832D98002
6
\
0
10/5/98
ENVIRONMENTAL
FOR THE CLEAN WATER
STATE REVOLVING FUND
Feasibility Analysis, Methodology, and Resourm
Prepared for EPA Office of Wastewater Manag&twnt
*
by
Susan M. Laufer
Tetra Tech, Inc
Fairfax, Virginia , ,
U.S. environmental Protection Agency
In: !'niat-,-"i 'Resource Center
'(01 N. 5;b Street
K.ivsasCiu, KS 66101
."T^'W-^F^1"
v^ ^ 1v«i' «*4 • ,
••-;«- , »*f - > •
-.•V/v.r-1'. !
- ,;* * •, *,V •<; '-
-------
EPA REGION VII IRC
099222
-------
10/5/98 Draft
Environmental Indicators
For the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Chapter
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Tables
1
2
3
4
page
Introduction
Using Environmental Indicators
Organizational Frameworks
Office of Water Indicator Development
Indicator Selection Process: Adapting an Existing Methodology
Applying Environmental Indicators to the SRF: Programmatic
Considerations
Discussion and Recommendations
Next Steps Toward Developing a Road Map
References and Resources
EPA's Indicator Continuum
Comparison of Three Indicator Frameworks
Comparison of Four Indicator Frameworks
Proposed Office of Water Indicator Selection Process
Pollutant Loading Indicators (February 1994)
Water Quality Objectives and 18 Related Indicators (June 1996)
Indicator Selection Process Adapted for Developing Performance
Measures
Office of Water GPRA Objectives in Pyramid Format
Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) SRF: Goals, Objectives,
and Outcomes
Core Measures for SRF (1997) and Their Relation to Indicator
Frameworks
SRF Indicator Recommendations with Indicator Frameworks
Hierarchy of Core Performance Measures (SMART Chart)
Original OW Pollutant Loading Indicators and Corresponding Strategic
Plan Subobjectives
Potential Application to the SRF Program of Indicators Currently In Use
Suggested Modifications to SRF Environmental Goals and Indicators
1
7
13
21
27
41
47
57
59
14
17
18
22
23
24
27
31
37
38
48
17
32
35
39
Page ii
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
10/5/98 Draft
Environmental Indicators
For the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
APPENDICES
A Region III: Environmental Results Based Management in the Mid Atlantic
Region, Excerpts
B Status of State Indicator Activity - December 1997, GMIED
C Excerpts from Environmental Statistics and Information Division on the P-S-R
Framework
D Office of Water Indicator Development Process 1994-1996
D-1 EPA and OW Strategic Goals & Indicator Development: Briefing Package,
February 1994
D-2 OW Indicator List of 33 Potential Indicators, August 1994
D-3 OW Indicator Development Questionnaire, September 1995
D-4 Water Quality Indicator #5 from Environmental Indicators of Water Quality
in the United States Fact Sheets, June 1996
E GPRA OW Objectives and Subobjectives
F OW and IWI Cross Reference Matrix of Indicators Currently in Use
G Excerpts from EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium, May
1998 Draft
H The Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the United States, 1995,
Excerpts from the Technical Appendices:
. Indicator Selection Criteria
• Indicators for Meeting Management Objectives
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) is an evolving, dynamic program in the
Office of Water that aims to support states in administering a permanent funding source for
communities to finance water quality improvement projects. SRF funds are now available to
address a wide variety of point source, nonpoint source, and storm water pollution sources
affecting the nation's estuaries, wetlands, streams, lakes, rivers, and ground waters.
Maximizing the environmental benefits gained from the expenditure of SRFs has become a
major consideration for states to consider in prioritizing and awarding funds to finance
projects.
The SRF has been established as a state-run program with federal oversight focused
almost exclusively on fiscal management of the state program. Pace of program, assets,
liquidity, perpetuity of programs, and the like are considered in evaluating state programs.
Currently, these programs are not evaluated in terms of environmental outcomes, such as
improving water quality conditions. At the federal level, nationally consistent performance
measures beyond fiscal capability are needed to evaluate state programs.
States are asked, but not required, to prioritize SRF projects on factors including water
quality conditions. Although benefits anticipated from SRF expenditures may be estimated,
states are not required to develop environmental targets or measure environmental outcomes.
In general, determining whether states receive future funding is based on how well they
manage their programs financially rather than on the environmental results they achieve.
There is a need to develop environmental indicators to assist states in setting priorities and in
demonstrating program and project success.
Establishing the linkages between environmental expenditures and environmental
outcomes has become critical for environmental protection programs at each level of
program management. Environmental indicators are used to make these linkages through the
development of performance measures for program evaluation. Indicators also serve an
important function by communicating environmental progress and program achievement to
the public and decision makers alike.
The purpose of this report is to examine the relationship of existing water quality
indicators to the SRF program. This report also examines the feasibility of developing
Octobers, 1998 Draft TetraTech, Inc. page 1
-------
environmental indicators for a program traditionally not known for monitoring or collecting
environmental data in connection with program or project evaluation. Presented are the
results of a number of analyses that demonstrate the feasibility and the complexity of
developing environmental indicators for the SRF program. A process for environmental
indicator development is proposed, the current proposed SRF indicators are evaluated, and a
group of indicators are recommended for further consideration.
Background
The State Revolving Fund Program
The United States has invested billions of dollars in wastewater control infrastructure.
Although much has been accomplished by providing secondary treatment and other
upgrades, continued federal financial support will be necessary to protect human health and
the environment. In 1972, Congress established the Construction Grants Program to provide
grants to assist local governments in constructing wastewater treatment facilities, with grants
providing a large percentage of the funding of these projects.
In 1987, with the establishment of SRF programs, the grant program began to phase out.
States now receive SRF capitalization grants, which are matched at a rate of one state dollar
for every five federal dollars. States are allowed to leverage the amount of SRF funds by
issuing bonds guaranteed by the dollars held in the SRF fund.
The SRF program is a program of loans, rather than grants, and as such it charges a
discounted interest rate on the assistance provided. The national average interest rates on
these loans have ranged from a low of 0.0 percent to a high of 4.2 percent. The loan
principal repayments and interest payments are made available for future projects and
represent approximately 14 percent of the total funds available.
Each state has considerable flexibility to develop and operate SRF programs that meet its
particular needs. Three types of federal requirements are imposed on state SRF programs:
(1) Clean Water Act requirements (with corresponding EPA regulations); (2) "cross-cutting"
authorities—those requirements which apply to all federal grant programs (equal
employment opportunity, participation by minority-owned businesses, etc.), and (3) Title n
requirements, which include federal prevailing-wage requirements. Title n requirements
apply only to those projects wholly or partially built before fiscal year 1995 with funds
directly available through federal capitalization grants.
Funding Summary
The EPA Office of Wastewater Management tracks the financial performance of projects
funded through the SRF. During the period July 1, 1987, to June 30, 1997, the Clean Water
SRF program provided approximately $19.9 billion in assistance to a variety of projects
Page 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
throughout the nation. Approximately 97 percent of SRF funding was used to support
wastewater-treatment-related projects, whereas only about 3 percent of the funding was
directed to nonpoint source projects and less than 0.1 percent went to estuary projects.
Although the total number of nonpoint source and estuary projects appears to be
significant, the scale of these projects tends to be far smaller than that of the wastewater
treatment projects. For example, the average wastewater treatment project used $3 million of
SRF funds while the average nonpoint source project required $.73 million, and estuary
projects only $.5 million. Six states—Delaware, Minnesota, Ohio, New Jersey, New York,
and Wyoming—accounted for almost 84 percent of the nonpoint source projects, and only
the state of Washington used SRF funding for estuary projects.
Wastewater treatment projects funded through the SRF program consist of eight
categories of projects. Secondary treatment projects accounted for over half of the total
funding ($8.35 billion), followed by advanced treatment ($2.6 billion) and new interceptor
sewers ($2.12 billion). Storm sewers projects accounted for only $9.6 million of the funding
compared to approximately $1 billion each for combined sewer overflow, new collector
sewers, and rehabilitation of sewers. Finally, funding for infiltration/inflow correction
totaled approximately $423 million.
The majority of SRF agreements are in areas where the population is less than 10,000,
with these projects representing 21 percent of the total SRF funds provided. Projects in large
urban centers (areas with populations greater than 100,000), which represent 12 percent of
the agreements, received 44 percent of the funding. (USEPA, 1995a)
Environmental Indicator Development
Environmental indicators have been defined and used in many ways: as biological,
chemical, or toxicological constituents of the environment that define risk levels or
ecological conditions; as trend measurements that describe improving or degrading
conditions; and as mechanisms to demonstrate the effectiveness of environmental
management plans, programs, and projects.
Indicator terminology has been on and off the radar screens of environmental policy and
program development for many years. Recently, through the development of goals-based,
integrated environmental management concepts and increased public interest in improving
government efficiency and accountability, environmental indicators have become closely
linked to program performance measures, program outcome measures, and the relationships
of these measures to environmental goals and objectives.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 3
-------
Indicators in the Office of Water
Environmental indicator development within EPA's Office of Water (OW) has advanced
significantly over the past few years. Since OW, in collaboration with multiple federal and
state partners, published its initial indicators report in 1996, indicator development has
moved forward at the regional and office levels through the goals-based planning and
management and the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS); at
the agency level through implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA); at the international and national levels through the President's Council on
Sustainable Development; and in many states, cities, and locales.
Although the Indicators Workgroup discontinued meeting after the Indicators Report was
published in 1996, the expertise developed within that group permeated the entire Office of
Water. In 1997, the system of objectives and indicators established by this group was
endorsed (with a few variations) by EPA management within the EPA Strategic Plan. Just
as importantly, however, is that the OW indicators, and their subsequent enhancement into a
geographically relevant indicator system, have served as a model for other indicator
development across the country, especially at the state and regional levels. At the federal
level, during the national environmental goals development, the OW indicators work was
considered a model for other EPA programs.
The environmental indicators work for the national water program, however, is
incomplete. The effort to develop indicators for the SRF program represents only one
component of this unfinished work. A look at the pyramid diagram (page 24) and indicator
frameworks for OW, one can discern that there are many indicators yet to be developed.
These yet-to-be developed indicators, together with the existing ones, will more completely
define water management program activity and connect it to the environmental conditions it
is designed to affect. While this indicator development is being driven largely by the GPRA
work within the Agency, environmental program managers at all levels are adopting
environmental indicators. Barriers to accessing, sharing and screening for high quality data
are coming down and improved tools for communicating results and information are
becoming available. These trends have enabled the more rapid development and
implementation of environmental indicator systems.
Report Summary
Chapter II of this report presents some of the national and internationally
environmental indicator applications at government levels most relevant to the SRF
program. These have influenced indicator development at EPA and in the Office of Water,
where indicator development progressed and was established prior to implementation of
GPRA. Through technology transfer, outreach, and training, indicators were also advanced
Page 4 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
at regional and state levels, where assessment of environmental conditions became an
important component of strategic planning and program management.
Chapter III outlines the basic organizational frameworks that underlie environmental
indicator systems. These frameworks, and the many variations derived from them, might
appear highly conceptual in nature. In operation, however, an indicator framework is as
much a requirement for developing environmental indicators as a foundation is a
requirement for building a house. Indicators are not stand-alone, even for the simplest of
programs or projects. They exist within a programmatic and environmental context that can
be highly complex and they are supported by data and data systems that are also complex
and varied in type. An indicator framework is needed to clarify how different kinds of
environmental data are needed to support decision making and evaluation. Using relatively
non-scientific terminology, a framework also serves to communicate the purposes and
importance of using indicators to a non-technical audience.
In Chapter IV, a brief description of OW indicator development since 1989 is
presented. Although OW published its indicators report in 1996, the indicator development
process in OW has never been explained in detail in any single report. The official OW
indicators workgroup met every 2 weeks over a period of 3 years and was enormously
productive. Prior to the workgroup, individual task groups were assigned to analyzing data
availability and the feasibility of indicator development for the topic areas that later became
the OW water. The process and the group's productivity is documented in internal briefings
and action plans, interim draft indicator reports, supporting inventories of data sources,
materials developed for a national conference, and the highly useful "pyramid" of OW water
quality objectives. Chapter IV draws from these documents to highlight areas of the
development process especially relevant to SRF indicator development.
Chapter V of this report offers a proposed approach for continuing indicator
development in OW. Examples of how this process worked previously are used to
illuminate each step. For each step, there are also suggestions for specific applications to the
SRF program. An outline of this proposed methodology was developed for a presentation to
the Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability (OPAA) in January 1998 but the
method as yet has not been commented on, peer-reviewed, or adjusted to reflect GPRA
terminology or guidance. The method serves only to illustrate a step-wise, logical process
and should be seen only as a guide or example.
In Chapter VI outlined are a few important issues or "food for thought" ideas regarding
developing environmental indicators and applying them to the SRF program. The SRF
program is unique in many respects, with some elements that will make indicator
development very challenging and other elements that will facilitate development and
implementation. The bottom line? It will be possible to develop environmental indicators
for the SRF program, but the complexity and investment required to do this should not be
underestimated.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 5
-------
Chapter VII contains a set of five key recommendations. These are based on (1) an
analysis of the relevance of currently established national water program indicators to the
SRF program and (2) an examination of the set of measures and objectives currently
proposed by the SRF program for GPRA performance planning. Recommendations 1
through 3 pertain to process and scope of the indicator development process the SRF
program should consider. Recommendation 4 is a group of five specific indicators that are
suggested for further examination. They are recommended for a number of reasons: (1)
they fit together into a basic indicator system; (2) three of them relate to existing OW
indicators; and (3) they correspond to the SRF programmatic objectives regarding integrated
priority setting and funding of nonpoint source projects. Recommendation 5 was added as
an immediate action item because it pertains to a potentially key information source for
environmental data, the Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS). This survey is currently
undergoing enhancements that could support the development of environmental indicators
for the SRF.
Whereas Chapter VII describes what indicators and data sources need to be considered,
Chapter VIII describes how they should be considered with a list of action items that
address process. The road map for the complete process has yet to be drawn. Developing
the road map or plan is a part of an indicators process that works best in a collaborative,
participatory group of individuals with diverse interests and expertise.
This report, along with its numerous appendices, aims to provide basic conceptual and
practical indicator information, to educate those who have not participated thus far in
environmental indicator development at EPA, and to serve as a resource document for a
work group charged with indicator development for the State Revolving Fund Program.
Page 6 TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
II. USING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Environmental indicator development and use reaches far back into the history of water
resource management. The coliform group of bacteria, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in
water bodies, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of waste streams were established in
the 1940s as indicators for water pollution control. Operationally, these indicators provided
the link between conditions in the environment (including human health risk) to the design,
operation, and permitting of wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities.
The basic paradigm—that indicators provide the link between environmental conditions
and management actions—endures and applies to indicator development to support program
evaluation and accountability at a different level of management. The early water quality
indicators, DO and BOD, have also endured; the coliform measure, which indicates the
potential presence of pathogens, is being replaced by a better, but still surrogate indicator,
Escherichia coli. In the latter case, the indicator concept did not change even as the science
to measure conditions or risks improved.
In the broader context of environmental management, environmental indicators have
been used to assess environmental conditions, inform the decision-making process, track
progress through systematic assessments, communicate health risks, and describe program
achievements to the public. At EPA, environmental indicators have been a part of
"managing for environmental results," comparative risk and risk ranking, strategic planning,
"goals-based management," priority-setting, sustainable development, community-based
environmental protection, integrated planning and management, and, now, planning,
budgeting, and accountability.
Definition of Environmental Indicators
Many programs address environmental indicators. Some of the definitions used by
various organizations that have developed conceptual and practical indicator frameworks are
as follows:
Octobers, 1998 Draft TetraTech, Inc. page?
-------
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, (ITFM, 1995)—
...a measurable feature which singly or in combination provides
managerially and scientifically useful evidence of ecosystem quality, or
reliable evidence of trends in quality.
The Data Quality Action Team, Environmental Statistic and Information Division,
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Agency, (USEPA,
1994b)—
An environmental indicator is an environmental or environmentally-
related variable or estimate, or an aggregation of such variables into an
index, that is used in some decision-making context:
• To shoe patterns or trends (changes) in the state of the environment
To show patterns or trends in the human activities that affect, or are
affected by, the state of the environment
• To show relationships among environmental variables or
To show relationships between human activities and the state of the
environment
The World Resources Institute (WRI, 1995) makes one of the clearest statements about
environmental indicators, within the context of national program management—
The goal of environmental indicators is to communicate information
about the environment and about human activities that affect it in ways that
highlight emerging problems and draw attention to the effectiveness of
current policies. Indicators must tell us, in short, whether things are getting
better or worse. To tell the story, an indicator must reflect changes over time
keyed to the problem, it must be reliable and reproducible, and whenever
possible, it should be calibrated in the same terms as the policy goals or
targets linked to it.
[National indicators] guide national decision making and focus top-level
policy attention. [Indicators] gauging national performance explicitly can
show citizens and decision makers alike whether trends are in the desired
direction and, hence, whether current policies work. Indicators can also
provide a framework for collecting and reporting information within nations
and for reporting national data to such international bodies as the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
The bolded text (bolded by this author) highlights some important features of
environmental indicators that are relevant to the process of developing them for the SRF
Program. Environmental indicators serve a dual function in a management context:
Page 8 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
(1) translating data into easily understandable information for the public and for policy
makers and
(2) measuring effectiveness of policies and programs by determining whether a
particular environmental problem is getting better or worse as a result of the
program's activity.
The first function requires simplification without loss of accuracy. The second function
requires that the indicator be valid; that is, it must truly measure the change that has occurred
as a result of that program's activities.
This second function has been especially problematic in the overall development of
environment indicators, mostly because the very nature of the environment is so complex
and variable. An environmental problem may have many causative factors that cannot all be
quantified to the same degree of technical accuracy (e.g., point and nonpoint sources); nor
can all be addressed by the same or similar control measures. The cause-effect dynamic is
only one component that can illustrate the complexity of an environmental system; another is
the spatial context (global or water body-specific). These two aspects are important
considerations in developing indicators designed to measure environmental results.
Environmental Indicator Development
At EPA, environmental indicators have been under development for more than a decade,
first as an outgrowth of the need for the comprehensive and up-to-date environmental
assessment information that is critical for internal planning and budgeting. Second,
indicators were needed as a tool for measuring and communicating environmental progress
toward environmental goals and objectives. Initially, the Environmental Statistics and
Information Division provided significant funding to the program offices, including the
Office of Water, to implement national environmental indicators to enhance other
accountability measures. EPA's Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data
provided technical assistance to EPA regions and states, establishing a national
clearinghouse on environmental indicators and training sessions.
In the international arena and in many of those states and regions where goal and
indicator development were espoused as a state-of-the-art environmental management tool,
indicator development came out of the strategic planning functions of environmental
agencies (e.g., goals and indicators for program evaluation). This paralleled a growth at
national and state scales in the use of environmental indicators as an assessment and
communication tool (e.g., state of environment reports, environmental trend reports).
EMAP, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program in EPA's Office of
Research and Development, was originally designed to scientifically establish national
baseline of environmental conditions and develop the technically accurate indicators that
would ultimately be used to monitor and evaluate changes in baseline conditions. The
National Sediment Inventory (NSI) in the Office of Water is an another example of an
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 9
-------
indicator's assessment function at the national level. For the NSI, baseline conditions were
established against which a milestone for containment or cleanup can be characterized and
progress reported through indicators.
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) attempts to link government programs to
measurable results. GPRA mandates that
"outcome" measures be established in addition to
the more typical "bean-count" measures that have
historically been tracked to measure program
success. Central to establishing the goals-based
management required by GPRA is the
development of a viable means to measure
progress toward those goals. For EPA, that means
would be environmental indicators. Achieving
environmental results—such as protecting people
from toxic chemicals or preventing degradation and
improving conditions of the nation's air and water
resources—is EPA's ultimate goal and mission.
The indicators EPA uses to track its progress must
measure program success toward this goal.
National Indicators
At the national level, EPA water indicators
exist within the context of three main
programs or projects—NEPPS, the Agency
Strategic Plan, and the Office of Water
Indicators Project. The NEPPS program is
moving into its operational stage, where
proposed outcome measures and
environmental indicators will be tested on a
state-by-state basis (see page 12). The Agency
Strategic Plan, developed to meet GPRA
requirements, establishes an overarching
environmental goal for the water program. It
includes three environmental objectives and a
set of subobjectives for EPA's National Water
Program (see page 31). Additional indicator
development is under way at the Interagency Sustainable Development Indicators
Workgroup under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Regional Indicators
Almost all EPA regional offices have developed environmental indicators to some
degree, and generally these efforts have been within the context of strategic planning and/or
developing state of the environment reports. Examples include Region I, New England,
which published its first state of the environment report in 1995 and promises to publish an
annual report on progress toward a healthier environment; Region 5, which plans to develop
environmental goals and indicators for its top six environmental problems in 1997 and
publish a state of the environment report every 2 to 3 years thereafter; Region 3, which in
1992 assigned 30 staff over 3 months to reorient program priorities using environmental
assessment data and developed the Logic Model, based on a hierarchy of indicators (see
excerpt of report Environmental Results Based Management in the Mid-Atlantic Region,
December 1996 in Appendix A).
The Great Lakes Program Office and Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBP) also have
developed environmental indicators to support program management and to measure
progress toward environmental goals and objectives. Often cited among environmental
program objectives supported by environmental indicator reporting is the CBP's target for
40 percent reduction in nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake Bay. Indicators that track both
Page 10
Tetra Tech, Inc.
October 5,1998 Draft
-------
the loading reductions and the condition of the water resource were reported as trends and
were helpful in uncovering previously unexplained sources of nitrogen loading from ground
water and atmospheric deposition.
State Indicators
As of December 1997, 37 states had some form of state-level indicator activity
underway, with three states having implemented an environmental indicator reporting
system. State of the environment reports were in process or completed in 23 states.
Benchmark programs in which strategic planning reports identify indicators for measuring
progress exist in nine states. (GMI, 1997a) For example, the Oregon Benchmarks, mandated
in 1990, originally reported annually to the state legislature on 158 critical measures of
Oregon's human health, environmental, and economic well-being. The Oregon system was
recently overhauled and streamlined; currently 22 environmental indicators are in use.
(Oregon Progress Board, 1997)
Appendix B contains a summary table of state indicator activity. This summary and
related state documents are compiled by the Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy, which works through a cooperative grant with the Regional and State Planning
Division in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. EPA provided a significant
amount of funding to assist states in developing environmental indicators. Through the State
Environmental Goals and Indicators Project (SEGIP), EPA, the Florida Center for Public
Management, and state participants developed inventories of potential indicators, provided
training, and held workshops and conferences. This exchange of information advanced the
state-level capability and raised the level of understanding of indicator selection and
implementation.
The states' Revolving Fund programs have not been involved with environmental
indicator development at the state or project level. State-level individuals who work on
indicators are not connected to a state's SRF program. State personnel who do indicator
work generally are involved with environmental planning and program evaluation and/or
participating in the National Performance Partnership Agreement process.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 11
-------
National Environmental Performance Partnerships (NEPPs)
In addition to GPRA, another reinvention effort has further established the use of environmental
indicators as outcome measures in environmental planning and management— National
Environmental Performance Partnerships (NEPPS). NEPPS is a partnership between EPA and
individual states designed to strengthen the protection of public health and the environment by
directing scarce public resources towards improving environmental results. A fundamental NEPPS
premise is to encourage both state and federal program managers to focus on environmental
results. Consequently, NEPPS calls for explicit articulation of environmental goals and for the
development and use of environmental indicators to measure progress toward these goals. Joint
regional and state planning and priority setting produces an environmental performance agreement,
which sets state environmental priorities in terms of outcome goals. Progress toward these goals is
tracked through the use of environmental outcome indicators that are based on core performance
measures developed by the national program offices. This activity-based reporting provides data to
analyze the effectiveness of different approaches to environmental protection and to shift the focus
from "bean-counting" to an assessment of the value of actions.
Performance Partnership Agreements under NEPPS are currently in place in 34 states (see
Appendix B). Below is an excerpt from Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System, issued by U.S. EPA and Environmental Council of
the States in May 1997.
Through this joint statement, we reaffirm our commitment to use core performance
measures as tools to track progress in achieving environmental results. In particular, we
recognize the attached hierarchy for core performance measures—comprised of core
environmental indicators, core program outcome measures, and core program output
measures—as an important management tool for strategic planning and program planning.
This hierarchy emphasizes the linkages between the ultimate environmental outcomes we are
trying to achieve and the programmatic outcomes and key program outputs that will help us
reach our environmental goals. As shown in the hierarchy, core environmental indicators are
the most preferred measures and, thus, are placed at the top of the hierarchy. Core program
outcome measures are placed in the middle, and core program output measures at the bottom
as the least preferred measures. Over time, we intend to move our measurement capabilities
up the hierarchy as much as possible. [Chapter III]
We expect to rely primarily on environmental indicators and program outcome measures to
gauge program performance and to reduce the need for numerous program output measures.
FY 98 is the beginning of a transition in the shift of emphasis to outcome-based measures.
EPA and the states will strive to reduce the number of core program output measures in favor
of outcome measures and environmental indicators. [USEPA, 1997c)
Page 12 TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
III. ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORKS
Environmental indicator development for management has evolved over the past decade
into three or four basic organizational frameworks or systems. These frameworks have been
critical for advancing indicator development on the national scale because of the complexity
of the environment and the availability of a large number of techniques to measure
environmental conditions.
EPA began with two frameworks to organize environmental information—EPA's
Indicator Continuum and the Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) Framework. More recently,
the GPRA Framework has surfaced. Each of these frameworks contains some unique
attributes and features.
EPA's Indicator Continuum
In the mid-1980s, EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation began
recommending the development of environmental indicators as a means to manage for
measurable environmental results. The six-level continuum of indicators was designed to be
a practical guide for management that was able to bridge the gap between administrative
actions and environmental conditions. As shown in Figure 1, this continuum (also referred
to as a hierarchy) ranges from indicators of administrative actions (such as issuing permits)
to those which are direct or indirect measures of ecological or human health. Ideally,
information from each level would support evaluation of the effectiveness of EPA and state
programs and, additionally, would be used to track and communicate progress toward
environmental goals.
The lower part of Figure 1 presents an example that illustrates how the information
captured in all of the six levels of this continuum contains value for stakeholders and policy
makers. The example depicts how the management of TCE disposal should ultimately lead
to reducing the risk of cancer and other damage. Shown are the kinds of information that
would be collected according to each level of the continuum.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 13
-------
A working example of the
application of this indicator
framework is EPA's Region
El's Logic Model for
environmental planning. The
Logic Model was developed to
use a terminology more
familiar to the Region's
program staff. It is based on
the premise that it is necessary
to use data at all levels to
manage for environmental
results. The model shows the
relationship between program
elements and very different
types of data. Appendix A
contains an excerpted section on environmental indicator development from the Region HI
report, Environmental Results Based Management in the Mid-Atlantic Region, 1996.
Administrative Indicators track regulator-regulatee interaction:
• Level 1. Actions by EPA or the states (e.g., issuing regulation,
permits, or grants)
• Level 2. Responses by regulated community (e.g., installing
pollution control equipment)
Environmental Indicators track environmental quality and human
health parameters:
• Level 3. Emissions or discharge of quantities of pollutants (e.g.,
pollutant loading values)
• Level 4. Ambient conditions in the receiving media (e.g., pollutant
concentration values)
• Level 5. Uptake and/or assimilation (e.g., contaminant body
burden)
• Level 6. Ultimate environmental effects (e.g., health, ecological
effects, and/or aesthetic effects)
Administrative Indicators
Level 1
Actions by
EPA/State
Regulatory
Agencies
Response of
the
Regulated
Community
•>•
Environmental Indicators
Changes in
Discharge/
Emission
Quantities
Changes in
Ambient
Conditions
— *•
Changes in
Uptake
and/or
Assimilation
>-*•
Ultimate
Environ-
mental
Effects
•+•
i
t
Nonasshnilative Changes (e.g., Habitat Alteration)
Level
EXAMPLE: DISPOSAL OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE):
Regulations
and Permits
Issued
Retrofit Liners
Installed in
Disposal Pits
Reduced TCE
Leakage from
Pits (Loading)
Reduced
Ambient TCE
Levels in
Ground Water
(Concentration)
Decreased TCE
Body Burdens
(Ingestion
and/or
Assimilation)
Reduced Risk
of Cancer and
Other Damage
to Humans and
Indigenous
Biota
Figure 1. EPA's Indicator Continuum
Page 14
Tetra Tech, Inc.
October 5,1998 Draft
-------
Pressure-State-Response Framework
Another extensively used framework has three basic categories. Variations of the
Pressure-State-Response framework have been adopted for use by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1993) and have also been used by the
Office of Water and the Center for Environmental Statistics and Information at EPA. As the
framework is used by the OECD,
pressures on the environment relate to
human-induced stressors, such as
discharges and emissions of
contaminants. These pressures in turn
cause changes in the state of the
environment, indicated by such metrics
as ambient concentrations of
contaminants or biological diversity.
Finally, information about pressures and
states leads to societal responses to
reduce or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts.
Pressure
Underlying Pressures (e.g., population or
technological advances)
Indirect Pressures (e.g., human activities such
as agriculture or manufacturing, or natural
occurrences such as volcanic events)
Direct Pressures (e.g., pollutant releases or
land use)
State of the Environment
Chemical State (level of specific chemicals in
the environment)
Physical State (e.g., water temperature or sea
level)
Biological State (including ecological states,
such as the condition of habitats or individual
species, and human health states, such as
exposure to toxic substances or direct health
impacts)
State of Human Welfare (e.g., loss of
recreational opportunities)
Societal Response
Broad Measures (e.g., total expenditures on
pollution abatement)
Specific Measures (e.g., number of specific
actions taken to address a particular
contaminant)
Figure 2 depicts the P-S-R and its
relationship to the hierarchy or
continuum framework. The
subcategories of the P-S-R framework
are described below and are provided in
more detail in the EPA document A
Conceptual Framework to Support
Development and Use of Environmental
Information in Decision-Making.
