sediment.

    Questions concerning sediment deposition. How much mineralization occurs, what concentration levels are recycled back into the water column and what is the timing of this process?

  3. Temperature:

    Temperature is probably one of the more difficult issues to address in a TMDL. Many streams are directly impacted by thermal inputs such as riparian shade plantings, sediment reduction, flow modification, etc.

  4. Use of Models:

    Lack of adequate ground testing, not a lot of public trust of models.

    The large amount of data needed to run models and the costs associated with data collection.

    Improvements are needed regarding data collection, processing and the degree to which the models simulate actual conditions.

    Conditions may vary on a site-specific basis and models may not account for those conditions, which can lead to an over or under estimate of the actual problems.

  5. Quality of Information Available:

    (For establishment of loads and making future management decisions.)

    The data available is not adequate for targeting prevention activities in individual watersheds and may be directing valuable resources to areas where water quality problems do not exist.

    More science is needed to show that practices (BMPs) designed to reduce pollutant loads actually work in the general geographic area in question. Also, what contaminant reduction can be anticipated from installation of a certain practice or mix of practices?

    There is a lack of information (economic cost/benefit data) on what it will cost to implement specific water quality protection practices.

    What is creditable data?

    With out a clear definition of credible data the potential remains for misclassification of a water's ability to meet beneficial uses as well as inaccurate identification of waterbodies as impaired. This would impede the states and local government's abilities to address actual water quality concerns. If data does not take into account geological, hydrological or biological characteristics, states will be incapable of accounting for background or natural pollutants or accounting for natural storm events.

OTHER AGRICULTURE AGENCY SUGGESTIONS/ IDEAS

CONCLUSION (AG PERSPECTIVE)

 

Steve Adams - Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
Kansas Dept. of Wildlife & Parks
900 SW Jackson, Suite 502
Topeka, KS 66612
ph (785) 296-2281
fax (785) 296-6375
stevea@wp.state.ks.us

  1. Kansas TMDL development efforts
    1. Looking at fish, macroinvertebrates, freshwater mussels
    2. Looking to collect long-term baseline data
      1. Establish health of biological community
      2. Measure habitat parameters
      3. Establish baseline
    3. Revisited some of 1970's sampling
      1. Established 30 permanent sampling sites
    4. Create index of biological integrity (IBI)
      1. Ecologically based index used to evaluate biotic integrity of aquatic systems
      2. Types and conditions of varying species
    5. Look at hydrograph/loading curves
      1. Compare LADS with biological indices
      2. Use index metrics to identify biological community needs
      3. Analysis underway
    6. Are there holes in the science?
      1. Current models not designed with TMDLs in mind
      2. Preliminary-too early to assess effectiveness
      3. May vary with issue:
        1. Sediment loading
        2. Nutrient loading
        3. Herbicides

 

Chris Yoder - Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio EPA
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
ph (614) 728-3382
fax (614) 728-3380
chris.yoder@epa.state.ok.us

Important Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program

(See the appendix of this document for a reproduction of the slides used in Mr. Yoder's presentation.)

