JJii^
X" »&. <,
-------
Acknowledgments
The Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds manual was developed under the
direction of Charles Sutfin of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). The manual was prepared by Kathryn
Hernandez of Region VIII, with assistance from Jan Christner of URS Operating Services, Inc., under
EPA Contract Numbers 68-W-00-118 and 68-C-01-022. The authors gratefully acknowledge the in-
sightful comments and assistance of reviewers from within EPA and other federal and state environ-
mental agencies, as well as the detailed reviews conducted by Rich Mylott, EPA Region VIII; Bruce
Zander, EPA Region VIII; and Charles Howland, EPA Region III. Regina Scheibner, Emily Faalasli,
Krista Carlson, Omar Capers, Jacqueline Johnson, Carolyn Ellison, Jeff Strong, and Courtney Colvin
from Tetra Tech, Inc., provided editorial review, graphic design, and layout.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2006. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore
Watersheds. EPA-540-R-05-013. Office of Water and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 186 pages.
To obtain a copy of the Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds manual free of
charge, contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
www. epa.gov/ncepihom
This EPA document is available on the Intranet at
http://intranet.epa.gov/osrti/ard/spb/wwintegration/wwintegration.pdf
Appendices are available at
http://intranet.epa.gov/osrti/ard/spb/wwintegration/index.htm
DISCLAIMER: While this manual includes a review of a number of federal programs administered by EPA,
it is not a substitute for the federal laws which EPA implements, or their implementing regulations, nor is
it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated
community. In addition, the manual is not intended to modify or affect in any way existing statutory or
regulatory requirements or Agency policies; it is simply intended to summarize those requirements and
policies in aid of suggesting opportunities for better coordinating the cleanup of watersheds. If there is
any unintended variation between any statements in this manual and existing EPA requirements or policy
statements, the requirements or policy statements are preeminent.
-------
The concept for the manual came from the January 27, 2004, joint Office of Water and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Division Directors meeting held in Tampa,
Florida. Discussion at the meeting indicated that although geographic opportunities exist
for water and waste program coordination, a framework was needed to improve collabo-
ration and make it more routine. Division Directors agreed that the first step in develop-
ing a framework would be to create a compendium of success stories, and to use these
successes to create conceptual collaboration models. The models would be applied to
other projects and afford guidance in similar future situations.
To implement the Division Directors agreement, Region VIII was asked to develop a man-
ual for watershed cleanup that would help regional water and waste program managers
collaborate in implementing watershed cleanup projects. The manual is based on several
regional success stories.
-------
List
Chapter 1
i
Purpose 1
Target Audience 1
Organization 2
Background 2
Programs that Address Water Body Contamination 3
Using a Watershed Approach 3
Developing a Watershed Management Plan 4
Elements of an Effective Watershed Cleanup Process 4
Community Outreach/Involvement 7
Role of the Project Manager 8
Identifying Priority Watersheds 8
Case Study—Watershed Management Plan, Cross Bayou Watershed,
Pinellas County, Florida 9
Case Study—Prioritization Criteria, State of Oregon 303(d) Listing Criteria 10
Chapter 2
13
Watershed Cleanup Team 13
Regulatory Authorities 14
Introduction 14
Clean Water Act 19
Water Quality Criteria and Standards 19
Water Monitoring and Assessment 20
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 22
Total Maximum Daily Load 25
Nonpoint Sources 27
Wetlands 28
Oil and Hazardous Substances 29
Clean Water Act Enforcement 29
Safe Drinking Water Act 30
Drinking Water Standards 30
Source Water Protection 30
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 31
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 31
RCRA Solid Waste program (Subtitle D) 31
RCRA Hazardous Waste program (Subtitle C) 32
RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program (Subtitle I) 33
RCRA Enforcement Authorities 34
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 34
CERCLA Removal Program 36
CERCLA Site Assessment Program 36
CERCLA Remedial Program 38
CERCLA Enforcement Authorities 39
Federal Facility Issues 40
Natural Resource Issues 40
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 41
Brownfields 43
Toxic Substances Control Act 44
Stakeholders 44
Federal Government Stakeholders 44
State and Tribal Government Stakeholders 45
Local Government Stakeholders 45
Nongovernment Stakeholders 45
Community Action Groups 45
Industry 46
Educational Institutions 46
Environmental Action Groups 46
Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs 47
Landowners/Citizens 47
Case Study—Watershed Assessment and Cleanup Integration,
Left Hand Watershed, Colorado 48
Chapter 3
55
Leveraging Funding 55
Funding Opportunities 56
Water Program Funding Resources 56
Water Program Loans 56
Water Program Grants 57
Assessment and Watershed Protection Program Grants and Cooperative Agreements 58
Water Quality Pollution Control Grants 58
Total Maximum Daily Load Program 58
Wetland Program Development Cooperative Agreements and Grants 58
Regional Geographic Initiative 59
Source Water Grants 59
Nonpoint Source Funds 59
Contents
-------
Additional Water Program Support 61
Case Study—Region 8 Consolidated Funding Process RFP 62
RCRA Funding Resources 71
UST/LUST Funds 71
CERCLA Funding Resources 71
Pre-Remedial Program 71
Remedial Program 72
Removal/Emergency Response Program 72
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 72
Superfund Community Involvement Resources 72
EPA Internal CERCLA Resources 73
EPA CERCLA Contracting Resources 74
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 74
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) 75
Regional Laboratories 75
EPIC—Remote Sensing and Mapping Support Contract 75
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) 75
Response Action Contracts (RACs) 75
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) 75
Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) 76
Brownfields Resources 76
Brownfields Grants 76
Brownfields Assessment Grants 77
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants 77
Brownfields Cleanup Grants 77
Brownfields Job Training and Workforce Development Grants 77
The Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities 77
Targeted Brownfields Assessments and State and Tribal Response Program Grants 78
EPA's TEA Funds 78
State/Tribal Response Program Grants 78
EPA Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 78
Brownfields Federal Partnerships 78
Additional EPA Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 79
Targeted Watershed Grants 79
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants 79
Five Star Restoration Program 79
Environmental Finance Program 79
Environmental Justice 80
Case Study—Region 10 Serves as a Model for Making Funding Accessible for
Coordinated Watershed Programs 81
Department of Interior Assessment and Cleanup Resources 81
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 81
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 82
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) -. 82
Office of Surface Mining (OSM) 83
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 83
National Park Service 84
Department of Agriculture Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 84
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA/FS) 84
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 85
Farm Service Agency (FSA) 86
Agricultural Research Service 86
Department of Commerce Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 86