Excerpts from that document, which list
the subcategories in more detail, are
provided in Appendix C.
Many of these subcategories parallel the components of the continuum framework.
Chemical State, for instance, closely relates to ambient conditions. The overall Response
category would include Level 1 and 2 activity measures from the indicator continuum.
Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the two frameworks. The categories and
subcategories in the P-S-R model represent a significant number of elements, as shown in
Appendix C, for the Pressure category. This framework might be particularly useful to
environmental programs that seek to develop measures for nonpoint source loadings, habitat
destruction, and land use changes as pressure indicators.
October 5,1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 15
-------
GPRA Framework
Under the provisions of the GPRA, each federal agency must submit annual
Performance Plans to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each program
activity in the agency's budget. The plans must include performance goals and performance
indicators that can be used to assess the outputs or outcomes of each activity. The GPRA
defines outputs as the measuring or tabulation of any activity or effort, and it defines
outcomes as an assessment of the results of a program activity as compared to its intended
purpose.
Indicators for the GPRA are generally viewed as being either outputs or outcomes,
although the distinction between the two is not always clear. As shown in Figure 2, GPRA
outputs and outcomes can also be viewed in terms of the P-S-R framework, although it is
Hierarchy of Indicators |
Inputs
$
Adi inistrative Indicators Environmental Indicators
6
5
4
3
2
Ultimate
Impacts
• Ecological
• Health
• Welfare A
i H
Body
Burden/
Uptake ^
1-
< Ambient
Conditions
t
Discharge/
Emission
t
h
Actions by
Regulated
Community
Actions by
EPA/States
7-J
-»
?re
P-S-R
Model |
State (S) of the
Environment
Ecological
Human Health
Human Welfare
Biological
Chemical
Physical
^^^^^^^
k
Direct
Pressures (P) ^
• Pollutant Releases
• Land Use
• Introduced Species
• Resource Consumption
'
'
Societal
Response (R)
\. Indirect
Pressures
Underlying
Pressures
GPRA - |
Outcomes
"an assessment of
the results of a
program activity
compared to its
intended purpose"'
Output
"tabulation
calculation, or
recording of
activity or effort,
expressed in a
quantitative or
qualitative ^
manner"
ssure-Stote-Response Model 2-Gov't Performance & Results Act
i
TetraTech
3/V9S
r
Inputs
Figure 2. Comparison of Three Indicator Frameworks (This figure was created by the author and
sent as a comment on a memo, "Response to Concerns Raised about Alternative Indicator
Frameworks," dated 12/20/94, from Bill Garetz, EPA's Environmental Statistics and Information
Division.)
Page 16
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
not necessarily evident that a change in environmental loadings (seen as a pressure) would
always be an outcome, rather than an output.
Core Measures and National Environmental Performance Partnerships
Under NEPPS, EPA, together with the states, is identifying a common set of national
environmental goals and indicators to measure the effectiveness and success of
environmental programs. The states and EPA will use the indicators to assess long-term
program effectiveness and to select near- and long-term program activities. Indicators will
be collected regularly for all states and made available not only to EPA but also to other
states and the public. Many of the indicators and measures initially used will be changed
over time as the states and EPA begin to apply them in managing their programs.
Table 1 presents the NEPPS "SMART" approach to environmental management. The
core performance measures—environmental indicators, program outcome measures, and
program output measures—have been designated separately. Using the SMART framework,
each national media program office, along with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, is working with the states to develop a limited number of program and
multimedia performance measures on which each state will report so that critical national
program data can be collected. These national program measures may be activity-based
(outputs) or results-based (outcomes or environmental indicators). These measures and
associated reporting requirement are to be included in the Performance Partnership
Agreements (PPAs) or similar agreements established between the states and EPA.
Table 1. The SMART Chart Hierarchy of Core Performance Measures, May 1997
Endpoint
Environmental Goal
Environmental Objective
Program Objective
Program Activities
Characteristics
Long-term
Qualitative or quantitative
Linked to goal
Long-term
Quantitative
Time-constrained
Achievable and realistic with anticipated
resources
Linked to environmental objectives
Outcome-based
Medium-term
Quantitative
Linked to program objectives
Activity-based
Quantitative
Short-term
Measures
Core
Environmental
Indicators
Core Program '
Outcome
Measures
Core Program
Output
Measures
Examples of
Measures
Percent change in
NOxa levels in ambient
air over 5 years
Percent change in
stationary source NO*
emissions per year
Number of SIPs"
issued
Nitrogen oxides.
' State Implementation Plans.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 17
-------
Currently, under five program areas, environmental goals and objectives are articulated
and supported by either core environmental indicators or core program output measures. The
proposed FY98 core measures for the SRF Program are presented in Figure 9 in Chapter V.
Using core national measures as a template, each state can alternately identify other goals
and performance indicators that may present a more meaningful picture of the state's
environmental quality. Each state and its EPA regional office reaches agreement on such
state-specific environmental performance indicators. Interim national measures are in place
for the FY98 negotiations. A final set of measures and reporting requirements are expected
for FY99 negotiations at which time they will also be used to meet some of the requirements
oftheGPRA.
Figure 3 demonstrates the connection of the SMART categorization to the other
indicator frameworks. The environmental indicator categories, levels 3-6 from the Hierarchy
of Indicators, do not directly correspond to the environmental indicator category as defined
by SMART. In addition, the program output measures may include administrative activities
(as defined by the Hierarchy of Indicators and Societal Response indicators as designated by
the P-S-R framework. This discrepancy will likely become problematic in the development
Hierarchy of Indicators 1
1
|
i
1
I
Inputs | 5
$ 1 -S
«t
6
5
4
3
2
1
Ultimate
Impacts
• Ecological
• Health
• Welfare A
Body
Burden/
Uptake |
Ambient
Conditions
f
Discharge/
Emission
I
r
Actions by
Regulated
Community
Actions by
EPA/States
Core
Performance
Measures
Core
Environmental
Indicators
Core
Program
Outcome
Measures
Core
Program
Output
Measures
PSR Model
State (S)
Biological
Ecological
Human Health
Human Welfare
Chemical
Physical
' *
Direct
Pressures (P)
• Pollutant Releases
• Land Use
• Introduced Species
• Resource Consumption
T
Societal
Response (R)
GPRA
Outcomes
"an assessment of
the results of a
program activity
compared to its
intended purpose"
Output
tabulation
calculation, or
recording of
activity or effort,
expressed in a
quantitative or
qualitative
manner"
t_ Inputs $
Figure 3. Comparison of Four Indicator Frameworks
Page 18
Tetra Tech, Inc.
October 5,1998 Draft
-------
phase of indicator work, especially as it relates to the international standards and sustainable
development work currently underway, both of which more closely follow the P-S-R model
and its variation.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 19
-------
Page 20 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
IV. OFFICE OF WATER INDICATOR
DEVELOPMENT
The environmental indicator development process in OW has never been
comprehensively documented. This chapter presents the significant achievements of the
staff at OW over a period of nearly a decade and describes some of the processes and
external forces that moved the development process forward. Descriptions and examples of
the development process are derived from the myriad of internal briefings and action plans,
inventories of data sources, lists of candidate indicators, materials developed for 3 years of
workgroup meetings and a national conference, numerous interim draft reports, and the
highly useful, evolving "pyramid" of OW water quality objectives. Appendix D contains
some of these historical materials which are relevant and useful for the SRF program as they
begin developing their own indicators. In Chapter V, further examples of how OW
indicators were developed are presented to illustrate the proposed step-wise indicator
development process.
In the late 1980s, in support of demonstrating "environmental results," OW's Monitoring
Branch began work, with assistance from OPPE, to "develop a set of environmental
indicators that could be used to track the status of the nation's surface waters and the
programs that are designed to protect them" (USEPA, 1989). Candidate indicator lists were
developed and discussed, and feasibility analyses was performed on key indicators.
Under the Strategic Planning Initiative in 1989, EPA formally incorporated
environmental indicators into Agency policy. Four successive issues of Water Planet: OW
Strategic Plan 1992-1995 contained increasingly more defined environmental measures of
progress toward strategic goals. The National Water Quality Inventory, with its biennial
cycle of issuing guidance and analyzing state 305(b) reports to develop the national
summary, was established as an environmental indicator in EPA's Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results System (STARS) in the early 1990s. STARS tracked program activity
across the Agency to measure program performance. As a subset of measures, environmental
indicators were encouraged by the Administrator's Office in EPA.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 21
-------
In 1991, the OW Deputy Assistant Administrator formally established the OW
Environmental Indicators Workgroup with the Monitoring Branch at the lead. Through
1994, this cross-office workgroup coordinated OW indicator development within the context
of developing national environmental goals and indicators, producing strategic plans that
included environmental indicators, and finally issuing the OW Indicators Report in 1996.
Figure 4 contains an overview of the OW Workgroup activity crosswalked against a
process developed by the Data Quality Action Team (QAT) sponsored by OPPE (see page
31). Although the Indicators Workgroup did not officially adopt the process illustrated in
Figure 4, the Workgroup met every 2 weeks over a period of 3 years, essentially completing
all the elements.
Completed first was a comprehensive inventory of all data sources, within and outside
EPA, that could potentially be modified to provide national-level indicator information (see
Appendix D-l). The Workgroup identified a group of 33 environmental indicators to
support Agency goals (Appendix D-2). Some of the early proposed indicators are
_^r
n = OW Action J-. Determine OW Goals I-— -"""^ — — *
Agency Strategic Plan
Naf 1 Goals Project:
Ecosystem & Water
Teams
OW Workgroup
2 I Recommends 33
Indicators
Identify Potential
Indicators
OW Offices evaluate
indicators considering
Indicator Criteria A
Data Source Criteria
Evaluate Each
Indicator
Inventory Existing
Databases
i
r
Characterize
Databases
4
4
Data Quality Action
Team (QAT)
OW Monitoring I*
Branch \
r Indicator Criteria
Scientifically Valid
Cost Effective
Practical to Implement
Relevant to Goal
Suitable for Programs
\ Understandable /
lapi*d horn ITFM ln*cator TMfc Qm*./
10 M rurttwr ntrwd by OW WofkgrmA/
Identify Candidate Data
Sources for Each
Potential Indicator
Review Potential
Indicators & Candidate
Data Sources: Select
Proposed Indicators
Complete Detailed
Characterization of
Candidate Data
Sources
OW Offices develop
action plans
\
I OW Workgroup
| -[ teelects indicators to report and I
l_J recommends long term
development
'Data Source Criteria^
Availability of Data
Appropriate Temporal
Coverage
Appropriate Spatial Coverage
Documented Quality
Accessibility
Technical Credibility
Acceptable Estimation Error
Acceptable Cost
SoucttOMOAT
Obtain Data on Proposed
Indicators from Candidate
Data Sources
i
_^ Use Indicators in Reports jj
OW Offices |
and Workgroup address JL
data gaps and data | 6 |
management issues ]f**
Adapted from process developed by Data QAT
TetraTech
DRAFT April 29,1994
Figure 4. Proposed Office of Water Indicator Selection Process
Page 22
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
particularly relevant to the SRF program, especially those related to loading reduction.
Figure 5 contains information about each indicator related to pollutant loading, including a
characterization by its level in the hierarchy of indicators (see Appendix D for similar figures
on the rest of the indicators).
To develop the report on environmental indicators, the Indicators Workgroup developed
an action plan questionnaire (see Appendix D-3) to identify costs and actions needed to
compile and report on "existing and readily available data" for OW indicators. The
questionnaires were filled out by program staff familiar with the databases and data
collection mechanisms that would be the sources of information for these indicators. The
action plan questionnaires also outlined costs and steps to make improvements to baseline
data, data collection efforts, and management systems to enable reporting of trends.
The proposed indicators were then evaluated based on a number of criteria—feasibility
(including costs) of adapting or improving data sources, the availability of these sources to
generate baseline data, the quality of these data, and the level of the indicator in the
hierarchy. As a result, all indicators relating to levels 1 and 2 in the hierarchy were dropped,
REDUCE POLLUTANT LOADINGS
Reduced Conventional Pollutant Loadings
J_
Reduced Toxics Pollutant Loadings
1
aOHDDD
Indicator
Pollutant Loading lo
Ground Water from
Underground
Injection Wells
EPA Data Samma
TRJ •
STORETI
Other Sources
J 1
DDBDDD QDBDDO
Indicator Imaicator
Point Source Toxics Selected
Conventional
Pollutants: TSS,
BOD. Fecal
Coliform &
Nutrients
EPA Data Sonnet EPA Data Sources
NPDES Permits • Needs Survey*
TRI* PCS!
PCS* EMAP I
Needs Survey * STORE! 1
STORETI NPDES Permits 1
Other Sources Other Sourcei
NOAA: NCPDI •
USGS: NAWQA 1
1
DDBDDD
Italcatar
Key Welwealher
Conventional* form
CSOs
EPA Data Sources
Needs Survey •
PCS*
TR1»
NPDES Permits 1
Oilier Sources
PBDODD
IfalcmUr
Number of Slate ind
.ocalGov'ls
Requiring Treatment
of Stormwalcr Runoff
tarn Rural, Suburban
& Urban Land Uses
EPA Data Saarea
RCW Prof ram 1
3IVProgramO
NPDES Slormwater
Permit Program O
Other Sources
USCS: NAWQA 1
NOAA: NCPDI •
1
DBDDDD
Ifaicaur
Number of BMPs
Implemented a Stale
and Local Level
EPA Data Sources
RCW Program*
310 Program Q
NPDES Slormwater
Permit Program O
Other Sources
USGS: NAWQA 1
NOAA: NCPDI*
1
DDBDDD
laaicatar
Key Wetwcatner
Conventional
Pollutants from
Nonpoint Sources
and Stormwater
EPA Data Sources
EMAPt
RCW Program 1
319 Program O
NPDES Stomnvaler
Permit PrueramO
Other Source!
USCS: NAWQA »
NOAA: NCPDI •
CZM ProgramO
1
DDDDBD
lualcaur
Marine Debris
EPA Data Source!
EM API
Other Source!
Center for Marine
Conservation*
NOAA >
* data available now, needs improvement
I limited data available now
O no data available now
f- We can lei baseline and begin to report In FY
-------
point source loading measures were aggregated into one indicator, and nonpoint source
loading indicators were also aggregated.
With a smaller group of 21 indicators, the Workgroup developed a draft report and began
work with the other federal agencies, states, and groups outside government that would
provide the needed data. At a 2-day workshop in June 1995, OW obtained feedback from
key stakeholders on the proposed report, obtained commitment from partners for future
involvement, and solidified partnerships within EPA to jointly work on indicators.
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States was published in June
1996 as a collaborative report with other federal agencies and private groups (USEPA,
1996a). It contains 18 indicators and a revised pyramid of national water quality objectives
(Figure 6). The OW pyramid shown below serves two essential functions: it illustrates the
hierarchy concept of indicators, and it demonstrates how the objectives and indicators build
on one another. The loading indicators were purposefully less defined than the higher level
indicators because it was expected that the program offices would develop the specific
loading indicators. These loading indicators provide the connection back to program activity
1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating
health-based requirements
2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from
microbiological pollution
3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead
action levels
4. Source water protection
5. Fish consumption advisories
6. Shellfish growing water classification \
OW Strategic Objectives
and Indicators
I
10a. Drinking water supply designated use
1 Ob. Fish and shellfish consumption designated use
lOc. Recreation designated use
lOd. Aquatic life designated use
7. Biological integrity
8. Species at risk
9. Wetland acreage
11. Ground water pollutants
12. Surface water pollutants
13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants
in shellfish
14. Estuarine eutrophicau'on conditions
IS. Contaminated sediments
Conserve
& Enhance
Public
Health
Conserve
& Enhance
Aquatic
Ecosystems
Support Uses Designated by States & Tribes
Aquatic Life Support • Drinking Water Supply • Fish &
Shellfish Consumption • Recreation
Conserve or Improve Ambient Conditions
Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings
and Other Stressors
16a. Selected point source
loadings to surface water
16b. Sources of point source
loadings through Class V
wells to ground water
17. Nonpoint source loadings to
surface water
18. Marine debris \
Figure 6. Water Quality Objectives and 18 Related Indicators (June 1996)
Page 24
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
measures—level 1 and 2 indicators.
A companion document, Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States
Fact Sheets, describes in more detail each of the 18 indicators using a 2-page fact sheet
format (USEPA, 19965). Appendix D-4 contains the Fact Sheet for Indicator #5, Fish
Consumption Advisories. Each 2-page fact sheets answered the questions:
• What does the indicator tell us?
• How will the indicator be used to track progress?
• What is being done to improve the indicator?
• What is being done to improve the conditions measured by the indicator?
Through the Index of Watershed Indicators Project, the Office of Water continued its
development of environmental indicators and moved into the next generation of indicator
information by using geographic display to link indicators spatially. Important new
indicators were developed through this process, which resulted in the Index of Watershed
Indicators (USEPA, 1997b):
• Pollutant Loads Discharged above Permitted Limits (indicator 9-toxics, indicator 10-
conventionals),
• Urban Runoff Pollution (indicator 11), and
• Indices for Agricultural Runoff Potential (indicator 12) and
• Estuarine Pollution Susceptibility Index (indicator 15).
Although the Indicators Workgroup stopped meeting after the indicators report was
published in 1996, the expertise developed within that group permeated the entire Office of
Water. In 1997, the system of objectives and indicators established by this group was
endorsed (with a few variations) by EPA management and was published in the EPA
Strategic Plan. More importantly, however, the original OW indicator framework, and the
subsequent enhancement into a geographically relevant indicator system, has served as a
model for other indicator development across the country, especially at the state and regional
levels. At the federal level, during the development of national environmental goals, the
OW indicators work was considered a model for other EPA programs.
Octobers, 1998 Draft TetraTech, Inc. page 25
-------
Page 26 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
V. INDICATOR SELECTION PROCESS:
ADAPTING AN EXISTING METHODOLOGY
In 1992, within the context of developing national environmental goals and indicators,
the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation supported the Data Quality Action Team, a
cross-agency group of data managers from the program offices and staff from the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics. The Data Quality Action Team (QAT) developed
an approach for indicator development, whereby potential data sources and potential
indicators are identified and evaluated in a logical manner. In Figure 7, the components of
that process are in the center column.
= Steps
Indicator Criteria
Scientifically Valid
Cost Effective
Practical to Implement
Relevant to Goal
Suitable for Programs
Understandable
. *
-------
As described in Chapter ffl, the OW Indicator Workgroup completed all aspects of the
process over a period of 3 years (see Figure 4) culminating its work on environmental
indicator development with publication of the 1996 report Environmental Indicators of
Water Quality in the United States. Indicator work continues in OW through the
development of performance measures and the Index of Watershed Indicators.
This chapter outlines a proposed approach that is an adaptation of the original indicator
development and selection process. Depicted in the right column of Figure 7, the approach
parallels the original 10 steps developed by the Data QAT. It is important to note that the
process described here represents the technical analysis relating to the evaluation of
databases, data systems, program needs, and information management processes. A viable
indicator development and reporting process also requires organized stakeholder
involvement, public participation, cross-program collaboration, and strong state
participation.
What follows in this chapter are the steps outlined by the indicator selection process,
with examples of how this approach worked in the OW Indicators Workgroup. How these
would apply to developing indicators for the SRF is also described in part. This exercise
facilitated the evaluation of the
proposed SRF measures and led
to the recommendations in
Chapter VH A complete and
comprehensive analysis was not
done, however, and Steps 8 and
9 have yet to be more fully
examined. This should be the
work of a workgroup or task
group, as recommended in
Chapter VH of this report.
Technical Process
Step 1. Determine OW and SRF Goals and Objectives
Step 1a. Evaluate Frameworks Currently in Use
Step 2. Identify and Categorize Proposed Measures
Step 3. Update Inventories of Existing Databases
Step 4. Evaluate Proposed Measures
Step 5. Characterize Databases
Step 6. Establish QA to Ensure Appropriate
Categorization
Step 7. Modify Proposed Measures as Necessary
Step 8. Propose New Measures and Identify
Enhancements Needed for Data Sources
Step 9. Gap Analysis: What Is Needed for Which No
Data Or No Data Source Exists?
Step 10. Use Measures in Annual Performance Planning
Stakeholder
Involvement
Public Participation
• Cross Program
Collaboration
State-Level Participation
Data and System Managers
Page 28
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
Step 1. Determine OW and SRF Goals and Objectives
A major use of indicators is to gauge progress toward program goals and objectives.
Defining goals and objectives requires an in-depth understanding of the program's purposes
beyond simply achieving legislative and regulatory mandates. For EPA and other
environmental protection agencies, goals are stated in terms of the intended environmental
results or outcomes, such as improved water quality conditions or restored acreage of
wetlands and other critical habitat.
Broad goals and objectives for
EPA's work are stated in the 1997
Agency Strategic Plan. In the plan, a
Clean and Safe Water Goal is
established with three objectives and
11 subobjectives.
Appendix E contains all
the goals, objectives, and
subobjectives in the
Strategic Plan that are
relevant to EPA's Water
Program.
Clean and Safe Water Goal
1. Public Health Objective
2. Ecosystem Health Objective
3. Pollutant Load Reduction Objective
Objective 3. "Pollutant discharges from key point and nonpoint
source runoff will be reduced by at least 20 percent from 1992 levels."
Subobjective 3a. Annual point source loadings from CSOs,
POTWs, and industrial sources will be reduced 30
percent from 1992 levels.
Subobjective 3b. Nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to
rivers and streams will be reduced. Erosion from
cropland will be reduced by 20 percent from 1992
levels.
For the SRF program,
the most directly relevant
objective is the Pollutant
Load Reduction,
Objective 3. As the SRF
program shifts its focus
toward funding projects
that address nonpoint
sources and wetland,
estuarine, and ground
water protection, its
program objectives will
be more appropriately
stated as true outcome
objectives, rather than load reduction objectives. The subobjectives under Objective 2 under
the Clean and Safe Water Goal correspondingly will become more relevant.
Objective 2. "Conserve and enhance ecological health of the
nation's waters, including surface, ground, coastal, ocean, and
wetlands."
Subobjective 2a. Restore and protect watersheds so that 75
percent of waters support healthy aquatic
communities as shown by comprehensive
assessment of the nation's watersheds.
Subobjective 2b. There will be an annual net increase of 100,000
acres of wetlands.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 29
-------
Step 1a. Evaluate Framework Currently in Use (Continued)
Although it might not be apparent, indicators that have proven most effective at
international, country, and programs levels, and from site-specific to national scales, are
established within a coherent, logical framework or system with other indicators. Chapter HI
describes some basic frameworks in use today. These frameworks have been expanded
upon, altered, and adapted to specific programmatic and management needs, as well as to the
environmental conditions or systems to which they relate.
Examining and evaluating frameworks educates program managers and others about the
complexity of indicator systems and the need to collect information at multiple levels.
Although profoundly useful at many levels of environmental management, indicators do not
offer a simple solution. Framework evaluation can demonstrate the multifaceted aspects of
indicator development and the intrinsic need to develop adequate information to support
indicator reporting.
For the SRF program, the step to identify the explicit or implied framework in use for
GPRA implementation and the development of annual performance objectives and
measures, is an important one for developing realistic and implementable indicators. This
step provides an objective approach to illustrating how management expectations and
directives, which are oriented toward environmental results (or outcomes) are or are not
adequately connected to the program's work (or output). Adequate amounts of measurable
data and quantifiable results for both outcomes and outputs generally do not yet exist for
most programs in the Office of Water. A framework puts into context for managers and
decision makers the importance of collecting the multiple types of data needed to establish
the linkage between environmental results and program activity.
Page 30
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
Beginning with the three objectives for the national water program, it is useful to
organize them on a pyramid as in Figure 8. The pyramid of new objectives is a distilled
version of the original pyramid of water program objectives developed by the OW Indicators
Workgroup (see Figure 6 in the previous chapter). Figure 6 displays the Hierarchy of
Indicators and the basic GPRA frameworks. The P-S-R model could also be superimposed
on the figure. Figure 8 illustrates the connections between the objectives themselves—
Objectives 1 and 2 build upon Objective 3—and clarifies how different levels of indicators
would support different levels of objectives.
Hierarchy of Indicators
ndicators
nvironmental 1
UJ •
Indicators
Administrative
6
5
4
I GPRA
Terminology
Environ-
mental
Outcome
Measures
measures will be
periodically
Q reviewed to
ensure that they
are linked to
environmental
/ Conserve
/ & Enhance
/ Public
/ Health
By 2005, protect public health so that 95 percent
of the population served by community
watersyslems will receive water that is consistently
safe to drink, consumption of contaminated fish
and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to
mkrobial and other forms of contamination in
waters used for recreation will be reduced.
Conserve\
& EnhanceV
Aquatic \^
Ecosystems \.
By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological
health of the nation's waters and aquatic
ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes,
wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and
ground waters so that 75 percent of waters
support healthy aquatic communities.
x
/Reduce Pollutant Loadings \.
By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point and nonpoint source ninofT will ^w
be reduced by at least 20 percent from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key N.
pollutants impacting water bodies will be reduced. ^^
outcomes*1 ^ Jk t i jt JL ^ t 4k 4 t
1 * L
2
1
Program
Output
Measures
Program
Activities
Water Programs
Implementation
Figure 8. Office of Water GPRA Objectives (September 1997)
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 31
-------
Step 2. Identify Potential Indicators: Applying OW Environmental
Indicators to the SRF
An identification of all currently used indicators that might have some potential for the
SRF program is beyond the scope of this report. Environmental indicators are in use in
many federal agencies, at all the EPA regional offices, and in 37 states, and they can be
found within the state-EPA agreements under NEPPS. As part of sustainable development
work at the national level, in regional-level ecosystem work, and in many community-based
environmental protection work, environmental indicators are actively used for
communicating and measuring progress toward environmental goals and objectives.
In the Office of Water, 18 national-level environmental indicators were published in the
1996 report. Appendix F contains a crosswalk between these 18 indicators, the Index for
Watershed Indicators (IWI) and the subobjectives in the 1997 EPA Strategic Plan (USEPA,
1997a). With a few exceptions, these measures generally correspond to each other. This is
not unexpected since the first phase of the IWI began by establishing a geographic-based,
watershed component to most of the original OW indicators. Similarly, the OW Strategic
Plan ultimately ended up with a core group of subobjectives that correspond for the most
part to the OW indicators (see Figures 5 and 6). Step 4 continues the discussion of
Appendix F.
For the original indicator development in the Office of Water, outlined in Chapter IV,
other potential indicators had been identified but later were dropped after further analysis.
The preliminary list of indicators for the Pollutant Load Reduction Goal contained the eight
indicators listed in Table 2. The table identifies how these indicators correspond to the
subobjectives in the current Strategic Plan and in which level of the Hierarchy of Indicators
they belong.
Table 2. Original OW Pollutant Loading Indicators and Corresponding Strategic Plan Subobjectives
Hierarchy
Level
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
5
Loading Indicator (From Original Proposed List)
Pollutant Loading to Ground Water from Underground Injection Wells
Point Source Toxics
Selected Conventional Pollutants: TSS, BOD, Fecal Coliform and Nutrients
Key Wet Weather Conventionals from CSOs
Number of State and Local Governments Requiring Treatment of Stormwater
Runoff from Rural, Suburban, and Urban Land Uses
Number of BMPs Implemented at State and Local Levels
Key Wet Weather Conventional Pollutants from Nonpoint Sources and
Stormwater
Marine Debris
Corresponding
Subobjective
1a
3b
3b
3b
Not a subobjective
Not a subobjective
3b
Not a subobjective
OBJECTIVES: (1) Protect public health, (2) protect ecosystems, (3) reduce loadings.
Page 32
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
Step 3. Update Inventories of Existing Databases
Determining the extent and availability of all data sets and databases that could
potentially be used or enhanced as a source of environmental indicator reporting can be a
huge, time-consuming task. An example of inventoried data sets is shown in Figure 5 which
depicts eight of the initial set of 33 indicators (see page 23 in Chapter IV and Appendix D).
In Figure 5, as many as seven data sources were identified as having potential to support a
single indicator. To identify all these potential sources (see also Appendix D-l) from EPA,
other federal agencies, and national and regional level assessments, numerous compendiums
and inventories of national-level data sets were searched, agencies were contacted, and
reports and research articles were collected. Relevant data sets developed by the private
sector, including the Center for Marine Conservation and the well-known Nature
Conservancy, were also inventoried.
Maintaining up-to-date information on newly available and changing data sets is an
ongoing process. New regulations like the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments and
initiatives like the Clean Water Action Plan drive the development of new data sets,
including the National Contaminant Occurrence Database and the Priority Lists from State
Unified Watershed Assessments. Soon to be published is the EPA Water Program
Information Systems Compendium (USEPA, 1998a), which contains updated information on
more than 133 systems (Appendix G).
Recently, as part of the development and enhancement of the IWI, more than 15 new
data sources were identified by participants in a 2-day workshop to support indicator and
data layer development. Through the IWI, new sets of data generated outside EPA are
undergoing transformation to be displayed in a geographically based watershed context. In
addition, since 1994 when the databases were first inventoried, huge strides have been made
in the ability to electronically share data and combine data sets, screen and evaluate the data,
and geographically locate data sets that describe local environmental conditions.
For the SRF program, the most
relevant major databases or systems
maintained by EPA are listed in the
box to the right. Appendix G contains
the excerpts from recent descriptions
of systems containing water
information, which will soon be
published in the Systems Compendium.