  1. Water Resource Integrity Attributes
    1. Goods and services provided: ecological resources, recreational opportunities, water supplies, waste assimilation, etc.
      1. Traditional "administrative" approaches do not capture all significant impacts or impairments
      2. Environmental assessments must be comprehensive enough to detect impairments
    2. Environmental indicator
      1. A single or aggregate measure that reveals scientifically based, but managerially useful information about environmental quality
    3. What is impairment?
      1. Confirmed violation or exceedance of an environmental criterion
    4. What is impacted?
      1. Presence of stressors, not necessarily impaired (an impacted site may not necessarily be impaired)
  2. Integrated Approach to WQ Management
    1. Water quality based
      1. Parameter specific criteria
      2. Surrogate assessment
      3. Pollutant focused
      4. Individual effects
      5. Indicators of stress and exposure
      6. Bottom up approach
    2. Bioassessment based
      1. Biological criteria
      2. Direct assessment
      3. Resource focused
      4. Cumulative effects
      5. Indicators of response
      6. Top down approach
    3. Integration and complimentary use of water quality and bioassessment based approaches are necessary
      1. Chemistry can miss impairments that are detected by bioassessments
    4. An incomplete foundation in water resource policy and regulation - some symptoms:
      1. Skewed emphases on a single area
      2. Over-reliance on prescriptive approaches
      3. Heavy emphasis on administrative activity
      4. Inconsistent statistics reported by states
    5. Biological criteria
      1. Helps transition away from one-size-fits-all approaches to stratified management objectives based on regionalized data and assessments
      2. A "natural" watershed approach
      3. Integrates point, non-point, and habitat assessment and management
      4. Uncovers issues previously overlooked or underrated
  3. Must Blend Science with Appropriate Management Schemes
  4. Synopsis
    1. TMDLs are:
      1. Classic definition: wasteload allocation + load allocation + safety factors
      2. Essentially a resource management issue
      3. Focus is frequently not on loads
      4. WQs other than chemical/physical criteria will be needed
    2. Accuracy
      1. What it really is vs. What we believe it is
      2. How can that be? Defying our preconceived notions
      3. "Easy" methods are not always accurate
      4. What Constitutes credible data?
        1. Chemical
        2. Biological
    3. Monitoring and assessment
      1. Provides basic feedback
      2. Using the right combination of indicators
      3. A filtering process
        1. Separate what matters vs. what really does not matter
      4. The need for independent tests
        1. Verify results and direction
      5. A systematic approach
        1. Design supports management needs
      6. Monitoring must be maintained as a cost of doing business
        1. Very difficult to "catch up" - information is needed before issues arise
    4. States' role
      1. A pivotal role
        1. CWA delegation means states are the doers
      2. Basic custodial duties of states
        1. WQs - develop and maintain
        2. Monitoring and assessment
        3. Watershed coordination and planning
        4. Permitting/enforcement
        5. Reporting and listing
      3. Must have balanced allocation of resources to support custodial duties

Top

Update on EPA TMDL Policy Development

 

Don Brady - Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC 20460
ph (202) 260-7074
fax (202) 260-7024
brady.donald@epamail.epa.gov

  1. FACA committee created when it was realized that TMDL lawsuits were not going to go away
    1. Committee report available on EPA website
    2. Key issues
      1. Pollution vs. pollutants
        1. Pollution much broader
          1. Any man induced alteration
        2. Pollutants
          1. Substances, including sediment
        3. Does the Clean Water Act speak to pollutants or pollution
          1. Being considered by assistant administrator
      2. Threatened waters
        1. What are they
        2. Should they be listed or not
          1. TMDLs used to focus on restoring water or used to "stay ahead of the curve"
      3. Air deposition
        1. Should waters be listed for impairments caused by air deposition
          1. Air problems transcend all boundaries
      4. Listing cycle
        1. How long should it be?
          1. 4 years
          2. 5 years
          3. 3 years - consistent with water quality standards review
      5. Implementation
        1. Real success is not creating perfect TMDL document, but success on the ground
        2. Is implementation part of TMDL?
        3. If implementation is necessary part of TMDL, EPA's mandatory duties would be extended
      6. New discharge prohibition
        1. No new discharge allowed if it will contribute to impairment of waterbody
        2. FACA said EPA should be more consistent in application

Top

Panel 3 - Managing the TMDL Listing Process

 

Michael McIntyre - Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
ph (208) 373-0570
fax (208) 373-0576
mmcintyr@deq.state.id.us

  1. 303(d) process very burdensome
  2. Idaho moving to defining impairment using biological factors
    -- Much better than just numerical standards
  3. Rapid bio-assessment approach
    -- Some information about a lot of waters in state
  4. EPA independent applicability
  5. Weight of evidence approach
    -- Most reasonable way
  6. Get it right the first time
  7. EPA regions inconsistent dealing with TMDLs
  8. Macro fauna bias on part of many
  9. Concern with the idea that the 303(d) list should grow
    -- If so, should list whole state and work backwards
  10. ESA, CWA on collision course
    -- Objectives not necessarily the same

 

John Barrett - Agriculture Representative
State of Texas
Coastal Coordination Council
P.O. Box 97
Edroy, TX 78352
ph (512) 547-2611
fax (512) 547-5009
jbtxag@aol.com

(Mr. Barrett's presentation was made on behalf of the agricultural community and not on behalf of the State of Texas.)

Before I begin my prepared comments on the assigned topics, I would like to respond to some of the comments which have been made relative to non-point sources and section 303(d).