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 86
Other Federal Funding Resources 87
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 87
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 89
Case Study—EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Team Up to
Restore Contaminated Rivers 90
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 90
Nongovernmental Assessment and Cleanup Funding Resources 90
Voluntary Cleanup Programs 90
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) 91
Volunteer Monitoring Groups 91
River Network 91
Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) 92
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) 92
National Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP) 92
Case Study—Multi-Agency, Multi-Program Funding Resources and Cooperation 101
CHAPTER 4
103
Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment 106
Additional Watershed Data Collection 108
Cooperative Data Collection 108
Collaborative Data Col lection 108
Biological Data Collection 109
Data Quality and Evaluation 109
Data Quality Objectives no
Data Evaluation no
Benchmarks in
Data Collection Strategies 112
Triad Approach 112
Contents
-------
Data Management 113
STORE! 113
Case Study—Region 8 Using Web Tools for Data Management 115
Additional Databases 115
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) 115
National Water Information System (NWIS) 115
Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS) 115
Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) 116
Program Studies 116
CWA State Water Quality Monitoring Programs 116
Water Quality Standards—Use Attainability Analysis 118
TMDL 120
TMDL Tasks Related to Assessment 120
Case Study—Delaware River Watershed PCB TMDL 121
TMDL Sample Collection 125
Laboratory Analysis: Samples are analyzed for the TMDL pollutant
and associated indicators 126
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) 126
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) 126
CERCLA Site Assessment 126
Preliminary Assessment (PA) 126
Unified Phase Assessment (UFA) 128
Site Inspection (SI) 128
CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 129
Site Characterization 130
CERCLA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 131
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 133
DOINRDA Process 134
NOAA NRDA Process 134
Removal Assessment and Cleanup 135
Brownfields Assessments 136
Abandoned Mine Land Initiative Assessment 137
CHAPTER 5
139
Integrating Watershed Cleanup 139
Case Study—Utah DEQ: Prioritizing 319 Spending 139
Watershed Feasibility Assessment 132
Case Study—How a Subbasin Study Can Lead to Watershed-wide Cleanup 140
Remediation + Restoration + Reuse = Revitalization 141
Superfund-Restoration Integration 142
Case Study—Stabilizing Streambanks on the Upper Arkansas River 142
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
TMDL Restoration Integration—Point Source Trading 144
Case Study—Trading Improves Boulder Creek Ecology 145
Supplemental Environmental Projects 146
Case Study—A SEP Improves Health and Revitalizes Granite City, Illinois 147
Identification of Implementation Resources and Assignment to Programs/Stakeholders 147
Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan 147
Integrated Watershed Monitoring 148
Program Cleanup Processes 149
TMDL 149
RCRA 150
RCRA Corrective Measures Study (CMS) 150
RCRA Corrective Action 151
CERCLA Removal 151
CERCLA Remedial 151
Feasibility Study 151
CERCLA Removal Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 154
Case Study—Cooperatively Working in the Left Hand Watershed 155
Proposed Plan, Public Comment, and Record of Decision 155
Remedial Design/Remedial Action 155
Operation and Maintenance 155
NRDA 156
Brownfields 157
Additional Topics Related to Watershed Cleanup and Monitoring 157
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS) 157
Wetlands Protection 158
Case Study—Setting Site-Specific Water Quality Standards/ARARs in Eagle
River and French Gulch 158
Case Study—Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho and Washington 159
Case Study—Working Together for Remediation, Habitat Restoration, and
Reuse Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah 162
Case Study—Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit Milltown River/Clark
Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana 165
Contents
-------
TABLES
Table 2-1 EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach 17
Table 2-2 Most Commonly Used CERCLA Enforcement Authorities 39
Table 2-3 Federal Natural Resource Trustees 41
Table 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary 93
Table 3-2 EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview 99
Table 4-1 Comparison of Surface Water Related Data Collection and Analysis
Requirements for Mining Watersheds 105
Table 4-2 Benchmarks for Data Comparison Ill
Table 4-3 Sample Data Requirements 114
Table 4-4 Recommended Core and Supplemental Indicators 118
Table 4-5 PA/SI Benchmarks 129
Table 5-1 Left Hand Watershed Implementation Draft Worksheet 148
mm
Figure 1-1 Watershed Cleanup Process 5
Figure 2-1 Program Flow Chart 15
Figure 4-1 Assessment Flow Chart and Overview 104
Figure 4-2 Site Conceptual Model for the Anacostia Watershed 107
Figure 4-3 PA/SI Decision Tree 127
APPENMGES
Appendix A Left Hand Watershed Collaborative Sampling Documents 169
Al Sampling and Analysis Plan 169
A2 Quality Assurance Project Plan 169
A3 Agency Sampling Worksheet 169
Appendix B Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results,
Field Measurements, and Associated Metadata 169
Appendix C Left Hand Watershed Fact Sheet 169
Appendix D Coeur d'Alene Basin-Wide Monitoring Plan 169
Appendix E USFS/EPA Memorandum of Understanding 169
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
The goal of this manual is to enhance coordination across United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) waste and water programs to streamline requirements, satisfy multiple objectives,
tap into a variety of funding sources, and implement restoration activities more efficiently, show-
ing measurable results. It provides a road map to conducting cross-programmatic watershed as-
sessments and cleanups in watersheds with both EPA water and waste program issues and presents
innovative tools to enhance program integration. Water and waste programs typically work inde-
pendently to accomplish their goals; however, given the overlap in activities and limited resources,
it benefits both programs to work together to develop project funding, perform necessary assess-
ments and studies, prioritize projects, conduct cleanups, and monitor results. This manual pro-
vides guidance on how to integrate assessment and cleanup activities to optimize available tools
and resources and help restore contaminated waters efficiently and effectively.
This manual is targeted primarily at project managers in EPA water and waste programs who are
working on assessment or cleanup projects in watersheds contaminated by hazardous materials or
waste. This manual complements other watershed assessment, cleanup, and community involve-
ment guidance documents by presenting the authorities, resources, and processes used in hazard-
ous materials and waste contaminated watersheds.
This manual describes the interrelationships between programs and agencies involved in water-
shed assessment and cleanup and suggests potential opportunities for program integration. It uses
case studies to illustrate important points.
Chapter 1 presents a brief background on cleanup programs, elements of a successful watershed
cleanup, and the potential roles of the watershed cleanup project manager. The remainder of the
document reviews these steps in greater detail to demonstrate how to develop and implement an
effective watershed cleanup program.
Chapter 2 lists the primary programs and stakeholders likely to have lead roles in watershed
cleanup, and summarizes regulatory roles, authorities, and processes. Identifying programs and
agencies with interests in the watershed is essential to the process of building a multiprogram
Watershed Cleanup Team with a holistic approach.