Databases Relevant to SRF
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund Nationa
Information Management System
• Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS)
• Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)
• Permit Compliance System (PCS)
• Reach File
• STORET Water Quality System
• STORET X
• Waterbody System (WBS) for 305(b)
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 33
-------
Step 4. Evaluate Potential Indicators or Proposed Measures
To adequately evaluate potential indicators, criteria that capture the technical,
practicable, and suitability issues surrounding indicator development and reporting are
developed. Many criteria lists have been developed for indicator development. On the left
side of Figure 7, an abbreviated list of Indicator Criteria is shown in the top hexagon. This
list is adapted from the summary table of indicator selection criteria developed by the
Environmental Indicators Task Group of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality. The summary table was published in the ITFM final report as a technical
appendix in 1995 and is provided as Appendix H of this report.
Developing or adopting criteria will be an important component of indicator selection for
the SRF program, especially as implementation and reporting of environmental results
become part of the accountability system. By far, the overriding criterion for much of
indicator development done by the OW Indicators Workgroup and others was the
availability of data. Now, however, under GPRA, indicator and performance measure
development will require more substantive and rigorous demonstration of scientific validity,
suitability, and cost-effectiveness.
An initial evaluation of each of the measures in the cross-referenced matrix (Appendix
F) is a ranking of high, medium, or low potential relevance to the SRF program. This
ranking is based on the existing indicator systems in OW and on this author's experience and
best professional judgment related to using criteria such as those identified in Figure 7. The
ranking considers only the current status of existing indicators now being reported. In many
cases, once linkages between medium and low potential indicators are examined more
closely, it might be feasible to develop these others as indicators for the SRF program.
Table 3 summarizes the matrix information. High-potential indicators are those which
would be directly affected by SRF activity and for which data and reporting systems exists;
they are a direct measure of point source controls under permits. Medium-potential
indicators are ihose which might ultimately be affected by SRF activity, but the linkages
between SRF project expenditures and these environmental outcomes have not yet been
examined. Low-potential indicators are those least likely to be affected by SRF activity.
Page 34 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
Step 4. Evaluate Potential Indicators or Proposed Measures (Continued)
Table 3. Potential Application to the SRF Program of Indicators Currently in Use
(see Appendix F)
High Potential
IWI Indicator 9: Pollutant loads discharged above permitted limits - toxics
IWI Indicator 10: Pollutant loads discharged above permitted limits - conventionals
IWI Indicator 11: Urban runoff potential
Medium Potential
OW Indicator 4:
OW Indicator 5:
OW Indicator 6:
OW Indicator 7:
OW Indicator 9:
OW Indicator 10:
OW Indicator 11:
OW Indicator 12:
OW Indicator 14:
OW Indicator 15:
IWI Indicator 15:
Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have
programs to protect them from pollution
Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not be
eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities
Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved for harvest
for human consumption
Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities
Rate of wetland acreage loss
Percentage of assessed water bodies that can support use as designated by the
states and tribes
Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will
report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water
Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water
Trends in estuarine eutrophication conditions
Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans
and aquatic life
Estuarine pollution susceptibility index
Low Potential
OW Indicator 2: Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological
pollution
OW Indicator 8: Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction
OW Indicator 13: The concentration levels of selected pollutants in oysters and mussels
OW Indicator 17: Amount of solid eroded from cropland that could run into surface waters
OW Indicator 18: Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 35
-------
Step 5. Characterize Databases
To adequately evaluate potential data sources to report indicators, criteria should be
developed that capture the technical credibility, temporal and spatial coverage, accessibility
and availability, and cost issues surrounding the data systems that might support indicator
reporting. On the left side of Figure 7, an abbreviated list of Data Source Criteria is shown
in the lower hexagon. This list was developed by the Data Quality Action Team in
Environmental Statistics and Information Division. Other lists of criteria have been
developed to characterize databases, one of which can be found within the metadata tables of
the Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI).
An early example of applying one of the criteria to the data sources for potential
indicators is shown in Figure 5 (page 23) (see also Appendix D-l). For screening purposes,
data sources were rated as one of three general categories—data available now but needs
improvement, limited data available now, and no data available now. For OW, this initial
characterization of availability supported the feasibility analysis for particular indicators and
aided in narrowing down the list of potential indicators.
To address the other criteria, a questionnaire originally developed by the OW Indicators
Workgroup was used and might be useful in characterizing the technical and financial
feasibility of using a particular database for reporting an SRF indicator. Appendix D-3
contains a summarized version of this questionnaire. Each of the data sources identified in
Step 3 and described in Appendix G would need to be characterized using a questionnaire
similar to the one OW developed. Other surveys and questionnaires have been developed
both by CEIS to support the development of environmental indicators and by the Office of
Planning, Analysis, and Accountability to evaluate the proposed performance measures
under the annual planning process.
Page 36 TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
Step 6. Establish QA to Ensure Appropriate Categorization
Figures 9 and 10 provide examples of the importance of determining the appropriate
categorization of performance measures, proposed indicators, and core program outcomes
and also applying one of the criteria—"relevant to goal"—listed in Figure 7. In Figure 9, an
analysis of two interim core outcome measures for 1998 by the State Revolving Fund
Program demonstrates the disconnect between outcomes and objectives and the need for a
QA process to ensure indicators are developed and applied consistently across the programs.
Core Performance
Measures FY1998
Environmental Goals
Environmental Objectives
\
Core Program Outcomes
I
CW/SRF
All of America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters
will support healthy communities offish, plants,
and other aquatic life and uses such as fishing,
swimming, and drinking water supply for people.
Wetlands will be protected and rehabilitated to
provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods and
improve water quality. Ground waters will be
cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.
By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point
sources and nonpoint source runoff will be
reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels.
This Core Program ^\
[ Outcome does not measure )
^he program objective./
Number of stream segments showing water
quality benefits as a result of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund investments.
DW/SRF
Every American public water
system will provide water that is
consistently safe to drink.
By 2005, 95% of the population
served by community water systems
will receive water that is always safe
to drink.
/This Core Program N.
( Outcome does j
\imeasure the program J
Number of community drinking water
systems (and population served) that
provide drinking water that meets all
standards as a result of implementing
the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (project and set-aside funds).
Figure 9. Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) SRF: Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes
Figure 10, to the right, illustrates several things. First, the proposed language for
characterizing performance measure number 1 in bold type, which relates stream
improvement to SRF investments, is not stated in such a way as to capture the environmental
conditions it means to report. There is a significant difference between an indicator that
reports "number of stream segments" and that reports "length of stream in miles." As a
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 37
-------
Step 6. Establish QA to Ensure Appropriate Categorization (Continued)
result of this type of analysis and QA, the language for this indicator was changed by the
program office to "stream miles" as shown in the FY98 measures listed in Table 4.
Figure 10 also provides a means to more closely examine what the environmental
objectives truly are for a given program, what types of measures already exist, and which
ones are still needed. In this example, indicators for nonpoint sources would serve as a
measure for nonpoint source SRF projects but would not necessarily be connected to the
nonpoint source load reduction objectives established by other OW program offices.
Hierarchy
of Indicators
(- Societal Response
EPA/State
Actions
1
Actions by
Regulated
Community
2
Administrative Indicators
Pressure
Discharges/
Emissions
3
l_| State of the Environment (-^
Ambient
Conditions
4
Body
Burden/
Uptake
5
Environmental Indicators
Ecological
Human
Health and
Welfare
6
GPRA
Water
SubObjectives
Core Performance Measures and Associated Reporting Requirements for 1997
• Existing
I I
Potential
3a. By 2005, annual
point source loadings
from combined sewer
overflows, Publicly
Owned Treatment
Works, and industrial
sources will be
reduced by 30% from
1992 levels.
CSOs: 33%
POTWs: 3%
Industrial:
Conventionals: 28%
Toxics: 50%
Source: '96 National Goals
Report
3b. NFS load
reduction
subobjective
4
^
2. Compare
quarterly outlays to
OMB planning
targets for the CW-
SRF program
(State)
3. Report on
indicators to
measure the pace
of (he CW-SRF
and DW-SRF
program (State)
4. Submit
information
required for the
SRF information
system for the CW-
SRF and DW-SRF
programs (State)
5. List States that
have taken actions
to utilize improved
planning and priority
setting systems and
effective fund
management for
their SRF programs
Discharges reduced
as a result of SRF
projects:
2° treatment
AWT
in
CSOs
to achieve Stormwater
measurable short
term and long term
environmental and
Improvements in \ Ecological
stream conditions, \ Indicators of
for example: \ Healthy
•number of water \ Watersheds,
bodies meeting j Healthy Wetlands,
designated uses i or other Local
• increase acreage \ Biotic Systems
of wetlands \
• number of fish \
advisories !
Discharges prevented1 • shellfish bed I
as a result of SRF
public health goals I projects-
(Region) {
1. Number of
stream segments
showing water
quality benefits as
! a result of Clean
Water State
Revolving Fund
i investments
(State)
;
i
:
• Rehab
• New sewers
• New interceptors
closures in acres \
I
I
1
I
. rv Proposed as an \
[____/ outcome measure, but \
not an environmental \
indicator -
•WPS
• Wetlands
• Estuaries
1
:
:
1
!
Figure 10. Core Measures for SRF (1997) and Their Relation to Indicator Frameworks
Page 38
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
Step 7. Modify Proposed Measures as Necessary
Step 7 would be the result of the analysis and QA performed in the previous step.
Adherence to a specific set of criteria that is equally applied will prevent miscommunication
and lack of credibility as programs begin to implement indicators and performance
measures. There have been many several well-known examples of having to go back to the
drawing board, so to speak, with ill defined or unrealistic indicator systems. While the
indicator development process is generally considered to be an iterative process, fewer
modification will be needed down the road if adequate QA is applied at the start.
Table 4. Suggested Modifications to SRF Environmental Goals and Indicators
Original Proposed
Measures: Jan/Feb '98
Comments Suggested Modifications
Administrative, Societal Response, or EPA/State Actions
Initiate operations at a total of 4000
SRF projects by 1998 and 5000 SRF
projects by 1999.
25 states are using integrated priority
setting systems to make SRF
funding decisions by 1999.
30 states are funding nonpoint
source and estuary projects with their
SRFsby1999.
From the CWAP: By 2001 , increase
to 10 percent or about $2 million, the
number and dollar amount of loans
made through the SRF system.
Apparently not planned as a long-term
measure.
Integrated priority setting could be linked
to water programs with mandates to
address known impairments.
Indicator should be stated more
comprehensively using all categories:
ground water, estuaries, urban NFS,
agricultural NFS, and silvicultural NPS.
As stated in the CWAP, polluted runoff
would include CSOs, stormwater, and
other permitted discharges in addition to
NPS.
None
None
None
None
Pollutant Load Reductions or Pressure Reductions
# pounds of pollutants removed
from the environment through SRF-
funded projects.
Retain original measure but use only for
waters with measurable levels of
impairment.
Add 2 additional measures to address
pollution prevention and NPS projects.
NEW: # pounds of pollutants prevented
from entering the environment through SRF-
funded projects.
NEW: Reduction in biophysical stressors by
changing land use practices, resource
harvesting practices, and resource extraction
practices through SRF-funded projects.
Ambient Conditions or State of the Environment
# of river miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles improved (and
wetland acres/riparian miles
improved or created) by SRF-funded
projects.
"Created" term is not appropriate and
should be changed to "restored" for
wetlands.
Suggest a new measure where impaired
waters are identified as baseline
conditions and attainment of designated
use support is the goal.
RESTATED: Water bodies, expressed as
river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary
square miles, and wetland acres, protected,
improved, or restored as a result of SRF-
funded projects. (Measures NPS
implementation or restoration activity.)
NEW: Water bodies, expressed as river and
riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired,
now meeting designated uses, as a result of
SRF-funded projects. (Measures priority
setting.)
October 5,1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 39
-------
Step 8. Propose New Measures and Identify Enhancement Needed
for Data Sources
Step 9. Gap Analysis: What Is Needed for Which No Data or No
Data Source Exists?
Step 10. Use Measures in Annual Performance Planning
The remaining steps in the indicator selection process are supported by the analysis and
evaluation completed for the preceding steps. Figure 10 illustrates not only a method for
QA, but it also could provide the basis for proposing new measures (Step 8) and identifying
gaps (Step 9). In chapter VH, as shown in Figure 11, new measures and modifications are
proposed for the SRF program using the same format as Figure 10.
Step 8 is also supported by the results from the survey process described under Step 5.
Returning to the original data sets and developing a tabularized version of results will
facilitate the communication of the investments and enhancements needed for developing
indicators and performance measures.
Page 40 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
VI. APPLYING ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS TO THE SRF:
PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
Under the government-wide shift toward increased accountability and more efficient use
of public monies, there is renewed interest at EPA in developing high-quality measures of
environmental results. In the past, environmental indicators in the Office of Water were
developed primarily as an assessment tool for defining current environmental conditions and
communicating progress toward water quality goals. Under the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA programs are developing
"outcome" measures (essentially environmental indicators) to assess the results of their
activity. These measures are being implemented through the planning and budgeting
process.
Many programs can adopt the existing Office of Water indicators as outcome measures,
but linking these national-level "state of the environment" indicators back to the numerous
and varied programs that affect water quality conditions has yet to be accomplished.
Compared to other programs in the Office of Water, developing environmental indicators for
the SRF will be easier in some ways and more difficult in others.
Programmatic Advantages
Outcome Goals
More than any other single source of federal funds (vis-a-vis loans) available for water
resource protection, the SRF program has a clear purpose and mandate to prevent
contamination of the environment, usually through construction of wastewater treatment
facilities. This mandate provides the SRF program with clearly defined and well-understood
goals. Establishing goals is the first step in the indicator development process, and the goals
of the SRF program are clearly the outcome goals envisioned in the GPRA. Compare these,
for example, with the goals of a program such as EPA's Water Quality Standards (WQS)
program, whose intrinsic purpose is to develop the basic scientific tools for defining
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 41
-------
optimum water quality conditions. Other environmental programs and agencies then use
these tools in assessing and managing waters. The goals of the WQS program do not easily
translate to environmental results until after other programs and managers use the tools the
WQS program has developed.
Comprehensive Tracking System
Another advantage of the SRF program is the SRF information system for tracking state
activity. This system will help facilitate the development of an indicator system for the SRF
program. Detailed information is collected from each state on the amount of capitalization
funds provided, the amount of state matching grants, the types and number of projects, the
fiscal aspects of the loans, and other data. No other OW program tracks the expenditures
and fiscal aspects of state programs as closely and to this degree of detail. The information
system that supports this tracking is amenable to several statistical analyses (such as trend
analyses), which have already proven useful in establishing fiscal measures of program
performance and analyzing shifting state priorities.
The inherent design, structure, and flow of information through this system provides an
important model for developing environmental measures of program performance and will
help establish the connection between expenditure information and project type (which are
now available) and environmental data (which is yet to be developed). Initially, the SRF
program might want to see if it is feasible for states to enhance the information they provide
to the tracking system with project-specific data (e.g., locational data such as stream reaches
within watersheds, facility ID, and project goals). Ultimately, it might be possible to
establish linkages from this system to other national databases that contain environmental ..
data such as STORET, Index of Watershed Indicators, and National Wetlands Inventory.
Potential Data System
Through the Clean Water Needs Survey, the SRF program has a record of site-specific
anticipated needs for preventative actions together with detailed facility information. Until
1992, the Clean Water Needs Survey gathered information on a facility-by-facility basis,
documenting anticipated construction costs for wastewater treatment needs. In 1992,
techniques to estimate pollution control needs for small communities, for combined sewer
overflows, for stormwater controls, and for nonpoint source categories were developed for
the Needs Survey, and they continue to be enhanced.
In the past, the inherent structure of the database that supports the Needs Survey was not
designed to support the type of tracking and trend capabilities needed for program
evaluation. Modernization of the Needs Survey, which is currently under way, however,
could incorporate design enhancements to help establish an environmental indicator
Page42 TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
reporting system. To begin this process, the Needs Survey, with its rich source of facility,
locational, and population information and projected infrastructure needs, should be pilot
tested now for enhancements, as suggested in Recommendation 5 in the next chapter.
Programmatic Constraints
Programmatic constraints on the development and implementation of environmental
indicators for the SRF program can be anticipated for several reasons: the program's history
(and original purpose) is one of financing infrastructure projects, and it might have left
components of today's SRF program inherently at odds with environmental goals; the
collection of environmental data is outside the purview of SRF program management even at
the project level; and the SRF program is distinctly autonomous from other water programs.
Historically an Infrastructure Program
The SRF program's history and original purpose in providing financial assistance for
building wastewater treatment facilities orient the program away from, rather than toward, an
environmental goals and indicators system. Under EPA leadership this is slowly changing
through the implementation of the Funding Framework. States have gained greater
flexibility for using SRF funds for "non-traditional" projects. On the whole, however, the
SRF program is seen largely as one designed specifically to address infrastructure issues.
Incentive for Development
Despite integrated priority setting and SRF funding of nonpoint source pollution
projects, a significant portion of SRF-funded infrastructure projects might be in direct
opposition to the goals of the Clean Water Act. In 1996, for example, out of the $2.4 billion
SRF funds spent on all projects, $562.4 million (23 percent) was for new collector sewers
and new interceptor sewers. Unlike the other categories of wastewater treatment projects,
new sewer lines and interceptors are unequivocal signs of advancing urban and suburban
development. Urban development is considered a "stress" on the natural environment,
typically resulting in increased runoff, conversion of natural ecosystems, and changes in land
cover and land uses. (See Appendix C, Table p.3) Given the level of expenditure for these
categories of projects, together with the absence of federal constraints and the highly
variable approach to land use and growth management by state governments, it seems
unlikely that low-impact, environmentally sensitive development is a prerequisite for
obtaining SRF loans to build new sewer lines.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 43
-------
Absence of Environmental Data
Within a state, decision makers on funding SRF projects might be completely removed from
the water resource protection agencies. Existing water quality problems, especially those
resulting from nonpoint source pollution or habitat modification, are not "drivers" in the
SRF priority setting process. Although priority setting is changing as the Funding
Framework is advanced, quantifying the environmental benefits of SRF projects is not a part
of SRF program performance and evaluation. Estimating environmental benefits—as
pollution prevented, as projected improvements in water quality conditions, or as some other
measure of environmental results—is a part of prioritizing and selecting SRF projects.
However, environmental outcomes are generally not established as goals, nor is
environmental monitoring information provided to support project evaluation. Even within
the Funding Framework, environmental outcomes have not been explicitly stated as
preferable to funding goals.
A preliminary investigation into state activity on environmental indicators for SRF
programs resulted in finding very few state-level SRF personnel involved in developing
environmental indicators. One state contact mentioned, in fact, that its state SRF program
planned to obtain an exemption from developing environmental indicators. This seems
unfortunate and against the trend toward using outcome measures and environmental
indicators in environmental planning and management.
Autonomy
The SRF program is distinctly autonomous from other water programs, which, by
comparison, can be rich with environmental data and strongly linked to environmental
assessments, risk analysis, and integrated environmental management. The SRF program
within the Office of Water is a self-sufficient organization that can rely on its own
information source, the Needs Survey, to gauge investment needs and direct funding. The
SRF program operates independently of Office of Water assessment programs that have
environmental data needed to support environmental indicator reporting. Other grant-giving
programs can require documentation of known water quality impairment or human health
risks, and therefore there may be easier access to data on environmental conditions. These
other grant programs, unlike the SRF program, thus may have some type of mechanism for
obtaining data that could support the development of environmental information.
The SRF program is not part of the National Environmental Performance Partnership
System (NEPPS), which is helping to move states toward integrated environmental
management, promoting pollution prevention, and enhancing environmental results. NEPPS
work at the state level is supported by the development of environmental indicators as
Page 44 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
performance measures of environmental outcomes. If a state SRF program were to be
included in state-level NEPPS work (and some states have been), the program would benefit
from integration into other water quality protection programs and gain access to
environmental data; in addition, implementation of environmental indicators would be
facilitated.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 45
-------
Page 46 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
VII. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a series of five recommendations for further environmental
indicator development. The recommendations are based on an analysis of existing national
indicators and potential sources of data, an examination of some of the indicator work the
EPA regional offices and several states have undertaken; and a look at the SRF program's
initial work on indicator development and recent program directions.
To begin the process of developing a suitable set of indicators, five environmental
indicators are recommended initially. Figure 11 illustrates conceptually how these indicators
fit into existing indicator frameworks and how they apply to different categories of SRF-
funded projects. Three administrative measures, which appear on the figure under the
Societal Response category, have been proposed by the SRF program. Although these are
important measures for program activity, this chapter examines only the environmental
indicators in keeping with the scope of this report.
Recommendation 1: Develop indicators at more than one level on the
hierarchy
Several existing OW indicators and IWI indicators have a high potential for use by the
SRF program as environmental outcome measures. To establish linkages from program
output measures to environmental outcome measures, at least two types of indicators should
be developed in tandem: (1) load reduction or stressor reduction indicators and (2) ambient
water quality indicators. Taking this approach will more effectively demonstrate the
linkages between program actions or project activities and environmental results.
Ambient condition indicators alone will not suffice because of the significant lag time
(especially for NFS) to see water quality benefits once controls are in place or reduced loads
have been achieved. This is especially problematic for nonpoint source projects. Load
reduction and other remedial activities that might be funded under SRF to reduce NFS
impacts are known to take years to improve in-stream conditions.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 47
-------
P-S-R Model
Hierarchy
of Indicators
Societal Response (R)
1. EPA/State
Actions
2. Actions by
Regulated
Community
Pressure (P)
3. Discharges/
Stressors
State of the Environment (S)
4. Ambient I £• BodV I 6- Ecological
Conditions 1 Burden/ 1 & Human
1 Uptake | Health
Administrative Indicators
Environmental Indicators
SRF
Categories
POINT SOURCES
• 2° treatment (1)
•AWT (II)
' I/I (III A)
• CSOs (V)
• Stormwater (VI)
POLLUTION PREVENTION
• Replace/Rehab (I/IB)
• New sewers (IVA)
• New interceptors (IVB)
• NPS (VII)
NONPOINT SOURCES (VII)
A-Agriculture Cropland
B-Agriculture Animals
C-SiMcutture
D-Urban
E-Ground Water
F-Estuaries
G-Wetlands
4/20/98 Tt
By 1999, 25 states are
using integrated
priority setting systems
to make SRF funding
decisions.
By 1999, 30 states are
funding nonpoint
source and estuary
projects with their
SRFs.
By 2001, increase to
10% or about $2M, the
number and dollar
amount of loans made
through SRF to prevent
polluted runoff.
Indicator 1
# pounds of
pollutants removed
from the
environment
through SRF-funded
projects.
# poun
pollutants
prevented
entering t
environm
through S
funded pr
Indicator 3
dsof
from
lie
ent
RF-
ojects.*
«
Indicator 4
>
IPH^
Reduction in
biophysical stressors
by changing land use
practices, and
resource harvesting
and extraction
practices through
SRF-funded
projects. *
Hi
|8>
•Us
and
Waterbodies, expressed as river and
riparian miles, lake acres, estuary
square miles, and wetland acres,
previously impaired now meeting
designated uses , as a result of SRF-
funded projects, [measures priority
setting]
indicator
Water!
andri)
estuar
wetlan
improvi
of SRF
[measu
activity
: I
.,,.,'
todies, expressed as river
tarian miles, lake acres,
' square miles, and
d acres, protected,
td, or restored as a result
-funded projects.
res NPS implementation
']
* predictive model
NPS implementation.
Figure 11. SRF Indicator Recommendations with Indicator Frameworks
Additionally, because there are usually multiple causes of water quality impairment,
projects that aim to reduce loads or stressors should earn credit toward achieving
environmental results through an indicator that does not go as far as levels 4 to 6 in the
hierarchy. It will also be important to gauge project results and program success in the
pollution prevention arena where measured improvements in water quality conditions will
not even exist.
Recommendation 2: Develop indicators specific to project type
Not only will more than one level of indicator (in the hierarchy of indicators) be needed,
but different types of specific measures will also be required for the different categories of
SRF-funded projects. For example, projects for point source control improvements will
require indicators different from those for NPS and wetland projects. On Figures A and B,
SRF projects are arranged into three categories—point sources, pollution prevention, and
nonpoint sources—each requiring a different indicator for measuring environmental results.
Page 48
Tetra Tech, Inc.
October 5,1998 Draft
-------
These categories may overlap and will need to be more specifically defined within the
context of the SRF funding and SRF program's overall environmental objectives.
Recommendation 3: Develop indicators within a framework
Serious environmental indicator development within EPA, in the regions, and in the
states has been under way for several years. Environmental indicators developed within the
context of program planning and management are almost always organized according to an
established framework whereby environmental data and indicators are categorized to
facilitate communication, management, and decision making. Early efforts to develop
indicator systems without developing a suitable framework that connects program objectives
to environmental data have resulted in an "apples and oranges" system that is not
sustainable. (Oregon Progress Board, 1997)
Frameworks, discussed in Chapter HI, are useful for program managers to demonstrate
the purposes of indicators and show the relationship of indicators across all water programs.
A framework allows for differentiating between the types of data, i.e., sorting out the "apples
and oranges." By serving an important communication and integrative function, a
framework is essential for development and implementation of a credible indicator system
and can help identify at regional and state levels how other program activity and indicator
development relates to SRF indicators.
Recommendation 4:
Further investigate the development of five proposed
indicators
Initially, five indicators
are recommended for further
consideration by the SRF
program— three load
reduction indicators that
correspond to different
categories of SRF projects
and two ambient condition
indicators that correspond to
programmatic objectives for
the SRF program. The
discussion on each indicator
covers data source issues.
Load or Stressor Reduction Indicators
1. Pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through
SRF-funded projects.
2. Pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment
through SRF-funded projects.
3. Reduction in biophysical stressors by changing land use
practices, resource harvesting practices, and resource
extraction practices through SRF-funded projects.
Ambient Condition Indicators
4. Water bodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired,
now meeting designated uses, as a result of SRF-funded
projects
5. Water bodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved,
or restored as a result of SRF-funded projects.
Octobers, 1998 Draft
Tetra Tech, Inc.
page 49
-------
Pollutant Loading Indicators
Water quality impairment is not a required prerequisite for funding an SRF project. In
1996, out of the $2.4 billion SRF funds spent on all projects, $562.4 million (23 percent)
was for new collector sewers and new interceptor sewers. This percentage has increased
significantly over the years. For these types of projects, one could assume that there is no
existing water quality impairment. One could also assume that in upgrading facilities or
improving existing facility infrastructure, in-stream conditions have not yet been impaired.
In these cases, pollution is prevented rather than "cleaned up," and an indicator that
measures the improvement of ambient conditions would capture only a portion of the
environmental benefit of the SRF program. For a program specifically designed to support
state needs to maintain or upgrade its wastewater treatment capabilities, developing pollutant
loading indicators remains as important as developing other stressor reduction indicators and
ambient condition indicators.
Indicator 1. Pounds of pollutants
removed from the environment through
SRF-funded projects.
Indicator 1 has essentially already
been developed for existing OW
indicator reporting and is currently
proposed as a measure for the SRF
program. This indicator would be
suitable for projects where loading levels are quantified and are expected to decrease as a
result of the SRF-funded project.
For reporting the national indicator, the current data source is the Permit Compliance
System (PCS). PCS is undergoing enhancement of its load-estimating capabilities, which
will significantly improve national trends estimates, but its limitations in reporting site-
specific loading trends might still be problematic. Discharge monitoring reports for site-
specific information might be more suitable for an indicator aggregated at the state level
only. At both the state and national level, it would be useful to investigate the feasibility of
deriving a load reduction indicator from the PCS database on point source discharges
affected by SRF funding.
EPA's Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) is designed to assess construction costs for
needed water pollution control facilities across the nation and could possibly be developed
as a potential source of data to support loading indicators. For indicators 2 and 3,
modernization of CWNS may provide an opportunity to enhance an existing data set to
provide information relevant to reporting of environmental indicators. Recommendation 5
outlines a proposed approach to investigate CWNS as a means to collect data to report
environmental indicators.
Page 5p Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
Indicator 2 is proposed as a
prevention measure. It would be
Indicator 2. Pounds of pollutants
., ,, f . . ., . . t prevented from entering the environment
suitable for projects that aim to •". . ___ . . . 3. .
, , .... through SRF-funded projects.
reduce loading to a treatment facility,
to upgrade plants to handle increased
population or a changeover from septic systems to sewer users, and to prevent nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Many local communities use SRF loans to repair or improve their wastewater collection
system. Over $4.1 billion of SRF funds have supported projects related to wastewater
collection. This represents 25 percent of all SRF assistance from 1988 through 1996.
Indicator 1, which is based solely on loading reductions, would not be applicable directly to
projects funded under categories niB (Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers), IV A (New
Collector Sewers), and FVB (New Interceptor Sewers). These SRF project funding
categories provide resources to expand existing wastewater collection infrastructure or to
add wastewater collection means to serve new service areas. Obviously, if loading reduction
alone is used to measure the environmental performance of SRF-funded projects, projects
funded under these categories will result in increased loading.
Additionally, many of the projects funded under these categories are necessary to resolve
failing septic system problems. New collector and interceptor sewers can help reduce
areawide pollutant loading from on-site wastewater disposal. A different approach is
required to evaluate these projects and to avoid penalizing communities that are using SRF
funds to improve their wastewater collection infrastructure. Each funded project could be
evaluated to determine the environmental improvement attributable to improved wastewater
collection. Every area has a carrying capacity that can support on-site wastewater disposal.
Once on-site disposal density exceeds the carrying capacity, environmental degradation
occurs, including stream impacts, eutrophication, and groundwater contamination.