There is a unanimous conviction among ALL of the country's national agricultural organizations that Congress created Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 208 and 319 to deal with non-point source pollution and that Sec. 303(d) was created strictly to provide for controls beyond technology based practices for point sources. In addition, when the environmental plaintiff's bar developed a line of court cases which purported to hold that agricultural stormwater runoff was subject to regulation by EPA under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program Congress promptly acted to reverse that judicial position by specifically exempting agricultural runoff from Federal regulation.

The current effort by EPA to force states to deal with non-point sources under 303(d) is a classic case of trying to drive a square peg into a round hole because non-point source runoff can only be managed...it cannot be controlled as can point source discharges. The square peg which is 303(d)'s water quality based "drop dead" outcome can not be reconciled with the provisions for "practicable" best management practices (BMPs) which are the core of the technology based programs which EPA and the states have in place to manage non-point source (NPS) runoff.

This is not to say that the agricultural community is going to pick up its marbles and go home because we have statutory interpretation disagreement with EPA. We are working hard to bring our stakeholders up to speed on these critical issues and the remarks following represent some of our thinking on listing issues.

ROLE OF SOUND SCIENCE IN LISTING DECISIONS

It is one of Farm Bureau's core policies that sound science must be the foundation of any state regulatory or water policy decision.

Two evolving monitoring techniques which we believe offer significant opportunities are bio-assessment techniques and the use of DNA analysis to identify sources of fecal coliform bacteria.

My community has been skeptical in the past of bio-assessments because of our perception that they were not repeatable and prone to subjective best practical judgement (BPJ) biases. However, I have been impressed by the level of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) rigor which several states are using in their programs and have come to believe that this technique may have a very important role in determining use attainability. I predict that we will join with others in industry who support the use of these surveys when they are done properly.

There are many who argue that those of us who believe in sound science are obstructionist and more interested in maintaining the status quo. This a red herring because the people arguing for "perfect science" are usually environmentalists when a Use Attainability Analysis downgrade is being proposed. What we actually support is a concept I call "agreed on science" whereby EPA, the state, and stakeholders agree in advance as to the general level of monitoring rigor which will be used to develop a TMDL and to justify an implementation plan. Speakers before me have alluded to this concept and I believe that it is absolutely essential if anyone expects the implementing stakeholders to be on board when land use changes are proposed.

"ALL EXISTING AND READILY AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY - RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION" - 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)

  1. Boundaries? Do they really mean "all"?
  2. Rationale to not use data or information
  3. Monitored data vs. Evaluated information

My topic is to define the floor for "Reliable and Credible" data, but we have a slight problem. "Reliable and credible" is a phrase that is used in the 305(b) Report Guidance document. Since we are talking about the 303(d) list the appropriate issue is EPA's regulation which requires states to consider all "existing and readily available water quality related data and information" in preparing a 303(d) list.

Different EPA Regions interpret this regulation in different ways, but most agree that each state has an opportunity to set boundaries on the universe of data and information which may be used in direct support of 303(d) listing. In other words, if a state chooses to exclude data which is either non QA/QC compliant or too old, it can do so IF it can adequately document its rationale to not use such data.

EPA's guidelines distinguish between monitored data and evaluated information in determining waterbody use assessments. In accordance with our commitment to sound science in listing decisions my community believes that monitored data should be the only basis for 303(d) listing.

Evaluated assessments are voluntary on the part of the states, are entirely subjective and heavily reliant on BPJ. Some call them drive-by monitoring and this technique has been so misused by plaintiffs and courts in creation of overly long 303(d) lists that we strongly urge states to stop this practice.

ROLE OF THE 305(B) REPORT, 319(A) REPORT AND UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS

  1. 305(b) first step in 303(d) listing process
  2. Basic consistency but different perspectives:
    • 305(b) may include concerns which do not constitute use impairments;
    • 303(d) should identify known and reasonably verifiable use impairments or threats

319(A) REPORTS AND UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS: THE ON-RAMP TO ROUTE 303

  1. Plaintiffs: "319 subset of 303(d)"
  2. Escape hatch: document rationale to not use
  3. Better escape hatch: UPDATE
  4. Update elements: remove potentially threatened threatened; use monitored data only

Some of the states that I work with continue to have real problems with 303(d) lists which are corrupted because EPA and/or courts have forced the inclusion of all 319(a) listed waters. As most of you know many states have used the 319 list as a means to qualify their political subdivisions for 319 grant funds rather than a refined means to identify NPS impaired waters as Congress intended. It is not unusual to find that all of a state's streams are reported on this list as either "threatened or potentially threatened."