Chapter 3 presents the resources available for watershed assessment and cleanup, and includes
an expanded list of agencies, programs, and other stakeholders that may be involved in watershed
cleanup. Watershed-based cleanups may be accomplished through a variety of funding and other
resources available for investigation, cleanup, monitoring, and community involvement. This
chapter specifically addresses applicability of funds, accessing the funds, and project requirements
for using the funds. It also discusses nonfinancial resources available through government and
nongovernmental agencies, such as scientific resources, contracting resources, facility and staffing
resources, and analytical resources.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Chapter 4 discusses issues related to data integration and watershed assessment. This chapter dis-
cusses two primary opportunities for coordination—preliminary data compilation and streamlined
collection of additional data. The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment is presented
as a tool for preliminary data compilation. This tool focuses the efforts of the Watershed Cleanup
Team on the most important watershed issues and helps identify the primary stakeholders and wa-
tershed cleanup goals. It is an effective tool that will help project managers understand watershed
conditions and develop a preliminary watershed conceptual model.
Streamlining watershed assessment involves coordinated and collaborative data collection. To
ensure that all opportunities for integration are utilized to save resources while reducing the waste
of duplicative sampling efforts, coordinated assessment activities are performed independently by
programs, agencies, and stakeholders. The sampling and analysis plans (SAPs), which include the
field sampling plan (FSP) and the quality assurance project plan (QAPP), are reviewed by the Wa-
tershed Cleanup Team in advance. Collaborative assessment is conducted when Watershed Clean-
up Team partners combine efforts to perform additional assessment and sampling. Collaborative
assessment requires development of a common approach and consistent methods that consider the
multiple programs involved.
To integrate data compilation and collection, managers must consider the data requirements of
the various programs. Chapter 4 presents issues that involve compilation of existing data and the
collection of additional data, such as data quality, data evaluation, data management, and the
benchmarks against which the data are compared. It also presents the Triad approach to sampling
used by several EPA programs. To provide personnel from different programs with an understand-
ing of other program efforts, the chapter ends with a summary of typical program-specific assess-
ment procedures and requirements.
Chapter 5 discusses integrated watershed cleanup topics such as the Watershed Feasibility As-
sessment, "Three-Rs" approach, Superfund-Restoration integration, total maximum daily load
(TMDL)-Restoration integration using point source trading, Supplemental Environmental Projects,
and Watershed Cleanup Team task assignments. It also discusses integrated monitoring. The chap-
ter continues with a summary of program requirements for determining remediation and restora-
tion actions and for long-term monitoring of watershed conditions. It concludes with additional
topics that managers must consider in watershed cleanup such as wetlands and other applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
This document proposes that federal and state programs and local watershed groups use the Wa-
tershed Feasibility Assessment (WFA) to review and prioritize cross-programmatic cleanup oppor-
tunities. The WFA provides critical information regarding significant point and nonpoint sources
that have been identified and quantifies their associated loads to surface water. The analysis
suggests potential remediation alternatives and assigns costs associated with specific load reduc-
tions. The WFA may not fulfill all the requirements of the various programs (such as a Superfund
Feasibility Study (FS), Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), or TMDL Load Allocations),
but it would provide the framework for these documents. To facilitate cleanup at each individual
location, managers would perform fine-tuned assessment and design in subsequent steps accord-
ing to specific program requirements.
The "Three-Rs" are remediation, restoration, and reuse. The Watershed Cleanup Team should
cooperatively set remediation, restoration, and reuse goals and ensure the goals are met by project
implementation by using applicable authorities and available funding mechanisms.
In summary, coordinating the efforts of agencies and programs yields significant opportunities for
streamlining and reducing the final cost of watershed cleanup, restoration, and redevelopment,
resulting in cleaner watersheds for beneficial use.
11
Executive Summary
-------
List of Acronyms
AEA Atomic Energy Act
AMD Acid Mine Drainage
AML Abandoned Mine Land
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BEDI Brownfields Economic Development Initiative
BFPP Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment Closure and Health
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BOM Bureau of Mines
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group
CAA Clean Air Act
CARE Community Action for a Renewed Environment
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CFP Consolidated Funding Process
CLP EPA Contract Laboratory Program
CLU-IN Clean-Up Information
CM/ Corrective Measures Implementation
CMS Corrective Measures Study
CRDL Contract Required Detection Limit
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit
CSP. Conservation Security Program
CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center
CWA Clean Water Act
CWI Clean Water Initiative
CWRP Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership
DOC. Department of Commerce
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
111
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DQI Data Quality Indicators
DQO Data Quality Objectives
ECARP Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EFC Environmental Finance Center
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ERAMS Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
ERRS Emergency and Rapid Response Services
ERT. Environmental Response Team
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESAT. Environmental Services Assistance Team
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentcide Act
FISRWG Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
FLM Federal Land Management Agency
FRP Federal Response Plan
FSA Farm Service Agency
FSP Field Sampling Plan
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
G7S Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
CRTS Grants Reporting and Tracking System
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HAER Historic American Engineering Record
HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSI Habitat Suitability Indices
HUD Housing and Urban Development
LERRDs Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way, Relocations, and Disposal Sites
LWOG Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDN Mercury Deposition Network
MNR Monitored Natural Recovery
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOS Margin of Safety
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NAD National Assessment Database
NAGPRA Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Iv
List of Acronyms
-------
NFS National Forest Service
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NLFWA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NFS Nonpoint Source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRDA National Resources Damage Assessment
NTCRA Non-Time Critical Removal Action
NTTS National Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking System
NWIS National Water Information System
O&M. Operations and Maintenance
OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSM Office of Surface Mining
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU Operable Unit
PA Preliminary Assessment
PCS Permit Compliance System
PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RA Remedial Action
RACs Response Action Contracts
RAMS Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites
RAS Routine Analytical Services
RBCs Risk Based Concentrations
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
REAC Response Engineering and Analytical Contract
RFA RCRA Facility Assessment
RFI. RCRA Facility Investigation
RGI Regional Geographic Initiative
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RNRF Renewable Natural Resources Foundation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM. Remedial Project Manager, also Regional Project Managers
RTDF Remediation Technologies Development Forum
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SAS Special Analytical Services
SCDM Superfund Chemical Data Matrix
V
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SI Site Inspection
SMIC Surface Water and Water Quality Models Information Clearinghouse
SRF State Revolving Fund
SRI Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
SSAs Site-Specific Assessments
SSLs Soil Screening Levels
SSRC Superfund Sediment Resource Center
START. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
STORET Storage and Retrieval of Water-Related Data
SWP Source Water Protection
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC. Toxics Advisory Committee
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TEA Targeted Brownfields Assessments
TCRA Time Critical Removal Action
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for Communities
TSC Technical Support Center
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UAA Use Attainability Analyses
UIC Underground Injection Control
UPA Unified Phase Assessment
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WATERS Watershed j4ssessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
WFA Watershed Feasibility Assessment
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WPS West Page Swamp
WQBELS Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
WQS Water Quality Standards
WQSDB Water Quality Standards Database
WQX Water Quality Exchange
VI
List of Acronyms
-------
m Purpose
The purpose of this manual is to help the EPA better integrate assessment and
cleanup activities when addressing the unique challenges presented by contaminated
watersheds. This manual will help staff make the best use of the resources and
authorities offered by EPA's existing waste and water programs. The contamination
in a watershed typically comes from many sources, differing geographically and over
time. Although many federal and state programs address such contamination, they often
operate independently and with little interaction. EPA's principal regulatory programs that
control ongoing source activity — the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) — are media-centric, as are most
states' delegated versions of those programs. EPA's response programs for addressing past
contamination — principally the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) — are project-specific and often consult
with their regulatory counterparts only at discrete points in the cleanup process as required
by regulations. These communication and coordination difficulties can be especially acute
when trying to clean up a contaminated watershed, whose sources often include ongoing
point source and nonpoint source discharges as well as historical disposal activities. Moreover,
the cleanup of contaminated watersheds typically involves many stakeholders, including private
and commercial interests, various federal and state government agencies acting in their roles as
land managers or trustees as well as regulators, and local land use planning and redevelopment
authorities.
