&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Implementation Tracking Needs
Assessment
Current Status and Future Needs for
States in Regions 5, 6, and 10
March 2008
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Prepared By:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
COM
Geosyntec Consultants
Contract No. 68-C-02-109
Task Order No. 27
Task Order Manager: Dean Maraldo, EPA Region 5
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Program recently performed an analysis of current watershed restoration performance measures and
potential hurdles to identifying future restoration goals and priorities. EPA has always recognized the
value of tracking and categorizing ongoing TMDL implementation efforts. However, the results of the
Region 5 analysis revealed the magnitude of the importance of documenting and tracking
implementation efforts for TMDLs and other water quality restoration efforts, and the benefits that
would ensue from such efforts.
The Cadmus Group, Inc. (Cadmus), along with team members Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM)
and Geosyntec Consultants, were retained by EPA to assess the current status of TMDL implementation
tracking in nine different states, including each of the Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin), two states in Region 10 (Alaska and Washington), and one state in
Region 6 (New Mexico). In addition to assessing the current status of TMDL implementation tracking,
TMDL implementation tracking needs were also determined for each of the nine states. In addition to
the state interviews, several discussions also took place with EPA headquarters and regional staff in
order to obtain their perspectives on the need to track TMDL implementation, including information on
what to track (e.g., indicators) and how to track it (e.g., tools).
The level of tracking performed by the nine states interviewed varies from almost no tracking of
implementation information to relatively robust dedicated tracking systems with query and reporting
functions and spatial tracking capabilities. Most of the states do not have a dedicated TMDL
implementation tracking system in place. However, almost all of the states interviewed see value in
developing and implementing a tracking system, with potential benefits ranging from establishing a
process and indicators for tracking interim implementation steps to reporting progress on restoration to
multiple internal and external stakeholders.
The following were identified by the states and EPA as the primary benefits and advantages to having a
mechanism in place to track TMDL implementation:
Provides a method to monitor and track the effectiveness of TMDL implementation.
Help monitor and track activities of all agencies involved with implementing TMDLs.
Provides management with a central location to review TMDL implementation progress.
Allows for the quick generation of reports on implementation progress for EPA, state
legislature, and the public.
Supports cross program coordination (e.g., TMDL, 319, NPDES, etc.)
Enhances information sharing capabilities among Federal, state, and local agencies.
Support for watershed based management programs.
Shows link between funding, implementation activities, and water quality improvements.
Potentially useful tool to help guide program direction.
Provides useful information for permit development and monitoring planning.
-------
National tracking would allow for the comparison of data across state lines. In turn, this could
enable EPA to consistently report on key questions, such as "are we implementing our TMDLs"
or possibly, "are we cleaning up our watersheds."
Tracking system could help states and EPA with national performance measure reporting needs.
Two major challenges to tracking implementation were identified. First, there is no identified source of
funding to develop and maintain a tracking system. States that do not currently possess a tracking
system have not allocated funding to develop a system. States with tracking systems have limited
funding for ongoing development. States are also concerned about the level of resources necessary to
maintain data entry and reporting. Most states interviewed indicated that 0.5 to 1.0 additional full time
staff equivalents (FTE) would be necessary over current staffing levels for the data entry, maintenance,
and reporting they would envision if a system were in place. The second major challenge was identified
by states with their own tracking systems in place. States with existing systems capable of tracking
implementation information would prefer to continue to develop and utilize their own systems. If a
national system were to be created, states with their own tracking systems expressed concern with the
need to establish interfaces that would allow for data exchange between the state and national systems.
The following were identified by the states and EPA as the key features or capabilities they would like to
see in a TMDL implementation tracking system:
Ability to track and report on interim milestones for TMDL implementation and not just the
single end goal of achieving water quality standards.
Ability to track EPA-funded and non-EPA funded projects (e.g., Farm Bill projects).
Ability to easily query and extract data for reporting purposes.
Include both programmatic progress and environmental progress. For example, a programmatic
milestone may be whether or not controls (e.g., permits) have been implemented. An
environmental milestone would be the progress of that control toward improving water quality.
Needs to support ability to report on both qualitative and quantitative measures of success.
Web-based functionality.
This assessment was undertaken to be proactive as both EPA and states are developing a growing
interest in understanding and documenting TMDL implementation as a crucial step on the way to
waterbody restoration. It is important to begin thinking about how best to track the implementation of
TMDLs in order to ultimately report on the level of waterbody restoration. Most states would use a
tracking system if developed by EPA, especially those that have not already developed a state-specific
system. Some states would consider the availability of a tracking system as an impetus to begin formal
TMDL implementation tracking in their state. The most significant obstacle to tracking TMDL
implementation is the limited availability of resources for developing and maintaining a tracking system.
A critical first step in the development of a state, regional, or national tracking system will be the
identification of a consistent set of indicators to track implementation. A minimum set of tracking
indicators, and other potential indicators, was developed during this assessment and is contained within
this document. Further refinement and development will be necessary for a standardized tracking tool.
States should work with EPA to develop these indicators, in order to be as consistent as possible.
-------
Minimum implementation indicators would include:
TMDL adoption, such as: waterbody ID, pollutants addressed, etc.
Implementation plan development and approval
Responsible implementation parties
Allocations incorporated into permits
Completed projects
Water quality monitoring triggers
Restoration evaluation
Before further exploring the architectural framework for a potential regional or national tracking tool or
database, the first recommended next step is to develop a workgroup comprised of state and EPA staff
to further discuss the many questions and issues about a national or regional tracking database that arose
during this assessment; for example, what would be the primary uses of a tracking database? Following
these discussions, the workgroup would clearly define the goals and objectives of a tracking system, as
well as identify the intended uses.
Once the goals and intended uses of the system are established, the second recommended next step
would be to identify the various indicators and benchmarks necessary for tracking the implementation of
TMDLs and other water quality restoration efforts. This would be a collaborative process between
states and EPA to ensure consistency. A number of potential indicators and benchmarks were identified
during the interviews with the states and EPA (and discussed throughout this report). Minimum
implementation indicator categories would include:
TMDL adoption, such as: waterbody ID, pollutants addressed, etc.
Implementation plan development and approval
Responsible implementation parties
Allocations incorporated into permits
Completed projects
Water quality monitoring triggers
Restoration evaluation
The results of the state/EPA workgroup planning process would be documented in a report for EPA
and states to refer to should either explore the possibility of developing a state, regional, or national
tracking system.
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
In a recent report, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) noted the need to report information on
TMDL implementation activities and on the water quality improvements associated with total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs). In the September, 2007 report1, OIG recommended that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water demonstrate that TMDLs are being implemented by annually
reporting on the progress of TMDL implementation activities completed nationwide including the
number of TMDLs that have all wasteload allocations incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits and have implemented load allocations through at least one best
management practice (BMP) funded through the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Program. OIG
further recommends that the Office of Water demonstrate the results of implemented TMDLs by
annually reporting on the progress of water quality improvements resulting from TMDLs nationwide.
Currently, once a TMDL is approved, there is no standardized process for tracking on-the-ground
implementation efforts and progress. This severely limits the ability of the EPA and the states to predict
recovery and provide follow-up monitoring, assistance, and support. Nationally, EPA is in the process
of developing a TMDL program "pipeline" as an organizational framework for developing, assessing,
and interpreting results measures. The pipeline identifies key stages along the TMDL process including
listing, planning, implementation, and recovery. Region 5, as well as the other regions that participated
in this survey, believes that this process can be enhanced by putting in place, a process that captures the
necessary information to allow for the classification of each waterbody with a completed TMDL into
categories along the TMDL pipeline.
The EPA Region 5 TMDL Program recently performed an analysis of the current watershed restoration
performance measures and potential hurdles to identifying future restoration goals and priorities. EPA
has always recognized the value of tracking and categorizing ongoing TMDL implementation efforts.
However, the results of the Region 5 analysis revealed the magnitude of the importance of documenting
and tracking implementation efforts for TMDLs and other water quality restoration efforts, and the
benefits that would ensue from such efforts. For example, tracking implementation efforts would allow
for TMDL Program results to be more accurately reported and predicted.
The Cadmus Group, Inc. (Cadmus), in conjunction with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), and
Geosyntec Consultants, were retained by EPA to assess the current status of TMDL implementation
tracking in nine different states, including each of the Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin), two states in Region 10 (Alaska and Washington), and one state in
Region 6 (New Mexico). In addition to assessing the current status of TMDL implementation tracking,
TMDL implementation tracking needs were also determined for each of the nine states. In particular,
each state's needs were evaluated with respect to developing a state-specific or EPA tracking system.
The assessment was completed through a combination of face-to-face meetings with state TMDL,
303(d), and information systems personnel; conference calls with EPA regional and headquarters staff,
and web-based research. The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of the assessment and
identify recommendations and potential next steps. Information specific to each state interviewed is
1 Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. 2007-P-00036.
-------
contained within Section 3 of this report, including examples of existing data tracking systems (for
TMDLs or other program information); Section 3 also contains noteworthy information from other
states that were not interviewed, but were researched through the internet. Section 4 presents EPA's
perspective on TMDL implementation tracking. Sections 5 and 6 present conclusions and
recommendations for next steps, respectively.