Wastewater collection systems funded under the SRF program could be evaluated for their
improvement of nonpoint source pollution from septic systems.
Indicator 2 could not be derived, as Indicator 1 might be, from actual load reductions
reported by states; nor could Indicator 2 be estimated using PCS. Load reduction projections
would most likely be estimated through established engineering practices using modeling
tools. Use of the CWNS would be an important mechanism to investigate for collecting data
to support this measure. (See Recommendation 5.)
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 51
-------
Indicator 3 is stated in relatively
general terms and is proposed for the
category of SRF-funded projects that
cannot be measured by load reduction
Indicator 3. Reduction in biophysical
stressors by changing land use
practices, resource harvesting practices,
,, , _,, and resource extraction practices
or projected load prevents. The term through SRF.funded projectSi
biophysical stressors is described with
examples in EPA's document, A ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
Conceptual Framework to Support Development and Use of Environmental Information in
Decision-Making (USEPA, 1995b) as a direct pressure and theoretically would include
pollutant releases (see Appendix C). For the purposes of measuring stressor reductions as
they relate to the different categories of SRF projects, it is useful to distinguish point source
load-reduction projects from nonpoint source control projects, stream restoration, wetland
mitigation, changes in agricultural practices, and the like.
Conceptually, this is the least developed indicator within EPA's overall water program,
although indicators are actively under development in EPA's NPS program. States in
particular might have developed NPS measures that can be applied to SRF indicator
development. This indicator will need to be defined specifically according to type of project,
and a methodology would need to be developed to permit aggregation of the data across
project type. Because of the inherent variability of NPS management techniques and lack of
federal authorities to control most nonpoint sources, it will take a significant amount of time
for Indicator 3 to be developed as a measure of program performance.
Indicator 3 overlaps with Indicator 2, and many projects funded by the NPS program
may be measured with Indicator 2 if reliable projections of pollutant load reductions can be .
estimated with accepted techniques (e.g., modeling).
Ambient Condition Indicators
In-stream ambient conditions generally are a result of multiple stressors. Rarely is one
source of pollution the only cause for impairment. Point sources and nonpoint sources
together have cumulative effects on a stream segment (or lake area) both spatially and
temporally. Although the SRF program today is not using tools to evaluate the relative
contribution of different pollution sources, this capability does exist within EPA, especially
in its Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. It is extremely costly (monitoring- and
modeling-intensive) to perform a TMDL and section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires this analysis only if a stream, river, or lake is not meeting water quality standards
after all regulatory required point source controls are in place. Measuring the "before"
conditions to establish the baseline for the ambient condition indicators would require
deriving the component of impairment due to the point or nonpoint source to be "fixed" by
Page 52 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
the SRF project and conducting an after-the-fact analysis (via monitoring) to demonstrate
improved conditions. Both components are resource-intensive.
Despite these requirements, the SRF program should investigate the feasibility of
developing ambient water quality indicators in tandem with load reduction indicators as
proposed in Recommendation 1. EPA water programs have invested significant funds in
developing new tools to manipulate and map data and information, to screen out poor-
quality data in databases, to model water quality benefits, to quantify the effectiveness of
best management practices for nonpoint source controls, and to incorporate land use
planning into water resource protection.
Indicators 4 and 5, the proposed ambient condition measures, are not intended to track
directly with the load/stressor reduction Indicators 1 to 3, as suggested in Figure 11. The
relationship between the two levels of indicators is in reality more complex. When using the
hierarchy of indicators, there would be fewer measures higher on the scale and more
measures at the lower end. Indicators at the highest level link directly to the environmental
objectives that are shared by numerous programs. Indicators at lower levels measure the
many activities aimed at reducing pollutant loadings or other stressors.
These two ambient condition indicators may be overlapping in some respects as were the
proposed loading indicators. Indicators 4 and 5 are differentiated in terms of two factors:
(1) how quantifiable the measure is and (2) how the measure links back to the environmental
objectives of the SRF program.
Indicator 4 proposes to measure water
quality conditions for a distinct subset of
t , ,. , . t. river and riparian miles, lake acres,
water bodies where impairment is r
Indicator 4. Water bodies, expressed as
estuary square miles, and wetland acres,
previously impaired, now meeting
designated uses, as a result of SRF-
funded projects.
quantified and reported as not meeting
water quality standards and designated
uses. These impaired water bodies are
not necessarily high on the list of
priority projects for state agencies to fund with SRF dollars. Implementation of integrated
priority-setting systems and education and awareness of funding nontraditional SRF projects
should help address this issue. Indicator 4 could be further developed as one of the program
measures that gauges the states' implementation of integrated priority setting. The degree to
which EPA would want to see more state SRF funds go into restoring impaired waters would
determine how useful this indicator would be for the SRF program.
This indicator could be developed at multiple levels. Through existing authorities for
states to report under CWA sections 305(b), 303(d) and 319, and through the recent request
for integrated watershed assessments under the Clean Water Action Plan. EPA will be
Octobers, 1998 Draft TetraTech, Inc. page 53
-------
developing an up-to-date comprehensive list of impaired waters. Ideally, the proposed
Indicator 4 could measure progress against this nationally established "baseline" of impaired
waters. At the state and project levels, the indicator could be developed using state- or
locally generated information on water quality conditions without necessarily aggregating it
together with other states' results. Often, high-quality water data exist at the state or local
level and might be more useful in demonstrating results.
Indicator 5 is proposed as a more . .. _ ...
, . . ,. Indicator 5. Water bodies, expressed as
comprehensive measure of ambient rjver and f mj|es |gke £
water quality conditions than Indicator
estuary square miles, and wetland acres,
protected, improved, or restored, as a
result of SRF-funded projects.
4. This indicator, as proposed, initially
would be less precise by not having an
established baseline of impairment
against which to measure progress
(unless the SRF project quantifies the level of impairment prior to the start of the project).
Indicator 5 would include all types of water bodies, as would Indicator 4. The terms
protected, improved, and restored would need to be specifically defined, giving
consideration to the types of projects funded. As for Indicator 3, a methodology would need
to be developed to permit aggregation of the data across project type.
Because the environmental results to be measured by this indicator are relatively broadly
defined as protected, improved, and restored, there is no single federal data set that would
conveniently provide a mechanism for measuring changing conditions. It might be possible
to derive data from EPA's 305(b) reports, STORET, and other data systems to support this
indicator, but this would be achieved only with significant investment and stakeholder
involvement. For future implementation of this indicator, the CWNS is an especially
important data collection mechanism that should be investigated (see Recommendation 5).
Despite the inherent problems that would need to be addressed in developing this
indicator, conceptually this is the type of indicator that is worth serious consideration for
development for a number of reasons: Indicator 5 would (1) measure one of the key
environmental objectives of all water protection programs; (2) help measure state progress in
using more SRF funds for NFS, wetland, and estuary projects; (3) help establish stronger
linkages with other federal water programs with similar indicators and objectives; and
(4) encourage the development of data sets that document before and after conditions.
[A note on the use of the term protected: Many federal, state, and local governments
have programs explicitly aimed at protecting high-quality waters, critical habitats, drinking
water sources, and other valuable water resources. Factoring these protection activities into
an indicator acknowledges the importance of these programs in preventing degradation and
builds support from those stakeholders.]
Page 54 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
Recommendation 5: Investigate Enhancing the Clean Water Needs Survey to
Support Reporting of Environmental Indicators
Ensuring the availability and accessibility of data to support reporting of national-level
indicators without creating a new reporting burden for states and localities is the single most
important consideration in implementing environmental indicators. To develop indicators
for EPA's water program, EPA's major water data systems—PCS, SDWIS, the fish
consumption advisory database, 305(b), and STORET—are undergoing enhancements to
make them capable of supporting environmental indicator reporting. These enhancements
were outlined in detailed action plans that specified the annual workload, costs, and activity
required to modify a data system to establish baseline conditions for the indicator and set up
a permanent reporting process.
CWNS would be the most suitable data collection mechanism to undergo enhancements
to support indicator reporting for the SRF program. The CWNS is conducted to assess
construction costs for water pollution control needs across the nation. The CWNS results
are used to develop an allocation allotment formula for distributing SRF capitalization grants
to the states, based on their reported needs.
The CWNS already contains information on pollutant loads, types of SRF projects, load
reduction projections by facility, identification of impaired water bodies, and facility
location, including receiving river reaches. By building on the existing individual data
sheets on proposed projects, the additional costs to collect and track information to support
environmental indicator reporting might be minimal.
Future projects to evaluate the linkage between SRF-eligible projects identified in the
CWNS should be targeted to coordinate with the modernization of the CWNS. The
modernized system will replace what is currently referred to as the Retrieval, Update, and
Query System (RUQuS) and the CWNS database that has been supported by EPA's Office
of Wastewater Management for more than 10 years. A possible future objective of this
effort could be to ascertain from the EPA Systems Development Center whether the 1996
CWNS costs and computations will be carried forward so that current SRF needs and cost
calculation techniques can be implemented in the modernized system. The next CWNS
should collect, generate, or model information necessary to support selected SRF
environmental indicators. States could potentially be required to supply the data for each
project to help identify loads reduced, pollution prevented, and ultimately water quality
improvements.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 55
-------
Page56 TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
VIII. NEXT STEPS TOWARD DEVELOPING A
ROAD MAP
Because of the variety of SRF projects and the high degree of autonomy state loan
programs have, national-level indicator development for the SRF program will not be a
simple task involving only one or two broad indicators. Several indicators are recommended
in this report for further consideration by the SRF program. They include both loading
indicators and ambient condition indicators.
To continue the indicator development process and move toward implementation,
several important actions are recommended below. Although a complete action plan for
indicator development should be carefully planned out by a task group assigned this
responsibility, analysis to support indicator development and several activities could proceed
immediately.
1. Establish a workgroup with significant state and regional participation to continue the
development and implementation of indicators. State and regional officials who have
worked on NEPPS and management agreements with the Office of Water should
participate, as well as SRF staff. This group should propose and oversee the feasibility
analysis of indicators and perform the pilot testing.
2. Educate senior management and stakeholders on current indicator frameworks and
indicator capabilities in EPA headquarters, the regions, and the states. Examine the
different types of indicator frameworks and adopt one that best suits the needs of the
SRF program.
3. Adopt a process to shape the development of indicators in a step-wise manner, similar to
the one proposed in Chapter V. This should include clearly articulating the intent of the
SRF program to shift project funding toward NPS, estuary, and wetland issues.
Traditional SRF projects will require a set of environmental indicators different from
that required for NPS and wetland projects.
4. Establish a "data owners" group similar to that used by the Office of Water Indicators
Workgroup, the National Goals Project, and the IWI. This approach will ensure data
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 57
-------
issues are discussed at the same time indicators are being developed. It will also provide
a "reality check" necessary for implementation and will elevate the importance of
incorporating indicator reporting capabilities into ongoing data system enhancement
work.
5. Participate in IWI. The geographic aspect of OW indicators in IWI and the participation
of OW-wide "data owners" will be important for developing SRF indicators. Phase n
(and HI) of IWI will include the development of additional measures or data layers,
which SRF program managers should help determine.
6. Obtain information from OPAA on whether that office is developing guidance related to
performance measures and indicator development as part of GPRA implementation.
OPAA may be interested in funding pilots or analysis as it develops its performance
measure evaluation capabilities.
Page 58 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
IX. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Adriaanse, Albert. 1993. Policy Performance Indicators. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of
Housing, Physical Planning, and Environment.
Bondelid, Tim, et al. 1997. Progress in Water Quality: A National Evaluation of Wastewater
Infrastructure Investment, Water Quality and Economic Benefits of the Clean Water Act.
Presentation at WEFTEC '97 70th Annual Conference and Exposition of the Water Environment
Federation, October 20-24, 1997, Chicago, IL,
Bondelid, Tim, P. Iliev, and M. McCarthy. 1997. RIMDESS: RTI's River Management Decision
Support System. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Center for Environmental
Analysis, Center for International Development.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1996. Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our Progress.
Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Claytor, Richard A., and W.E. Brown. 1996. Environmental Indicators to Assess Stormwater
Control Programs and Practices Final Report. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Watershed
Protection.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 1996. 7997 Colorado Environmental
Performance Partnership Agreement. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
Copeland, Claudia. Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations. Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.
Costanza, R., S. Funtowicz, and J.R. Ravetz. 1992. Assessing and Communicating Data Quality in
Policy-Relevant Research. Environmental Management 16(1):121-131.
Florida Center for Public Management and USEPA. 1995. Prospective Indicators for State Use in
Performance Agreements. The State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, Florida State
University and USEPA.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 59
-------
GAO. 1988. Report to Congress: Environmental Protection Agency Protecting Human Health and
the Environment Through Improved Management. GAO/RCED-88-101. Washington, DC: U.S.
General Accounting Office.
GAO. 1997. Report to Congressional Requesters: Managing for Results: EPA's Efforts to
Implement Needed Management Systems and Processes. GAO/RCED-97-156. Washington, DC:
U.S. General Accounting Office.
GAO. 1997. Report to Congressional Committees: Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in
Measuring Performance. GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office.
GMI. 1997a. GMI: State Environmental Indicator Activity, December, 1997. Montpelier, VT:
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, [http://www.gmied.org]
GMI. 1997b. GMI: Summaries of State Environmental Indicator Initiatives with Completed
Reports, June 1997. Montpelier, VT: Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy.
GMI. 1997c. GMI: The Resource Guide to Indicators, First Edition, July 1997. Montpelier, VT:
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, [http://www.gmied.org]
GMI. 1997d. Synergy: The Newsletter for Positive Change in Environmental Management. Vol. 2,
No.l. Montpelier, VT: Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy.
Harcum, Jon, A. Stoddard, J.R. Pagenkopf, R.K. Bastian, and V. Kibler. 1997. What Did the 1972
CWA Do for You? National and Watershed-based Environmental Effectiveness of Secondary
Treatment. Presentation at WEFTEC '97 70th Annual Conference and Exposition of the Water
Environment Federation, October 20-24, 1997, Chicago, DL.
Harcum, Jon, A. Stoddard, J. Keating, R. Bastian, V. Kibler, T. Bondelid, E. Peters, J.R. Pagenkopf,
and D. Zacherle. 1998. Environmental Indicators for Evaluating Progress: Using Historical Data for
Comparisons or Baselines? Examples from Analysis of the National Sediment Inventory and
STORET Data Bases. In Monitoring: Critical Foundations to Protect Our Waters, Proceedings of
National Monitoring Conference on July 7-9, 1998, Reno, NV.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). 1995. The Strategy for
Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the United States. Final Report. (Technical Appendixes).
USGS (703-648-5023).
IJC. 1995. Draft White Paper Indicators to Evaluate Agreement Progress. International Joint
Commission, Indicators for Evaluation Task Force.
IJC. 1996. Indicators to Evaluate Agreement Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. International Joint Commission, Indicators for Evaluation Task Force.
Page 60 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
Laufer, Susan, and J.S. Stribling. 1998. Environmental Indicators: Characterizing and
Communicating Complex Technical Results to Decision Makers in Management and Policy.
Presentation at Conference on Environmental Decision Making, National Center for Environmental
Decision-Making Research, Knoxville, TN.
NJDEP. 1996. New Jersey Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement - 1996. Trenton,
NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region 2.
NJDEP. 1996. Management for Environmental Results in New Jersey: A Report on the April 30,
1996 Workshop on the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS).
Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and
Research.
Oregon Progress Board. 1994. Oregon Benchmarks, Report to the 1995 Legislature.
Oregon Progress Board. 1997. Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon's Strategic Plan, A Report to the
People of Oregon.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1993. OECD Core Set of Indicators for
Environmental Performance Reviews: A synthesis report by the Group on the State of the
Environment. Environmental Monographs No. 83. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
USEPA. 1989. Is the Environment Getting Cleaner? Indicators for Measuring Environmental
Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Administration and Resources Management.
USEPA. 1993. 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress. EPA 832-R-93-002. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1994a. The Benefits of Investment in Environmental Infrastructure. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1994b. Process for Selecting Indicators and Data and Filling Information Gaps Final
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation.
USEPA. 1995a. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America's Environmental
Infrastructure—A Report of Progress. EPA 832-R-95-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Municipal Support Division.
USEPA. 1995b. A Conceptual Framework To Support Development and Use of Environmental
Information In Decision-Making. EPA 239-R-95-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
October 5,1998 Draft Tetra Tech, Inc. page 61
-------
USEPA. 1995c. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress. EPA-841-R-95-005.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1995d. Inventory of Environmental Indicators Prepared for the Annual Spring Planning
Meeting, April 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation.
USEPA. 1996a. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States. EPA 841-R-96-
002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1996b. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Fact Sheets. EPA
841-R-96-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1996c. Environmental Results Based Management in the Mid-Atlantic Region. EPA-903-
R-96-011. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3.
USEPA. 1996d. Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS) Grant Program Assessment
Study. EPA 742-R96-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Protection and Toxics.
USEPA. 1997a. EPA Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
USEPA. 1997b. The Index of Watershed Indicators. EPA-841-R-97-010. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1997c. Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Council of the States.
USEPA. 1998a. EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium, FY1998. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1998b. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the Environmental and Economic
Benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act, May 1998 Draft Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management.
WRI. 1995. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on
Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources
Institute.
Page 62 Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Region III: Environmental Results Based Management in the Mid Atlantic Region,
Excerpts
Appendix B
Status of State Indicator Activity - Dec 97, GMIED
Appendix C
Environmental Statistics and Information Division on the P-S-R Framework,
Excerpts
Appendix D-1
EPA and OW Strategic Goals & Indicator Development: Briefing Package - Feb 94
Appendix D-2
OW Indicator List of 33 - August 1994
Appendix D-3
OW Indicator Development Questionnaire
Appendix E
GPRA OW Objectives and Subobjectives
Appendix F
OW and IWi Cross Reference Matrix of Indicators Currently in Use
Appendix G
Excerpts from EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium May 98 Draft
Appendix H
The Strategy for improving Water Quality Monitoring in the United States, 1995,
Excerpts from the Technical Appendices:
• Indicator Selection Criteria
• Indicators for Meeting Management Objectives
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix A
Region III: Environmental Results Based Management in the
Mid Atlantic Region, Excerpts
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix A-1
Using Environmental Data
to Make Decisions
An important part of ERBM is
understanding the different types
of data and the relationship
between them. Figure 1, "EPA's
Continuum of Measures," is a
schematic representation that EPA
has developed to define the types
of information we have available to
us and the relationships between
them. The Continuum classifies six
levels of data that EPA collects
about environmental protection
activities and their impacts.
The foundation or base level is
resource and support. This
includes staff, contract and grant
dollars, legislation, public
opinion, staff morale, and all of
the other tangible and intangible
resources that help EPA accom-
plish its mission. The base level is
not considered to be part of the
continuum.
• The first k'rd or type of
information includes activities by EPA
and statellocal environmental agencies.
This is in the form of permits issued,
inspections undertaken, enforcement
actions initiated, etc. It is the most
readily available data.
• The second level includes-actions
taken by sources of pollution. This
consists primarily of reports from
major permitees which are industrial
facilities that have emissions to the air
and/or water.
• The third level includes measures
of emissions by sources. There are
several types of information here. One
is the measure of air and/or water
pollutants by permitted industrial
facilities. A second is the estimate of
hazardous material released based on
industn/ reports to the Toxic Release
Inventory (TR1). The third major type .
of information is estimates of
significant pollutant loadings that do
not come from specific facilities. For
example, run-off from agriculture,
vehicular emissions, and annual
estimates of soot from forest fires are
significant factors.
• The fourth level includes measures
of ambient pollutant loadings. EPA has
a sound data base for major air and
water pollutants that goes back more
than twenty i/ears in some cases.
However, the scope of data is limited to
a relatively small number of major
pollutants.
• The fifth level includes uptake of
pollutants by organisms and
ecosystems. Information here is
frequently limited to laboratory
analysis. Field tested data is difficult
to deiwlop.
• The sixth level consists of actual
environmental or human health
impacts or conditions. Most of our
analysis is based on laboratory analyses
and case-studies used to set standards.
Collecting actual data for many
impacts is very expensive and time-
consuming.
The point of the Environmental
Results-Based Management
approach is to use the best and
most appropriate data available to
make sound decisions. This data is
drawn from all levels on the con-
tinuum. All of EPA's programs also
strive to improve the quantity and
quality of the data at each level
on the continuum, so that future
decisions will be based on better
data.
Region HI uses a model based on
"input," "output," and "outcome"
to classify and analyze data.
"Inputs" are the types of actions
that EPA can influence. "Outputs"
are the direct results of the inputs,
and "outcomes" are the ultimate
changes that occur as a result of the
outputs.
For example, "EPA/State Activi-
ties" are inputs to the pollution
control process. "Actions by
sources" and "emissions/discharge
quantities" are outputs (the direct
result of the inputs). "Ambient
Levels," "Uptake /Body Burden,"
and "Health/Ecological Effects" are
outcomes in this example.
Usually the data gaps occur at
Levels 4 (measures of ambient
pollutant loadings), 5 (uptake of
pollutants by organisms and
ecosystems), and 6 (actual environ-
mental or human health impacts or
conditions). The emphasis on
developing data at these levels is an
important long-term goal.
However, as the case studies that
are discussed in this report demon-
strate, data at all levels of the
continuum are valuable and useful.
Another common data gap is the
availability of data at the local level.
Many environmental standards are
set by using exhaustive studies of
particular problems in particular
localities. When Region HI and its
states work to evaluate the success
ERBM in Region III 2
-------
Appendix A-
of their control efforts, they need to
monitor local conditions and gather
local data. Recent attempts by
Region III to go beyond long-
established national data sets has
shown that it is difficult and
expensive to generate new data.
This further illustrates the impor-
tance of making optimum use of
existing data using the ERBM
approach.
The activities included in this
report are presented as a series of
case studies, beginning with the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Case
studies provide one of the best
ways to explain how and what was
done to respond to real problems.
Other case studies address acid
pollution activities, ozone pollution
efforts, program-specific efforts,
and the ways in which we gather
and manage information.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has
modified the continuum to better
express its objectives. The case
study from the Bay Program
includes its environmental indica-
tors based on the customized
version of the general continuum
presented here.
Later, in the section on "Environ-
mental Indicators Development,"
we present an adaptation of the
continuum which we call the Logic
Model. The Logic Model is a
planning tool that allows us to start
with a desired environmental result
and work to identify the programs
and activities that we should
undertake to achieve the desired
result.
Each case study describes how the
use of data guides decision-making.
It describes how data help us to set
priorities. This report documents
situations where Region III has
successfully used environmental
data to set priorities, how we have
used environmental indicators to
measure progress toward
established environmental goals,
and how we base the management
of our programs on these goals.
^^TERMINOLOGY
•,-^*JP^:-Vi\f? *••< -P*'•"*' - • - , .. --.. -" 1
'"Amtient Condition- me actual conditioner* <
the environmental fa'ctor or resource (as j
^1iuiieatar>aielaiJvBVsjmpfen^
«robseryaticnthat is used to represent me state
_ -.-..:. ...-i--- • : •• •r- —"-.
^Loading-addition of material toaparticulaf
system' or jportknv of a system (e.gv vehicle
exhausts contribute to air loadings; wastewa-"
ter discharges contribute to surface water load-
ings), "'' '" ; ' ~ '"
Non-Point Source Pollution - contaminants
thatcannotbetracedbacktoasmgledischarge
(&g.,stonnwaterruno£ffromurbanoragncul-
. ~ . - • .
Outcome -an observed or predicted state of
"' '
7 Point Source : Pollution —contaminants but
can be traced back to a single discharge (e^v
process water from an industrial piantrtreated
Acceptor - a fiving component of an ecosyfr
tern that responds to inputs and/or sbesses^
(e.g., the fish community of a Jrfver, or the"
human population of an urban area)... -:-•',>. ••-
,•--.!• ^3^^^.^*^3&K***'**r
StRMor - a factor mat directly ccundirectly,
affects thelivmg components of an ecosystem.
(e.g., elevateid mitrients'in «urfioev waters,^
elevated ground-level ozone in ttie air). - - •
BASE LEVEL Inputs
FIGURE!
EPA's Continuum of Measures
Outputs
Outcomes
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
CONTRACT/STAFF
MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT
CULTURAL VALUES
SUPPORTIVE OF
EPA'S MISSION
Administrative
Scientific
-------
Appendix A-3
Environmental Indicators
Development
Region Ill's Senior Leadership
Team decided in 1992 and 1993 to
focus on improving the quality of
environmental data and developing
Environmental Indicators,
especially at levels 5 and 6 on the
continuum of measures. A key part
of the decision was a study which
attempted to collect data and
develop environmental indicators
to change the way management set
priorities.
The presentation of the study
results also led to the decision to
focus on reducing Acid Pollution
and Ozone Pollution and on
restoring the Chesapeake Bay as the
important Region III environmental
efforts. Based on the study, Region
III decided to institutionalize and
continue the process of using data
to make decisions and establish
priorities for the Region.
Ultimately, we hope to have a full
set of Environmental Indicators
available for each of the Region's
environmental objectives.
The overall objective of the effort
to develop environmental
indicators is to collect and use
scientifically
defen-
sible data
and
information to
assist in setting
Regional
priorities, by
identifying and
characterizing the
range of environ-
mental and
human health risk
threats in Region III, and to aid in
environmental results-based
decision-making throughout the
Region by federal, state and local
agencies.
Regional staff from all programs
are working together to develop
better data and indicators for Acid
Mine Drainage; Acid Deposition
and Ozone Pollution; and
Sustainable Development.
Data from all programs is also
being gathered to create a "State of
the Environment in the
Mid-Atlantic Region" Report,
which will be made available to
EPA staff and to the general public.
The report will be published in
hard-copy in the future (probably
in 1997). As each section is
completed, it will be installed on
the World-Wide Web. This process
should be underway by the end of
1996.
Region III staff is also working
with staff from EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
A team representing both organiza-
tions is working to enhance the
science, technology, and informa-
tion management capabilities and
experience of Region III, ORD, as
well as other federal agencies,
state/local governments, and
regional academicians.
The Region's staff is working with
internal and external customers,
partners and stakeholders to:
• define realistic environmental
goals and related environmental
assessment questions;
• characterize ecological resource*
conditions for the geographic area (e.g.,
ecoregions, watersheds) based upon
exposure and effect information;
• identify possible association with
stressors including landscape
attributes that may explain impaired
conditions for both specific resources
mid the overall ecosystem;
• manage for the long term,
providing the set of multiple uses of
ecological resources tliat societi/ now
desires without undermining the
si/stem's capacity to provide these and
other uses in the future;
• target geographic areas and critical
resources for protection, restoration, or
other management action;
• measure environmental progress;
• improve the quality of
environmental science; and
• promote the use of "good science"
in environmental decision making for
greater environmental results.
Some of the programs for which
we have specific plans for
cooperative efforts include the
Environmental Monitoring and
ERBMm Region III 24
-------
Appendix A-4
Assessment Program (EMAP), the
mid-Atlantic Highlands Assess-
ment (MAHA), the National
Biological Survey's Gap Analysis
Program, the Chesapeake Bay
Program, the Delaware Estuary
program, the Maryland and
Delaware Coastal Bays Program,
the Virginia Coastal Bay Program,
the Forest Service Forests
Integrated Assessment, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Coastal
Change Analysis Program.
The information developed is
being applied to regional needs,
such as the Environmental Partner-
ship Agreements, State of the State
reports, programmatic strategic
planning, and sustainable develop-
ment planning.
In applying the data assessment
process, an orderly sequence is
followed:
1) EPA personnel develop "first
cut" assessment questions based on
their organizations' perspective;
2) an Assessment Team is formed
of scientists and managers from
various EPA organizations, other
federal (NOAA, U.S. Geologic
Survey, Forest Service, etc.) and/or
state organizations;
3) an Assessment Workshop is
held where EPA personnel present
the first cut questions for discus-
sion. Team members from other
federal organizations and states
discuss their research and monitor-
ing programs and present the
assessment equations which their
organization have been addressing.
Questions are compiled and edited
using a consensus approach.
4) revised Assessment Questions
are sent to all Assessment Team
members for review and comment;
and
5) final Assessment Questions are
agreed upon.
Assessment workshops have been
held for Estuaries and Coastal
Waters, Surface Waters (Streams),
and Land use/Landscape. Each of
these workshops followed the
process identified above. Assess-
ment questions have been
developed for each resource.
Assessment Workshops are also
planned for Agriculture, Air,
Forests, Ground Water, Wetlands,
and Socio-Economics. Each Assess-
ment Workshop will produce a
document summarizing the process
and including the Assessment
Questions. The Region m/ORD
team is coordinating the
productions of the Workshops and
subsequent reports.
Once the inventory is complete,
all staff working on indicators will
start the process of identifying and
filling data gaps. This is expected
to be a long and iterative process
which will take a systematic
approach over several years.
Logic Model
Region III relies on a logic model
(see Figure 26) to develop the data
sets which support outcome based
plans of action. The model is a
special adaptation of the Environ-
mental Indicators continuum which
was developed to use more
practical terminology that was
generally familiar to the Region's
program staff.
As in the other versions of the
continuum, the broadest environ-
mental measures - receptor and
stressor conditions - are at the top.
Administrative measures are at the
bottom. The model is based on the
premise that it is necessary to use
data at all levels to manage for
environmental results. This also
means that data at all levels are
considered equally important in the
process once their position and
relevance in the model has been
determined.
For example, if the receptor of
concern is preservation of wetlands,
administrative measures that show
the level of resources available to
the wetlands program, or activity
measures such as the number of
permits reviewed and issued, are
important indicators of our com-
mitment to preserving wetlands.
The role of the model is to integrate
this information with information
about the environmental condition
of wetlands and use the resulting
analysis as a planning tool for
future action.