This was all fine and dandy and didn't really mean anything until the 303(d) plaintiff's started successfully arguing that the 319 assessment is an immutable subset of the 303(d) list. In my opinion the arguments they make are disruptive of state programs already stressed by pressing 303(d) resource requirements and represent nothing more than the mind set that a long list is another scalp on the plaintiff's belts.

There is an escape hatch, which is probably most appropriate in states which are not under suit, provided in EPA's regulations wherein a state can document, the case by case basis, its rationale to not include specific 319 streams on the 303(d) list. This is difficult in the current litigation environment, requires EPA's approval, and most problematically requires the proof of a negative.

Probably the best way out of the 319 trap for all states (under suit or not) is to simply UPDATE their existing document. The state has it within its exclusive power to sanitize this list by removing the categories of "threatened" and "potentially threatened," to exclude the use of evaluated assessments and to narrowly define the assessment to those waters for which recent QA/QC monitored data indicates a water quality standard use impairment.

Unified Watershed Assessments (UWAs) are included with 319 assessments for the purposes of these comments because they share the same monetary hook and probably share the same judicial snare as 319 lists.

DELISTING:

This overhead provides the two delisting scenarios which were recommended by the TMDL FACA.

In my opinion, the second bullet provides an avenue for all states to refine their 303(d) lists in the next listing cycle by the mere act of updating their 319 reports. In other words, waters that were previously included on the 303(d) list because of their 319 status can be dropped if they are no longer included on the 303(d) list.

This bullet touches on an area which EPA has so far refused to allow states to develop. In other words, if "old" BPJ was forced on the state as grounds for listing, why can't "new" BPJ be used as a rationale for delisting?

THREATENED WATERS:

THREATENED WATERS

The TMDL FACA could not decide whether or not to list "threatened" waters, but it did agree on a definition of such. The requirement for a "statistically significant declining trend" of data explicitly requires substantial monitoring rather than mere BPJ. This should help states limit the universe of threatened waters and will at least defer to the states knowledge of "specific pending changes."

INDEPENDENT APPLICATION

Independent application is applicable to three different types of monitoring: biological assessments, toxicological assessments, and chemical assessments. In accordance with EPA's policy, no single class of monitoring can be trumped by the others as a definer of use support.

It is problematic that the recent water quality standards advanced notice of proposed rule making has left the impression on some that a single excursion of a criteria established by any one of these three monitoring techniques might justify use impairment. This is not true and ignores the established statistical processes which are used to identify data point outliers.

For this reason and others, my community strongly supports the common sense "weight of evidence" approach to independent application whereby sound science is used as a substitute for perfect science.

 

Robert Wiygul - EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund
EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund
1631 Glenarm Place
Denver, CO 80202
ph (303) 623-9466
fax (303) 623-8083
rwiygul@earthjustice.org

Many of the questions now being raised concerning the appropriate role of "sound science" in the TMDL context are not questions of science per se. Rather, they are questions of policy concerning the degree of proof that state agencies believe will be acceptable before measures to improve water quality are imposed. These policy questions must be answered in light of the purposes of the Clean Water Act and Section 303(d). In essence, Section 303(d) was intended to insure that if all else fails, water quality standards will be met. Many water quality officials do not accept this mission for the TMDL provision.

Because the EPA and many states have fought the TMDL process tooth and nail, the trust level between the conservation community and the agencies is extremely low. Any attempt to use a narrow definition of "sound science" to cut back on the number of listed waters, or refuse to prepare and implement TMDLs, will be treated as simply an extension of the EPA and state efforts to avoid TMDLs altogether. The only means to resolve this distrust and end the litigation is for the states and EPA to step up to the plate and make specifically enforceable commitments to prepare and implement TMDLs within a set time frame. EPA in particular must abandon its contentions - which are primarily the product of its defense of TMDL suits - that NPDES permits constitute TMDLs.

Narrow definitions of "credible data" are both contrary to law and unwise. First, both the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations recognize that information may not be perfect. Thus, TMDLs call for a margin of safety. Imposing artificially narrow constraints on the evidence of use impairment that may be triggered will simply lead to more litigation. Whole classes of data - such as reports by citizens - cannot and should not be discarded wholesale. This information is extremely valuable for targetting monitoring efforts as well as TMDLs.