3.0 INDIVIDUAL STATE ASSESSMENTS
3.1. Alaska
3.1.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
Most TMDLs in Alaska have a single wasteload allocation, such as to a stormwater permittee, seafood
processor, logging or mining operation, etc. The biggest challenge with respect to TMDL
implementation in Alaska is that its implementation actions are primarily voluntary. Most of their
TMDLs do not have competing wasteload allocations. A major challenge in Alaska is determining
natural conditions and natural contributions that are difficult to distinguish from human actions. This
will be an increasing challenge with significant changes in climate. Alaska has limited 319 Program funds
compared to the size of the state, but may have fewer agricultural impacts than would be expected.
Alaska focuses more on protecting waters, rather than restoring waters; this focus guides the state's
program activities, data collection, and management.
Alaska's TMDL program staff totals 5 full time equivalents (FTE), with 1.5 to 2 FTE dedicated to
TMDL development and tracking. The remainder of the 5 FTEs manage the 319 Program, public
outreach, and other program elements. Regarding resources, relatively little data are tracked on the vast
number of waters in the state. A relatively small amount of funding is allocated to Alaska for such
purposes.
Currently, Alaska does not have a shared tool or application for tracking TMDL implementation.
Information on TMDL implementation is limited to filing information in electronic folders or email
folders. Alaska uses a variety of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to track minimal summary information on
the current status of TMDL implementation. A few years ago, a Microsoft Access-based application was
developed to manage basic information on state waters, including pertinent TMDL implementation
information. No predefined categories or indicators for TMDL tracking have been developed or are in
use in Alaska. The information that is tracked varies by waterbody and is often based on the issues
involved. The current Microsoft Excel and Access databases contain information on various priority
waters (TMDL waters or not); and if a TMDL is in place, pertinent information on implementation
progress is entered.
Alaska is currently using EPA's Assessment Database (ADB) and Grants Reporting and Tracking System
(CRTS). Alaska also recently began the process of developing a web-based module addition to its
existing Alaska Clean Water Actions (ACWA) database to track and manage information on Alaska's
waters, including impaired waters and TMDL actions. The ACWA database was developed from 2002-
2005 to bring together information about funding, grants, and expertise on waters. The database is a
web-based application used to identify and prioritize impaired waters. Alaska began the process of
-------
developing a web-based module and waters of concern, but currently has no capability for managing
other information. About 400 waters were nominated, 120 of which are high priority. The application
contains limited information; therefore, it is seldom used.
3.1.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
For Alaska, the benefits of tracking TMDL implementation include:
Ability of management to have an organized place to review and evaluate TMDL
implementation progress.
Ability to generate reports on implementation progress for EPA, state legislature, and the public.
The following key features for a tracking tool were identified by Alaska:
Ability to move waters on or off impairment lists.
Ability to track long-term, phased approach to resolve issues in some waters.
Ability to export data in format that can be loaded into CRTS and ADB.
Standardized performance measures to determine progress relevant to Alaskan conditions.
Ability to use with Alaska-specific data (GIS projections, etc.).
Ability to track biological health of waters (e.g., habitat index, macro invertebrate index, etc.)
Compatible with Microsoft SQL Server.
Provides flexibility to easily add features specific to Alaska, such as managing information on
climatic change impacts on Alaska's waters.
Tool that uses same field naming structure and organization of information as is used in other
EPA databases (such as CRTS, ADB, STORET), where relevant.
Clear, logical, and consistent hierarchal approach to identifying the scope of a water "unit." For
example, Alaska has found it difficult to prioritize and manage information and approaches on
stretches of streams over 40-60 miles in length.
With regards to indicators tracked, Alaska would need flexibility on the type of indicators, as some
Alaska TMDLs are very different than others with respect to implementation. Key indicators and
tracking measures for Alaska include:
Completed watershed management plan in place
Responsible parties identified
Funding availability/source
Regarding limitations to the use of a tracking system, Alaska has centralized its Information Technology
(IT) programs and has restrictions on types of applications it will support. Oracle is not supported.
Alaska uses the Microsoft SQL Server backend and DOT NET User interface frontend. Alaska sees
little benefit to an ability to directly link to existing EPA databases, but supports the ability to manually
import and export data from another system to a TMDL implementation tracking system, like STORET
-------
data, ADB, etc. Alaska does have a data node and is actively pursuing using the node to transfer data
systems to EPA, where appropriate.
Alaska feels that an easy to use, low cost to implement TMDL tracking tool would provide sufficient
incentive to begin tracking TMDL implementation status in the state. Alaska has no preference
regarding a state-specific tool or an EPA tool; however, they did mention that any EPA system would
need to be flexible enough to handle Alaska-specific issues (e.g., GIS projection), and they would prefer
a tool that would be compatible with the ACWA database, as it is used for information about protecting
waters as well as restoring waters. Alaska has a willingness to integrate existing state tracking tools with
EPA systems, despite not having had good working experience with current linked databases; for
example, EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS (WATERS) is not
particularly useful to Alaska. If a national or regional tool were not developed, a development plan for a
state-specific tracking tool would be attractive to management for consideration and implementation.
3.2. Illinois
3.2.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA) current focus is on completing TMDLs
primarily in rural watersheds. IEPA uses CRTS to track Section 319 program information, but is not
directly tracking TMDL implementation information. IEPA has developed another system to track and
report similar program information known as the Resource Management Mapping System (RMMS).
RMMS was developed by the University of Illinois in conjunction with IEPA, Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture to track information related to several
programs and initiatives, such as 319 project information, social indicators, 303(d) information,
Conservation 2000 efforts, funding allocations and tracking, and implementation schedules. RMMS is a
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) tool built using ArcIMS 9.0, and may be viewed at
http://www.rmms.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/.
RMMS is accessible to the public, and receives 3-4 visits per day. Some data in RMMS (e.g., land
owners) are restricted even for in-house users. It is not currently linked to other information systems,
nor is it linked to water quality systems (STORET, which IEPA uses), nor NPDES permit information,
but IEPA would like it to be. RMMS was envisioned as a tool for making program information available
to the public. It currently contains TMDL tracking fields for "TMDL Started" (year) and "TMDL
Completed" (year). Financial support for the development and maintenance of RMMS came from the
319 program; however RMMS has not been maintained for several years due to a lack of funding.
RMMS provides a number of reports via the website. IEPA can enter data into RMMS, but they have
no ability to manipulate it within the system. IEPA has some ability to use the system to generate
reports, but it does not function fully as intended. RMMS can give load reduction information, but does
not calculate data on a watershed level. IEPA has also developed and maintains a web-based interactive
mapping tool (http://maps.epa.state.il.us/website/wqinfo/viewer.htm) that has good GIS capabilities
for representing waterbody assessment and water quality impairment information throughout the state.
IEPA would like to integrate RMMS and the interactive mapping tool with tracking capability for TMDL
implementation and other water quality restoration information.
-------
3.2.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
IEPA feels an integrated state-specific tool, or EPA-developed application should have functionality for
entering and tracking the following implementation information and indicators:
Implementation or watershed plan approval (date)
Permits approved (date)
Implementation started (date)
Implementation completed (date)
Monitoring / assessment results
Water body restored
Number of acres with best management practices (BMPs) implemented
Number of acres with conservation tillage / set aside acres
NPDES permit issuances that include TMDL allocations
Implementation on a county-wide basis
NRCS BMP annual report information
IEPA likes the idea of tracking implementation by monitoring, with monitoring triggers being a part of
the tracking process. Restoration percentage could be based upon the pounds of pollutant reduced
toward the allocation goal. Information on some impairment causes, i.e. septic systems, may need to be
tracked, but are outside of IEPA purview.
IEPA feels a tracking system should also be able to be used to report:
Progress on implementation, to answer local questions, and questions from elected officials
"Areas of concern"
EPA requested information
Effectiveness of implementation efforts between watersheds
IEPA considers key features of a tracking system to include the following:
Accommodate more than one TMDL per waterbody
Ability to report out on a statewide, countywide, hydrologic unit code (HUG), and stream basis
Water quality parameter specific sorting and reporting
Tracking additional impairment causes that come in after TMDL adoption
Tracking expected load reductions
Tracking the success of other watershed BMP implementation efforts / success comparisons
Adjacent watershed level of interest to gage future TMDL interest
-------
IEPA feels its current systems are not well suited to accommodate TMDL tracking, but could be
modified to do so. IEPA would like to link the interactive mapping tool and RMMS, and develop
TMDL implementation tracking capabilities from these tools, or with functionality linked to these tools,
so that another separate tracking system would not have to be maintained. Any database development
and roll-out would be managed by Illinois' IT Department and not directly by IEPA. Coordination with
the IT department staff and processes will be required. IEPA dedicates 0.1 FTE to managing data in
RMMS, and feels that 0.5 FTE would be a good level for maintaining a dedicated implementation
tracking tool.
IEPA wouldn't mind integrating RMMS with another complementary system that allows them to track
TMDL implementation. However, they would not like to use an entirely new system for this purpose.