The goal of this manual is to draw together the many resources within EPA's varied programs and
to describe ways to integrate the use of available tools and resources. EPA believes this approach
will result in more efficient and effective cleanup and restoration of contaminated watersheds.
-" Target Audience
This manual is targeted primarily at project managers in EPA water and waste programs who are
working on assessment or cleanup projects in watersheds contaminated by hazardous substances
(broadly defined). The manual is intended to complement and summarize other watershed assess-
ment, cleanup and community involvement guidance documents, not to replace them.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
\e
This manual describes the interrelationships between programs and agencies involved in water-
shed assessment and cleanup, and it suggests potential opportunities for program integration. This
introductory chapter presents a brief background on cleanup programs, elements of a successful
watershed cleanup, and potential roles of the watershed cleanup project manager. The remain-
der of the document reviews each step in greater detail to show how to develop and implement
an effective watershed cleanup program. Chapter 2 lists the programs and stakeholders likely to
have lead roles in watershed cleanup and summarizes regulatory roles, authorities, and processes.
Chapter 3 presents the resources available for watershed assessment and cleanup; it also includes
an expanded list of agencies, programs, and other stakeholders that might be involved in a wa-
tershed cleanup. A summary of the resources and their applicability is provided in a table at the
end of the chapter. Chapters 4 and 5 summarize the assessment and cleanup studies performed,
processes used, and approaches applied by each of the major EPA and state programs and point
out opportunities for integration. Two tools, the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assess-
ment and the Watershed Feasibility Assessment, are explained in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively,
to help managers who might develop the watershed conceptual model and the watershed cleanup
plan. Case studies are interspersed throughout the manual to highlight key concepts. For example,
the Left Hand Watershed case study at the end of Chapter 2 demonstrates a multi-programmatic
approach to watershed cleanup during the assessment, cleanup, and funding stages.
Federal Programs that Address
Water Body Contamination
(See Chapters 2 and 3)
I Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment
> National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
I TMDL Program
I CWA Section 404 Dredge and Fill
I Nonpoint Source Grants
I Source Water Protection
I Superfund
I Brownfields
» RCRA
I Abandoned Mine Lands
I Farm Bill
> Natural Resource Damage
Assessment (NRDA)
watershed. Other potential conflicts
for taking action to address releases
regulatory authorities.
•I.
Over the past 30 years the country has made great
strides toward reducing the amount of pollution in our
waters through regulatory controls and improved waste-
water treatment. Many of our waterways, however,
are still contaminated as a result of ongoing industrial
activities, polluted runoff, and the remains from his-
torical disposal activities. In addition, the time frames
associated with cleanup at some contaminated sites
span decades, hampering the overall success of water-
shed restoration. Specific water and waste programs
often become involved in a watershed on a sequential
or location-specific basis rather than following a coor-
dinated approach. This lack of integration can waste
resources and lead to conflicting site-specific results in
a watershed that are difficult to redress after a particu-
lar agency decision is reached, such as issuance of a
CERCLA record of decision (ROD) or finalization of a
TMDL. For example, conflict might occur if one regula-
tory program office uses water quality standards (WQS)
to allocate loads in a TMDL within a watershed while
another regulatory program office waives WQS when
selecting a site remedy under CERCLA within the same
may arise when trying to appropriately coordinate schedules
from different sources within a watershed under different
Although there are numerous potential pitfalls in attempting to coordinate various programs in a
watershed cleanup, agencies can complement and reinforce each other's activities, avoid duplica-
tion, and leverage resources to achieve greater results through integration.
Introduction
-------
Demands
Programs that Address Waterbody Contamination
Various federal and state programs address the assessment, cleanup, and restoration
of contaminated waterbodies. These programs are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
Because Superfund and RCRA sites are often located in watersheds where TMDLs
are being developed, the chapter summarizes three of the most prominent
programs: the CERCLA program, the RCRA Corrective Action program, and the
TMDL program. Budgets
The CERCLA program identifies sites from which hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, or contaminants have been released or have the potential to be released,
posing a threat to human health or the environment. If a site has been deemed
sufficiently hazardous, it is placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) to receive
funding and priority for cleanup. In general, EPA carries out the Superfund program
at most Superfund sites, either directly or by supervising work being performed by
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). States can have the lead role at sites within their
jurisdiction after developing a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), State-Superfund
Contract (SSC), and/or a Cooperative Agreement (CA) with EPA. Other federal agencies carry out
CERCLA cleanups (using separately appropriated funds) at facilities under their respective jurisdic-
tion, custody, or control.
Accidents or other activities at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities have sometimes
released contamination into soil, ground water, surface water, and air. The RCRA Corrective Action
Program allows these facilities to address the investigation and cleanup of such releases them-
selves, under governmental supervision. The RCRA Corrective Action Program differs from Super-
fund in that it deals with sites that have viable operators and ongoing operations.
Under the CWA's TMDL Program, states are required to identify waterbodies that do not meet
WQS. Such "impaired waterbodies" are placed on the state's 303 (d) list. For each waterbody on
a state's 303 (d) list, the state must calculate how much of a particular pollutant (contributing to
the impairment) can enter the waterbody without exceeding the WQS. The calculation is called a
TMDL.
If the watershed includes 303 (d)-listed waters or has a TMDL, the waste and water programs
should be encouraged to work together to ensure that assessment and cleanup activities are coor-
dinated so that the requirements of all the programs are addressed.
Historically, the restoration of contaminated waterbodies has been approached from the perspective
of individual federal and state programs. With shrinking budgets and increased demands on our
time, we need to approach the cleanup of waterbodies in a holistic and integrated manner, using
all the programmatic resources available. In many cases, the data collected to satisfy requirements
under one program also can be used to meet requirements under other programs. For example, a
tracer study performed to determine contaminant fate and transport for a Remedial Investigation
(RI) at an NPL site could also be used to determine contaminant loading for a TMDL. Water quality
and flow information used to develop or refine a state WQS could be used to help meet Superfund
Site Inspection, RI, Risk Assessment, NRDA, and state water quality assessment requirements if
sample collection and analysis procedures are agreed upon in advance. TMDL targets are often used
as one of the remediation endpoints for RCRA sites that affect water quality.