The model can be used to plan at
different levels. For instance, senior
managers can use the model for
"big picture" strategic planning for
an entire organization. In EPA, this
means comparing model informa-
tion from several sets of stressors-
receptors, since our strategic plans
set cross-media priorities.
Within media or programs, the
model can be used to set priorities
for a program component (e.g.,
wetlands), a
geographic area
(e.g., wetlands
in the Pocono
Mountains), or
a specific
resource (e.g.,
wetlands in the
Pocono
Mountains
with marketable
quantities of peat moss).
EMM in Rrwi; II! 2^
-------
In each case, the model allows us
to see the relationship between
program elements and very differ-
ent types of data.
Our experience in using the
model has also reinforced one of
the most basic lessons of the ERBM
approach: use all available data
that are known to be reliable.
We frequently find that we must
make decisions, to meet external
deadlines, before it is possible to
develop data at all levels of the
model. In these cases, we use the
best available data on stressors,
sources, and activities.
Data gaps are addressed by using
surrogate measures, usually activity
reports and ambient concentrations.
FIGURE 26
LOGIC MODEL for Environmental Planning
GOAL
Miles ot unhealthy
streams reduced
to
by
OBJECTIVES
Close
abandoned mines
by :
Reduce S02
emissions by
pounds
by.
Receptor
condition
(living
Stressors
Sources
Activftes
Evaluation
Fish
Time
VA WV MO PA DE
PH
DO
Time
Time
Acid Dep. AMD other
Utilities
other
AMD
mine
entorce-
actaons
PUC
require
energy
conserv.
plans
Tune
Time
EFFECTIVENESS
Did we do the planned
activities?
IMPACT
Accomplish the objective?
COST QUALITY
What did we spend ($, FIE)? Any secondary impact?
This way, we can project the
probable course of future activity.
Our overall concern, and our
long-term objective, is to:
• develop accurate, up-to-date,
reliable information on stressors and
receptors for all major ecological
regions and si/stems in Region III. as
well as all major environmental causes
of adverse human health conditions;
• develop models that alloiu us to
relate EPA/State activities and actions
Inj sources to the stressors of concern;
and
• gain wide-spread acceptance for the
use of the model as a major planning
and evaluation tool in the Region.
Meeting our objective will take
several years. The most difficult
part will be developing data in the
field. It is an expensive, time
consuming process. Our commit-
ment to improving data and
developing environmental indica-
tors is dependent on our ability to
meet this challenge.
ERBM m Region 111 26
-------
-------
Appendix B
Status of State Indicator Activity,
Dec 1997-GMIED
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Text-Only Version
Appendix B-1
GMI: State Environmental
Indicator Activity
State Environmental Indicator Activity, December 1997
Download RTF Version
1
I
State
1
Alabama
Alaska
! j
Arizona ;
Arkansas
California
:
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware !
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
i
Idaho
Indicator
Project in
Planning (13 !
states) or
Process (24
states)
~~ i
Planning ;
Planning !
:
Process
Process
Process
i
Process
Process
—
Process
Process
I
Indicator
System in i
Use or !
Available i
for Use (3 1
states) j
:
—
—
—
[
--
System
:
System
—
—
—
State of the
Environment
Report in Process
(6 states) or
Completed (17
states)
i
i
—
:
Completed 1995,
1996
—
Completed 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995,
1996; in process
1997 ,
Completed 1997 !
'
—
Completed 1997
Completed 1996,
1997
Benchmark
Program in
Process (3
states) or
Completed
(6 states)
j
;
„
i
—
—
—
Completed
1995
i
Completed
1996; in
process 1997
—
Process
NEPPS
Activity (41 j
states) with
actual or ;
expected '
dates for FY i
1997orl998 i
PPAs (34) or i
PPGs only (7)
i
PPG July 1996,
(water only) ;
PPA June <
1997 (water |
only)
~
—
PPA January
1997
PPA March
1997
PPA j
September '
1996 !
PPA |
December
1996
PPA January
1997
PPA October
1997
PPA
December
1996
)f3
5/1/98 4:45
-------
Illinois :
i
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
i
Kentucky
i !
:
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
i
Massachusetts;
| Michigan '
1 Minnesota !
Mississippi j
Missouri
Montana
i Nebraska ;
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
; New Mexico •
New York !
North
Carolina
North Dakota ;
Ohio
Oklahoma
Process
Process !
—
—
Planning/Process ;
Process ;
Planning/Process
Process
i
Planning
Process
Planning !
Process
Planning
'
~
Process
Process
Planning
t
Process
Process
—
Process
Planning
System
~
—
—
—
i
|
!
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
In process
1997
!
j
—
—
—
—
Completed 1994, i
1996
—
—
~~ t
Completed reports ;
1992, 1994; fact i
sheets 1996/97 '
In process 1997
Completed 1994;
in process 1996/97
~
Completed 1995
!
i
—
In process 1 997
Completed 1996 .
i
—
Completed 1997
1
;
!
Completed 1995
.
Completed 1995
—
:
1
—
.
\
!
Completed
1996, 1997
—
;
—
Completed
1992, 1996 j
—
:
—
i
—
—
—
Appi
PPA October
1996
PPA
November
1997
—
PPG Only
PPA FY 1997
PPA October
1997 1
PPA ;
December
1996 ;
PPA Winter ;
1998 j
PPA February
1997
;
PPA October
1997 j
PPA February
1997
PPG Only
PPG Only
PPG Only ;
—
PPA March
1997
PPA January
1997
—
|
"
''
—
—
—
j Completed
PPAFall 1996!
(water only) |
PPA March
1997
PPG Only
December
1996
PPA October
1996
PPA May
1996
PPA August
3ndi
ixB-
2 of 3
5/1/98 4:4
-------
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
! South
Carolina
I South Dakota;
Tennessee
|
Texas
Utah |
i
!
Vermont '
!
| Virginia
;
Washington
i
i
West Virginia ;
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Planning
—
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
—
Process
Process
—
Process
\
Process
—
—
—
—
—
—
j
~ . \
I
—
-
—
—
:
—
—
—
—
—
Completed 1994, ;
1995
—
—
Completed 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997
i
Completed 1995;
in process 1997
—
Completed 1995
~
1992, 1994,
1996
—
—
i
—
"
Completed j
1995,1996
|
i
:
t
!
Process !
i
i
:
•
1
ADD
1996 (water
only)
PPAFY 1997
PPA
November
1997
PPAFY 1997
—
PPAFY 1997
PPA |
September '
1996 !
i
PPA February
1997
PPA
December
1996
i
PPA
September
1996
PPA FY 1997
(water only) ;
PPA FY 1997 ;
PPG Only
3ndix B-3
Home || About GMI || Newsletter || Comparative Risk || Indicators || Links || Dialogue || Index ||
f3
5/1/98 4:45 PM
-------
-------
Appendix C
Environmental Statistics and Information Division on the
P-S-R Framework, Excerpts
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
PRESSURE
STATE
RESPONSE
<*' ^^v " ••'"
Underlying
Pressures
Basic Socio-
Technological
Factors:
• Population
• Technology
• Social
factors
• Level of
prosperity
Indirect
Pressures
Direct
Pressures
State of Human Welfare
Human Activities
(By Economic
Sector):
• Agriculture
• Forestry
• Mining and
minerals
• Energy
production
• Energy
consumption
• Manufacturing
• Transportation
Natural Events
and Fortes:
• Meteorological
events
• Volcanic and
seismic events
Mode of Impact
• Pollutant
releases
• Land use
• Consumption
of resources
• Diversion of
resources
• Introduction of
exotic species
Chemical State:
• Level of each chemical in air,
water, or land
Physical State:
• Air temperature
• Water temperature
• Sea level
• Number and severity of storms
Biological State:
Ecological State
• Extent and condition of
habitat
• Condition of particular
species and groups of species
State of Human Health:
• Exposure to toxic substances
• Direct measures of health
impact
The State Of Human Welfare
(For those aspects of welfare
directly affected by the
environment)
• Loss of recreation opportunities
• Damage to crops
Broad Measures:
• Expenditures on
pollution abatement
• Expenditures on
environmental
services
Specific Measures:
(Number of each specific
kind of action taken for
each):
• Pollutant of concern
• Type of source
• Environmental
medium
• Exposure pathway
TJ
-a
a>
Q.
x'
O
-------
Appendix C-2
Appendix B: PSR/E Sub-category Menu Tables
The following "menus" are an effort to present, in a reasonably comprehensive manner,
the universe of elements (pressures, VEAs, societal responses) within each of the components of
the PSR/E model, based on present scientific knowledge and policy concerns. We would
appreciate hearing from readers about omissions or errors in the menu tables. In many cases
only classes of elements (e.g., "biogeochemical cycling") are defined. To be useful in helping
set monitoring priorities, ecological VEAs must be operationally defined for specific geographic
areas (e.g., global carbon storage in forests, nitrogen fixation by microorganisms in Midwestern
farmlands). To transform the menus into a working framework, priorities must be established
among defined menu elements at various geographic scales. Also, some types of menu elements
can potentially be seen as essential core elements of a framework for an information system (e.g.,
regional environmental diversity) and others would likely be optional.
In principle, there are a number of possible ways to organize the State of the Environment
category: by scale, by ecosystem type or degree of alteration by humans, by issues or VEAs, or
by data/indicator type (physical, chemical, biological or ecological data). Some of these
categorizations are complementary. Ecosystems can be defined at many different scales, so
categorizing the State of the Environment by ecosystem types also implies defining the scales of
those ecosystems; this is really the purpose of a spatial framework, discussed in section 3.2.
Categorization by environmental issues/problems and VEAs are closely related, at least
implicitly, in that definition of an environmental issue requires at least an implicit model of the
linkages between some pressures and one or more VEAs.
The Effects category of the PSR/E model does not require a separate set of menus, as it
represents a category of indicators of relationships between the elements in the other (P,S, R)
categories.
33
-------
Appendix C-3
Table P.1 UNDERLYING PRESSURES (Sociotechnical Forces)
Population Structure and Processes
Birth & death rates
Population size; composition by age, gender, ethnic group
Migration rates; geographic distribution of population
Social/Cultural Attributes & Practices
Social/cultural attitudes, beliefs and values (e.g., toward recycling)
Individual & household behaviors, including voting, recreation, and product purchasing and
use behavior
Other demographic variables:
Distribution of income and wealth
Household size and composition
Labor force participation by gender
Educational levels (especially scientific, environmental education)
Political Structures and Processes
Federal, state, local laws and regulations
Macroeconomic policies
Sectoral economic policies: e.g., agricultural, energy policies
Trade policies, e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement
Foreign aid policies, e.g., population-related policies
Organization of responsibilities, power relationships within/among federal, state, local
governments (i.e., other than those captured above)
Organizational arrangements, power relationships within economic sectors, between business
and government
Role of news media
Roles of voluntary associations
Land use/land development policies
Science and Technological Change
Basic and applied research, technology development with particular environmental
applications or impacts, including scientific discoveries with potential environmental
applications
Technology diffusion and displacement, by economic sector of application
Research and development expenditures by technical area
Science and engineering education and work force by technical area
34
-------
Appendix C-4
Table P.2 INDIRECT PRESSURES (Human Activities, Natural Events/Forces)
Human Activities, generally by Economic sectors:
Production & consumption of commodities (goods & services) by industries in value terms
(dollars)
Consumption of raw materials and intermediate inputs (including water) and production of
goods and services and waste outputs, in physical terms, by industry on a geographic
basis
Employment by industry, on a geographic basis
Commodity prices
Final consumption of commodities by households
International trade: imports & exports of processed goods & raw materials
"Natural" Processes & Factors:
Roods
Droughts
[Biological] Populatbn fluctuations and migrations
"Biologicar emissions (e.g., methane from termites, wetlands)
Fires
Hurricanes
Other climatic fluctuations (e.g., El Nino)
Earthquakes
Volcanoes
35
-------
Appendix C-5
Table P.3 DIRECT PRESSURES (Biophysical Stressors)
-of Human AND Natural Origin
Releases of Objects, Substances, Organisms, or Energy
Greenhouse gas emissions, emissions of ozone depleting substances
Other pollutant17 emissions to ambient air and regional transport of pollutants
Applications of fertilizer, pesticides, salt; also releases from soil due to irrigation, etc.
Point source and non-point source discharges of toxic pollutants and nontoxic pollutants (e.g.
nutrients, soil) to water
Pollutant emissions to indoor and workplace air
Contaminants in products, including food
Land disposal of nonhazardous, hazardous and radioactive waste
Chemical accidents, oil spills, leaking underground storage tanks
Translocation and proliferation of exotic [non-native] species or native "pest" species and
disease vectors
Releases of genetically engineered organisms
Releases of radioactivity
Releases of heat
Noise, vibration
Harvesting and Extraction of Renewable and Nonrenewable Resources^
Commercial and sport fishing
Forestry
Agriculture (crops and livestock)
Aquaculture
Wildlife hunting and trapping, gathering of wild plants
Groundwater withdrawal/consumption
Mining/extraction/quarrying of metals, minerals, building materials
Extraction of petroleum, natural gas and coal
Ecological damage/ "natural harvest" by pests & predators, storms, fire, etc.
Land Use Changes
Construction of human settlements: urbanization, suburbanization (including development on
beaches and barrier islands)
Conversion of natural ecosystems for agriculture, silviculture, aquacuhure, mining,
infrastructure (roads & highways, railroads, oil & gas pipelines, airports, power
transmission lines, canals, dams, coastal waterways, piers, ports, seawalls, harbor
dredging, etc.)
Diversion/channelization of river flows and construction of water resource projects
Various recreational land uses (other than hunting or fishing): camping, hiking, boating,
swimming, use of off-road vehicles, etc.
Changes in land cover use due to fire, flooding, etc
17 "Pollutant releases" here refers to releases of substances of human or natural (e.g., radon) origin that are
considered undesirable by society.
18 Harvesting and extraction activities remove natural resources, rather than adding primary "stress agents"
(e.g., pollutants, exotic species or highways) to the environment, though they also produce secondary stress agents,
e.g., pollution due to mining activities.
36
-------
-------
Appendix D-1
EPA and OW Strategic Goals & Indicator Development:
Briefing Package - Feb 94
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Office of Water
Environmental
Indicators
Measuring Progress to Reach National Goals
Examples of Data for Reporting Indicators
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
-a
•a
CD
u
Q.
x'
D
February 3, 1994 ) -^
-------
OW Strategic
Goals
*St:itc Designated Uses
Aquatic Life Support • I'ish
Consumption • Shctlllsh
Harvesting • Drinking Water
Supply » Primary C'onlact
Recreation » Secondary Contact
Kecrealion • Agriculture
Human &
Ecosystem
Health
Protect &
Enhance
Public Health
Safe Drinking Water*
Safe I'ish Consumption*
Safe Aquatic Recreation*
Conserve &
Enhance
Ecosystems
Biologically Healthy
Water Resources*
Societal/Cultural Coals
Pollution Prevention
Education
Environmental Ei|tiity
Sustainable Economic
Development
Waters Meet Designated f'.vrv*
Improve Ambient Conditions
Improved Surface Water Ambient Concen-
trations of Toxic and Conventional Pollutants
Ground Waters Meet Water Quality Objectives
No Net Loss of Wetlands
lixtcnt of Sediment Contamination Is Reduced
Reduce Pollutant Loads (Point & Nonpoint Sources)
Reduced Toxics Loading • Reduced Conventional Loading
A
A
A
A
A
Standards & Source Control Programs
Slormwale'r Piogram • (SO Program • MI'S 319 Program • NPS/C/M Program • IMDI. Program • Kisli/
Sediment Contamination • I Illiicnt Guidelines • Ocean Dumping • Drinking Water Standards Program •
NPDI-S Program • WIJS & Criteria Program • Marine Debris • Sludge Management • Wetlands 404 Program
Resource-Driven Approaches
Watershed Protection • Wellhead Protection * National
Ksluiiiy Program • Clean Lakes • Ground Water Protection •
Habitat Wetlands Protection • Near Coastal Waters
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
February 3, 1994
73
TJ
a.
x'
D
-------
EPA and OW Strategic Goals
Q DRAFT AGENCY GOALS*
OFFICE OF WATER GOALS
SAFE
DRINKING WATER
SAFE FOOD
CLEAN WATER
ECOLOGICAL
PROTECTION
LOAD REDUCTION
* Agency goals under development
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Protect and Enhance
Public Health
(Meet Designated Uses)
Conserve and
Enhance Ecosystems
(Meet Designated Uses)
Improve Ambient
Conditions
Reduce Pollutant
Loadings
(Point and Nonpoint
Sources)
Safe Drinking Water
Safe Fish and Shellfish Consumption
Safe Aquatic Recreation
Biologically Healthy Water Resources, Including
Lakes, Rivers, Streams, Estuaries, Coastal Waters,
Wetlands, and Ground Water
Improved Surface Water Ambient Concentrations
of Toxic and Conventional Pollutants
(•round Waters Meet Water Qualify Objectives
No Net Loss of Wetlands
Extent of Contaminated Sediments is Reduced
Reduced Toxic Pollutant Loadings
Reduced Conventional Pollutant Loadings
CD
13
Q.
x'
O
February 3, 1994 V
-------
OW Indicators
3 CURRENT STATUS
'DATA MAKE GOALS A REALITY'
List of 33 recommended indicators
presented here are categorized
aeeording to the major OW goal
areas.
13 indicators with existing data we
eould begin to report on now are
listed on the next page.
Example data and a list of data
gaps are provided for each office.
Lead office need to ratify
indicators and prepare action plans.
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Goal: Protect and Enhance Public Health
Subgoal: Sale Aquatic Recreation
1
Indicator
Waters that meet
swimming and
secondary contact
designated uses
EPA Data Sources
305(b)
STORET/WBS
Other Sources
NOAA: National Status
& Trends Program
USFWS: National
Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program
February 3, 1994
(0
0.
x'
O
-------
Hierarchy of Indicators as They Relate to Agency Goals j
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Tier One:
Environmental
Goals
Changes in
Health
Ecology, or
Other Effects
Agency
Goals
Hierarchy of
Indicators
[••sg^ftu'./
t :• "»* • i-.v !:. * '
Changes in
Uptake and/or
Assimilation
Changes in
Ambient
Conditions
Changes in
Discharge/
Emission
Quantities
Responses of
the Regulated
Community
Actions by
EPA/State
Regulatory
Agencies
Tier Two: Source
Reduction Objectives
Tier Three: Action Targets
T3
TJ
CD
u
Q.
x'
February 3, 1994 9
Ol
-------
Reporting
13 OW Environmental
Indicators with Existing Data
We Could Begin to Report Now
Lead Offices need to
ratify and prepare
action plans.
Goals
Indicators
cj> Requires the use of other Federal data. Lead O W
Requires the use of State data. Office
Protect & Enhance
Public Health
Population served by public water supplies systems (ground and OGWDW
surface waters) that meet all DWS in effect prior to 4/30/92.
Waters meeting fish and shellfish consumption designated uses. OWOW
Waters meeting fishing/swimmiiig/secondary contact designated uses. OWOW
Shell fish bed closures (NOAA). OWOW
rzj> Waters with fish tissue contaminant levels of concern (NOAA, PWS). OST
Protect & Enhance
Ecosystems
Waters meeting aquatic life designated uses.
OWOW
Improve Ambient
Conditions
rzj>
Water quality standards attainment.
Ground water quality indicators.
Trends in selected water quality parameters (USGS).
Wetland acreage (FWS).
Extent of contaminated sediments.
OST/OWOW
OGWDW
OWOW
OWOW
OST
Reduce Pollutant
Loadings
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Point source loading of selected conventional pollutants.
Point source loading of selected toxic pollutants.
OWEC
OWEC I
CO
Q.
February 3, 1994 9
-------
PROTECT AMD ENHANCE PUBLIC HEALTH
Safe Drinking Water
Safe Aquatic Recreation
, J_ ,
(CJUUBQU |
1 Indicator
• Waters Meet
1 Drinking Water
| Supply Designated
illse
1
I EPA Data Sourcei
3050') •
ISTORin/WI»S»
1
1
| Other Sounti
L_ _l
1
QBLJCJUG
Indicator
Population Served
by PWSS with
Wellhead
Protection
EPA Data Sourcei
Wellhead
Protect ion
Biennial Reports 1
Other Sourcei
State WIIP
progianu •
J_
[aBoaaa I
Indicator
Populations served
by community water
supply in violation
EPA Data Sounti
FRDS »
Other Sourcei
L J
i
aaaQBQ
Indicator
Blood Lead Uvels
in Children
EPA Data Sounti
Other Sourcei
cix: »
1
QQQQQB
Indicator
Disease Outbreaks
from Public Water
Supplies
EPA Data Sounti
Other Sourcei
CDC »
J_
Indicator
Waters Meet
Swimming and
Secondary Contact
Designated Uses
EPA Data Sounti
305(b) •
STORET/WBS •
Other Sounti
NOAA: NSAT •
IISIWS: NCHI'I
l_ J
1
Indicator
Beach Closures:
Miles Closed and
Organism Levels
EPA Data Sounti
305(b) •
Regional
Other Sounti
Slate health depls. »
NRDCI
1
LKJUGUB
Indicator
Disease Outbreaks
from Swimming
EPA Data Sounti
Regional
Other Sourcei
CDC 1
Slale health depls. 1
\
• data available now. needs improvement
1 limited data available now
O no data available now
I I We can set baseline and begin to report in FY94
either nationally or for certain regions, specific
1 1 geographic areas, or specific resource type.
QQQLJCJQ Hierarchy of indicators
1-2-3-4-5-6 B indicates level
1= Administrative; 6=True environmental
x
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
| Safe Fish & Shellfish Consumption
r~daa«aa"~
Indicator
Waters Meet F;ish
and Shellfish
Consumption
Designated Uses
EPA Data Sourcei
305(b) •
STORET/WBS •
Other Sourcei
[_
1
aaaaaij
Indicator
Fish Advisories
EPA Data Sounti
305(b) •
STORET/WBS •
EMAP 1
OST: FAD »
Other Sounti
NOAA: NSAT •
USFWS: NCBP »
USGS: NAWQA »
r~aaa«aaH
1 Indicator
Waters with Fish
1 Contaminant Levels
1 of Concent to
J Human Health
I
J EPA Data Sounti
1 305(b) •
| STORET/WBS •
i ODES •
' EMAP 1
| OST: NFTD O
1 Other Sourcei
NOAA: NSAT •
1 USGS: NAWQA •
IJ.FWS: NCBP » ,
1
1
aaaBaaH
Indicator
Shellfish Bed
Closures
EPA Data Sounti
305(b) •
STORET/WBS •
1 Other Sounti
NOAA: NSR •
I NOAA: NSAT •
L _j
aauaaa
Indicator
Disease Outbreaks
from Fish and
Shellfish
Consumption
EPA Data Sounti
ODES/STORETI
Other Sourcei
CDC •
February 3, 1994
T3
T3
CD
Q.
x'
O
-------
CONSERVE AND ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS
Biologically Healthy Water Resources Including Lakes, Rivers, Streams, Estuaries, Coastal Waters, Wetlands, and Ground Water
F UUUBULJ ~1
Intlicator
Waters Mccl Aquatic IJfe
Dcsignjted Uses (inclu-
|ding ground water dischar
Iges to surface water)
1 KPA Data Source*
|305
STORLT/WBS*
Other Source!
USnS: NAWQAI
I USFWS i
Stale Water Programs 1
L J
1
UUUUGBI
Indicator
l:ish (assemblage) or IBI-
like Index
EVA Data Sourcti
305 (h) 1
F.MAI'I
BIOS/STORETI
Othtr Sourtei
NOAA: ELMRI
NOAA:NSATI
NOAA: FSPI
IISFWS: NCBPI
USCiS: NAWQAI
USFWS: BESTO
Slate Water Programs 1
1
auaciaa
Indicator
Benlhic
Macroinvertebraies
(assemblage)
EPA Data Sourcet
EMAPI
Bios/sioRt-:ri
Other Source!
NOAA: EI.MR*
NOAA:NSAT»
MMS>
USGS: NAWQAI
State Water Progranu 1
1 1 1
QQQUQB
Indicator
Habitat
(physical structure)
EPA Data Sourcti
EMAPI
BIOS/SI ORin>
Other Sourcei
USDA Forest Service 1
USFWS: BESTm
USGS. NAWQA»
Stale Water Programs 1
LJULKJUBI
Indicator
Plankton A
Periphylon
Assemblages
EPA Data Sourtei
Other Sourcei
Research Institutions 1
Slate Water Programs 1
USGS: NAWQA*
aaaaaai
Indicator
Floral Com|M»iiion
EPA Data Sourcei
EMAPO
Other Sourcei
USFWS: BESTO
USGS: NAWQAI
Stales O
1
UUUUGal
Indicator
l:aunal (°uni|xxsilicin
EPA Data Sourtei
EMAPO
Other Sourcti
USFWS: BESTO
Slates O
• data available now, needs improvement
I limited data available now
O no data available now
I I We can set baseline and begin to report in FY94
either nationally or (or certain regions, specific
I | geographic areas. •« specific resource type.
QQQQQQ Hierarffhy of indicators
1-2-3-4-5-6 • indicates level
I = Administrative; 6= True environmental
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
February 3. 1994 \
TJ
T3
(D
Q.
X'
-------
IMPROVE AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Ground Waters
Meet Water
Quality
Objectives
~i
ImlifaUir
Ground Waters
Water Quality
EPA Data Sources
CWGWPP Biennial
Report •
OPTS: PGWDlie
NPSurvey »
305(b)»
STORI-T »
F.RAMS i
Other Sauna
WIDH*
USGS •
MISGS: NAWQA I
J
Improved Surface Water Ambient
Concentrations of Toxic & Conventional
Pollutants
J
Indicator
Selected Water Quality
Parameters
EPA Data Sourcei
EM API
BIOS/STORE! >
Other Sourcet
USGS NASQAN
Stations I
USGS: NAWQA
National Monitoring
I System Stations O I
,_J
Indicator
Water Quality
Standards Attainment
EPA Data Sourtet
305(b)«
303(d)»
3040)»
BIOS/STORE! »
Other Source!
USGS: NAWQA*
L
J
Extent of
Contaminated
Sediments is
Reduced
IQQ
Indicator
Extent of
Contaminated
Sediments
EPA Data Source!
30S(b)»
Superfund >
BIOS/STORETI
CSSIO
O(fc*r Soarcti
NOAA: NSATI
USGS: NAWQA »
L
No Net Loss
of Wetlands
r
Indicator
l/ossorfiainof
Wetland Acreage
EPA Data Sourctt
Regional
J
Other Source!
tISFWS: NWI«
NOAA: NCWie
USGS: NAWQA »
I I
• data available now, needs improvement
1 limited data available now
O no data available now
1 I We can set baseline and begin lo report in FY94
either nationally or for certain regions, specific
| 1 geographic areas, or specific resource type.
aaaaaa Hierarchy of indicators
1-2-3-4-5-6 • indicates level
1= Administrative; 6= True environmental
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
February 3, 1994 J
TJ
-o
CD
Q.
X'
a
-------
REDUCE POLLUTANT LOADINGS
| Reduced Conventional Pollutant Loadings |
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
Reduced Toxics Pollutant Loadings
1
ULJBUGU
ImlicaUir
Pollutant 1 oading lu
Ground Water from
Underground Injection
Wells
EPA Data Sourcei
TRI*
STORI-I »
Other Sourcei
r- -1 -1 r- -1 -1
1 aUBUQQ 1 1 QQBaaa 1
\ Indicator \litdicator
\ Point Source Toucs 1 Selected Conventional
Pollutants: TSS.
1 ' BOD. Fecal Coliform
| |* Nutrients
1 1
1 1
1 EPA IJtato Sourcei j EPA Data Sourcei
I NPDES Permits • i Needs Survey •
ITRI* PCS>
|pcs» IEMAPI
I Needs Survey* STORETI
j STORET > ! NPDES Permits >
1 Other Sourcei \ OOur Sourcei
• NOAA: NCPDI*
1 lUSGS: NAWQA >
L JL J
— i
aoBoaa
Indicator
Key Wetweather
Conventionals from
CSOs
EPA Data Sourcei
Needs Survey •
PCS»
TRII
NPDES Permits »
Other Sourcei
1
QBaaaU
Indicator
Number of Stale and
Local Gov'ts Requiring
Treatment of
Slormwaler Kunulf
from Rural. Suburban
& Urban land Uses
EPA Data Sourcei
RCW Program 1
3 19 Program O
NPDES Slormwaler
Permit Program O
Other Sourcei
USGS: NAWQAI
NOAA: NCPDI •
1
QBQQQQ
Indicator
Number of BM Ps
Implemented at Slate
and Local Level
EPA Data Sourcei
RCW Program 1
3 19 Program O
NPDES Slormwaler
Permit Program O
Other Sourcei
USGS: NAWQA»
NOAA: NCPDI*
1
QQBUCJQ
Indicator
Key Wetweaiher
Conventional
Pollutants from
Nonpoinl Sources and
Stcrmwaler
EPA Data Sourcei
EM API
RCW Program »
3 19 Program C)
NPDES Slormwaler
Permit Program O
Other Sourcei
USGS: NAWQAI
NOAA: NCPDI •
CZM Program O*
1 '
QQUCJBU
Indicator
Marine Debris
EPA Data Sourcei
EM API
Other Source*
Center for Marine
Conservation •
NOAA >
/
\
• daU available now, needs improvetneol
t limited data available now
O no data available now
I ~~| We can set baseline and begin to report in FY94
either nationally or for certain regions, sped fie
| I geographic areas, or specific resource type.