RMMS had several funding partners, so funding issues would have to be resolved with any new database.
Other agencies have helped develop RMMS, and may want to continue using it.
3.3. Indiana
3.3.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has developed and is using a database
(in both Microsoft Access & Excel) that tracks TMDL development through completion. This
information is also in EPA's Assessment Total Maximum Daily Loads Tracking and Implementation
System (ATTAINS) database. IDEM uses ATTAINS to track TMDLs that are submitted and/or
approved. IDEM also uses CRTS to track 319 program information. IDEM has also developed an
Assessment Information Management System (AIMS) database (that has a Microsoft Access front end
with an Oracle back end) that tracks water quality data collected by their assessment branch. AIMS was
developed by a contractor. IDEM has five watershed specialists that help administer watershed groups,
and help set up and maintain the AIMS TMDL development database.
IDEM is not currently maintaining a tracking process or system for TMDL implementation.
Implementation data are anecdotal and communicated either verbally or via emails from various groups,
then filed in paper form by waterbody. Information on TMDL implementation comes from the
watershed specialists, but not in a predictable or consistent way. There is no database or system in place
to track this information, or link it to AIMS or ATTAINS.
3.3.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
IDEM feels the benefits of a TMDL implementation tracking system would include:
Helping to guide program direction.
Providing for cross program coordination.
Tracking implementation effectiveness; use of funding.
Easing the ability to inform the public on implementation successes.
Providing good information for permit development and monitoring requirements.
Having some groups set up to be self reporting.
-------
IDEM feels that key features of a TMDL implementation tracking tool could include:
Web based design.
GIS interface and analytical features.
Specific to intended purpose, waterbody restoration, not an add-on to another existing tool;
something new that pulls from other existing databases.
Real-time access to information (no manual update of an off-line database).
User friendly and well documented a true user manual provided.
Designed to answer real questions.
Ability to get at raw data out of the database for use for other purposes.
Ability to answer unanticipated questions.
Information on agricultural practices would make implementation tracking more effective.
IDEM feels that key tracking indicators could include:
An initial indicator or milestone, such as implementation plan completed.
Percentage of measures that have been implemented.
After implementation, monitoring to show changes in water quality (a monitoring trigger).
IDEM would like to have a database system to track TMDL implementation information, and would
prefer EPA develop a tool for IDEM to transmit data into. There is no strong driving force to develop
a state-specific implementation tracking tool at this time. An implementation database would give
IDEM the ability to answer likely implementation questions from multiple sources. IDEM would prefer
a web-based, GIS capable system specifically for tracking waterbody restoration. Ideally, such a system
would allow users to upload and download data from other in-house systems that they may have.
IDEM would prefer to have a tool less cumbersome than CRTS and AIMS to get data for various
reporting purposes, and more functional than its existing databases as far as linkage and GIS capabilities.
On-going water quality monitoring data needs to stay in the AIMS database for consistency and
comparison over time.
IDEM could be limited by the staff resources necessary to maintain a tracking tool and mine data from
it. Because IDEM is not specifically tracking TMDL implementation, IDEM does not currently have
dedicated staff for this purpose. If a tracking system existed, IDEM estimates 1-1.5 FTE would be
needed to manage TMDL implementation data. IDEM does not currently have budget for this, but
would be willing to explore using 319 funds for the staff needed for TMDL tracking. IDEM estimates
12 IDEM staff would need to access a tracking system for various data entry, analysis, and reporting
purposes. Having a TMDL implementation tracking system in-house could create never ending ways to
tweak or query the data, which may be resource intensive. Limitations could also arise as any new tool
would be managed by Indiana's State IT department, and not IDEM.
10
-------
3.4. Michigan
3.4.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
TMDL implementation in Michigan is accomplished through NPDES permit renewals, Section 319
grants administered through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), state
nonpoint source pollution control grants funded through the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI),
compliance actions conducted by the MDEQ and local units of government, and technical assistance
provided through programs such as the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program
(MAEAP). However, the State does not yet have a coordinated process to target implementation
activities. TMDLs typically identify implementation activities that have occurred, are underway, or are
expected to occur; however, the TMDLs do not generally provide specific recommendations for
implementation. Nonpoint source control implementation activities are developed through the
watershed planning process supported under Section 319 and CMI grants.
MDEQ has begun to focus 319 projects on impaired waters, and the next Section 319 Request for
Proposals will seek to further focus projects on impaired waters. MDEQ may also identify priority
watersheds for implementation activities in the future.
MDEQ centralizes 319 and CMI grant tracking, but projects can be developed and implemented
centrally or in the District Offices. MDEQ tracks the grants in a Microsoft SQL Server database with a
Microsoft Access front end to facilitate data entry. The projects are located with latitude and longitude
coordinates, and estimated load reductions are tracked. MDEQ manually uploads 319 and some CMI
and MAEAP project tracking data to CRTS. The State has chosen not to use CRTS as its principal
project tracking system, because they find it difficult to use.
DEQ also maintains the NPDES Management System (NMS), a detailed database to track NPDES
permit status. Data from the Michigan system are uploaded to EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS).
DEQ reports $250,000 to $500,000 in Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) savings from use of NMS
to upload data to EPA's PCS database.
3.4.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
The State would like to develop a data system that tracks the number, location, and types of
implementation activities by watershed. The State would also like to track the following:
Load reductions achieved.
Watershed grants.
Watershed groups, watershed meetings, and public involvement.
Compliance and enforcement activities
Education and outreach activities
MDEQ sees the value of an implementation tracking system, but the State does not have the resources
to develop their own system. As a result, they would like to see a web-based tool developed that could
11
-------
be accessed by MDEQ, other agencies and organizations conducting implementation activities, and the
public. MDEQ is also limited by the staff resources available to support data systems. Data entry is
conducted across the Division.
MDEQ would like to see database templates developed that outline the types of implementation
activities suitable for different types of TMDLs and causes of impairment. Templates could prompt
watershed groups to conduct implementation activities. MDEQ would also like to provide the public
with the ability to add data to the system. MDEQ believes that this approach would support public
outreach.
MDEQ would also like to see the system developed in a manner that would support current reporting
requirements, such as data provided for CRTS. In addition, the state would like to link water quality
monitoring data to allow for an assessment of the impact of the implementation activities on water
quality improvements. The system should also link to NMS or PCS to allow for wasteload allocation
implementation tracking. By also tracking nonpoint source implementation activities and linking to water
quality monitoring data, the system should be able to influence future grant targeting and water quality
monitoring activities. DEQ made a pitch for support from EPA for XML transfer from existing DEQ
databases to existing EPA databases (like CRTS). They would also want this support for any future DEQ
databases.
3.5. Minnesota
3.5.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is currently implementing TMDLs through the
Section 319 grant program and the Clean Watershed Partnership (CWP); however additional resources
have recently become available under the Clean Water Legacy Act.
MPCA currently tracks a variety of information regarding the implementation of Clean Water Act
watershed programs. The tracked information is documented in the reporting requirements and formats
for watershed projects in the following links. The following link is the overall financial assistance page
with links to specific topics: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp-319.html. Links included in this
overall page include:
Semi-annual budgeting and reporting forms - http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp-
319.html#forms
Final report format and requirements - http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp-319-
finalrep ort. html
Annual reports to EPA synthesized from the projects' semi-annual and final reports and
program information - http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp-319.htmltfreports. MPCA has
worked to make the annual reports more "interesting" in recent years. They contain a summary
of implementation activities from the LARS and eLink databases.
Water quality data submittal for STORET - http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/storet.html.
Data management staff for STORET have done a real nice job in setting up forms and a process
for establishing monitoring sites in STORET, submitting data, and reviewing the data.
12
-------
The eLink web page is at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLJNK/index.html. eLink is
used to track implementation activities from multiple programs. MPCA requires it for all
implementation projects under 319, CWP, and now the Clean Water Legacy Act. The Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) uses it for their state cost-share funds.
Other information sources include the Stream Hydrology Program, which uses a unique database and
processing software known as HYDSTRA for storage and management of the data from the network of
stream gages (http://www.dnr. state, mn.us/waters/surfacewater section/stream hydro/index.html).
The HYDSTRA system stores Department of Natural Resource (DNR) Waters stream data, DNR
Ecological Resources stream data, and the MPCA stream data. This is the first time the DNR and
MNPCA are archiving stream data in the same location. Other DNR divisions and outside cooperators
have expressed interest in sharing this data system as well.
HYDSTRA is a collection of database management tools and hydrologic software packages that allows
users to store and organize historical data, graphically analyze and edit hydrologic data, store and access
digital photos, maps and other documents associated with stream files. HYDSTRA also offers various
output formats, both graphical and tabular, to share stream data with others. Flood forecast/warning
system gage data are automatically downloaded into HYDSTRA via a satellite link. Stream flow and
stage data collected at DNR Waters' special project sites or reported to DNR Waters by hydropower
facility operators are also stored in HYDSTRA. DNR flood warning gage data can be accessed at the
DNR/MPCA Cooperative Stream Gaging Web page and a National Weather Service Web site.