The concepts of local cooperation and voluntary measures cannot be used as an excuse for inaction. Cooperative efforts, stakeholder groups and the like must be held accountable for meeting water quality standards within a definite time frame. If they simply meet and discuss, they are counterproductive. Likewise, voluntary measures could be utilized, but they must be given a concrete goal to meet, and there must be strong and effective sanctions if they do not meet it.

The states have, since the time of their admission to the Union, had the ability to protect water quality through any voluntary, incentive based, or other means they wished. They have not. If they want these mechanisms to have credibility, they must step up to the plate and take responsibility for making them work.

Top

Summary of Break Out Group Reports (First Session)

Issues Recommended to Break Out Groups

  1. Identify the critical data needs and scientific methods to support decisions on impairment and development of watershed plans. Included in this issue are other issues relevant to measuring baseline data such as:

General Comments on Data Issues

  1. Compatibility
  2. Better coordination, no redundancy
  3. Need to be parameter specific
  4. Distinction between state-wide program or waterbody specific
  5. Amount of data needed is a function of who the audience is, the values, and any legal requirements
    1. Data needed for listing decisions
    2. TMDL development
    3. Implementation implications
  6. How much data is enough
    1. Look at process (need physical, chemical, biological data)
    2. Use of surrogate data
  7. Significant costs associated with data collection
  8. Agencies hard-pressed for funding
  9. Dynamic process-not static
    1. Collection of data available
    2. Reconsideration of process
  10. Data provided from stakeholders
    1. Socio-economic issues/costs involved

General Comments on Phased-TMDLs

  1. Reduction of risk in process
    1. Use of "phased" TMDLs
    2. Make this a topic for future forum on implementation
    3. Guidance definition: done with knowledge that there are data gaps
  2. Need distinction between regular and phased TMDLs

Miscellaneous Comments

  1. Distinction between was is truly impacted vs. impaired under 303(d) has been lost
  2. TMDL process has some fundamental flaws
  3. Many problems stem from concept of what WQ standards originally intended
  4. Loading - no word polarizes state agencies more than this word
  5. Biology
    1. Chemical data doesn't tell whole story
    2. Flow information
    3. Biological information
    4. Evaluation of progress
  6. Recognize lag between implementation and improvement when monitoring
  7. Convey flexibility in how TMDLs are defined
  8. Implementation also needs to be monitored for progress
  9. Role of indicators
    1. Recommend requesting EPA to put together case studies

Top

Summary of Break Out Group Reports (Second Session)

Issues Recommended to Break Out Groups

  1. Role of sound science, including bioassessment in listing decisions (i.e., use of biological, chemical and physical data):
  2. Role of citizens in the process;
  3. Defining the 'floor' for reliable and creditable data;
  4. Use of thresholds by states (once credible data is in hand) to determine impairment or not and how threatened waters are identified;
  5. Discussion of "independent applicability" and its relevance to the listing process/EPA policy on the concept;
  6. Delisting issues.

General Comments

  1. Use water quality monitoring council instead of establishing new entities
  2. Next WGA forum should address new draft regulations from EPA
  3. States want to know what EPA is thinking re: guidance
    1. How much of new rules and regulations will become guidance
    2. How do states respond to new guidance
  4. WGA should develop position on de-listing issue
    1. Until water qualtiy standards met or until TMDL completed
  5. Independent applicability
    1. WGA request EPA to decide whether bio-criteria can override chemical
  6. Court decisions have forced 303(d) and 305(b) reports to be almost identical
  7. Allow states more flexibility to use funds to target watershed priorities
  8. Use GIS to communicate better to stakeholders where impaired waters are
  9. States targeted by lawsuits appear to receive more funding from EPA for GIS than those that are not in litigation
  10. Future WGA forums should look at other vintage TMDLs for helpful experience
  11. Are background loads a target or something merely to acknowledge?
  12. Need for data to be tied directly to public participation process
  13. Motivation to invest in monitoring
    1. Chilling effect - litigation, 303(d)
    2. Too many processes, need integration
  14. Independent applicability
    1. Strong linkage between bio-criteria and standards
  15. Best Management Practices
    1. Still a role for them
  16. Use citizen monitoring as a means to expand monitoring databases

Top

Appendix

Links to Comments on EPA Proposed TMDL Rule

www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/tmdl/tmdl.htm (Western Governors' Association / TMDLs / Comments)

Top

Links to Useful Web Sites

http://endangered.fws.gov (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / Endangered Species)
http://water.usgs.gov (U.S. Geological Survey / Water Resources)

Top