CJQOQaa Hierarchy of indicators
1-2-3-4-5-6 • indicates level
1 =Administrative; 6= True environmental
\
)
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Februarys, 1994
-a
-a
CD
Q.
x'
D
-------
Acronym List
AWWA American Water Works Association
BEST Hiomonitoring and Environmental Status and Trends,
USFWS (Update of NCBP)
BIOS Biological System Component of STORET, OWOW/OW
CIK! Center for Disease Control
CSGWIT Comprelicnsivc Slate Ground Water Protection Pingrams
CSSI Contaminated Sediment Sites Inventory
El .MR Esluarine I .iving Marine Resource, NOAA
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment lYogram, ORD
ERAMS Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System,
Office of Radiation Programs
EAI) Fish Advisory Data Base, OST/OW
FRDS Federal Reporting System, OGWDW/OW
FSP Fisheries S'atislics Program, NOAA
HWIW Hazardous Waste Injection Well Database, OGWDW/OW
Ilil Index of Biological Integrity
ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force of Monitoring Water Quality
I .MR I jving Marine Resource, NOAA
MMS Minerals Management Service
N AWQA National Water Quality Assessment Program, US( JS
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network, USGS
NCBP National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, USGS
NCPDI National Coastal Pollutant Discliarge Inventory, NOAA
NCWI National Coastal Wetlands Inventory, NOAA
NEP National Estuary Program, OWOW
NFTD National Fish Tissue Data Base, OST (does not yet exist)
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, OWEC
NPSurvey National Pesticide Survey, OPP
NRDC National Resources Defense Council
NRI National Resources Inventory, SCS/US1 >A
NSR National Shellfish Register, NOAA
NS&T National Status & Trends, NOAA
NWI National Wetlands Inventory, USFWS
ODES Ocean Data Evaluation System
IK:S Permit Compliance System, OWEC
PGWDB Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base, OPP
PWSS I»ublic Water Supply Systems
RBP Rapid Bioassessment lYotocols, OWOW
STORET STOrage and RETrieval System, OWOW
TRI Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System, Office of Toxic
Substances
WBS Waterbody System (for 305(b) Reports), OWOW
WIDB Water Industry Data Base, AWWA
Office of Water
Environmental Indicators
Februarys, 1994
CD
Q.
x'
O
-------
-------
Appendix D-2
OW Indicator List of 33 - August 1994
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
Status of Office or Water List of Recommended Indicators August 31, 1994
Indicator
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Waters Meet Drinking Water Supply Designated Use
Populations Served by Public Water Supply Systems (PWSS) with Wellhead Protection
Populations Served by PWSS (ground and surface waters) that Meet All Drinking Water Standards
Blood Lend Levels in Children
Disease Outbreaks from Public Water Supply Systems
Waters Meet Swimming and Secondary Contact Designated Uses
Beach Closures: Miles Closed and Organism Levels
Disease Outbreaks from Swimming
Waters Meet Fish and Shellfish Consumption Designated Uses
Fish Advisories
Waters with Fish Contaminant Levels of Concern to Human Health
Shellfish Bed Closures
Disease Outbreaks from Fish and Shellfish Consumption
Waters Meet Aquatic Life Designated Uses (including ground water discharges to surface water)
Fish (assemblage) or IBI-like Index
Bcnlhic Macroinverlebrales (assemblage)
Habitat (physical structure)
Plankton and Periphylon Assemblages
Floral Composition
Fauna! Composition
Ambient Ground Water Quality
Selected Water Quality Parameters
Water Quality Standards Attainment
Extent of Contaminated Sediments
Loss or Gain of Wetland Acreage
Pollutant Loading to Ground Water from Underground Injection Wells
Point Source Toxics
Selected Conventional Pollutants: TSS, BOD, Fecal Coliform, and Nutrients
Key Wctweather Conventional* from CSOs
Number of Slate and Local Governments Requiring Treatment of Slormwater Runoff
Number of Nonpotnt Source BMPs Implemented at Stale and Local Level
Key Wctwealher Conventional Pollutants from Nonpoinl Sources and Stormwalcr
Marine Debris
Status
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Removed; see Healthy People 2000
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Long term indicator (OST is reviewing)
Long term indicator
Action Plan submitted
Removed; see Indicator 1 1
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Long term indicator
Action Plan submitted
Sec Indicator 17
Action Plan submitted
Indicators 15-20 being reviewed and reworked by
the Bio Indicators Team. Any identified for short-
term reporting will have an Action Plan: A longer-
term emphasis is expected.
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted (long-term indicator)
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted (OCPD A OST)
Action Plan submitted
No Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
R28-R32 will be rewritten more to 'conventional and
toxic pollutants from point and nonpolnt sources. *
Indicators will be fleshed out In a meeting on 9/2.
Action Plan submitted
Action Plan submitted
TJ
CD
U
Q.
x'
D
-------
-------
Appendix D-3
OW Indicator Development Questionnaire
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix D-3-3
Office of Water Indicators Workgroup
Action Plan for Generating an Office
Report on a Specific Indicator
The Office of Water needs to cost out various options for reporting environmental indicators. The
Indicators Workgroup will make recommendations to the Assistant Administrator's office on a first OW
Indicator Baseline Report due by April 1995 and subsequent trends reports. A list of the 33 indicators
recommended by the workgroup is included as Attachment A, and suggested criteria for determining the
indicators' use is included as Attachment B.
A. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
1. OW Office Name Office of Wastewater Management
2. OW Office Contact Timothy J. Dwyer Phone Number (202) 260-6064
3. Indicator Number 29 Indicator Name Reduced loadings of Key Weather Conventional
(from Attachment A, unless new proposal) Pollutant from CSOs
4. Indicator Description (Be specific.) Measure reductions achieved bv CSO control Programs in
loadings of bacteria, total suspended solids. BOD dcischaraed from CSOs during
wet weather events.
B. BASELINE INFORMATION
1. What data source will you use? Describe it. Permit Compliance System (PCS) when data are col-
lected and entered via permit requirement or other enforceable mechanism.
2. When are the data available? Q Now Q April 1995 afOther* (Give date if possible) Within the next 5 years.
If other, what affects its availability? Monitoring and reporting of CSO pollutant data by CSO permittees.
3. How current are the data? Describe. Data should be current when collected.
4. What is the data's scale (e.g., national, regional, state, watershed, site-specific)? Site-specific which can
be integrated into higher scale, such as watershed, state, or national.
5. Where does the data source reside? UnComputer System Q Nonautomated System
If on a computer system, what is its name? PCS (limited availability)
6. Describe the data source's accessibility. Limited due to lack of current monitoring and report-
ing by CSO permittees.
'"Other" includes either the latest date for which data is available or a future date, already established, by which the data will be available.
-------
Appendix D-3-
7. Provide am additional information on the data source, its availability, coverage, location, or accessibility
Many CSC csnanunities are minor permittees. This data are not generally entered
into PC3. States may retain this data in their own systems. May need zo inves-
tigate working with NOAA and USGS for obtaining this data as part of any agree-
ments with these agencies for data collection and analysis. __
8. Describe why this is the best data (e.g., only data available, communicates well to the public, enables OW managers to
make specific decisions).
Conventional pollutants are the only pollutants that can be expected to be present
in all CSOs. ;
9. Describe any barriers to reporting data in the short term.
Administrative (e.g., interagency inaccessibility) Lack of requirements in many NPDES permits to
monitor and report CSO data. Many existing permits do not require CSO
monitoring. Recent EPA policy recommends that communities estabilish monitoring
programs to characterize their combined sewer systems and CSOs.
Resources (e.g., budget or personnel constraints) If data is to be entered into PCS, budget con-
straints may exist for modifying PCS to handle CSO-specific monitoring data.
Need to provide incentives to encourage States to enter any CSO data on minor
permittees.
Technical (e.g., lack of QA/QC, reliability and/or accuracy) Existing CSO data can't be clearly
identified in PCS because it is not entered as a "CSO discharge". Many States do
not identify outfalls as CSO points. Must work with States to change this
practice.
Programmatic (e.g., lack of regulatory authority) Need to incorporate CSO monitoring recrairements
into NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanism as quickly as possible to
estabilish a viable baseline for calculating future reductions.
-------
A. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
1 OW Office Name
2. Name of OW Office Contact
3. Indicator Name
4. Indicator Description
Office of Water Indicators Workgroup
Action Plan for Generating an Office
Report on a Specific Indicator
B. BASELINE INFORMATION
1. What data source will you use? Describe it.
2. When are the data available? What affects the availability?
3. How current are the data? Describe.
4. What is the data's scale (national, regional, state, watershed etc...)?
5. Where does the data source reside? If on a computer system, what is its name?
6. Describe the data source's accessibility.
7 Provide any additional information on the data source, its availability,
coverage, location, or accessibility.
8 Describe why this is the best data (e.g., only data available, communicates well
to the public, enables OW managers to make specific decisions).
9. Describe any barriers to reporting data in the short term.
Administrative (e.g., interagency inaccessibility)
Resources (e.g., budget or personnel constraints)
Technical (e.g., lack of QA/QC, reliability and/or accuracy)
Programmatic (e.g., lack of regulatory authority)
B10. COSTS TO GET BASELINE INFORMATION
10. Describe the costs associated with generating a report on each indicator based on existing
information. These costs should reflect the costs of overcoming the barriers described above.
a. No new costs?
b. New costs? Fill in table
Compile data (e.g., obtain from others)
Analyze data (e.g., review QA/QC procedures)
Prepare report (e.g., reformat data)
Other
EPA FTEs
EPA Internal Dollars
EPA Dollars Given to Others
(e.g., other agencies, states)
Other Dollars (e.g., costs
absorbed by other agencies,
states, etc.)
T3
T3
(D
Q.
x'
a
i
CO
11. Will covering the costs described in No. 10 require a reallocation of existing resources? Describe new or reallocated budget needs in detail
-------
C. TRENDS INFORMATION
1. What year would you choose as your baseline against which to measure trends?
2. Are historical data available other than the baseline information you described in Sections A and B? Describe,
3. a. Are data available to report trends with this indicator? f^3 Yes Q3 No
b. If no, generally describe what you need to report trends (e.g., new monitoring, data base improvements).
c. Outline specific steps and dollars needed to report trends. (If data is available only steps 4-6 may apply.)
Steps*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
FTEs
Dollars
* The steps may vary according to needed improvements and may include the following:
1. Evaluate needs to improve data.
2. Issue guidance/design monitoring plan.
3. Collect new data/monitor
4. Store/retrieve data
5. Analyze information
6. Prepare report.
d. When can you begin to report trends with this indicator?
4. What do you recommend as the appropriate frequency (e.g., annual, biennial, etc.) to report trends with this indicator?
TJ
T3
CD
o.
x'
a
-------
Appendix D-3-5
10. Describe the costs associated with generating a report on each indicator based on existing information. These costs
should reflect the costs of overcoming the barriers described above.
a. No new costs Q
b. New costs
Compile data
(e.g., obtain from others)
Analyze data (e.g., review
QA/QC procedures)
Prepare report
(e.g., reformat data)
Other ?????????
EPA FTEs
1.0
1.0
1.0
EPA Internal Dollars
100,000
1,200,000
EPA Dollars Given
to Others
(e.g.. other
agencies, states)
150,000
4
Other Dollars
(e.g., costs absorbed
by other agencies,
states, etc.)
11. Will covering the costs described in No. 10 require a real location of existing resources? Describe new or reallocated budget
needs in detail.Yes. Resources would be needed to estabilish data elements in
PCS, specifically for CSOs, and QA/QC of data before it. is entered into
PCS. The costs identified for report preparation can be included in the
costs identified under measures 27 and 28.
C. TRENDS INFORMATION
1. What year would you choose as your baseline against which to measure trends? 1995
2. Axe historical data available other than the baseline information you described in Sections A and B? Describe.
Would choose 1995 because any earlier data would be spotty and may not be of
sufficient q-ualitv.
3. a. Are data available to report trends with this indicator? a Yes Q No
b. If no, generally describe what you need to report trends (e.g., new monitoring, data base improvements).
PCS is generally the logical choice for a data system. However, need to look
at enhancements to identify CSO outfalls and to provide for reporting of cso
data from minor permittees.
-------
Appendix D-3-
c. Outline specific steps and dollars needed to report trends. (If data is available only steps 4-6 may apply.)
Steps*
1- Monitor/collect CSO data
2. store/retrieve CSO daca
3. Analyze data
4- Prepare report
5.
6.
FTEs
2.0
0.25
0.25
0.25
Dollars
•3
'The steps may vary according to needed improvements and may include the following:
1. Evaluate needs to improve data.
2. Issue guidance/design monitoring plan.
3. Collect new data/monitor
4. Store/retrieve data
5. Analyze information.
6. Prepare report.
d. When can you begin to report trends with this indicator? 1997 or 1998
4. What do you recommend as the appropriate frequency (e.g., annual, biennial, etc.) to report trends with this indicator?
Biennial
-------
Appendix D-3-7
Office of Water Indicators Workgroup
Action Plan for Generating an Office
Report on a Specific Indicator
The Office of Water needs to cost out various options for reporting environmental indicators. The
Indicators Workgroup will make recommendations to the Assistant Administrator's office on a first OW
Indicator Baseline Report due by April 1995 and subsequent trends reports. A list of the 33 indicators
recommended by the workgroup is included as Attachment A, and suggested criteria for determining the
indicators' use is included as Attachment B.
A. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
1. OW Office Name Office of Wastewater Management
2. OW Office Contact Timothy J. Dwver Phone Number (202) 260-6064
3. Indicator Number 28 Indicator Name Reduced Loadings of Selected Conv. Pollutants
(from Attachment A, unless new proposal)
4. Indicator Description (Be specific.) Measure reductions achieved by point source control
programs for loadings of one or more of the conventional pollutants (TSS, BOD,
oil and grease, bacteria, pH)
B. BASELINE INFORMATION
1 . What data Source Will you USe? Describe it. P^-rmi r rnrnplianr-P Syst-gm fPfSI This Hat-ahagp T
t"he arnfal di schaT-rrp nf nl 1 nt-ant <3 fi-pm all maor* anri gntnp minni- oint
2. When are the data available? fl^Now Q April 1995 Q Other* (Give date if possible)
If other, what affects its availability? _ ;
3. How current are the data? Describe. Data in PCS is current. Data is reported monthly bv the
discharger in its Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) .
4. What is the data's scale (e.g., national, regional, state, watershed, site-specific)? Data are reported on a
site-specific basis and it can be aggregated on a watershed, regional, state or
national basis »
5. Where does the data source reside? M Computer System Q Nonautomated System
If on a computer system, what is its name? PCS
6. Describe the data source's accessibility. All Regions and States have access. General public
has access when the individual or group has a National Computer Center (NCC) ID
number.
'"Other" includes either the latest date for which data is available or a futute date, already established, by which (he data will be available.
-------
Appendix D-3-!
7. Provide anv additional information on the data source, its availabilitv. coverage, location, or accessibilitv.
Data is current for all manor and some minor point source dischargers; data are
actual measured data and not estimated; data is accessible to anyone with an NCC
identification number.
8. Describe why this is the best data (e.g., only data available, communicates well to the public, enables OW managers to
make specific decisions).
PCS gives an actual report data on a month.lv basis. It can be easily manipulated
to give actual loadings for each discharger.
9. Describe any barriers to reporting data in the short term.
Administrative (e.g., interagency inaccessibility) PCS has been enhanced to calculate loads reduc-
tions.- work is needed to f>nsure that data are accurate* so that load reductions
are accurate . One example of a problem that ntust be addressed is that nni ts of
for the s pollutant may not be congjgtent across all Recriong and
States .
Resources (e.g., budget or personnel constraints) Resources will be needed for OA/OC of the data
on which the load reductions will be based. __
Technical (e.g., lack of QA/QC, reliability and/or accuracy) Additional data problems exist in
qeoreferencing and in calculating loadings reductions on a watershed basis.
Programmatic (e.g., lack of regulatory authority) 95% of the municipal dischargers are already
providing secondary or better treatment. As a result, reporting trends may not
show a significant improvement. In fact, trends analysis mav even show an in-
crease. A decision on whether to focus a trend analysis on the 5% of the facili-
ties that are currently providing less than secondary treatment should be made.
These facilities are currently estimated to be discharging nearly 1/3 of the
-------
Appendix D-3-9
10. Describe the costs associated with generating a report on each indicator based on existing information. These costs
should reflect the costs of overcoming the barriers described above.
a. No new costs Q
b. New costs
Compile data
(e.g., obtain from others)
Analyze data (e.g., review
QA/QC procedures)
Prepare report
(e.g., reformat data)
Other ?????????
EPA FTEs
2 FTEs/6 months
EPA Internal Dollars
1 .2 million
EPA Dollars Given
to Others
(e.g., other
agencies, states)
for undele. States
250K
Other Dollars
(e.g., costs absorbed
by other agencies,
states, etc.)
1 I.Will covering the costs described in No. 10 require a reallocation of existing resources? Describe new or reallocated budget
needs in detail. Yes. It would require a reallocation of resources. Money would be
needed for QA/OC of the data. This estimate is based on OECA's
estimates for cleaning up PCS data. It is not additive to the
estimates included in measure prepared by Jackie Romnev.
C. TRENDS INFORMATION
1. What year would you choose as your baseline against which to measure trends? 1990
2. Are historical data available other than the baseline information you described in Sections A and B? Describe
historical data reorpgpnt-s data from 1990. Thg 1990 data may hp di f f
fhan the 1995 dar_a
di
aT~aTnptf»r"g ma be moni f fired b t~hp
under i
NPDES nennit This mav
truer for toxic discharcrers
3. a. Are data available to report trends with this indicator? Q Yes Q No
b. If no, generally describe what you need to report trends (e.g., new monitoring, data base improvements).
The system is set-up to calculate loads; but due to QA/QC problems, it may not
be possible to calculate loads for all conventionals.
-------
Appendix D-3-1
c. Outline specific steps and dollars needed to repon trends. (If data is available only steps 4-6 may apply.)
Steps*
1 Clean-up PCS data: Regions and States
2 Run the PCS load program
3 Create the trends report
4.
5.
6.
FTEs
1 FTE/3 months
1 FTE/3 months
Dollars
1.45 million
'The steps may vary according to needed improvements and may include the following:
1. Evaluate needs to improve data.
2. Issue guidance/design monitoring plan.
3. Collect new data/monitor
4. Store/retrieve data
5. Analyze information.
6. Prepare report.
d. When can you begin to report trends with this indicator? 1995
4. What do you recommend as the appropriate frequency (e.g., annual, biennial, etc.) to repon trends with this indicator?
Every 5 years.
-------
Appendix D-4
OW Indicator #5, Fish Consumption Advisories, Fact Sheet
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix D-4-1
June 1996
Water Quality Indicator 5
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator identifies the percentage of
river miles and lake acres for which fish
consumption advisories have been issued. A
total of 46 states have issued fish consumption
advisories. Information obtained by EPA's Office of
Science and Technology from state reporting
efforts indicates that one or more fish consumption
advisories have been issued for 14 percent of the
Nation's lake acres and 4 percent of the Nation's
river miles.
States issue fish consumption advisories to warn
recreational and subsistence anglers and
other members of the public of the risks
associated with consuming •
contaminated noncommercial fish. A
fish consumption advisory may involve
one or more of the following warnings:
(1) do not eat any fish caught in a
certain area; (2) eat only a specified
limited amount of fish, particularly if
you are in a high-risk group (e.g.,
pregnant women or young children); or
(3) eat fish only after special
preparation.
pollutant on a national, regional, state, and
watershed basis. It helps identify the risks posed
by a particular chemical on a geographic basis
and could be used to target control, remediation,
and risk management programs to high-risk areas.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
EPA is increasing the scope of the fish
advisory program to include information
on advisories for turtles, frogs, and
waterfowl. The expanded database will be known
as the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
INDICATOR 5:
Fish Consumption Advisories
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
is responsible for protecting consumers
from contaminants in fish sold through
interstate commerce.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
States provide EPA with
information on fish consumption
advisories. EPA collects and
stores this information in the National
Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories,
which is updated annually. The
database is used to map advisories by
25%
20%
Data
Completeness
< 15%-
•s" 10%-
I
o>
o.
Lakes
Rivers
Source: State data reported to EPA's Office of Science and
Technology, 1994
-------
Appendix D-4-J
Indicator 5: Fish Consumption Advisories
Consumption Advisories. Other
improvements to the information
system include listing the total
river miles and lake acres under
advisory and automatically
calculating the percentage of
waters covered by state-issued
fish consumption advisories for
37 particular contaminants,
including mercury, dioxin,
chlordane, PCBs, and DDT. In
addition, the information system
will overlay county and major
city lines and index the advisories
with a code for the stream or river
segment to enable integration of
the National Listing with other
geographic information systems.
The 1995 update will be available
on CD-ROM, diskette, or the
Internet.
To improve the comparability and consistency of
state-issued fish consumption advisories and
accuracy in reporting, EPA has published guidance
for states to use in developing advisories and in
notifying recreational and subsistence anglers of
potential risk from contaminated fish. EPA
periodically sponsors conferences and technical
training sessions, and serves as a national clearing-
house for related information to assist states with
their fish advisory programs.
EPA also is working with the states to link
information from state agencies that issue fish
consumption advisories with the information other
state agencies provide on attainment of the fish and
shellfish consumption designated use, gathered in
compliance with section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. This approach should result in more
consistent information on fish consumption issues.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Fish can become contaminated because of
proximity to (1) a hazardous waste site, (2) a
discharge outfall, (3) a chemical spill, (4) a
public recreation area, or (5) a nonpoint
Number of Fish Advisories Issued by Each State in 1995
I
(Change in number from 1994)
sv(*«)
Note: This map depicts the number of waterbodies, by state, where fish consumption advisories were in
effect in 1995 based on information reported to EPA by the states. Because of the variability of the
information reported, the numbers depicted here do not reflect the geographic extent of chemical contam-
ination of fish tissue in each state nor the extent of a state's monitoring efforts. An asteriskf) denotes a
state that has issued statewide advisories tor particular pollutants or types of waterbodies.
source. Pollutants from these sources can also
collect and persist in sediment and bioaccumulate
through the food chain, becoming a potential
hazard to aquatic life and human health.
As a result, EPA is working with its partners to
place further restrictions on pollution from point
sources, clean up Superfund sites, improve
containment of accidental spills, and reduce
nonpoint source pollution. These efforts should
reduce the incidence of contaminated fish.
EPA is also developing a guidance document on
managing the risks associated with fish
consumption. The document will help states and
tribes reduce loadings of high-risk chemicals to
water and sediment. It will also provide guidance
on the types of actions that states and tribes can
take to reduce the risks to particularly susceptible
individuals.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4S03F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
Appendix E
GPRA OW Objectives and Subobjectives
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix E-1
GPRA Objectives and Subobjectives that Encompass the National Water Program
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 1: By 2005, protect public health so that 95% of the population served by
community water systems will receive water that is consistently safe to drink, consumption
of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to microbial and other
forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
Subobiective la: By 2005, the population served by community water systems
providing drinking water that meets all existing standards will increase to 95%
from a baseline of 81% in 1994 through technical and grant assistance,
capitalization of State Revolving Funds, and consumer awareness. Compliance
with new standards will be high.
Subobiective Ib: By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an
additional 10 high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon)
will be issued.
Subobiective Ic: By 2005, 60 percent of the population served by community
water systems will receive their water from systems with source water protection
programs in place under wellhead protection and / or watershed protection
programs.
Subobiective Id: By 2005, increase protection of community water supplies from
contamination by shallow injection wells by reducing by 25% from 1995 levels the
injected volumes to those wells.
Subobiective le: By 2005, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be
reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting the
consumption offish and shellfish will increase.
Subobiective If: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of
contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced and the precentage of
waters attaining the designated recreational uses will increase.
-------
Appendix E-;
Objective 2: Conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's (State, interstate,
and Tribal) waters, including surface, ground, coastal, ocean, and wetlands.
Subobiective 2a: By 2005, restore and protect watersheds so that 75% of waters
support healthy aquatic communities as shown by comprehensive assessment of
the nation's watersheds.
Subobiective 2b: By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of 100,000 acres
of wetlands. EPA will work with federal, state, tribal and local partners on
protection and community-based restoration of wetlands. In addition, EPA, in
coordination with with the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, will work to avoid, minimize and compensate for wetland
losses through Clean Water Act Section 404 and Farm Bill programs.
Objective 3: By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point sources and nonpoint source
runoff will be reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants
impacting water bodies will also be reduced.
Subobiective 3a: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), and industrial
sources will be reduced by 30% from 1992 levels.
Subobiective 3b: By 2005, nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to rivers
and streams will be reduced. Erosion from cropland, used as an indicator of
success in controlling sediment delivery to surface waters, will be reduced by 20%
from 1992 levels.
Subobiective 3c: By 2006, improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted
persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50-75%, reducing
deposition of nitrogen by 10-15% from 1980 levels, and improving our
understanding of, and cross-media responses to, the sources, pathways, and effects
of air pollutants deposited on water bodies and watersheds.
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems
Objective 8: By 2003, 60% of Indian Country will be assessed for its environmental
condition and Tribes and EPA will be implementing plans to address priority issues.
-------
Appendix E-3
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks
Objective 1: By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to public health and shared
ecosystems in North America consistent with our trust responsibility to Tribes as well as
bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations in these areas.
Sub-Obiective l.B: By 2000, the population in the U.S./Mexico Border Area
(including Tribes) that is served by adequate drinking water, wastewater collection
and treatment systems will increase by 7% through the design and construction of
water infrastructure.
Sub-Objective l.E: Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of
toxic substances, by protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and restoring
and maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
Goal 7: Expansion of America's Right to know About their Environment
Objective 1: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the American public to participate
in the protection of public health and the environment by increasing the quality and
quantity of general environmental education, outreach and data availability programs.
Subobjective 1: By 2005, through improved technology, we will increase the
accessibility and opportunities for all Americans to learn about environmental
issues, including Internet access to comprehensive environmental information on
the watershed in which they live including the environmental condition, the
stressors, and the environmental health threats.
Objective 2: By 2005, EPA will double the knowledge base on chemical/pesticide-specific
environmental waste, releases, uses, and human/environmental effects, and will provide the
tools, methods, and systems needed by communities to use this knowledge in evaluating,
managing, and preventing chemical/pesticide environmental and human health risks where
people live, work, and play.
Subobjective X: By 2000, every person served by a community water system will
have access to a consumer confidence report that contains information about the
system's source water and the level of contaminants in the drinking water
purveyed and will be able to use this information to secure safe drinking water and
make personal decisions about their own health.
-------
-------
Appendix F
OW and IWI Cross Reference Matrix of Indicators Currently in
Use
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix F-1
APPENDIX F- OW AND IWI CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX OF INDICATORS CURRENTLY IN USE WITH
STRATEGIC PLAN SUBOBJECTIVES
OW Indicator
1 . Population
served by
community drinking
water systems
violating health-
based requirements
2. Population
served by unfiltered
surface water
systems at risk from
microbiological
pollution
3. Population
served by drinking
water systems
exceeding lead
action levels
4 Number of
community drinking
water systems
using ground water
that have programs
to protect them from
pollution
5. Percentage of
rivers and lakes
with fish that states
have determined
should not be
eaten, or should be
eaten in only limited
quantities
6. Percentage of
estuarine and
coastal shellfish
growing waters
approved for
harvest for human
consumption
7. Percentage of
rivers and estuaries
with healthy aquatic
communities
Objective
or
Category
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Ecologica
I Health
IWI Indicator
3. Indicators of
source water
condition for drinking
water systems
3. Indicators of
source water
condition for drinking
water systems
3. Indicators of
source water
condition for drinking
water systems
3. Indicators of
source water
condition for drinking
water systems
2. Fish and wildlife
consumption
advisories
Wo corresponding
indicator
No corresponding
indicator
Objective
or
Category
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Strategic Plan
Subobjective
1.1 Percentage of
population served
by community water
systems providing
drinking water that
meets all existing
standards
1 .6 Exposure to
microbial and other
forms of
contamination in
waters used for
recreation
Wo corresponding
subobjective
1 .3 Percentage of
population served
by community water
systems with source
water protection
programs in place
1 .5 Consumption of
contaminated fish
and shellfish
1 .5 Percentage of
waters attaining
designated uses
protecting the
consumption of fish
and shellfish
2.1 Percentage of
waters supporting
healthy aquatic
communities
Objective
or
Category
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Public
Health
Ecolo-
gical
Health
Data
Source
SDWIS
SDWIS
SDWIS
305(b)
STORE!
State
biennial
wellhead
reports
State
data
reported
toOST
National
listing of
fish and
wildlife
consum
ption
advisorie
s 305(b)
NOAA
305(b)
EMAP
305(b)
SRF
Potenti
al
N/A
Low
N/A
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
-------
Appendix F-S
OW Indicator
8. Percentage of
aquatic and wetland
species currently at
risk of extinction
9. Rate of wetland
acreage loss
10. Percentage of
assessed
waterbodies that
can support use as
designated by the
states and tribes
1 1 . Population
exposed to nitrate in
drinking water. In
the future, the
indicator will report
the presence of
other chemical
pollutants in ground
water
12. Trends of
selected pollutants
found in surface
water
13. The
concentration levels
of selected
pollutants in oysters
and mussels
14. Trends in
estuarine
eutrophication
conditions
Objective
or
Category
Ecologica
I Health
Ecologica
I Health
Designate
dUses
Ambient
Condition
s
Ambient
Condition
s
Ambient
Condition
s
Ambient
Condition
s
IWI Indicator
8. Aquatic/wetlands
species at risk
7. Wetlands loss
index
1. Assessed rivers
meeting all
designated uses set
in State/Tribal water
quality standards
Wo corresponding
indicator
5. Ambient water
quality data - four
toxic pollutants
6. Ambient water
quality data - four
conventional
pollutants
Wo corresponding
indicator
No corresponding
indicator
Objective
or
Category
Vulnerability
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Strategic Plan
Subobjective
Wo corresponding
subobjective
2.2 Acreage of
wetlands
1.6 Percentage of
waters attaining the
designated
recreational uses
Wo corresponding
subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
Objective
or
Category
Ecolo-
gical
Health
Public
Health
Data
Source
The
Nature
Conserv
ancy
State
Natural
Heritage
Data
Centers
USFWS
-NWI
USDA -
NRI
305(b)
National
Assess
ment
Databas
e
National
Survey
of
Pesticid
es in
Drinking
Water
USGS
uses
STORET
NOAA
NOAA
EPA's
National
Estuary
Proaram
SR
Pote
al
Low
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Low
Med.