3.5.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
With the advent of additional implementation funding under the Clean Water Legacy Act, MPCA is
looking to update its implementation tracking and reporting processes. They have two main objectives:
1. Adapt Business Object Model (BOM) software to better track watershed restoration activities.
2. Work with the University of Minnesota to determine what reports and indicators can best
communicate watershed restoration progress to legislators and the public.
As a first step, MPCA developed a report for the legislature on how to communicate watershed
restoration results. MPCA is also working with the University of Minnesota to develop a survey and
series of focus groups to determine what effectiveness measures interest different audiences.
MPCA has also developed a nonpoint contract tracking (NCI) database as an interim tool. NCT tracks
grants and reports. eLink (described above) is also used to track projects funded under 319 and BWSR.
In its new system, MPCA is planning to track economic data, provide live GIS links to project locations,
and include flow analyses linked to HYDSTRA.
MPCA is currently not collecting geographic positioning system (GPS) data on BMP project locations.
Instead, the agency is drawing project locations on aerial photos or topographic maps.
MPCA also does not currently track reductions in loads. The agency is forming a workgroup to
determine means to track achievement of water quality standards (WQS) and procedures for targeting
13
-------
monitoring based on assessments of the status of restoration project implementation. MPCA is planning
to devote 1.5 to 2 FTEs for BOM development. In terms of current, ongoing data management costs,
the agency is devoting the following resource by data system:
Database
NCT
HYDSTRA
STORET
ADB
FTEs
1
2
2-3
1
MPCA would like to see database examples from other states. They are interested in what measures and
indicators other states are using and how to communicate with stakeholders.
3.6. New Mexico
3.6.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
The State of New Mexico has been operating under a 1997 consent order to complete its TMDLs for
303(d) listed waters on a timely basis. As a result, most of the Environment Department's efforts to date
have focused on TMDL development, rather than implementation. Implementation tracking to date has
primarily focused on wasteload allocation implementation through the NPDES process administered
through EPA Region 6. Region 6 also permits MS4s.
EPA Region 6 has looked into modifying CRTS to better track the impacts resulting from Section 319
project implementation. The State and Region are looking at focusing future 319 RFPs on priority
watersheds. The State is also developing nutrient criteria that would be implemented through an
iterative approach.
The State's Watershed Protection Section encourages the implementation of certain BMPs by
incorporating TMDL recommendations into 319 RFPs. When the grantee is selected, the BMPs are
incorporated into the project work plan. The State would also like to see better linking of BMP
implementation with water quality monitoring results. They believe trends in water quality are an
important measure of program success. WQS may not be achievable in all waterbodies. As a result,
achieving some improvement is important to demonstrate. Use Attainability Analyses (UAA) and WQS
revisions may be suitable for those waterbodies. The Hamus River Watershed is the first to undergo
follow-up monitoring to assess the impact of $1 million in funded BMPs.
New Mexico is not currently using a data system to track 319 or other nonpoint source projects.
Wasteload allocations implemented through NPDES permit revisions are tracked through PCS.
Quarterly reports from grantees are tracked on spreadsheets maintained by program staff. Projects are
typically 4 to 5 years in duration.
14
-------
3.6.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
New Mexico would like an implementation tracking tool, especially for 319 grants. They would also like
to see other programs and agencies use the tool, such as NRCS, USGS, tribes, and municipalities to
better capture the range of implementation activities being pursued in the watersheds. New Mexico has
adopted ORACLE as the information technology standard. They would be willing to use a web-based
tool, as long as it supports their current reporting requirements.
The state is supporting a cooperative, watershed-based approach to water body restoration activities.
They want to collaborate with other agencies and tribes to share resources and promote communication.
As a result, they would like to see the tool made available to these other groups to better characterize the
bigger picture of watershed implementation.
3.7. Ohio
3.7.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
Like many states, Ohio is just beginning to track TMDL implementation. To date, Ohio EPA has
focused primarily on developing TMDLs. Up until now, virtually all TMDL resources have been
devoted to TMDL development. Approximately 95% of program resources are devoted to TMDL
development, as opposed to restoration. However, the state is increasingly focusing greater attention on
TMDL implementation and water quality restoration efforts.
Ohio developed its own water quality tracking system which is not compatible with ADB. Ohio does
track and report CRTS data, as well as prepare semi-annual reports for the nonpoint source program.
The semi-annual reports are the main means of tracking actual implementation activities. Ohio also has
its own NPDES permit compliance tracking system.
Implementation tracking has been driven by individual staff. As a result, Ohio is developing a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet to track implementation progress across the program. Maintaining the spreadsheet
will be made part of work plans. The spreadsheet will track accountability for implementing the TMDL.
The spreadsheet will not track restoration actions.
Ohio uses biological indicators, so they are interested in using them to track implementation progress.
Ohio does not do a lot of reporting outside of the agency, including to the legislature. Section 303(d)
and 305(b) reports drive the data tracked by Ohio. Ohio's TMDLs have evolved to focus on watershed
restoration goals and to identify projects in programmatic work plans.
3.7.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
Ohio has had an ongoing problem with ADB, because the state lists by watersheds and not segments.
However, Ohio EPA would be willing to use a national implementation tracking system. A national data
system would have to be consistent with Ohio's use of biological indicators. The database should be a
web-based application. Ohio would also prefer a system that fits in with and links existing databases.
Current state databases have been set up to meet existing reporting requirements. Their databases would
15
-------
still need to be maintained as implementation tracking systems are developed. Nonetheless, the State
supports the development of an implementation tracking database. In ten years, some sort of system
will be needed to report on water quality improvement results.
Any tracking system must focus on more than TMDLs and should focus on water restoration in general.
Information sources include 319 semi-annual reports, watershed action plans, WRSB and SRF grant
tracking. Ohio is interested in a tracking system but has not determined the data set to track to report on
implementation progress. The draft spreadsheet is a first step at tracking progress.
Ohio EPA expressed concern over the use of subjective measures to track implementation progress.
Ohio uses administrative indicators established by EPA. Administrative indicators include grant
issuance, project completion, monitoring, etc. The system should also rely on data gathered by other
groups to focus scarce State monitoring resources. The ultimate goal is to de-list waters, but it is hard to
come up with progress indicators. Monitoring indicators could also support the ability to de-list waters
and focus monitoring resources on other impaired waters.
STORET could be used as an example for an implementation tracking system. STORET was designed
to support thousands of interfaces and monthly updates. STORET is now using an XML template as an
interface to upload data.
Ten to fifteen FTEs are devoted to database development and management. Existing IT systems need
to be updated. Any data system used in the division has to be developed by the IT department. Three
to four 4 FTEs are devoted to data entry. The implementation spreadsheet will be maintained by the
district offices.
3.8. Washington
3.8.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
Washington entered into a settlement agreement in 1998 that contains a 15 year schedule for completing
1566 TMDLs. Washington is currently in the 10th year of the 15 year schedule, and has completed over
600 of the TMDLs specified in the settlement schedule. In limited cases, Washington is moving straight
into restoration activities, not developing TMDLs in cases where proven restoration techniques (BMPs)
apply. Section 319 funds support most implementation efforts, which are tracked using CRTS.
Washington has developed a Watershed Attainment Tracking System (WATS), which is similar to ADB,
to track 303(d) and 305(b) information. WATS is also used for TMDL prioritization and has been
designed to accommodate future connections to monitoring data for all listings.
Washington has developed a computer application called the TMDL Management System that includes
basic data on all TMDLs that are in progress or that have been developed, and also includes provisions
for some basic data on implementation. The TMDL Management System uses VB.NET. Features of
the database include the following:
State staff responsible for TMDL development and implementation
Status of report development
16
-------
303(d) listings being addressed
NPDES permits affected by the TMDL
Activities (BMPs) being implemented
Activity location
Dates, timeframes
Funding sources
Lead implementation party / agency
Estimated activity cost and actual activity cost
WATS and the TMDL Management System are both in Microsoft SQL Server 2000 format. Their
permitting system is Oracle based, but is currently being updated, and they are not sure what database
platform it will end up on. Their internal development platform is Microsoft's .NET. Any new
development work will be done in C#.NET.
Mapping of data is provided by a simple GIS-based query tool, which is also currently available to the
public, developed using ArcGIS Server with SDE and SQL Server utilizing a grid system for open waters
and lakes. There is also an Environmental Information Management (EIM) database developed by their
agency-wide IT group and available to the public: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/eimreporting/Search.asp.
Washington would like to GIS-link the results of TMDL development, implementation, and monitoring.
Washington would also like to collect and track information on effectiveness monitoring and monitoring
triggers. In addition, Washington's settlement agreement requires 5 year reports (one of which has been
completed) on the effectiveness of the TMDL program. The reports must address whether interim
targets in the implementation plans have been met, whether BMPs have been put into place, whether
wasteload allocations are being put into NPDES permits, and whether additional implementation
measures have been instituted where needed.
Washington has 0.5 FTE dedicated to database development and management, and 33 FTE responsible
for development and implementation of TMDLs. Reportedly, 8 additional FTE are planned: 4 for the
water quality program and 4 for the science and environmental program.
