# Presentation: 356773

## Improving the TMDL ProgramListing Impaired Waters 

**Improving the TMDL Program*****Listing Impaired Waters ***

**Oklahoma City Listening Session**
**November 15 and 16, 2001**

## Discussion Outline

**Program Goals**
**Current Program Initiatives**
**Approach for New Rulemaking**
**2000 Rule and Public Comments**
**Listening Session Objectives**
**Ideas for discussion**
**Questions, Comments, and Discussion**

## Framework for Restoring Polluted Waters

**Permits**
**Must comply with **
**Standards**

**Develop TMDL**
**Determines Allowable Loading and Allocates Loading Reductions Needed**

**Control Nonpoint Sources**
**BMPs,technical assistance, $**

**Establish Water Quality Standards**
**Uses, Criteria, Anti-Degradation Policy**

**Monitor and Assess **
**Standards Attainment**

**List Impaired Waters**
**All Existing and Readily Available Data**

**Problem **
**Identification**

**Problem **
**Solving**

**Framework for Restoring Polluted Waters**

## TMDL Program Goals

**Improve State and EPA performance and credibility under current rules**
**Integrate standards, monitoring, TMDL, point and nonpoint source implementation**
**Replace 2000 rule with a new rule to**
**provide a workable framework, and**
**improve program effectiveness**
**Address National Research Council (NRC) Report findings and recommendations**

## Today’s Principal Issue: Listing Impaired Waters 

**	****How can states and EPA improve the credibility and consistency of impaired water lists under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act? **

## Current Program:  Listing Rules

**Must list waters impaired or threatened by pollutants that require TMDLs**
**Waters remain listed until TMDL approved or water quality standards (WQS) are attained**
**Assessment methodology is submitted with the lists but not approved by EPA**
**Lists are submitted to EPA every 2 years **
**Lists must include a priority ranking**
**States identify waters targeted for TMDL development in the next 2 years, but no long-term schedule required**** **

## Current Program:  Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM)

**Best practices guide for water quality monitoring and assessment**
**Minimum elements of comprehensive State monitoring programs**
**Monitoring strategies**
**Annual work plans**
**Methodologies for assessing water quality standards attainment**
**Methodologies for identifying causes and sources of water quality impairment**

## Current Program:  2002 Integrated Report Guidance

**1.****	****State assessment methodology based on CALM**
**2.****	****Integrated list of **_**all**_** State waters categorized according to**
**water quality standards attainment status**
**need for a TMDL, and **
**availability of data and information**
**3.****	****Data and information supporting the listing of each water including**
**location linked to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)**
**pollutant causing impairment(s) and source(s)**
**TMDL schedules, and **
**monitoring schedules**
**4.****	****Summary of public comments**

## 	Current Program:  2002 Integrated Report Guidance Listing Categories

**Attaining standards **
**Attaining some designated uses, and insufficient or no data and information to determine if remaining uses are attained**
**Insufficient or no data and information to determine if the standard is attained**
**Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but    not needing a TMDL**
**	****a.****	****TMDL has been completed**
**	****b. ****	****Expected to meet standards **
**	****c. ****	****Not impaired by a pollutant**
**5.  Impaired or threatened by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL**

**305 (b)**
**Report**

**303(d)**
**List**

## Additional Current Program Initiatives

**Nonpoint Source Guidance directing use of incremental Section 319 funds to**
**develop TMDLs**
**develop watershed plans incorporating TMDLs, and **
**watershed plan implementation**
**USDA TMDL workgroup**

## New Rulemaking: Key Dates

**August 4: 2000 Rule costs draft study published**
**Comments due December 7**
**October 18: Final Rule extending key TMDL dates**
**April 30, 2003 as effective date of 2000 rule**
**Next 303(d) list delayed from April 1 to October 1, 2002**
**Late Spring 2002: Propose new TMDL rule after extensive outreach/listening**
**Spring 2003: Final new rule to be completed**

## 2000 Listing Rules

**Lists must include all waters impaired by pollutants and pollution regardless of source**
**Comprehensive 4-Part list of all impaired waters**
**(1) Waters impaired by pollutants (TMDLs required)**
**(2) Waters impaired by pollution (no TMDL required) **
**(3) Waters with approved TMDLs, but WQS not yet attained**
**(4) Waters expected to attain WQS without TMDL within 4 years               **
**Threatened waters not required to be listed**
**Lists submitted to EPA every 4 years**
**States submit assessment methodology to EPA 2 years prior to the list but EPA does not approve or disapprove it**
**States must submit a prioritized schedule that is approved as part of the lists**
**	**

## 2000 Rule: Significant Public Comments - Pro and Con

**Some wanted the lists generated using only data of documented quality, sufficient quantity and scientific validity  and others insisted that qualitative and quantitative data should be used **
**Some favored listing only waters needing a TMDL and others supported listing all impaired waters**
**Some supported waters remaining on the list until standards are attained while others wanted waters de-listed once a TMDL was completed**
**Many commented that EPA should not require states to list threatened waters**

## Listening Session Objectives

**Identify and discuss ideas for how best to ensure the credibility of lists of impaired waters    (Session I, today)**
**Understand stakeholder perspectives on specific issues associated with the scope and comprehensiveness of the listing process   (Session III, tomorrow)**
**Identify and discuss issues associated with other aspects of the listing process, such as timing and public involvement (Session IV, tomorrow)**

## Ideas for discussion:Ensuring the credibility of lists

**What are the pros and cons of the current process to categorize waters?**
**How can we improve data and information available to support listing decisions?**
**Should monitoring schedules be required for waters with inadequate data?**
**Should EPA approves state assessment methodologies in advance?**
**Should waters be listed only where sufficient monitoring data exists?**

## Ideas for discussion:Scope of the listing process

**Should the 303(d) list with the 305(b) report be integrated to ensure complete accounting of all waters?**
**What should be done with waters with insufficient information?**
**Should all impaired waters be included on the 303(d) list? **
**Waters impaired by a pollutant that need a TMDL?**
**Waters that have an approved TMDL?**
**Waters expected to meet standards?**
**Waters not impaired by a pollutant?**
**Threatened waters?**

## Ideas for discussion:Other potential improvements

**How frequently should the impaired waters list be submitted?**
**2, 4 or 5 years?**
**How can we improve public understanding of listing decisions?**
**Should the public have the opportunity to review both impaired and unlisted waters?**

## Other Key TMDL Issues (Session II, today)

**Nonpoint Source TMDL Implementation (Chicago)**
**Scope and Content of TMDLs (Sacramento)**
**TMDL Schedule and NPDES (Atlanta)**
**All Issues (Washington, DC on December 11)**

## QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, & DISCUSSION ?