-------
Appendix F-3
OW Indicator
15. Percentage of
sites with sediment
contamination that
might pose a risk to
humans and
aquatic life
16. Trends for
selected pollutants
discharged from
point sources into
surface water, and
underground
injection control
wells that are
sources of point
source loadings into
ground water
17. Amount of solid
eroded from
cropland that could
run into surface
waters
18. Trends and
sources of debris
monitored in the
marine environment
A/o corresponding
indicator
No corresponding
indicator
Objective
or
Category
Ambient
Condition
s
Loadings
Loadings
Loadings
IWI Indicator
4. Contaminated
sediments
9. Pollutant loads
discharged above
permitted limits -
toxics
10. Pollutant loads
discharged above
permitted limits -
conventionals
12. Index of
agricultural runoff
potential
No corresponding
indicator
1 1 . Urban runoff
potential
13. Population
change
Objective
or
Category
Condition
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Strategic Plan
Subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
1 .4 Level of injected
volume in shallow
injection wells
3.1 Annual point
source loadings
from Combined
Sewer Overflows
(CSOs), Publicly
Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs),
and industrial
sources
3.2 Erosion from
cropland
A/o corresponding
subobjective
3.2 Nonpoint
sediment and
nutrient loads to
rivers and streams
No corresponding
subobjective
Objective
or
Category
Public
Health
Loadings
Loadings
Loadings
Data
Source
NSI
PCS
OGWD
W
USDA
NRI
Center
for
Marine
Conserv
ation
US
Census
Bureau
USGS
US
Census
Bureau
SRF
Potent
al
Med.
N/A
High
High
Low
Low
High
N/A
-------
Appendix F-
OW Indicator
No corresponding
indicator
No corresponding
indicator
No corresponding
indicator
Objective
or
Category
Source: USEPA, 1996a.
IWI Indicator
14. Hydrologic
modification caused
by dams
15. Estuarine
pollution
susceptibility index
No corresponding
indicator
Objective
or
Category
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
Source: USEPA, 1997b
Strategic Plan
Subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
No corresponding
subobjective
3.3 Releases of
persistent toxic
pollutants that
contribute to air
deposition and
deposition of
nitrogen
Objective
or
Category
Loadings
Source: USEPA, 1997a.
Data
Source
National
Inventor
y of
Dams
Databas
e
NOAA
SF
Poti
a
N/A
Med
N/A
-------
Appendix G
Excerpts from EPA Water Program Information Systems
Compendium - May 98 Draft
TetraTech, Inc. Octobers, 1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix G-1
EPA Water Program
Information Systems Compendium
FY 1998
This document was prepared under Contracts Numbers 68-W9-0039, 68-C9-0029, and 68-C7-0018.
Ms. Wendy Blake-Coleman served as the manager for the project.
-------
Appendix G-
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium FY 199>
Index
301 (h) Applicant Tracking System 69
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) Water Data Base 100
ANNIE-IDE 129
AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval (AQUIRE) database 101
AQUATOX 87
ASIWPCA File 90
BASINS 16
Beach Watch 86
Beaches 71
Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS) 71
Capture Zone Analytic Element Model (CZAEM) 130
Chemical Hazards Response Information System 102
CHRIS/HACS 102
City and County Files 18
Clean Water Needs Survey 20
Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management 72
CORMIX 87
Drinking Water Regulatory Impact Analyses 22
Drinking Water Supply File 24
DYNHYD5 129
DYNTOX 87
Ecological Effects Pesticide Toxicity Database 142
Ecological Sensitivity Targeting and Assessment Tool (ESTAT) 131
Effluent Guidelines Studies 26
Envirofacts Warehouse 44, 140
Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia 143
Environmental Monitoring Methods Index 28
EPA Spatial Data Library System (ESDLS) 103
Estuarine Living Marine Resources (ELMR) 104
EXAMS V. 2.95 132
FEMWATER/LEWASTE 132
FGETS 133
Forest Inventory and Analysis National Data Base Retrieval Syste 144
Forest Land Distribution Data for the United States 145
FRDS (Federal Reporting Data System) 44
Gage and Dam Files 30
GCSOLAR 133
Grant Information and Control System-Construction Grants 32
Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) 69
Ground Water On-Line 123
Hazard Assessment System 102
Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects Database (HAZDAT) 146
HSPF 88
Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) 34
Industrial Facilities Discharge File 36
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 105
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 106
Inventory of Certified Labs 73
Land Cover Digital Data Directory for the United States 82
Land Use and Land Cover Digital Data 107
Maps On Demand (MOD) 141
U.S. EPA/OW 16
-------
Appendix G-3
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium FY 1998
Index
Marine Pollution Retrieval System (MPRS) 108
Master Water Data Index (MWDI) 126
MINTEQA2 133
MULTIMDP 134
MULTIMED 134
National Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS) 147
National Assessment Database 74
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory Program (NCPDI) 109
National Coastal Wetlands Inventory 110
National Contamjnant Biomonitorina Program (NCBP) Data Base 111
National Contaminant Occurrence Database 75
National Environmental Data Referral Service (NEDRES) 96, 128
National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) 112
National Ground Water Information Center (NGWIC) 96
National Heritage Network 113
National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 114
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories 75
National Park Service Geographical Information Systems 148
National Resources Inventory .' 115
National Sediment Inventory 76
National Sewage Sludge Survey 77
National Shellfish Register 116
National Small Flows Clearinghouse 83
National Small Flows Clearinghouse Website 86
National Status and Trends Data Base (NSTDB) 117
National Volunteer Monitoring Directory 78
National Water Information System (NWIS) 118
National Water-Use Data System (WUDS) 119
National Water-Use Information Program 95
National Wetlands Inventory Digital Data Base 135
National Wetlands Research Center Geospacial and Biological Data ". . . . 136
NatureNet: Water Resources in the National Parks 148
NOAA Environmental Services Data Directory (NOAADIR) 96, 127
NOAAServer 127
Notice of Intent (NOI) Processing Center 70
Ocean Data Evaluation System 38
ODES PC Data Entry System 92
OPP Re-Registration Eligibility Document (RED) 149
Parameter (FARM) file 90
PATRIOT 137
PC-CETIS 79
Permit Compliance System 40
Personal Computer/Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System 79
Pesticides Incidence Database 149
PLUMES 137
PRELIM Version 5 91
PRZM Pesticide Root Zone Model 137
QUAL2E Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model 88, 138
Reach File 42
Safe Drinking Water Hotline 84
Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version 44
Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version 46
166 U.S. EPA/OW
-------
Appendix G-4
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium FY 199&
Index
Sediment Modeling Tool Kit 89
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data Base 150
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) 151
STORET 49
STORET - Biological System 50
STORET - Daily Flow System 52
STORET - Water Quality System 54
STORET X (Modernized STORET) 56
Storm Water Phase I Hotline 84
Storm Water Phase II Hotline 85
Summary of State and Federal Drinking Water Standards 80
Surf Your Watershed (SURF) 58
SWMM Storm Water Management Model 90, 138
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) 120
UIC Program Summary System 60
UICWELLS 81
Unregulated Contaminants Data Base 80
USGS Information Center—Water 94
USGS Water Resources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC) 95
WASP5 Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program 138
Water Quality Analysis System 91
Waterbody System 62
WATERNET 124
Watershed Information Resources System (WIRS) 81
WaterStats 121
WaterWiser 126
Wellhead Analytic Element Model (WhAEM) 139
Wetlands Information Hotline 85
Wetlands Values Data Base 125
Wildlife Refuge Management Information System 122
U.S. EPA/OW
-------
Appendix G-5
Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information
Management System
(PC, Excel, OWM/MSD)
The information system contains State-by-State data on the 51 Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
programs on an annual basis from the inception of the CWSRF program in 1988. Regional and National
aggregations of the information are available. The information is updated annually on a June 30 fiscal year basis
from data provided by each State program manager. Information in the system includes funds available in each
CWSRF program from Federal capitalization grants, State match contributions, leveraged bonds, investment
earnings, and loan repayments. Information on CWSRF assistance provided to projects identifies the type of
projects funded (wastewater treatment, nonpoint source, and estuaries); the size of the community receiving the
assistance; the amount of assistance provided to hardship communities; and if the assistance is provided in the form
of loans, refinancing or other eligible means. Other information includes State CWSRF agency points of contact
and administrative and other expenses of the fund.
Contact: Gloria Bullock (202) 260-8485
Internet Address: Not Applicable
Clean Water Needs Survey
Description
The Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) is an automated inventory, maintained by the Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM) of all existing or proposed publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that need construction or
renovation to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Files of past surveys are also available in the Needs
Survey data base.
Needs Information
The official 1996 CWNS database contains more than 24,000 records, each of which includes over 230 data
elements organized by 19 subject areas. Among the information included is:
Location and characteristics of POTWs
Construction cost estimates and how they were documented
Populations served by collection and treatment
Flow capacity
Effluent characteristics
Treatment processes
The CWNS's authority/facility (A/F) number allows linkages to the Grants Information Control System; the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System number to the Permits Compliance System and the Industrial Facilities
Database; and the Reach number to the Reach File. The database is currently undergoing modernization and the new
database will be available for the 2000 survey.
Information Collection
The information in the CWNS File is collected and/or updated every four years from each State, in order to compile
the Clean Water Needs Survey Report to Congress. The File contains the final survey information from 1984, 1986,
1988, 1990, 1992 and 1996. In order to record new or updated information about facilities in the file, facility fact
sheets are sent our for each collection effort containing information from the previous survey. States use these fact
sheets and the current Needs Survey Guidance to complete their new surveys. QC activities were improved for the
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-(
1996 survey.
Access
All past Needs Survey files are open to the public. Current Needs Survey information is only accessible to
authorized EPA and State users. Anyone having a valid user ID and password may access the past Needs Survey
Files. Access to the data base is through the Review, Update, and Query System (RUQUS). Key facility information
form the 1996 CWNS database and a copy of the report to Congress will be available on the Internet in the late fall
of 1997.
National Manager
Len Fitch
(202)260-5858
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Support Division (4204)
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/OWM/uc.htm
Index of Watershed Indicators
Description
The Index of Watershed Indicators (the IWI or Index) is the EPA's first national picture of watershed health. The Index organizes
and presents aquatic resource information aggregated on a watershed basis.
IWI Information
The Index of Watershed Indicators uses fifteen indicators, sometimes referred to as "data layers." These were selected based on
their appropriateness to the IWI objectives, their relatively uniform availability across the nation, and the ability to depict them at
the eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) scale. The indicators are:
Condition
Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Uses
Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
Indicators of Source Water Quality for Drinking Water Systems
- State's assessment of surface waters meeting "water supply" designated use
- water system treatment and violation data
- occurrence of chemicals regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
- attainment of the "water supply" designated use
- community water supply systems with treatment in place beyond conventional treatment or which were in violation of source-related
standards in 1995
- contaminants at one half or more above the Maximum Contaminant Level
Contaminated Sediments
Ambient Water Quality Data - Four Toxic Pollutants - copper, chromium (hexavalent), nickel, and zinc
Ambient Water Quality Data - Four Conventional Pollutants - ammonia, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, and pH
Wetland Loss Index
Vulnerability
Aquatic/Wetland Species at Risk
Pollutant Loads Discharged Above Permitted Discharge Limits - Toxic Pollutants
Pollutant Loads Discharged Above Permitted Discharge Limits - Conventional Pollutants
Urban Runoff Potential
Index of Agricultural Runoff Potential
Population Change
Hydrologic Modification - Dams
Estuarine Pollution Susceptibility Index
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-7
Additional State and county IW1 pages have recently been added. Check the "What's New" page to see added features and
refreshed data.
Information Collection
For each condition indicator, values were selected which, in EPA's professional judgement, represent an appropriate basis to
describe the aquatic resources within the watershed as having good quality, fewer problems or more problems. Similarly, for each
vulnerability indicator, the Agency selected values that they believed are appropriate to differentiate "lower" from "higher"
vulnerability. For most indicators, a minimum number of observations necessary to assign a "score" were established. In
aggregating the 15 indicators into the overall index, Indicator #1, Assessed Rivers Meeting All Designated Use, is weighted more
heavily than other indicators because it is a comprehensive State/Tribal assessment. All other indicators are weighted equally. It
is noted where there is insufficient data for a particular indicator. At least 10 of the 15 data layers must be present to calculate the
overall index for any given watershed. If Indicator #1 is not available, the values of the other indicators of condition are
multiplied by three to derive an Index score.
Access
The Index of Watershed Indicators is available on the Internet and in a hard copy report. Detailed information on sources of
data, the method used to characterize condition or vulnerability for each data layer, and the method for combining individual
indicators into the overall score are also provided.
National Manager
Karen Klima
(202) 260-7087
klima.karen@epamail.epa.gov
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/surf/IWI/
Permit Compliance System
Description
The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is an information management system maintained by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), to track the permit, compliance, and enforcement status of
facilities regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under the Clean
Water Act. PCS supports the NPDES program at the State, Regional, and National levels.
PCS Information
PCS tracks information about wastewater treatment, industrial, and Federal facilities discharging into navigable
waters. Items tracked include:
Facilities characteristics Permit conditions
Discharge characteristics Inspections
Compliance schedules Enforcement actions
PCS distinguishes between major and minor facilities, based on the potential threat to human health or the
environment. Factors determining a facility's classification include the discharge amount per day, the wastewater
sources, and the population affected by the discharge. Although all major and minor facilities must be permitted,
only major facilities must provide complete records to PCS. These currently number around 7,100. PCS also
contains information collected from States and Regions submitting information for the approximately 56,300 minor
facilities in the United States. The collection of latitude/longitude (facility end of pipe) location information is now
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-8
underway. The NPDES permit number allows linkages to IFD, the Needs Survey, and GICS.
Information Collection
Facilities report their compliance and status information by submitting Compliance Schedule Reports and Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to Regions or delegated States, which enter the information into PCS. Inspection and
enforcement information is collected and entered by Regions and/or delegated States. OECA provides a Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) Quality Assurance (QA) program to evaluate the analytical ability of NPDES permittee
laboratories for chemical and whole-effluent toxicity self-monitoring data. The Regions and delegated States
provide for QA of PCS data through methods that include reviewing source documents, double keying data, and
reviewing retrievals. OECA has developed QA procedures to evaluate existing PCS data and a QA Guidance
Manual to assist Regions and delegated States in developing written QA procedures. PCS users should be aware of
the possibility of misinterpreting the data, Regional/State data entry variations, and the quality of the DMR data.
Access
Access to PCS is determined by the States, Regions, and EPA Headquarters, which authorize user accounts and
passwords. General access to all PCS information, except enforcement and other sensitive information, is available
to the public. PCS training is available from EPA Headquarters and Regional Staff.
National Manager
Mike Mundell
(202) 564-7069
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data Division (EPTDD)
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
User Support
(202) 564-7277
PCS-SUPPORT@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Reach File
Description
The Reach File is an automated data base of surface water features developed by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds. It identifies all streams, lakes, reservoirs, coastlines, and estuaries in the United States. Each of these is
divided into segments called "reaches." Reaches reference each other, so it is possible to hydrologically traverse the
nation's rivers and open waters while scanning other data bases for information associated with any reach along the
traversal path. This is the foundation of EPA's ability to integrate information from other data bases in hydrological
order and in common by river mile relationships.
Reach Information
The Reach File is currently in is third generation. Reach File 1 was created in 1982 and contained information for
68,000 reaches, covering approximately 700,000 miles of streams. Reach File 2, implemented in 1988, added new
reaches, doubling the number of streams in the file. RF3 is complete for 44 States and will result in data files for
over 3 million reaches, with 93 million associated coordinates.
Each of the reaches in the Reach File is uniquely identified by a sixteen-digit Reach number. The following kinds of
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-9
information are maintained for each reach:
Hydrologic Structure Reach name, type, length upstream and downstream connections, State
and county.
Reach Trace Latitude/Longitude coordinates along reaches.
Open Waterbody Characteristics Description of whole waterbodies (e.g., ponds, bays reservoirs),
including surface area and perimeter.
Information Collection
The information in Reach File 1 was based on NOAA aeronautical charts, which provided lines traces that were
scanned into the data base. Cataloging Unit boundaries from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) were added to the
traces. Reach File 2's information was based on Reach File 1, with additions from the USGS Geographic Names
Information System (GNIS) data base. Reach File 3, now under development for the remaining States (except
Alaska), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, is based on the two earlier Reach Files, with additional information
from the USGS. This new information includes cataloging unit boundaries, new names from GNIS, and scale digital
line graph data to add precision. All information has been verified with graphical and automated software tools.
Reach numbers are used in a number of other water data bases, allowing linkages to the Reach Files.
Access
Any person with access to EPA National Computer Center IBM ES-9000 computer and a valid STORET account
has access to the Reach File.
National Manager
Tommy Dewald
(202) 260-7028
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/rf/rfindex.html
STORET Water Quality System
Description
The STORET Water Quality System (WQS), the main component of STORET, is an automated system, maintained
by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds in close cooperation with the Office of Information Resources
Management. It contains chemical and physical information obtained during monitoring of waterways within and
contiguous to the Untied States. This includes information for Estuaries, Streams, lakes, rivers, ground water,
canals, and coastal and international waters.
WQS Information
The Water Quality System is composed of two basic kinds of information: the sites (or stations) where information
is collected and the samples collected at these sites. There are currently over 730,000 stations, over 300 of which are
unique collection points for ground-water data. Station information includes:
Station type State and county/EPA Basin code
Latitude/longitude Reach number
USGS Hydrologic Unit Narrative description
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-1
The information on sampling reports where, when, and how samples were collected, the parameter(s) tested for, and
the testing results. The analyses report ambient water quality and effluent chemistry. There are currently about 25
million sample records and about 150 million analysis records. WQS information can be linked to PCS, BIOS, and
other water data bases through Reach numbers.
Information Collection
Information is collected, coded, and submitted by State, EPA, and other Federal Agencies with monitoring programs,
as well as contractors, universities, and individuals. Providers and users of information are called Agencies, and
each is provided an account. Information providers submit information, and EPA updates the data base as
information becomes available. Information from the U.S. Geological Survey's WATSTORE (WATer STOrage and
Retrieval system) is transferred to STORET periodically. Recent changes have provided special measures to
facilitate the user's retrieval of ground-water information.
Each Agency submits its own information, which is submitted to basic checks for existence of mandatory fields and
range checks as it is added to WQS. EPA guidelines exist for data definition and quality. They are optional, but
EPA strongly encourages their use. States submitting information follow QA/QC procedures as specified in Section
106 of the CWA. Although STORET software edits incoming data for errors and inconsistencies, the owners of the
data are responsible for its content.
Access
Any person with access to the EPA National Computer Center IBM ES-9000 computer has access to WQS.
Although agencies may lock their STORET information, almost all information is available to the public. To add or
change information, you must have a special Agency ID and password; agencies may change only their own
information.
National Manager
Bob King
(202) 260-7028
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Internet Address
Not Applicable
STORET X
Description
STORET X will be EPA's principle repository for marine and freshwater ambient water quality and biological monitoring
information. STORET X will combine the functionality of present STORET Water Quality System (WQS) with that of the
Biological Information System (BIOS), and the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). This new system will better meet the
emerging data and information needs associated with watershed-level environmental protection. STORET X will promote data
sharing and meet spatial assessment requirements for successful local watershed protection programs. With STORET X, the
water monitoring community will have access to information that accurately reflects the current and future way they do their
jobs. STORET X can be effectively used by decision makers to both plan and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention
and abatement programs.
STORET X Information
The STORET X tool kit will emphasize delivery of data (rather than analysis) to the end user, in a form most compatible with the
intended analysis. Users will have broad latitude in defining these export formats. Users can format STORET X data in any of a
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-11
number of ways, and export the formatted STORET X data to their local workstation from which it may be analyzed. Types of
analyses typically include statistical, graphical, or spatial (imported into a Geographic Information System or "CIS").
The STORET-X Database is relational, that is it is composed of a variety of data tables which have
logical connections among them. They are:
Organizations: Descriptions, defaults, and shortcuts relevant to a specific organization allowing the system to be
customized.
Projects: Project descriptions related to trips, stations and field activities.
Stations: Descriptions related to projects, site visits and field activities.
Trips and Visits: Outings during which field activities occur.
Field Activities: Observations, measurements or samples taken in the field, or created from other samples taken in the
field.
Results: Names of things being measured or observed ("characteristics") and the values associated with their
measurement or observation. Also, metadata concerning these measurements.
Although data analysis will not be the fundamental function of the STORET X Tool Kit, certain data interpretation tools will be
available to enable data browsing and to provide data summaries. The exact array of tools to be provided is under analysis in the
ongoing STORET X Tool Kit study.
Information Collection
States submitting information follow quality assurance and control procedures as specified in Section 106 of the CWA. All
STORET X data will be checked for invalid data ranges or missing mandatory fields before being added to the system. Although
STORET X software will edit incoming data for errors and inconsistencies, the owners of the data have the primary responsibility
for its content. However, data in the system will be of known quality.
Access
STORET X is not yet available. The first production version is expected to be released in the summer of 1998, initially in a
client/server architecture using a UNIX/Oracle server and a PC-based Oracle client workstation configuration. A version that
operates in a stand-alone mode on a 32-bit PC workstation will also be offered.
National Manager
Phil Lindenstruth
(202) 260-6549
lindenstruth.phil@epa.gov
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/STORET/sthp.html
Waterbody System
Description
The Waterbody System (WBS) is an automated data base of State water quality assessment information maintained
by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. WBS facilitates collection, storage, retrieval, and analysis of
water quality assessment information collected by the States to meet the Agency's Congressional reporting
requirement under §305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
WBS Information
The WBS contains information that helps program managers report accurately and quickly on the water quality status
of a particular water body. It may also be used to target resource expenditures and to set surface water program
priorities.
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix G-1;
Waterbody identification Assessment information
Water quality status Causes or stressors of impairment
Sources of impairment
Under the Clean Water Act, States submit information to EPA on several types of surface waters affected by point or
nonpoint source pollution including: rivers, lakes, estuaries, Great Lakes, ocean shoreline, wetlands and
groundwater.
The Waterbody System serves as an inventory of each State's navigable waters that have been assessed for water
quality and is used as the basis for the 305(b) Report to Congress every two years. States assemble available
monitoring information and make judgements on water quality before summary information can be entered into the
system. WBS stores the components and the results of the assessment. The WBS is not designed to store,
manipulate, or analyze raw monitoring data.
The WBS is linked to the EPA Reach File and STORET via Reach indexing. Also, the NPDES number links
facilities reported in the WBS to IFD and PCS.
Information Collection
The Clean Water Act requires each State, territory, and interstate commission to develop a program to monitor the
quality of its water and to prepare a report every two years describing the status of water quality. The information is
collected an entered into WBS by the States, territories and interstate commissions. This information is submitted to
EPA every two years to update the National data base.
WBS is a voluntary program currently used by approximately 40 States, territories, and river basin Commissions.
The data base consists of assessments rather than monitoring data and includes many optional fields. Consistency is
good within a State. Those wishing to aggregate to a Regional or National level should discuss data characteristics
with the WBS coordinator.
Access
Any person with access to the EPA National Computer Center IBM ES-9000 computer has access to the WBS. This
will allow the user to view information and generate reports. Only State approved contacts are given a password and
allowed to add or edit information. User support is available from the Monitoring Branch.
National Manager
Barry Burgan
(202) 260-7060
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Internet Address
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/NBSFlash/NBSFlash.html
EPA Water Program Information Systems Compendium Draft 5/18/98
-------
Appendix H
The Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the
United States, 1995, Excerpts from the Technical Appendices:
• Indicator Selection Criteria
• Indicators for Meeting Management Objectives
Tetra Tech, Inc. October 5,1998 Draft
-------
-------
Appendix H-1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E
INDICATOR-SELECTION CRITERIA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
initiated discussions on water-monitoring activities in
April 1991; the identification of pervasive problems
associated with monitoring resulted in formation of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM). The ITFM, which was mandated by an
Office of Management and Budget directive to
strengthen coordination for water information nation-
wide, began work in January 1992. It comprises 20
representatives of Federal, State, and interstate gov-
ernmental groups. In addition, approximately 150
Federal and State staff sit on the following task groups:
Intergovernmental Framework, Data Management and
Information Sharing, Data Collection Methods, Envi-
ronmental Indicators, and Assessment and Reporting.
This document represents one of the work products of
the Environmental Indicators Task Group (Task
Group) and describes the selection criteria table
(attached) and some of the supporting rationale.
Definition
The group developed the following definition of
"environmental indicator ... measurable feature or fea-
tures that provide managerially and scientifically use-
ful evidence of environmental and ecosystem quality or
reliable evidence of trends in quality." Thus, environ-
mental indicators must be measurable with available
technology, scientifically valid for assessing or docu-
menting ecosystem quality, and useful for providing
information for management decisionmaking. Envi-
ronmental indicators encompass a broad suite of mea-
sures that include tools for assessment of chemical,
physical, and biological conditions and processes at
several levels. These characteristics of environmental
indicators have helped define the scope of the group
activities.
This Task Group used guidelines gathered from
the monitoring programs of eight Federal and State
agencies or groups to establish a set of criteria that can
be used to select biological, chemical, and physical
indicators that will provide information appropriate for
addressing objectives of particular programs. These
criteria are organized into three broad categories—sci-
entific validity (technical considerations), practical
considerations, and programmatic considerations. The
list of selection criteria includes those currently in use
by the following offices or programs: USEPA, Office
of Water; USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation; USEPA, Environmetal Monitoring and
Assessment Program; USEPA Region 2, Lake Ontario
Stewardship; U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI),
USGS; USDOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service; Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency; and New York
Bight Project.
We intend these criteria to be useful to any pro-
gram in which indicators for describing environmental
quality or measuring program success must be selected.
Selection of Appropriate Indicators
Standard Selection Criteria
Environmental indicators should be able to sat-
isfy predetermined selection criteria to ensure their via-
bility. These criteria provide a series of guidelines that
shape the decisionmaking process, which results in an
indicator that meets the needs of the program. It is
important to put the selection criteria into a standard-
ized format that can be useful for nationwide programs.
Standardization of the selection criteria streamlines the
indicator selection process, reduces costs, prevents
duplication of effort, and provides a consistency,
thereby increasing the potential for cross-program
comparisons.
The task group decided that it should focus on
indicators for which techniques, protocols, or equip-
ment were either available or in advanced stages of
development, rather than concentrate on potential mea-
sures; the group felt that concentrating on potential
measures would be unrealistic considering the 1- to
3-year time limitation. It was decided to focus on
attainable goals, and with the diverse experience and
backgrounds represented on the group membership,
there would be an abundance of information to compile
to understand what is currently available.
Criteria Categories
Scientific validity is the foundation for deter-
mining whether data can be compared with reference
conditions or other sites. Data collected from a sam-
pling site become irrelevant if they cannot be easily
Technical Appendix E 27
-------
Appendix H-2
compared with conditions found at a site determined to
be minimally impaired. Factors must be balanced
when considering the scientific validity of an indicator
and its application in real-world situations. An indica-
tor must not only be scientifically valid, but its applica-
tion must be practical (that is, not too costly or too tech-
nically complex) when placed within the constraints of
a monitoring program. Of primary importance is that
the indicator must be able to address the questions that
the program seeks to answer.
For discussion purposes, these criteria have
been divided into three categories—scientific validity
(technical considerations) practical considerations,
and programmatic considerations. Although dis-
cussed separately, these categories are not entirely
separate entities, but rather portions of characteristics
that provide some guidance in the indicator-selection
process.
Scientific Validity
As with any monitoring or bioassessment pro-
gram, the data collected must be scientifically valid for
it to be useful. Table 1 lists 11 guidelines that have
been identified for assisting in this determination.
Measurements of environmental indicators
should produce data that are valid and quantitative or
qualitative and allow for comparisons on temporal and
spatial levels. This is particularly important for com-
parisons with the reference condition. Interpretation of
measurements must accurately discern between natural
variability and the effects induced by anthropogenic
stressors. This requires a level of sensitivity and reso-
lution sufficient to detect ecological perturbations and
to indicate not only the presence of a problem, but to
provide early warning signs of an impending impact.
The methodology should be reproducible and provide
the same level of sensitivity regardless of geographic
location. It also should have a wide geographic range
of application and a set of reference-condition data that
can be used for comparisons.
Practical Considerations
The success of a biomonitoring program is
dependent on the ability to collect consistent data over
the long term; consistency is directly related to the
practical application of the prescribed methodologies
The practical considerations include monitoring cost
availability of experienced personnel, the practical
application of the technology, and the environmental
impacts caused as a result of monitoring.