3.8.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
Washington wants to keep using and expanding the functionality of their developed systems, and does
not want to link to ADB or ATTAINS. Washington is not interested in a database developed by EPA,
but is not opposed to sharing their database designs, or even code, with EPA or other states. However,
other states would have to accept everything "as-is" since the state is not in a position to provide
technical support. Rather than use an EPA system, Washington would prefer to simply provide data to
EPA as required, perhaps even as a web-based upload. If EPA wanted to use a Washington system as a
basis for a standard national tool, Washington would work with them.
17
-------
Washington would like to develop an ad-hoc query tool, and would ultimately like to make all data and
features available to the public, including developing custom queries for unanticipated data needs.
Washington wants to make sure that any tracking system tracks the information that EPA will hold
Washington accountable for, which is not clear at this point.
Washington feels that key tracking indicators include:
Implementation plan developed (one plan at time of submittal, a second more detailed plan one
year later)
Activity (BMP) implementation status
Monitoring trigger
O First screening monitoring trigger
o Then wide scale monitoring aimed at demonstrating the restoration status of the water
Overall progress toward restored water
Washington feels that linking a tool too tightly linked to TMDL development could be a limitation, as
the state is moving straight into restoration activities with several waters.
3.9. Wisconsin
3.9.1. Current TMDL Implementation Tracking Process
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is in the early stages of TMDL
implementation. The state recently appointed the first TMDL implementation coordinator in the State.
Some TMDLs have been developed for specific water segments, but progress is being made on
developing TMDLs on a watershed basis.
Implementation is focusing on using existing tools, such as Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (WPDES) permits, and existing regulations, principally NR 1512 performance standards.
Wisconsin is currently working on revising its runoff control regulations to allow for site-specific
performance in TMDL listed waterbodies. Wisconsin is also working on developing reporting criteria to
track implementation of the performance standards on a county basis. Wisconsin is also developing a
buffer measure to address phosphorus loads.
Wisconsin is currently tracking water quality restoration activities on a basin- and watershed-specific
basis. Wisconsin has 23 basins covering the State. Three watersheds within each basin are updated
annually. Currently, the updates are tracked centrally, but the function will transfer to the DNR regional
offices.
2 NR 151: Agricultural performance standards and prohibitions, non-agricultural performance standards, transportation
facility performance standards and a process for the development and dissemination of non-agricultural technical
standards, (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/rules/nrl51.htm).
18
-------
Wisconsin DNR has invested heavily in developing an implementation data tracking system. The Water
Assessment Tracking and Electronic Reporting System (WATERS) was developed to track the status of
waterbodies, pollutant levels, impairments, and watershed planning recommendations. Appendix A
contains screen captures of the WATERS database. The database is an ORACLE/GIS-based system,
which runs off of the State's 1:24,000 hydrography scale. The WATERS database is internal to DNR,
but portions of the system can be viewed externally on the web through the Surface Water Data Viewer.
Development of the WATERS database included external contractor support. Ongoing maintenance
requires one full time equivalent (FTE) staff person in the central office and approximately % FTE in
each regional office.
Section 319 grants are tracked in the Surface Water Integrated Monitoring System (SWIMS). In 2008,
DNR will require grant recipients to provide on-line updates on the status of the grants quarterly. DNR
also reports to EPA on grant status through CRTS. DNR recommends the need for XML support to
facilitate data transfer. DNR does not track other nonpoint management projects funded through other
agencies.
3.9.2. Needs with Respect to TMDL Implementation Tracking
DNR reports several support needs to improve on its tracking system. DNR has lost GIS staff and
needs assistance to update land use data. DNR would also like to develop tools to assess the recovery
potential for water bodies and approaches for assessing the link between permit revisions and TMDL
achievement. Finally, DNR would like to see consistent protocols to model agricultural land use impacts
on water quality linked to the Midwest Spatial Decision Support System.
3.10. Other States (not interviewed)
Other states' implementation tracking activities were also evaluated to a lesser extent than those
described above via website searches and brief telephone conversations. Those states include: California,
Idaho, Oregon, and Maryland.
California's TMDL development oversight is largely divided among the state's nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards. Brief conversations with state staff revealed that a statewide tool for tracking
implementation has not been developed, and there are no current plans to develop a system. Limited
implementation tracking may be occurring at the regional level through informal surveys or other similar
means. Staff thought that a tracking tool to monitor the activities of the various regions within
California would be useful.
In the State of Idaho, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and other state agencies form
Watershed Advisory Groups (WAG) to assist and guide the development of TMDLs. A typical WAG is
made up of staff from the Idaho Department of Lands, Soil Conservation Commission, Dept. of
Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture, and any of these agencies may take the lead on
developing a TMDL. Each WAG may differ in how implementation tracking is led and performed, so a
national tracking system may have to work with several departments.
19
-------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality published TMDL Implementation Plan Guidance in
May 2007. The document provides guidance for agency staff and designated management agencies on
the development and implementation of sector- or source-specific TMDL implementation plans. In
addition, Oregon prepared an implementation tracking matrix (see Appendix B) as a recommended tool
to report on implementation progress as a regular component of grant reporting requirements.
Maryland drafted a TMDL Implementation Guidance for Local Governments in May 2006. The
Maryland guidance does not specify how implementation plans are to be developed. Instead, the
guidance emphasizes the importance of incorporating planning across existing programs from land use
planning on down. The State will work with local government advisors to establish a process for
documenting specific TMDL implementation plans. While a process is not yet in place, Maryland
envisions tracking implementation plans via the State Water Quality Management (WQM) Plan
framework per 40 CFR 130.7. WQM Plans, organized by 6-digit basin codes, will incorporate completed
TMDLs, identify the document that constitutes the implementation plan, and identify other appropriate
supporting information.
4.0 SUMMARY OF TMDL IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING TOOLS/SYSTEMS
4.1. State Tracking Tools and Systems
Table 1 provides a brief summary of the type of data or information that each of the nine states currently
tracks, as well as identifies some of the key indicators or measures that states would like to track through
the use of a TMDL implementation tracking system.
Only Minnesota and Washington have dedicated systems for tracking data and information on TMDL
implementation. Washington has developed a computer application called the TMDL Management
System that includes basic data on all TMDLs that are in progress or that have been developed, and also
includes provisions for some basic data on implementation. The following information is tracked:
State staff responsible for TMDL development and implementation
Status of report development
303(d) listings being addressed
NPDES permits affected by the TMDL
Activities (BMPs) being implemented
Activity location
Dates, timeframes
Funding sources
Lead implementation party / agency
Estimated activity cost and actual activity cost
Minnesota has developed systems to track implementation activities from multiple programs, including
all implementation projects under 319, CWP, and the Clean Water Legacy Act. The Board of Water and
20
-------
Soil Resources (BWSR) uses it for their state cost-share funds. MPCA has also developed a nonpoint
contract tracking (NCT) database as an interim tool. NCT tracks grants and reports.
Wisconsin has also invested heavily in the development of an implementation tracking system. The
Water Assessment Tracking and Electronic Reporting System (WATERS) was developed to track the
status of waterbodies, pollutant levels, impairments, water quality restoration activities, and watershed
planning recommendations on a basin- and watershed-specific basis. Appendix A contains screen
captures of the WATERS database. The database is an ORACLE/GIS-based system, which runs off of
the State's 1:24,000 hydrography scale. Development of the WATERS database included external
contractor support. Ongoing maintenance requires one full time equivalent (FTE) staff person in the
central office and approximately % FTE in each regional office. The WATERS database is internal to
DNR, but portions of the system can be viewed externally on the web through the Surface Water Data
Viewer.
21
-------
Table 1. States' Current and Desired Implementation Tracking Capabilities
Indiana
Implementation Data and Information Currently Tracked
Varies, no pre-defined, standard indicators
Tracking 319 Program projects
Varies, no pre-defined, standard indicators
Michigan
Minnesota
New
Mexico
Ohio
Washington
Wisconsin
MDEQ tracks nonpoint source grants in a Microsoft SQL Server
database with a Microsoft Access front end to facilitate data entry.
The projects are located with latitude and longitude coordinates and
estimated load reductions are tracked. MDEQ manually uploads
project tracking data to GRTS.
eLink is used to track implementation activities from multiple
programs. MPCA requires it for all implementation projects under
319, CWP, and now the Clean Water Legacy Act. The Board of Water
and Soil Resources (BWSR) uses it for their state cost-share funds.
MPCA has also developed a nonpoint contract tracking (NCT)
database as an interim tool. NCT tracks grants and reports.
319 program grant tracking data in GRTS.
319 program grant tracking data in GRTS.
State staff responsible for TMDL development and implementation,
Status of report development, 303(d) listings being addressed, NPDES
permits affected by the TMDL, Activities (BMPs) being implemented,
Activity location, Dates/timeframes, Funding sources, Lead
implementation party / agency, Estimated activity cost and actual
activity cost
WATERS data base tracks the status of waterbodies, pollutant levels,
impairments, and watershed planning recommendations. Section
319 grants are tracked in the Surface Water Integrated Monitoring
System (SWIMS). DNR also reports to EPA on grant status through
GRTS.