Using a Watershed Approach
In the past 15 years, more and more organizations and agencies have moved away from individual
efforts and more toward managing water resources using a watershed approach. A watershed
approach is a flexible framework for managing water resource quality within specified drainage
areas. This approach includes stakeholder involvement and activities supported by sound science
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
and appropriate technology. The watershed planning and cleanup process works within this frame-
work by following a series of cooperative, iterative steps to assess existing conditions, identify and
prioritize problems, develop goals and cleanup strategies, and monitor the effectiveness of cleanup
efforts.
Developing a Watershed Management Plan
Use of a watershed approach may begin with the development of a watershed management plan
by stakeholder groups receiving Nonpoint Source (CWA section 319) funds. A watershed plan is
a strategy that provides assessment and management information for a geographically defined
watershed, including the analyses, action, participants, and resources relating to developing and
implementing the plan. The watershed activities described in this manual, although similar to
watershed plans frequently developed with 319 funds, are focused on watersheds contaminated
with hazardous or toxic materials. Efforts to address toxic substances in the watershed might be
"a subset of a larger watershed management plan and should complement that plan. The Pinellas
County case study at the end of this chapter demonstrates multiple agencies cooperating to pre-
pare a watershed management plan.
i* of ati
Several elements are essential for successful watershed cleanups. The steps presented in Figure 1-1
and described below apply to most projects. However, when the watershed approach is initiated
the extent and importance of the elements are likely to vary depending on the scope, location, and
complexity of the problem and the status of any existing program activities in the watershed. Com-
munity involvement is encouraged throughout the process and, indeed, is a required part of any
CERCLA cleanup or TMDL development. Although, ideally, progress through these steps will be
iterative, the key point is to ensure that they are accomplished, drawing on all possible resources
available from all the stakeholders.
1. Identify driving forces and scale of watershed effort. The identification of an affected
watershed often begins with a CWA 303 (d) or NPL listing. These actions spur public interest
and trigger funding support for public and agency involvement. The geographic scale of the
project area will vary with the scope of the problem and the location of sources that contribute
to the problem. If subwatersheds are designated, an additive approach can be taken to allow
integration with downstream subwatersheds. The scale of the effort can also be defined by the
impacts that will be addressed. The hydrologically defined geographic area should include all
potential sources that may contribute to the impairment of the waterbody.
2. Form a Watershed Cleanup Team. A variety of stakeholders might play significant roles in
the watershed cleanup, including local, state, and federal governments; private corporations;
nonprofit organizations; and concerned citizens. Many impaired waterways already have one
or more nongovernmental organizations working on restoration activities. A key component
of an effective watershed approach is ensuring communication and cooperation among the
various community, local, state, and federal stakeholders. The effort can be facilitated by a
designated watershed project manager from a waste or water
program. The project manager should identify regulatory
programs that have potential involvement in assessment
or cleanup efforts in the watershed and examine op-
portunities to coordinate resources in the watershed.
Additional stakeholders might be identified later as
additional land ownership or regulatory issues arise.
The effort should promote a holistic approach in both a
programmatic and geographic sense to ensure coordina-
tion in establishing and achieving cleanup goals.
Introduction
-------
Figure 1-1. Watershed Cleanup Process
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify problems and set goals. The Watershed Cleanup Team identifies the problems and
expected results or outcomes of assessment and cleanup. Each program/stakeholder group will
identify its priorities and goals, provide available data, and commit to a level of involvement
in the process. Involvement can include in-kind services, contract support, funding, and data
acquisition or management; the possibilities should not be limited. The Watershed Cleanup
Team establishes common endpoints or, if necessary, agrees to do so on the basis of the findings
of additional studies. Often one of the most difficult issues is prioritizing sites for cleanup—a
determination that is the product of both regulatory and response program requirements, as
well as stakeholder input. Also, a CERCLA removal, a CERCLA remedial action, and a natural re-
source restoration protection project each might result in a different degree of cleanup because
of the respective programs' differing goals. Although some objectives will be unique to specific
stakeholders, information gathered as part of work in the watershed should be shared with the
stakeholder group and at least summarized for the public, ideally through a regularly updated
Web site. (See the discussion of Community Outreach and Involvement below.) This might be
a contentious process, but all stakeholder interests should be considered. Recognize that while
regulatory agencies typically have responsibilities that must be carried out, any of the stakehold-
ers might suggest ideas for carrying them out creatively.
Compile existing data. To conduct an initial assessment, the watershed cleanup team collects
and evaluates all existing water chemistry and flow, sediment, geological, soils, biological, and
source data. Special care should be taken to ensure that each stakeholder contributes existing
data for use in a watershed-wide database. Often individual members of large organizations,
including federal and state agencies as well as large, multi-location businesses, are unaware of all
the information resources available to them. In addition to regulatory and water resource alloca-
tion agencies, colleges and universities are often an untapped source of information. Data should
be compiled so that all participants can access and use it. Issues related to data integration are
discussed in Chapter 4. Data should also be validated by field reconnaissance. A useful tool to
accomplish preliminary data integration and field validation on a watershed-wide basis is the
Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment, presented in Chapter 4. The assessment may
be used to develop a site conceptual model, examples of which are also included in Chapter 4.
Analyze data. On the basis of existing data, the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assess-
ment, data analysis, and the site conceptual model, stakeholders will determine whether addi-
tional data are needed and, if so, how they will be collected. Data needs will depend on specific
programmatic requirements. The studies conducted for the major assessment and cleanup pro-
grams are described in Chapter 4, along with potential opportunities for integration, but partici-
pants should also consider additional areas for integration that might apply to the contaminants,
watershed, and participants in the specific watershed project. After carefully considering the
types of additional data required for each agency or program and evaluating opportunities to
consolidate data collection, managers can determine the methods and mechanisms for collect-
ing the data. The data may be collected independently by stakeholders with available authorities
and resources (as long as it is collected according to an agreed-upon quality assurance/qual-
ity control (QA/QC) plan, as described below), or a collaborative data collection effort may be
launched.
Collect additional data, if needed. Identify potential sampling and analysis resources. Such
resources can include EPA regional labs, access to existing CERCLA lab contracts, and grants to
stakeholders or local universities. For collaborative sampling efforts, a joint SAP should be pre-
pared and agency staff and stakeholders participating in fieldwork should be provided training
to ensure that data collection is performed according to Agency protocol. Additional data col-
lection will be determined as additional sources are identified and priorities are set. The process
may be iterative. Any agencies collecting data independently of the collaborative efforts should
agree to abide by the SAP, or the absence of adherence should be duly noted. In any event, inde-
Introduction
-------
pendently collected data should be characterized by consistent naming conventions and data
format to allow all data to be compiled and shared through a single database.