A cost-effective procedure should supply a large
amount of information in comparison to cost and effort. C
significant importance is the acknowledgment that not
every quantitative characteristic needs to be measured
unless it is required to answer the specific questions. It
may be more important to have a range of qualitative am
quantitative data from a large number of sites than it is tc
have a small number of quantitative parameter measure-
ments from a small number of sites. Cost effectiveness
may be dependent on the availability of experienced per-
sonnel and the ability to find or detect the indicating
parameters at all locations. State-of-the-art technology is
useless in a biomonitoring program if experienced persor
nel are in short supply or the data cannot be collected at a]
the stations. Equally important is the ability to collect th<
data with limited impact to the environment. Some collet
tion procedures (for example, using rotenone to collect
fish) are very effective, but minor miscalculations can
cause significant environmental damage. These methodo!
ogies should be replaced with less destructive procedures
Programmatic Considerations
Stated objectives of a program are an importan
factor in selecting indicators. Sampling and analysis
programs should be structured around questions to be
addressed. The term "programmatic considerations"
simply means that the program should be evaluated tc
confirm that the original objectives will be met once
the data have come together. If the design and the datz
being produced by a program do not meet the original
objective(s) within the context of scientific validity anc
resource availability, then the selected indicators and
uncertainty specifications should be reevaluated.
Another important consideration is the ease with
which the information obtained can be communicated to
the public. Although it is essential to present informatior
for decisionmakers, scientists, or other specialized audi-
ences, information for the general public needs to be
responsive to public interests and summarized for clarity
28 The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States—Technical Appendixes
-------
Appendix H-3
Table 1. Summary of some indicator selection criteria
(Sources: I'SEPA/Office of Policy. Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE). USEPA/Environmemal Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). USGS.
L'.S Forest Service (USFS). U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Ohio EPA. USEPA Region 2/Lake Ontano Stewardship Indicators. New York
Bight Project]
Criteria/quality Definition(s)
Scientific validity (technical considerations)
Measurable/quantitative Feature of environment measurable overtime; has defined numerical scale and can
be quantified simply.
Sensitivity Responds to broad range of conditions or perturbations within an appropriate time
frame and geographic scale; sensitive to potential impacts being evaluated.
Resolution/discriminatory power Ability to discriminate meaningful differences in environmental condition with a
high degree of resolution (high signal to noise ratio).
Integrates effects/exposure Integrates effects or exposure over time and space.
Validity/accuracy Parameter is true measure of some environmental conditions within constraints of
existing science.
Related or linked unambiguously to an endpoint in an assessment process.
Reproducible Reproducible within defined and acceptable limits for data collection over time and
space.
Representative Changes in parameter/species indicate trends in other parameters they are selected
to represent.
Scope/applicability Responds to changes on a geographic and temporal scale appropriate to the goal or
issue.
Reference value Has reference condition or benchmark against which to measure progress.
Data comparability Can be compared to existing data sets/past conditions.
Anticipatory Provides an early warning of changes.
Practical considerations
Cost/cost effective Information is available or can be obtained with reasonable cost/effort.
High information return per cost.
Level of difficulty Ability to obtain expertise to monitor.
Ability to find, identify, and interpret chemical parameters, biological species, or
habitat parameter.
Easily detected.
Generally accepted method available.
Sampling produces minimal environmental impact.
Programmatic considerations
Relevance Relevant to desired goal, issue, or agency mission; for example, fish fillets for con-
sumption advisories; species of recreational or commercial value.
Program coverage Program uses suite of indicators that encompass major components of the ecosys-
tem over the range of environmental conditions that can be expected.
Understandable Indicator is or can be transformed into a format that target audience can under-
stand; for example, nontechnical for public.
Technical Appendix E 29
-------
Appendix H-
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
INDICATORS FOR MEETING MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES-
SUMMARY AND RATIONALE MATRICES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey initiated dis-
cussions on water-monitoring activities in April 1991;
the identification of pervasive problems associated
with monitoring resulted in formation of the Intergov-
ernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
(ITFM). The ITFM, which was mandated by an Office
of Management and Budget directive to strengthen
coordination for water information nationwide, began
work in January 1992. It comprises 20 representatives
of Federal, State, and interstate governmental groups.
In addition, nearly 150 Federal and State staff sit on the
following task groups: Intergovernmental Framework,
Data Management and Information Sharing, Data Col-
lection Methods, Environmental Indicators, and
Assessment and Reporting. This document represents
one of the work products of the Indicators Task Group.
The following paragraphs describe the structure of the
matrix.
In the attached tables, categories of indicators
for monitoring water-resource quality, as well as uses
and management objectives, are listed and prioritized.
The indicators are meant to describe the suitability of
the water-resource use by management objective, not
the effect of a usage on a water resource. Table 1 is a
summary matrix of indicator groups versus categories
of management objectives and presents an overview of
appropriate usage. Table 2, which provides a brief
rationale for the use of the indicator type, expands the
information in table 1. All water-resource groups are
addressed by the matrix—streams and rivers, lakes and
reservoirs, wetlands, estuaries, coastal waters, and the
Great Lakes. An indicator or indicator type, which has
been identified as having priority, may not be applica-
ble to the entire spectrum of water-body types. Specif-
ically, different individual indicators are more impor-
tant for evaluation of some water-body types than
others.
Watershed-level indicators are treated differ-
ently from the other indicators. For these indicators,
recommendations on priority are not given. Because
much of this information changes slowly, data are
collected once or infrequently during the course of a
monitoring program. This background information is
needed for interpretation of data from the other
indicators.
Environmental indicators are a valuable tool for
detecting problems and identifying causal relations.
They allow management decisions to be made related
to the protection of water-resource quality.
Three broad categories of environmental indica-
tors—human health, ecological health, and economic
concerns—are related to six water uses that represent
specific management objectives. These management
objectives are analogous to the "designated uses" that
States set in their water-quality standards and report to
the USEPA as part of the 305(b) program. The term
"management objectives" is more broadly applicable to
the interests of the numerous agencies and offices
involved in the ITFM process. Within the broad areas
of human health, ecological health, or economic con-
cerns, the six categories of management objectives
include three for human health—consumption of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife; public water supply and food
processing; and recreation (boating and swimming).
Ecological health management objectives considered
are in the context of aquatic and semiaquatic life, pro-
tected species, and aquaculture and recreation (fishing
and catchability). For economic concerns, manage-
ment objectives are industry (makeup and cooling
water), transportation and hydropower, and agriculture
and forestry.
Indicator categories are broad areas of environ-
mental information that can encompass many specific
measures related to those categories. For example, spe-
cific measures within the macroinvertebrate category
can be derived from assemblage, community, popula-
tion data, and lethal and sublethal toxiciry data. Other
biological indicator categories are fish, semiaquatic
wildlife, pathogens and fecal indicator organisms, phy-
toplankton, periphyton, aquatic and semiaquatic plants,
and zooplankton.
The category "chemical exposure/water
chemistry" includes oxidative state, ionic strength,
nutrients, potentially hazardous chemicals in water,
sediment, and organismal tissue/bioaccumulation.
Indicator categories related to physical habitat include
water quantity, water temperature, suspended sediment/
turbidity, bed sediment and substrate, geomorphology,
Technical Appendix D 17
-------
Appendix H-5
geomorphology. and riparian vegetation. Watershed-
level stressors refer to factors that are often large
scale and. in some cases, change at a different
temporal scale than the other categories. Generally,
these stressors are extrinsic to the aquatic system
and include land-use patterns: vegetative cover;
loading or application of chemical, sewage, or
animal wastes: acid deposition; reaeration potential:
channel or flow modification; sedimentary indicators;
and location.
Table 1. Summary matrix of recommended environmental indicators for meeting management objectives for status and
trends of surface waters (summary matrix)
(Shaded boxes with check marks are used to recommend a primary indicator (W.S. Davis, 4/15/92; revised 4/22/92. 6/23/92. 7/4/92. 7/13/92. 9/1/92.
11/4/92. 11/17/92; J.B. Stribling, 8/27/93))
Categories of management objectives
Human health
Ecological health
Economic concerns
Indicator
group
Consump-
tion of fish,
shellfish, and
wildlife
Public
water
supply
and food
processing
Recreation
(fishing,
boating,
and
swimming,
including
catchablllty)1
Aquatic
and semi-
aquatic life
(protected
species and
aquaculture)
Industry,
energy, and
transpor-
tation
Agriculture
and
forestry
Biological response and exposure (direct)
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Semiaquatic wildlife
Pathogens
Phytoplankton
Periphyton
Aquatic/semiaquatic plants ...
Zooplankton
Chemical exposure
Water chemistry/odor/taste ...
Sediment chemistry
Animal/plant-tissue chemistry.
Hydrological characteristics...
Water temperature
Geomorphology and sediment
physical characteristics.
Riparian or shoreline zone
Watershed stressors
Land use patterns
Location, setting, human
alteration.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'This section also applies to "Human health."
NOTE: These indicators are intended to demonstrate the suitability of a water resource for a particular management objective or activity rather than
to demonstrate the effect of the management objective on the water resources.
18 The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States—Technical Appendixes
-------
Table 2. Rationale (or use of indicators in water-resource-quality-monitoring programs (or meeting water-management objectives relevant to selected surface-water
uses. These are status and trends indicators meant to illustrate the suitability of a water resource for use by a management objective rather than demonstrate the
effects of a particular management objective on that water resources
[Selection or indicators to be used in specific programs will depend on selection criteria, water-body type, and management objective. High-priority indicators are in boldface. Medium priorit\ iinlituiors
are italicized. Low-priority indicators are in regular typeface. Numbers in brackets refer to reference at end of appendix. Literature citations included here offer some technical justification lor indicator
recommendations; the 1TFM indicators task group does not mean to imply that these are the most appropriate. Also, some of the matrix cells with text do not yet have citations. |
Human health and aesthetics Ecological condition Economic concerns
Categories of
Indicators Consumption of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife
Public water
supply and food
processing
Recreation: Boating,
swimming, and fishing
(including catchability)1
species and aquaculture and "f wBarte*pe*
, Transportation A9r'cuLt"r1?,and
and hydropower forestry
Part 1 — Indicators of biological response and exposure
M acroi n vertebrates
(including problem
species): Assemblage,
aqueous or sediment
toxicity, harvesting.
populations.
Fish (including problem Abnormalities
species): Assemblage, show possible
biomarkers, abnormal!- carcinogen or
lies, aqueous or sedi- parasite.
ment toxicity, harvest-
ing, communities, pop-
ulations, biomass.
Semiaquatic wildlife:
Assemblage, popula-
tions, biomass, harvest-
ing, biomarkers.
Populations of
problem
species clog
intakes (locally
important).
Populations and
harvesting show avail-
ability. Toxicity tests
may indicate toxic condi-
tions.
Population of problem
species show commu-
nity alteration [ 1 8, 33).
Growth, biomass.
populations, and
harvesting show avail-
ability. External abnor-
malities are repugnant
to fishermen [16].
Populations show num-
ber of harvestable
organisms.
Biomarkers show
exposure to chemicals
[4, 2IJ.
Assemblage and harvesting Populations of
show system status. problem species
Populations of problem clog intakes.
species indicate invasion
of species and alteration
of community. Toxicity
tests may indicate toxic
conditions [14, 23, 33].
Population or Assemblage
show status of commu-
nity. Biomarkers and
abnormalities show para-
sites, toxicity or animal
health. Toxicity tests may
indicate toxic conditions.
Harvesting shows system
status [16, 18].
Assemblage, populations.
biomass, and harvesting
show system status.
Biomarkers show
chemical exposure [4, 5|.
Problem popula- Overabundance
lions clog dam of noxious spe-
conduils and cies may inter1
interfere with fere with irri-
navigation. gation
systems.
Do.
Do.
Pathogens and fecal
indicator microorgan-
isms: (E. coli, Giardia,
avian botulism, fecal
coliform.)
Populations Concentrations of Populations or
indicate pres- Indicator assemblage
bacteria show indicate human [29].
pathogenicity
ence of patho-
gens in shell-
fish (35).
Concentrations of pathogens
may indicate unhealthy
conditions.
HI.
Concentrations
of fecal bacte-
ria indicate
livestock
pathogens.
CD
Q.
x'
I
-------
I
I
i
f
a
H'
Table 2. Rationale for use of indicators in water-resource-quality-monitoring programs for meeting water-management objectives relevant to selected surface-water
uses. These are status and trends indicators meant to illustrate the suitability of a water resource for use by a management objective rather than demonstrate the
effects of a particular management objective on that water resource—Continued
Categories of
indicators
Phytoplankton: Assem-
. blage, biovolume.
chlorophyll a, pri-
mary productivity.
trophic status, lox-
icity, toxic forms.
Periphyton: Assemblage,
growth rate, chlorophyll
a, colonization.
Aquatic and semiaquatic
plants (including intro-
duced species): Bio-
mass, percent cover.
assemblage, trophic
status.
Zooplanklon: Assem-
blage, toxicity, biomass.
Human health and aesthetics Ecological condition
Consumption ol
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife
Assemblage of
toxic algae
indicates
possible
presence in
harvestable
species.
Public water
supply and food
processing
Part
Algal assem-
blage affects
taste, odor,
toxicity, and
treatment.
Biomass clogs
water intakes.
Biomass can
log intakes.
Recreation: Boating,
swimming, and fishing
(Including catchablliry)'
Aquatic and semi-
aquatic life, protected
species and aquaculture
Economic concerns
Industry: Makeup
and cooling water, Transportation
and other types and hydropower
of water
Agriculture and
forestry
1 — Indicators of biological response and exposure — Continued
Assemblage shows food
for herbivores. Primary
productivity or trophic sta-
tus shows eutrophicalion.
Aesthetics affect
use [13, 22).
Biomass or percent
cover indicate habitat
and flood availability.
Trophic status shows
eutrophication. Bio-
mass affects boating,
swimming (22|.
Biomass shows food
source for fish.
Assemblage, primary
productivity and chloro-
phyll a show production
to sustain ecosystem and
aquaculture. Biovolume
shows health of commu-
nity. Assemblage
responds to and affects
water chemistry. Trophic
status shows eutrophica-
lion. Toxicity disrupts
community (22).
Assemblage, chlorophyll a.
growth rale, colonization
shows system status |2|
Biomass or percent cover
indicate habitat and food.
Assemblage and trophic
status show food, habitat.
and eutrophication [22J.
Assemblage shows commu-
nity status. Toxicity dis-
Chlorophyll a biom-
ass can reduce util-
ity of water Tor
cleaning, textiles.
Primary productiv-
ity enhances assimi-
lative capacity.
Biomass clogs water Plant biomass
intakes. impedes
navigation.
do
Sonic blucgreen
algae are toxic
to livestock
under certain
circumstances
|34|.
Overabundance
of noxious
species may
interfere with
irrigation
systems.
rupts community. Biomass
sustains aquaculture.
T3
CD
Q.
x'
-------
I
I
I
a
X
O
Table 2. Rationale for use of indicators in water-resource-quality-monitoring programs for meeting water-management objectives relevant to selected surface-water
uses. These are status and trends indicators meant to illustrate the suitability of a water resource for use by a management objective rather than demonstrate the
effects of a particular management objective on thai water resource—Continued
Categories of
indicators
Human health and aesthetics
Consumption of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife
Public water
supply and food
processing
Ecological condition
Recreation: Boating,
swimming, and fishing
(including catchability)1
Aquatic and semi-
aquatic life, protected
species and aquaculture
Economic concerns
Industry: Makeup
and cooling water,
and other types
of water
Transportation
and hydropower
Agriculture and
forestry
Part 2 — Indicators of chemical response and exposure
Qxygenation: Dissolved
oxygen, BOD, benthic
oxygen demand, redox
potential of sediment.
reaeralion potential.
assimilative capacity.
Ionic strength: pH, hard-
ness, alkalinity, acid
neutralizing capacity.
salinity, conductivity.
total dissolved solids.
Ionic strength
and pH affect
availability of
chemicals.
Oxidation stale
affects process-
ing techniques
and portability
due to metallics
and organics.
Salinity and pH
affect corrosive-
ness. Salinity
alters potability
and affects
treatment.
Respiration of fish.
Anaerobic water is
anaesthetic [3 1|.
Extreme pH irritates eyes.
Ionic strength affects life
and chemical processes
including toxicity 1 16].
Respiration requires
oxygen. Sediment
redox affects toxicily.
benthic community
I36J.
Ionic strength affects
life, toxicity, and
chemical processes.
Hardness and pH
alter habitat suit-
ability 1 16)
Oxygen alters utility of
water for waste dis-
charge.
Salinity and pH
affect cormsive-
ness and utility for
cleaning and textile
industry. Solids
accumulate on
equipment.
Density influ-
ences barge
loading capac-
ity. pH affects
corrosion of
turbines.
Salinity and pH
affect live-
stock, degra-
dation of pes-
ticides, crops
and soil fertil-
ity. Hardness
alters sensi-
tivity to salt
Nutrients: Nitrogen
phosphorus.
Potentially hazardous
chemicals in water.
Odor and taste, unaes-
thelic chemicals.
Influences algal Affects fish biomass. phy-
growth thus pota- toplankton and macro-
bility and phyle growth [31 ].
impingement
on intake screens
[31].
Human toxicity
HI
Affects bio-
accumula-
tion by food
organisms [33].
Odor in fish unat- Affects palat-
tractive to con- ability.
sumer.
Toxic to swimmers.
Unattractive to user of
water.
Affects productivity,
toxicity and com-
munity structure
131].
Toxic to aquatic life
[16,36].
Alters aquaculture
product market-
ability.
Affects fitness for
chemical industry.
Affects trees,
soil, crops,
and livestock.
73
73
CD
Q.
X'
I
t
rn
-------
M Table 2. Rationale for use of indicators in water-resource-quality-monitoring programs for meeting water-management objectives relevant to selected surface-water
uses. These are status and trends indicators meant to illustrate the suitability of a water resource for use by a management objective rather than demonstrate the
y effects of a particular management objective on that water resource—Continued
Categories of
Indicators
Potentially hazardous
chemicals in bottom
or suspended
sediment.
Poetenlially hazardous
chemicals in animal
and plant tissue, bioac-
cumulalion.
Human health and aesthetics
Consumption of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife
Gut contents of
shellfish could
be toxic (35).
Bioaccumulated
chemicals
toxic to con-
sumer 1 35).
Public water
supply and food
processing
Part
Toxic to humans.
Ecological condition
Recreation: Boating,
swimming, and fishing
(including catchabillty)1
Aquatic and semi-
aquatic life, protected
species and aquaculture
Economic concerns
Industry: Makeup
and cooling water,
and other types
of water
Transportation
and hydropower
Agriculture and
forestry
2 — Indicators of chemical response and exposure — Continued
Toxic to swimmers.
Toxic to aquatic life (7,
34].
Show exposure, toxicity
affects community |30|.
Affects pre- and post-
treatment.
Polluted sedi-
ment affects
dredge per-
mits 1 24 ].
Chemicals on
participates
alter fertility.
Part J— Indicators of physical habitat
Quantity of water:
Drainage area, water
level, stream order,
velocity, hydrologic
regime, flow duration.
Water temperature.
Suspended sediment
turbidity, color.
Flow affects
bacterial con-
centrations in
shellfish.
Alters growth
rate of harm-
ful bacteria
and algae.
Knowledge of
quantity is
required for
use.
Chemical treat-
ment is
temperature
dependent.
Sedimentation
affects longev-
ity of dams and
treatment.
Maintenance of flow for
rafting and fisheries [25|.
Swimming and fisheries
are temperature depen-
dent [25].
Turbidity anaesthetic in
some locales.
Depth and flow needed
for habitat, and
aquaculture |3].
Life processes and com-
munity structure are
temperature dependent
HO].
Sedimentation reduces
habitat, clogs gills, and
buries organisms. Tur-
bidity affects primary
productivity |l,36|.
Required quantity.
Affects suitability as
cooling water and
type of chemical
treatment.
Amount affects
treatment, thus suit-
ability and cost of
process waters.
Quantity
required to
maintain
depth.
Affects density
and equipment
longevity.
Suspended sedi-
ment reduces
equipment
longevity.
Sedimentation
affects dams.
Required
quantity for
irrigation.
Can promote
abundance of
noxious spe-
cies and suit-
ability for irri-
gation.
Sedimentation
clogs
irrigation
conveyances.
T3
T3
CD
Q.
x'
I
I
CD
-------
Table 2. Rationale for use of indicators in water-resource-quality-monitoring programs for meeting water-management objectives relevant to selected surface-water
uses. These are status and trends indicators meant to illustrate the suitability of a water resource for use by a management objective rather than demonstrate the
effects of a particular management objective on that water resource—Continued
Categories of
indicators
Human health and aesthetics
Consumption of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife
Public water
supply and food
processing
Ecological condition
Recreation: Boating,
swimming, and fishing
(Including catchabllity)1
Aquatic and semi-
aquatic life, protected
species and aquaculture
Economic concerns
Industry: Makeup
and cooling water,
and other types
of water
Transportation A9rifc"''utrretfand
and hydropower torestry
Part 3— Indicators of physical habitat— Continued
Bed sediment and sub- Affects chemical. A source of Mud bottoms are unties- Affects habitat and chemi- Affects treatment, thus Sediment aHects .Sediments clog
strate characteristics: availability. suspended sedi- thetic and reduce fish cal availability. Deter- suitability and cost equipment irrigation con-
Size distribution, ment. and habitat availability mines suitability for of process waters. longevity, veyances.
embeddedness [II]. shellfish culture 13, 12| bank stability.
Geomorphology: Slope,
bank stability, channel
morphology.
Riparian or shoreline
vegetation, canopy.
cover.
Alters contact
time with toxi-
cants.
Filters out lox- Reduces turbidity.
ics.
Type of habitat (erosive type of habitat Erosion of banks
and depositional) gov- (erosive and threatens
erns recreation potential depositional) structures.
[II]. controls biotic
community (12, 15].
Affects temperature, Affects habitat, do
aesthetics and habitat, temperature,
thus swimming and fish- productivity, oxygen,
eries [10]. and inputs of organic
matter [10, 12).
Erosion and Erosion of
deposition banks
affect depth, reduces crop-
dam capacity, land.
navigation
and dam lon-
gevity |32J.
Snugs from Riparian strips
fallen trees alter eroxion
block access. of banks thus
Plants alter cropland.
flow of irriga-
tion water.
Part 4—Indicators of watershed-level slressors
Land use type and inten-
sity: Human and live-
stock density.
Affects bio-
accumulation
Ml
Population deter- Turbidity and sedimenta-
mines quantity
needed. Affects
presence of
chemicals.
Source of patho-
gens.
lion from urbanization
and livestock reduces
habitat quality and fish
availability [9, 17, 19].
Land use affects turbidity,
sedimentation, habitat
quality, chemcial contam-
ination or other distur-
bance (17. 20. 31].
Land use affects Urbanization
loading of
sediments
|32|.
reduces crop-
land.
TJ
-a
CD
a.
-------
I
3
-------
This section also applies to "Human Health and Aesthetics."
I. Abel, PD., 198, Water pollution biology: Chichester, England, Ellis Norwood Ltd., p. 1-23.
2. Bahls. L , 1992. Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams: Montana Water Quality Bureau, p. 1-23.
3. Bain. M.B., Finn, J.T., and Booke, H.E.,1988, Slreamflow regulation and fish community structure: Ecology, v. 69, no. 2, p. 382-392.
4. Benson, W.H., and DiGiulio, R.T., 1992, Biornarkers in hazard assessments of contaminated sediments, in Burton. G.A., ed.. Sediment loxicily testing: Boca Raton, I l.i . Lewis Publishers.
p. 241-265.
5. Brooks, R.P., Arnold, D.E., Bellis, E.D., Keener, C.S., and Croonquist, M.J., 1989, A methodology for biological monitoring of cumulative impacts on wetland, stream, and riparian components of
watersheds, in Kusler, J.A., and Brooks, G.,eds., Proceedings of the International Symposium—Wetlands and river corridor management: Association of Wetland Managers. Inc., p. I--520.
6. Dixil. S.S., Smol, J.P., Kingston, J.C., and Charles, D.F., 1992, Diatoms—Powerful indicators of environmental change: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 2f>. p. 2-33.
7. Fairchild, W.L., Muir. D.C.G., Currie, R.S., and Yarechewski, A.L., 1992, Emerging insects as a biolic pathway for movement of 2,3,7,8 lelrachlorodiben/oluran from lake sediments: Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 11. no. 6, p. 867-871.
8. Farag, A.M., Woodward, D.F., Little, E.E., Sleadman, B., and Vertucci, F.A., 1993, The effects of low pH and elevated aluminum on Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Omorhymhus ctarki biiuvifri):
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 12, no. 4, p. 719-731.
9. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Biology Section, 1994, Lake bioassessmenl for the determination of non-point source impairment in Florida: Department of Environmental Pro-
lection, Biology Section, 37 p.
10. Galli, J., 1990, Thermal impacts associated with urbanization and slormwater management best management practices: Anacostia Restoration Team, Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, Publication 91701, p. 1-157.
II. Harr, D.R., and Nichols, R.A., 1992, Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats—A northwest Washington example: Fisheries, v. 8, no. 4, p. 18-22.
12. Hawkins, C.P., Murphy, M.L., and Anderson, N.H., 1982, Effects of canopy, substrate composition, and gradient on the structure ofmacroinvertebrale communities in the cascade range streams of
Oregon: Ecology, v 63. no. 6, p. 1840-1856.
13. Heiskary. S.A., 1989, Integrating ecoregion concepts into stale lake management programs, in National Conference on Enhancing the Stales' Lake Management Programs, Chicago, III., I9XX. Pro-
ceedings: Chicago, III., North Amercian Lake Management Society, p. 89-100.
14. Hilsenhoff, W.L.. 1982. Using a biolic index to evaluate water quality in streams: Madison, Wis. Department of Natural Resources/Technical Bulletin 132 , p. 1-22.
15. Hupp, C.R.. and Simon, A., 1991. Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional surfaces along modified alluvial channels: Geomorphology, v. 4, p. 1-14.
16. Ingersoll, C.G., Dwyer, F.J., Burch, S.A.. Nelson, M.K., Bucker, D.R., and Hunn, J.B., 1992, The use of freshwater and saltwater animals to distinguish between the toxic effect of salinity and
contaminants in irrigation drain water: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 11, no. 4, p. 503-511.
17. Jones, R.C.. and Clark, C.C., 1987, Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 23, no. 6. p. 1047-1055.
18. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yanl, P.R., and Schlosser. I. J., 1986, Assessing biological integrity in running waters—A method and its rationale: Illinois Natural History Special
Publication 5, 28 p.
19. Leonard, P.M., and Orth, D.J., 1986, Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater streams: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 115, p. 401-414.
20. Mac Donald, L.H., Smart, A.W., and Wissmar, R.C., 1991, Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Seattle, Wash.. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Region 10. EPA/910/9-91-001, p. 1-166.
21. McCarthy, J.F., and Shugart, L.R., eds., 1990, Biornarkers of environmental contamination: Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, 457 p.
22. Olem, H., and Flock, G., eds., 1990, Lake and reservoir restoration guidance manual (2d. ed.): Prepared by North American Lake Management Society for U.S. Environmental Proection Agency,
EPA 440/4-90-006, p. 1-326.
23. Plaflin. J.L., Barbour. M.T.. Porter, K.D.. Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessmenl protocols for use in streams and rivers— Benthic macroinvertebraies and fish: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Office of Water, EPA 440/4-89/001, p. 6.1-6.39.
24. Power, E.A.. and P.M. Chapman. 1992, Assessing sediment quality, chap. I «/Burton, G.A., ed.. Sediment loxicily assessment: Boca Raton, Fla.. Lewis Publisher, p. 1-18.
25. Rochester, H.. Jr.. Lloyd. T.. and Fair, M., 1984, Physical impacts of small-scale hydroelectric facilities and their effects on fish and wildlife: U.S. Department of the Interior. I-TVS/OBS 84 19 p.
xiv. 191.
26. Sale, M.J., 1985, Aquatic ecosystem response to flow modification—An overview of the issues: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Publication 2570. 23 p
27. Schindler, D.W., 1988, Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems: Science, v. 239, p 149-157. -5
28. Schindler, D.W., Kasian, S.E.M., and Hesslein, R.H., 1989, Biological impoverishment in lakes of the midweslem and northeastern United Slates from acid rain: Environmental Science and lech "O
nology, v. 23, p. 573-580. =J
29. Simpson, J.T., 1991. Volunteer lake monitoring—A methods manual: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/4-91-02, p. 1-121. ~
I
-------
g> 30. Stewart, A.J., Haynes. G.J., and Martinez, M.I., 1992., Fate and biological effects of contaminated vegetation in a Tennessee stream: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 11. no 5,
p. 654-664.
H 31. Terrell. C.R., and Perfelti, P.B., 1989. Water quality indicators guide—Surface waters: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. SCS-TP-16. p 1-129
* 32. Thornton, K.W., 1990, Sedimentary processes, in Thornton, K.W., Kimmel, B.L., and Payne, F.E., eds.. Reservoir limnology—Ecological perspectives: New York. John Wiley anil Sons.
S3 p. 43-70.
K 33. U.S. Forest Service. 1989, Aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys, chap. 5, o/Fisheries habitat surveys handbook, Ogden, Utah, U.S. Forest Service, Inlermounlain Region, 48 p.
Jg 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984, Technical support manual—Walerbody surveys and assessments for conducting use attainability, v. 3 ((/Lake system: U.S. Environmental Pro-
g> lection Agency, p.Ill l-lll.10.
H 35. 1989, Assessing human health risks from chemically-contaminated fish and shellfish—A guidance manual: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ol Olfitc ol
.3 Marine and Esluarine Protection and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 503/8-89-002.
O 36. Wiederholm, T., 1984, Responses of aquatic insects to environmental pollution, in Resh.V.H., and Rosenberg, D.M, eds., The ecology of aquatic insects: New York, Praeger, p. 508-557
a
I
5
c
I
8
CD
Q.
X I
5 !
CO
-------
-------
-------
------- |