Implementation Data and Information that states Would Like to Track
Completed watershed management plan in place, Responsible parties identified,
Funding availability/source
Implementation or watershed plan approval (date), Permits approved (date),
Implementation started (date), Implementation completed (date), Monitoring/
assessment results, Water body restored, Number of acres with best management
practices (BMPs) implemented, Number of acres with conservation tillage / set aside
acres, NPDES permit issuances that include TMDL allocations, Implementation on a
county-wide basis, NRCS BMP annual report information.
An initial indicator or milestone, such as implementation plan completed, Percentage
of measures that have been implemented. After implementation, monitoring to show
changes in water quality (a monitoring trigger)
Load reductions achieved; watershed grants; watershed groups, watershed meetings,
and public involvement; compliance and enforcement activities; and education and
outreach activities.
Economic data, GIS links to project locations, flow analyses linked to HYDSTRA, load
reductions, and information to target monitoring activities.
Data on other program activities, such as projects supported by NRCS, USGS, tribes,
and municipalities.
Track accountability for implementing the TMDL. Use of biological indicators to track
implementation progress.
Implementation plan developed (one plan at time of submittal, a second more
detailed plan one year later), Activity (BMP) implementation status, Monitoring
trigger (First screening monitoring trigger, then wide scale monitoring aimed at
demonstrating the restoration status of the water), and progress toward restored
waters.
Reporting criteria to track implementation of performance standards on a county
basis. Tools to assess the recovery potential for water bodies and approaches for
assessing the link between permit revisions and TMDL achievement. Consistent
protocols to model agricultural land use impacts on water quality linked to the
Midwest Spatial Decision Support System.
22
-------
4.2. EPA Tracking Tools and Systems
The following section summarizes existing water quality and TMDL data systems and their potential
application for TMDL and water restoration tracking.
4.2.1. ADB
The Assessment Database (ADB, http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb/index.htm) is a relational database
application for tracking water quality assessment data, including use attainment, and causes and sources of
impairment. EPA supported the development and distribution of ADB to encourage standardization of
reporting among states and to facilitate the generation of the National Assessment Database and the
biennial National Water Quality Inventory. The main function of the ADB is to store assessment
information in a way that is consistent with EPA's Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Usting and Reporting
requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act. States need to track this information
and many other types of assessment data for thousands of water bodies, and integrate it into meaningful
reports. ADB is designed to make this process accurate, straightforward and user-friendly for participating
states, territories, tribes and basin commissions. ADB supports three principal functions:
1. Improve the quality and consistency of water quality reporting
2. Reduce the burden of preparing reports under Sections 305(b), 303(d), 314, and 319 of the Clean
Water Act
3. Improve water quality data analysis
ADB provides user-friendly data entry forms and automates the production of reports that states submit
to EPA.
4.2.2. NTTS
The National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) contains information on waters that are not supporting their
designated uses (i.e., waters listed by the state as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act).
The NTTS is accessible through the WATERS database (see below) (http: //www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl).
The database tracks the following information relating to individual TMDLs:
Waterbody name
Waterbody ID
State
Pollutant
Impairment
TMDL type (point source, nonpoint source, both)
Wasteload allocation
Load allocation
NPDES Permit ID #
TMDL approval date
23
-------
4.2.3. ATTAINS
The Assessment, TMDL Tracking And Implementation System (ATTAINS) database is being developed as a
combination of the ADB and NTTS databases. Regions will use ATTAINS as the basis to record their
approved and established TMDLs. Additionally, ATTAINS will hold integrated report information and
thereby also record category 4b listings. ATTAINS is planned for release in 2008.
4.2.4. CRTS
Grant Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS, http://www.epa.gov/nps/Section319/grts.html) was developed
to serve as a repository to allow states to report on nonpoint source activities and projects funded under
Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. CRTS is managed by the Nonpoint Source Control Branch. The
branch resides in the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) which is an arm of the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW). State users are assigned individual user names
and passwords and are only allowed to enter or edit data associated with their particular state. The data
entered in to CRTS is used by the Agency to respond to various inquires received from Congressional
committees, OMB, and various constituent groups. The data is also reviewed for various programmatic
and legislative goals.
4.2.5. STORET
STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval, http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html) is a repository for
water quality, biological, and physical data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other
federal agencies, universities, private citizens, and many others. Data supplied to EPA before 1999 were
all placed in Legacy STORET. The Legacy Data Center contains data of undocumented quality. Further,
these data are static. The Legacy Data Center does not permit updates, and data in the Legacy system will
not change over time. All new data are being entered into Modernized STORET. Both the Legacy and
Modernized STORET are web-enabled and available to the public. With a standard web browser, you can
browse both systems interactively or create files to be downloaded to your computer. Monitoring
organizations who wish to submit data to STORET must operate the STORET System locally. The local
STORET System is a data management system with data entry and reporting software modules that
operate on personal computers.
4.2.6. WATERS
The Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS (WATERS,
http://www.epa.gov/waters/about/index.html) database is an integrated information system for the
nation's surface waters. The database links together numerous EPA Office of Water program data
systems to better integrate applications of the data they contain. Under WATERS, the Water Program
databases are connected to a larger framework. This framework is a digital network of surface water
features, known as the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD, http: //nhd.usgs.gov/). By linking to the
NHD, one Water Program database can reach another, and information can be shared across programs.
Specifically, WATERS links together the Water Quality Standards Data Base (WQSB,
http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase). STORET, the National Assessment Data Base (ADB), NTTS, and
CRTS. In addition, WATERS links to EPA's Nutrient Criteria Data Base (NDB,
24
-------
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/database/). and the Safe Drinking Water Information
system (SDWIS, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm). The WQSDB contains
information on the uses that have been designated for waterbodies.
4.3. Systems for Tracking TMDL Implementation
None of the databases described above currently track TMDL implementation, although CRTS does track
Section 319 and some other state grants that address nonpoint source load reductions as part of TMDL
implementation. Furthermore, the databases do not track many other TMDL implementation activities,
such as projects funded under the Farm Bill.
The NTTS currently provides the most detailed information regarding TMDL status. Its usefulness in
tracking water quality improvements will be further enhanced with the development of the ATTAINS
system. Because NTTS and ATTAINS will serve as the principal systems for tracking TMDLs, it has been
suggested that they may serve as the best platform for tracking TMDL implementation. Since they are the
main systems for gathering information from State and Federal TMDL programs, NTTS and ATTAINS
may also be more readily used by those programs.
5.0 SUMMARY OF STATE'S PERSPECTIVES ON TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
TRACKING TOOL/SYSTEM
Resources to develop and administer a tracking database was the highest concern among the states
interviewed. States that do not currently possess a tracking system have allocated no funding for
developing a system in the near future. States with tracking systems have either no budget allocated, as
development of the existing system is complete, or have limited funding planned for ongoing
development. States without tracking systems have concerns about the level of resources necessary to
develop a system (both internal and external resource needs) and concern over the internal resources
necessary to maintain data entry and reporting. Most states interviewed indicated that 0.5 to 1.0 additional
full time staff equivalents (FTE) would be necessary over current staffing levels for the data entry,
maintenance, and reporting they would envision if a system were in place.
Minnesota and Wisconsin have or are in the process of investing heavily in a tracking database. Those
states will proceed with database development regardless of whether a national tracking system is created.
If a national system is created, the states are most concerned with establishing interfaces that would allow
for data exchange between the state and national systems.
Some states expressed concern over developing and using subjective measures to track implementation
progress, and concern over a tool too tightly linked to TMDL development, potentially limiting the ability
to move directly into restoration activities without a TMDL.
States without tracking systems felt that a tracking tool could provide sufficient incentive to begin tracking
TMDL implementation status.
25
-------
States mentioned several benefits of being able to track TMDL implementation, with primary benefits
including:
Ability of management to have a central location to review TMDL implementation progress.
Tracking implementation effectiveness; use of funding.
Helping to guide program direction.
Ability to generate reports on implementation progress for EPA, state legislature, and the public.
Providing for cross program coordination.
Providing good information for permit development and monitoring requirements.
Support for watershed based management programs.
Monitoring the activities of other agencies or parties that are implementing TMDLs.
Allowing for improved information sharing among Federal, state, and local agencies.
States identified the following key features they would like to see within an implementation tracking tool:
Web-based design.
GIS interface and analytical features.
Ability to track long-term, phased approaches.
Ability to export data in format that can be loaded into CRTS and ADB.
Standardized performance measures to determine progress.
Compatible with Microsoft SQL Server.
Flexibility to easily add features.
Uses same field naming structure and organization of information as is used in other EPA
databases (such as CRTS, ADB, STORET), where relevant.
Accommodate more than one TMDL per waterbody.
Ability to report out on a statewide, countywide, hydrologic unit code (HUG), and stream basis
Water quality parameter specific sorting and reporting.
Ability to track additional impairment causes that come in after TMDL adoption.
Ability to track expected load reductions.
Ability to track the success of other watershed BMP implementation efforts / success
comparisons.
Specific to intended purpose, waterbody restoration.
Real-time access to information (no manual update of an off-line database).