7. Identify significant sources of contamination. Determine the significant sources of contami-
nation and the associated contaminant loads on the basis of data from the Comprehensive
Preliminary Watershed Assessment and additional data collected. This is part of the TMDL
development, but it will also help other participants to prioritize sites. Identification and quan-
tification of all significant sources provides the necessary data to assess the cumulative impacts
from the watershed to the impaired waterbody. Identify seasonal variations in loads and load-
ing contributions from the various sources. Identify resources for cleanup priorities and any
additional assessments that will be necessary at significant source locations.
8. Prioritize cleanup sites and methods. The Watershed Cleanup Team identifies priority
cleanup sites and potential cleanup alternatives. A tool it can use to evaluate cleanup options
and their applicability to various situations is the WFA, described in Chapter 5. Many factors
can affect the choice of priority cleanup locations, including contribution to contaminant
loading, authority to require cleanup, willingness of property owners to participate, funding
mechanisms, complexity of the site, and available technologies. Estimates of load reductions
that would result from the cleanup of selected sites require supporting technical analysis
demonstrating that the cleanup will attain and maintain the water quality defined by
individual program standards.
9. Conduct the cleanup. Cleanup can be accomplished through CERCLA or RCRA actions, volun-
tary cleanups, Brownfields cleanups, implementation of NPDES permits or best management
practices (BMPs), or any other available methods. Each of these cleanup methods typically
requires the participation of the affected site owner and other potentially responsible parties
(PRP), voluntarily or pursuant to an enforcement action. In addition, EPA might have re-
sources to fund CERCLA cleanups, to facilitate brownfields cleanups, and to otherwise aid the
effort. To avoid potential conflicts that may arise when trying to coordinate schedules and ap-
propriate levels of cleanup for taking action to address releases from different sources within
a watershed under different regulatory authorities, a document may be developed in which
stakeholders delineate a clear process and line of authority for managing cleanup actions. The
document need not itself be legally binding, but can reference regulations or other agree-
ments.
10. Monitor performance. The watershed project manager develops a monitoring plan to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the implementation/cleanup actions and determine whether load re-
ductions are being achieved and endpoints met. Effective long-term monitoring should include
parameters of interest to all stakeholders and may include involvement of federal, state, tribal
and local agencies; community groups; volunteer organizations; and educational institutions.
Community Outreach/Involvement
Although the stakeholders should represent a cross section of the community or communities af-
fected by the watershed cleanup, the Watershed Cleanup Team will likely need to communicate
directly with those affected by its work. CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) require extensive outreach to affected communities, and clean-
ups proposed at NPL sites must be presented to the public for their review and comment. EPA
has issued several useful guidance documents supporting such activities, including the Superfund
Community Involvement Handbook, www.epa.gov/pubUcinvolvement/involvework.htm.
EPA is developing an additional resource for creating and operating a Watershed Cleanup Team,
Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, EPA 841-B-05-
005, October 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/
7
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
& Project
The project manager is responsible for forming the Watershed Cleanup Team or interacting with
the group in a manner that will allow programs, agencies, and communities to work together. The
level of effort required and specific tasks will vary significantly depending on the size and com-
plexity of the project and the number of participating agencies and stakeholders. Initial tasks the
project manager may perform or arrange include the following:
» Identify stakeholders
> Initiate contact with all relevant stakeholders for the purpose of getting project buy-in
I Inform stakeholders of ten-step process
t Prepare an initial problem statement and maps summarizing existing data for use at the
initial stakeholder meeting
I Identify potential funding for stakeholder groups and assist in funding acquisition, as
necessary
t Continue communication with all participants throughout the process
> Organize and arrange meetings
I Prepare information sheets for use throughout the project, including a draft information
sheet for use by participants in enlisting support for watershed cleanup efforts
> Prepare Preliminary Comprehensive Watershed Assessment
> Prepare statements of work for grants and contractors
If the Watershed Cleanup Team determines that a consolidated sampling effort will be conducted,
the project manager might also perform or arrange for the following tasks:
> Perform initial site reconnaissance
I Prepare SAP
> Identify sampling locations
t Organize sampling responsibilities
» Arrange for training on sampling and sample-handling methods
I Develop maps showing sampling sites, potential sources, and waterbody names and points
of access to sampling sites
» Use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to identify sampling sites
> Facilitate agreement on sampling methods, analytes, timing, and priorities
t Enlist assistance with field support, funding support, and public participation support
> Enlist regional, state, or contract laboratory support
I Synchronize sampling events
I Arrange multi-program/multi-agency sampling teams
I Review and assess sampling results, and provide data summaries
fc
Cross-coordination between waste and water programs on individual waterbodies and in water-
sheds should be examined for all sites that have the potential to involve multiple programs. Often
determinations are made in the EPA regions to focus significant resources on certain "priority
watersheds." Numerous environmental and human health factors should be considered in the pro-
cess of determining which watersheds will be designated as "priorities." Water quality is clearly an
8
Introduction
-------
important consideration, but so are soil contamination, pesticide runoff, endangered species, loss
of wetlands, miles of impaired streams, air pollution deposition, wildlife impacts, natural vegeta-
tion impacts, human health concerns, and many other factors. The second case study in this chap-
ter presents Oregon's prioritization of its 303(d) list of impaired waters for TMDL development,
which takes into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters.
Developing a Watershed Management Plan
Cross Bayou Watershed, Pinellas County, Florida
Multiple stakeholders are preparing a watershed management plan for the Cross Bayou watershed
in Pinellas County, the most densely populated county in Florida.
Background
The overall watershed management plan will address flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and
stormwater pollution in the watershed through management strategies that identify and address
sensitive and degraded uplands, wetland and open-water habitats, and sources of known or po-
tential contamination. The plan will focus on the 10.5-mile-long Cross Bayou Canal, which has very
poor water quality relative to other waterbodies in Pinellas County.
Hundreds of regulated sites within the pilot target area affect water quality in the Cross Bayou
Canal and across the watershed. Pinellas County has created an inventory of sites of concern
within the area. The County is establishing a brownfields program as the Cross Bayou watershed
management plan is developed. The primary goal of the pilot is to integrate and implement Brown-
fields, One Cleanup, and Land Revitalization principles within the watershed area.
The watershed management plan's objectives and the wide diversity of the federal, state, and
local partnership involved in the Watershed Management Taskforce provide an optimum frame-
work for a successful One Cleanup/Land Revitalization pilot project.