User friendly and well documented a true user manual provided.
Ability to get at raw data out of the database for use for other purposes.
Ability to answer unanticipated questions, flexibility in compiling data and reporting.
Ability to interface with water quality monitoring data to report on trends in improvements rather
than compliance with water quality standards.
26
-------
Most states would use a tracking system if developed by EPA, especially those that have not already
developed a state-specific system. States that have already invested in a tracking system would prefer to
continue to use their system solely, or have it work with an EPA developed tool linked to their system.
Some states would consider the availability of a tracking system as an impetus to begin formal TMDL
implementation tracking in their state. However, the resources necessary to develop a TMDL
implementation tracking system is a concern of most states. States with existing systems capable of
tracking implementation information would prefer to continue to develop and utilize their own systems
and would hope that any potential future regional or national system would be compatible with existing
state systems.
The most significant obstacle to tracking TMDL implementation is the limited availability of resources for
developing and maintaining a tracking system. Each state interviewed had resource concerns. Future
funding requirements for implementation project tracking and reporting could provide the resources
needed.
States were also concerned about compatibility and functionality with already existing state tracking
systems, and what it would take to develop import / export functions with a range of existing
systems/platforms. While there is variation in the development of existing tracking tools, it should be
possible to construct import / export routines to make existing systems compatible with an EPA
developed regional or national tool. This will require working with each existing system individually to
determine the options and necessary effort.
Some states have multiple agencies or groups within the state leading TMDL implementation, with TMDL
authority in different regions of a state (e.g., California). A regional or national tracking tool, and in some
cases a state specific developed tool, will have to be usable and functional for multiple, and sometimes
very different organizations. Web-based functionality could help address this issue.
States typically have centralized information technology (IT) departments that govern IT infrastructure for
all state agencies, not managed within the environmental agency or department responsible for TMDL
implementation. This sometimes produces restrictions on the types of applications supported. Based on
this assessment, it appears that every state's IT department, and in some cases multiple IT departments
will have to be coordinated with for tracking tool development. In some cases, IT support was provided
by an organization external to the state agency. This arrangement limits the agency's ability to design and
manage database systems.
States were interested in developing a consistent set of indicators to track implementation. A minimum set
of tracking indicators, and other potential indicators, was developed during this assessment and is
contained within this document. Further refinement and development will be necessary for a standardized
tracking tool.
6.0 EPA'S INPUT ON A TMDL IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING TOOL/SYSTEM
In addition to the state interviews, several discussions took place with EPA headquarters and regional staff
and managers in order to obtain their perspectives on the need to track TMDL implementation, including
information on what to track (e.g., indicators) and how to track it (e.g., tools).
27
-------
In terms of the rationale for tracking TMDL implementation, EPA identified many benefits to having a
process and central tool in place to compile information on TMDL implementation. The benefits
discussed are provided below:
National tracking would allow for the comparison of data across state lines. In turn, this could
enable EPA to consistently report on key questions, such as "are we implementing our TMDLs"
or possibly, "are we cleaning up our watersheds."
Regardless of scale, a TMDL implementation tracking tool could help the states to move towards
a strategic monitoring approach (instead of a rotating basin approach, for example). For many
impaired waterbodies, restoration will take time. For example, it may take five years for a
particular waterbody to show significant water quality improvements; therefore, monitoring that
waterbody for the first three to five years may not be the best use of monitoring funds. A tracking
system could be built to identify implementation milestones and optimal time frames in which
monitoring should occur in order to measure and report on improvements.
A tracking system could help EPA with national performance measure reporting needs for Measure
L (SP-10) and Measure W (SP-12) from EPA's Strategic Plan. For example, Measure W asks EPA
regions to report watershed improvement (at the HUG 12 scale) for each of their states based on
percent impairment removal. A tracking tool may provide EPA with the necessary information to
track such watershed improvements.
A tracking tool could help illustrate not just how Section 319 funds are being used, but also the
quantifiable results of the funding (e.g., the actual waterbody improvements).
A national tracking tool could allow for reporting on implementation funded by multiple agencies
(and not just EPA and the states), including NRCS and USDA. Many agencies are contributing
resources toward water quality improvement efforts. There currently isn't a means to track the
individual and combined efforts of multiple agencies, which could be extremely useful.
A tool could serve as a linkage between different programs (TMDL, permitting, 319, etc.)
EPA staff and managers identified what they felt would be key tracking system features, including:
Ability to track and report on interim milestones for TMDL implementation and not just the
single end goal of achieving water quality standards. Given the length of time it takes for
waterbodies to return to full attainment, it is critical to identify and track indicators and
benchmarks for incremental progress. A tracking tool should be able to track success in terms of
both incremental progress and full recovery.
Ability to track EPA-funded and non-EPA funded project (e.g., Farm Bill projects).
Tool should be built similar to WATERS, where data can be queried and extracted out for
reporting purposes - for state, legislature, EPA, and public reporting.
Tracking should include both programmatic progress and environmental progress. For example,
one programmatic milestone may be whether or not the recommended / required controls (e.g.,
permits) have been implemented. The environmental milestone would be the progress of that
control toward improving water quality.
Tracking tool needs to support the ability to report on both subjective measures of success (e.g.,
"have water quality conditions improved since last monitored") and detailed quantitative measures
of success (e.g., "by how much have pollutant loads decreased over the last three years?").
28
-------
While EPA recognizes significant benefits in having a national or regional TMDL implementation tracking
tool, they also acknowledge that developing such a tool will require significant thought and planning.
Otherwise, they run the risk of developing a tool that states would not use or a tool that does not help
with reporting needs because it isn't collecting the right data or information. The following are a few
examples of the types of questions and issues that would need to be explored before constructing a
national or regional tracking tool:
Should the tracking tool operate on a national or regional level?
Would a national/regional database be built for the benefit of the states and their reporting needs,
or for the benefit of EPA and its reporting needs? If for both, is it realistic to achieve alignment
between EPA needs and state needs such that a system could allow for flexibility to information
of importance to both states and EPA?
At what spatial scale (e.g., individual waterbodies, Measure W subwatersheds, etc.) will information
need to be reported? At what spatial scale does information need to be collected in order to meet
this reporting need?
What "questions" will be answered by using the database. For example,
o Have WLAs been incorporated into all permits?
o What actions/BMPs are planned?
o What were the resource expenditures for BMPs? Federal, state, county, other?
o Are BMPs being maintained?
What type of information will need to be reported to the public, to congress, etc. (e.g., "on how
many waterbodies is implementation occurring" or "how many waterbodies have improved by
50%")? What are the indicators for which data need to be collected in order to meet this
reporting need?
What is the feasibility in being able to interface a national or regional tracking tool with existing
state tracking systems? Is there willingness on the part of those states to adapt their systems to
link with a national or regional system? Could it be possible for those states to use a linkage
identifier (e.g., 303(d) list ID) that would permit linkage between an EPA and a state database?
How are "success" and "progress" defined with regards to water quality improvements?
What are the success benchmarks and milestones?
Do we populate the tracking system with "past" information or just focus on capturing current
and future data? If we look at incorporating past information, how far do we go back to illustrate
how past resources have been used and what level of water quality improvements have been
achieved?
An architectural framework for a tracking system or database platform was not discussed in extensive
detail, primarily because staff felt it was more important to talk about the purpose of the tracking system
and the type of information to track. However, several framework points were discussed. Based on the
discussion, EPA should first examine existing state tracking systems for ideas on the architectural
framework for a national or regional database. Important features to consider include: interactive
mapping, GIS linkage, web-based application, and public access. EPA databases and tracking tools should
first be examined to assess whether they can be modified to also allow for TMDL implementation tracking
or whether a new, stand-alone system would be more appropriate.
29
-------
7.0 CONCLUSION
Several states have already developed a system to track TMDL implementation information, while most
are still primarily focused on TMDL development with little to no tracking of TMDL implementation.
Since many states are in the early stages of tracking TMDL implementation, this is an ideal time to develop
a tracking system to account for practices to improve water quality (either on individual state levels or at
the regional or national level). The tracking system development process should acknowledge and
complement the data management systems that have been developed by several of the states. In addition,
the states would greatly benefit from the ability to learn about other implementation activities, such as
those funded under the Farm Bill. Collecting such information will likely require the development of
inter-agency coordination at the Federal level. Resources to develop and maintain a tracking system, and
the ability of a national or regional system to work with existing or planned systems are the major
concerns of states.
8.0 NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Before further exploring the architectural framework for a potential regional or national tracking tool or
database, the first recommended next step is to develop a workgroup comprised of state and EPA staff to
further discuss the many questions and issues about a national or regional tracking database that arose
during this assessment; for example, what would be the primary uses of a tracking database? Following
these discussions, the workgroup would clearly define the goals and objectives of a tracking system, as well
as identify the intended uses.
Once the goals and intended uses of the system are established, the second recommended next step would
be to identify the various indicators and benchmarks necessary for tracking the implementation of TMDLs
and other water quality restoration efforts. This would be a collaborative process between states and EPA
to ensure consistency. A number of potential indicators and benchmarks were identified during the
interviews with the states and EPA (and discussed throughout this report). Minimum implementation
indicator categories would include:
TMDL adoption, such as: waterbody ID, pollutants addressed, etc.