Stakeholders
EPA programs involved in the area-wide pilot include the One Cleanup and Land Revitalization,
Brownfields, Underground Storage Tank, RCRA, CERCLA, Federal Facilities, Pollution Preven-
tion, Watershed Management, NPDES, Nonpoint Source, Smart Growth, and National Estuary
programs. Other federal partners include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Department of Energy (DOE), Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, U.S. Coast Guard, and federal brownfields partners. Part-
ners within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
include the Brownfields, Underground Storage Tank (UST), RCRA,
CERCLA, Federal Facilities, Waste Cleanup, and Water Quality
Programs. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
also is a partner. Regional partners include the Southwest Florida
Water Management District and Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program. Local government partners include Pinellas County at
the head of the Watershed Management Taskforce and the cities
of Pinellas Park, Largo and Seminole. Stakeholder involvement
of local citizens and businesses will be covered by the Citizens
Advisory Committee to the Watershed Management Taskforce.
-------
(continued)
Cross Bayou Watershed, Pinellas County, Florida
Key Activities
The pilot project will coordinate water quality improvements with cleanup and redevelopment
priorities.
> The watershed management plan will provide information online to the public about regulated
sites in the watershed. Detailed information on sites that are remediated under the watershed
management plan and pilot project will be provided through GIS and Web-based applications.
> The nexus of environmental cleanup and water quality assurance under the pilot project
provides opportunities for federal and state regulators to integrate cross-program performance
measures and results.
I Brownfields and other underutilized properties will be evaluated for productive reuse, including
evaluation for inclusion in the implementation strategy for the Cross Bayou watershed man-
agement plan.
Criteria Used to Identify Priority Watersheds for Cleanup
State of Oregon
Background
Oregon developed a list of criteria to help prioritize its 303(d) list of impaired waters for TMDL
development. The four levels of priority take into account the severity of the pollution and the
anticipated uses for each waterbody.
Priority 1
> Endangered Fish Species: Spawning and rearing water bodies for federally listed threatened or
endangered species or species addressed under the Oregon Plan.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
> Health Advisories: Streams and lakes where the Oregon Health Division has issued a fish con-
sumption advisory.
• Parameters of Concern: Toxics (tissue)
I Drinking Water: Public and private domestic water supply where standard pretreatment tech-
nology (filtration and disinfection) is inadequate to meet drinking standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Total dissolved solids, toxics (water column)
Priority 2
I Candidate Fish Species: Spawning and rearing waterbodies for fish species that are candi-
dates or proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered species or listed as critical
on the Oregon sensitive species list.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
10
-------
(continued)
State of Oregon
ft Shellfish: Waterbodies that experience periodic closures for not meeting standards for shell-
fish growing waters.
• Parameters of Concern: bacteria, toxics
ft Wafer Contact Recreation: Waterbodies that experience chronic dry weather exceedances
that correspond with higher recreational usage (generally June through September).
• Parameters of Concern: Bacteria
Priority 3
ft Salmonid habitat: Waterbodies designated for salmonid spawning and rearing that do not
meet appropriate water quality standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
ft Water Contact Recreation: Waterbodies that experience chronic wet weather exceedances
that correspond with lower recreational usage (generally October through May) or non-health-
related (aesthetic) concerns.
• Parameters of Concern: Bacteria, aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
ft Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways: Federally- or state-designated wild and
scenic waters not meeting water quality standards that relate to aesthetics or other recreation-
al water use.
• Parameters of Concern: Aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
ft Industrial Water Supply: Waters designated for industrial water supply where standard pre-
treatment technology is inadequate to meet standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Total dissolved solids, turbidity
Priority 4
ft Livestock Watering: Waters designated for livestock watering that do not meet appropriate
water quality standards.
• Parameters of Concern: Chlorophyll a or algae
ft Other Resident Fish and Aquatic Life: Waterbodies not designated for salmonid spawning and
rearing that do not meet appropriate water quality standards
• Parameters of Concern: biological criteria, dissolved oxygen, flow modification, habitat
modification, pH, sedimentation, temperature, total dissolved gas, toxics, turbidity
ft Aesthetics: Other waters (not federally- or state-designated wild and scenic waters) not meet-
ing water quality standards that relate to aesthetics or other recreational water use.
• Parameters of Concern: Aquatic weeds or algae, chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Introduction
-------
Regulatory Authorities and
Federal, state and local environmental agencies often have an interest in site assessment and
cleanup and may be able to contribute to the watershed remediation process. This chapter
describes the potential roles, authorities, and interests of each of these agencies. The level of
participation of a program will vary from project to project. The watershed project manager should
ensure that respective parties' roles in a specific watershed project are discussed and identified at
the initial meetings, while allowing for adjustment during subsequent meetings according to the
projects. This chapter describes the agencies that operate under major environmental authorities,
and then describes other stakeholders and the roles each may play in watershed investigation and
cleanup. Additional entities that may provide resources for watershed cleanup are described in
Chapter 3.
K Watershed Cleanup Team
Coordination starts by identifying Watershed Cleanup Team participants that have a regulatory,
financial, trustee/land manager, aesthetic, or other interest in watershed cleanup. Typical
participants include:
I U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
» U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
» U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
I USGS
» U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
> National Park Service
» Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
» USAGE
I State environment and health departments
t Community action groups
I Water allocation and other cross jurisdictional agencies (e.g., port authorities)
> County/local health/environmental departments
I Local and regional land use planning agencies
> Soil conservation districts
> Industry, landowners, and educational institutions
13
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
The potential roles of these agencies and stakeholders are described below. For the purposes of this
manual, "communities" is used to refer to municipalities and related local agencies and established
stakeholder groups. Additional information describing these groups can be found at the end of this
chapter.
The authorities under which these participants may act include:
> EPA and state Superfund programs (Preliminary Assessment (PA)/Site Inspection (SI),
Removal, and Remedial programs)
» EPA and state RCRA Programs
> EPA and state Clean Water Act Programs (NPDES, Nonpoint Source, TMDL)
> EPA and state Clean Air Programs
» EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program
> EPA Pesticide and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) programs
I EPA and state Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs
I EPA's Brownfields Program
ft Natural Resource Trustees (Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration)
S Regulatory Authorities
Introduction
Depending on watershed location, contaminants, land use and ownership, and the type of resourc-
es impacted, a variety of regulatory and response authorities may be used to conduct studies, force
cleanup actions, facilitate public participation, and otherwise contribute to cleanup of watersheds
contaminated with hazardous substances and wastes. Sometimes, state and federal agencies are
empowered to act within the same regulatory framework. This section describes regulatory and
response authorities, and the agencies and programs tasked with those authorities. Table 2-1 sum-
marizes the benefits and contributions of programs in cross-programmatic watershed cleanup.
Figure 2-1 provides a visual presentation of how the primary watershed cleanup programs fit
together. For brevity, these descriptions use the term "states" for roles that may also be filled by
tribes and territories, as applicable.