Implementation plan development and approval
Responsible implementation parties
Allocations incorporated into permits
Completed projects
Water quality monitoring triggers
Restoration evaluation
The results of the state/EPA workgroup planning process would be documented in a report for EPA and
states to refer to should either explore the possibility of developing a state, regional, or national tracking
system.
30
-------
APPENDIX A. WISCONSIN'S WATER ASSESSMENT, TRACKING, AND ELECTRONIC
REPORTING SYSTEMS (WATERS)
WATERS Home Page
3 WADRS Reports - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Wisconsin DINR
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help
*
Back * Q , \X\ g] /J| x,/ Search Favorites
i a
[ I
Address |;g] http://prodoasjava.dnr.wi.gov/wadrs/reports,do
Go Links
Water Assessment. Tracking and Electronic Reporting System
(WATERS)
Updates | Help | Log Off
Reports
Find Water
Find Watershed
Goals Reporting
Internal SWDV
User Guides
Welcome to WATERS
Browse Reports
WADRS Featured
Reports
Outstanding &
Outstanding & Exceptional
Waters
Fisheries Trout Waters
Nonpoint Source Rankings
Waterbody FAL Classifications Exceptional Waters
Goals & Objectives Reports
> Goals Management Reports
ปList of Success Stories by Year
^ Goals Status Reports
WADRS Discoverer Workbook
Reports
Waterbody FAL
Classifications
Waterbody
Assessments
Impaired Waters List Goals Status Reports
Waterbody
Recommendations
Nonpoint Source
Rankings
Goals Management
Reports
Fisheries Trout Waters Watershed
Recommendations
Monitoring Station
Report(Under
Construction)
Success Stories
Federal Wild & Scenic Clean Water Act
Rivers Summary Data
Watershed Plan (Under Lessons Learned
Construction)
Currently, you are logged in.
J, Startj ,^j Strategic Plan - Microsoft, . . 1 1 |P| WADRS Reports - Mic... lg] 2007 Workshop Screen 5. . . |
Trusted sites
2:37 PM
31
-------
Watershed Results: Watershed Recommendations
3 View Watershed Detail - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Wisconsin DNR
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help <;
QBack-,, ' [K] g] :Jj
,^, ^
j. Search Favorites fy*
& Sn d - [ i a a -;i
Address |,e] http://prodoasjava.dnr, wi.gov/wadrs/viewWatershedDetail. do?id=924806 ^J ฃj Go Unks J>
Total Stream Miles
Total Lake Acres
Total Wetland Acres
l^^^^^^l
Agriculture
Urban
Sub Urban
Wetland
Barren
Grass Land
Forest
Open
Stream Rank
Lake Rank
Ground Water Rank
Over All Rank
539
85
12,197
35.5
0,05
0,19
6,62
0,05
19,12
37.7
0.62
High
Low
High
High
REFERENCES 1, Kurz, Joe, Western District Fisheries Manager memo to
Beaver Creek, Chippewa County File. May 30, 1989, WDNR, 2. Kurz, Joe.
May 5, 1980. Running inventory/Eighteen Mile Creek, Chippewa County,
n WDNR, Western District Fisheries Management, Apelgren, Bert. Aug. 11,
1978. Running inventory of Trout Creek, Chippewa and Dunn Counties.
WDNR. Western District Area Fisheries Management. LaLiberte, Paul. Oct.
1989. Postoperative point source impact study South Fork Lower Pine Creek
a...
REFERENCES
Goal
Date
Status
LC07-
10
Back to Browse | Watershed Location | Watershed Detail |
Assessment Units | Enable Edit | Download
Twatershed selection committee should
O LC07- consider the Pine Creek and Red Cedar River Watershed a hgh priority
12 for selection as a priority watershed project under the Wisconsin
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program (Type B)....
n LC07- WRM should conduct water guality monitoring of Mirror Lake (Type
11 B)....
WRM should assist the community around the Dallas Flowage in
establishing a lake management organization and working to improve
and protect water quality (Type B)
LC07- WRM should encourage participation in the self-help lake monitoring
-------
Watershed Results: Watershed Projects & Implementation Actions
3 View Watershed Detail - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Wisconsin DMR
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help
QBack <- - [X] [gj] 1*] ; 'Search
-------
Impaired Waters Report: TMDL Categories (Status)
'3 Watershed Reports - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Wisconsin DNR
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help
Qfiack ' Q - L*] [2] J") y- 'Search '/\ Favorites ,0 ^|r
Address |,e] http://prodoasjava.dnr, wi.gov/wadrs/watershedreporting. do?action=init
*~ Watershed Repo
f Impaired Waters
WBIC
Waterbody Type
Geographic Management Unit
Water Management Unit
Watershed
County
Designated Use
303d Listed?
Trout Class
ORW/ERW
Fed Wild Scenic Flag?
TMDL Priority
TMDL Status ^^^
TMDL CategJ^
TMDL ID I
Report Forntit
Create Repor^SL^
-t
Report
_lj
^J
_d
LC07 - Pine Creek and Red Cedar River j^l
3
^3 ^
^^
^^^
5b. EAR Project ^W
6. Proposed Delist \
4. TMDL Approved 1
7, Water Delisted 1
2. TMDL Development 1
5a. TMDL Implementation J
3. TMDL Submitted ^^^
i . 303d Listed ^^^
* ^
rj' Done
./Start) ,1 \ Strategic Plan
- Microsoft. . , 1 1 @ Watershed Reports - . i3|] 2007 Wor
-|5[x|
ff
p ,^i . i f7| m *.*
'- -f LJ D ปJL *>
j-J _|Go Links ป
d
i{J Trusted sites
tshop Screens...] ^ Lpl ( C^l |0>]ฎ ^^J 2:32 PM
34
-------
Impaired Waters Report: 303fd^ Listed
^j http://prodoasjava.dnr.wi.gov/wadrs/watershedreporting.do - Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Wisconsin DNR
File Edit Go To Favorites
^j Back "
Help
\ -J0' _
Search Favorites ^>**
- i-J S t--\'i %e^
^^tliaL^I' 1^21'tl
Address \j&\ http : //prodoasjava , dnr . wi , gov/wadrs/watershedreporting . do
i H a # i ฃป
|~T" /I - |40%
- ii y ca iiRnd
#
j-J ^ Go Links ป
P!nซ :ปปป. and Rซc Cods'- River TV"-L: v TMDL Iti'ut: VALIDATICปi_PM*4E
-------
APPENDIX B. EXAMPLE OF OREGON'S TMDL IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX TEMPLATE
SOURCE
What sow cut
oflkis 7
poflutanf.org .
widerytmf] 7
1. Failing
septic
systems
2. Bacteria
carried tn
waterways
in storm
runoff
B*i^ia':::;;.:i^||l
STRATEGY
What is. being
done, (tr what -will
you i&; to reSiice ~
'sifid/qr 6stitral7 ;.-.
loarce? ' ''
4. Ensure repair
of failing
systems
b. Educate
homeowners
about system
maintenance
and how la
detect lailuies
a. Address
rorwff
problems
from farms
via SB 1010
plans (ODA)
b. Prevent pet
v>astc fiom
rcaciiifig
waterways
flip":'' | | '
HOW
wilt this bt dove? '":.'
i. Respond to
reports of
failing systems;
work with
homeowner to
set * timeline
for repair
i. Mail DEQ info.
toX
homeowners
ii. Ptovidc info at
city's booth at
community
festival
i. Contact ORA
when problems
are identified
i- Erect signage
and provide
poop bugs in
parks
ii. Get article in
local paper to
raise awareness
in Adopt
ordinance
requiring
owners to clean
up after their
pets
n m^^'l
rtSGAL ANALYSIS
! What' if iheexpeeteti:
resiwrcfneeiff^Are.'"-.
~.iHere;exjdllng\-:-\
}{JfrK>t wiiefe tfW/fte ;
^fesaiirce^.'comfji-^m?]
Already funded; see
specific program
budget
SX
Noacditioral
resources needed
No additional
resources needed,
$X borroived from
park tree planting
budget
No additional
resources needed;
newspaper donating
column space
W-'$ -:::;;' ^:-":;;-
'MEASURE ijL, :;;;,..
quaraltotivetyolr.; I
demitttsiratt success/ill,:
imptHlH'tntatiealfar-:' - ;;
strategy? ' 7~
Track ** of reports,
outcome of inspection
(foiling or not) and
date of follow-up that
Confirmed repairs were
made
Number o f brochures
maileit
Number of contacts
Track f Eiamplt: '. M!H . i ,- ,
MILESTONE
IVhat JntennediaIG
goalt *4o! you- expect :
to achieve, and by. . -f.
: wlieri, ita.Inxnr S-. i!;i|:
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Convene
Advisory
Committee by
12/Ofi
ซ Draft rule by 6/07
ซ Adoplion by 2/08
ilenicotปri<>ป Tr*cting Mปtrii
STATUS
.fncltide sii/nmary:pn(i. date.7
36
------- |