When considering the various regulatory and response programs, several of their common, as well
as distinguishing, characteristics should be kept in mind by the watershed team as it looks for the
best cleanup strategy. For example, some programs such as the CWA
and RCRA are primarily (but not exclusively) regulatory pro-
grams. They apply most easily to facilities (and categories of
industry) with ongoing business operations, and impose
a detailed set of regulations that are carried out in part
in a required operating permit. Other programs, such
as CERCLA, authorize actions that respond to discrete
environmental contamination wherever it is located
and regardless of whether it comes from one or
many different sources. While the CERCLA program
looks first to enforcement mechanisms in carry-
ing out its mission, it does include resources that
can fund cleanups where liable parties are (at least
initially) unwilling to participate or cannot be found.
Under some CWA and RCRA programs (as well as the
14
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
gure 2-1. Program Flow Chart
TMDL Proaram H
l^l^HBMMMMMBMmV~-^B«^H^B>«^B
Problem Identification
X
Target Analysis
I
4
Source Identification
and Assessment
.
4
Link Water Quality
Targets and Sources
4
Allocate Pollutant Load
. Wasteload
Allocation
• Margin of Safety
• Seasonality
• Future Growth
1
Removal from 303(d) List
I
IHHE3333HH1
RCRA Facility
Assessment
X
RCRA Facility
Investigation
i
4
Corrective Measures
Study
1
Statement of Basis
+
Remedy Selection
+
Final Decision/
Response to
Comment
• CERCLA Remedial • CERCLA Removal • NRDA •
^^^^••M^BHI^MMMM^B^BaBMMMH^^^^Ht •^^^^^^•^^•••••••••^^^^^^•^••••^^v ^ —
Preliminary Removal Site Pre-assessment Screen
Assessment Evaluation i
X i
Site Inspection Assessment Plan
.
Remedial Investigation
^
Assessment
1
1
+
Injury Determination
1
Engineering Damage Determination
Feasibility Study Evaluation/Cost Analysis
X
Proposed Plan
+
*
Proposed Restoration
Plan
^ +
Record of Action Damages
Decision Memo Claim/Award
1 Brownfields
Brownfields Phase 1
Site Assessment
4-
Brownfields Phase II
Site Investigation
Evaluate Remedial
Options
•
4-
Develop Remedy
Implementation Plan
1
Implementation
1
Monitoring
Corrective Measures
Implementation
• Design
• Construction
Remedial Design
Removal Action
Restoration Plan
1
dial)
i
i
Remedial Action
Restoration
Operation, Maintenance
and Monitoring
Remedy Complete
(With or Without Controls)
Operation, Maintenance
and Monitoring
Delisting
1
Monitoring
Removal Action
Complete
Implementation
Begin Redevelopment
15
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Table 2-1. EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach
Sf^rssM
Irani Benefits
Water Quality Standard*. Program
Provides water quality goals for specific water
bodies in the watershed
Provides designated water uses and water
quality criteria to protect the uses, for each
waterbody
Provides state/tribal antidegradation policy
Standards provide specific goals for watershed planning
Standards can be adapted to reflect holistic, watershed
approach
States/tribes must consider input from the public
regarding appropriate water quality standards revisions
EPA approval ensures conformance with Clean Water Act
Provides water quality data
Identification of impacted waters
Ongoing water quality monitoring
Water quality data from dischargers
Identification of point sources
Implementation of TMDL source allocations by
permit restrictions
Report ongoing monitoring results
Assistance with ongoing water quality monitoring
Water quality data
Access to EPA regional laboratories
Watershed approach will assist the NPDES program in
setting appropriate discharge limitations
Coordinated ongoing monitoring
Water quality data
Funding for public participation
Funding for water quality studies
Project Coordinator
Plan and participate in data collection
Watershed based SAP
Funding for cleanup
Funding for assessment
Funding for public participation
Funding for developing and implementing
watershed plans
Local contacts
Interact with drinking water supply personnel
Identify waters to be protected
Interact with drinking water facilities
Identification of contaminant sources
Authority for assessment and cleanup
Data
Long-term monitoring and management
t Identification of sources in watershed
* Quantification of significant source loads
I Streamlined public participation
'* Coordinated data collection
'* Coordinated long-term monitoring
Coordinated relationships with agencies and community
in assessment and implementation
Assistance in prioritizing NPS cleanup
Coordination on federal lands
Coordinated long-term monitoring
Data from the specific watershed
Coordinated efforts and funding to achieve clean source
water
Problem site identification and priontization
Streamlined community involvement
Collaborative monitoring
17
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Table 2-1. EPA Programs Using a Watershed Approach (continued)
Contract support for watershed assessment
activities
Funding for Community Involvement
Sample collection
Laboratory analysis
Immediate action at priority sites causing
unacceptable threat to human health or the
environment
Data from Site Assessment, Removal
Assessment, Remedial Investigation
Authority to conduct cleanup at priority sites
Contract support for database development
Training
Ongoing monitoring (State or PRP funded)
Risk assessment studies
Watershed program manager
Contributions to watershed database
Streamlined community involvement
Assistance with ongoing monitoring
Coordinated interagency efforts
Additional information for five-year reviews
Site identification
Site pnoritization
Funding for community involvement and
assessment support
Authority and funding for cleanup actions
Site Identification
Streamlined community involvement
Site pnoritization
Clean Air Act) states may be "authorized" to administer the federal programs under state law upon
approval by EPA, sometimes imposing stricter standards than are required in the "base" federal
program. CERCLA, on the other hand, is not a delegated program (although EPA funds states to
carry out certain CERCLA activities for the Agency). However, a number of states have "mini"
Superfunds that are similar to CERCLA; many states also have brownfields cleanup programs that
have set state cleanup standards, to which EPA's CERCLA program may give some deference under
memoranda of agreement.
Another way in which the various regulatory and response programs vary is through their use of
terminology that may be sometimes confusing. Typically, the principal federal and state environ-
mental laws applicable to watershed cleanup can be triggered by a broad range of substances,
a subset of which have been deemed especially "hazardous" or "toxic" and are made subject to
stricter controls and authorities. Understanding which kind of substances are impacting a wa-
tershed, and how they fit into federal and state regulatory programs, will make it easier for the
watershed project manager to develop the most efficient response strategy. This issue is complicat-
ed by the fact that key terms often sound similar from one program to another, and yet can have
different meanings and indeed may not be consistent. "Solid waste," "hazardous waste," "hazard-
ous substance," "pollutant," and "toxic pollutant" are each used in various federal environmental
programs, sometimes referring to the same, and sometimes different, substances.
Finally, the watershed cleanup team should be aware that different regulatory and response pro-
grams may result in different degrees of pollution control or cleanup. Indeed, this can be the case
in a single program. For example, as explained in more detail below, a CERCLA "removal" action is
designed to abate an immediate threat to human health and the environment. While many CERL-
CA "removal" actions will comprise the final remedy at the site, some may leave behind contami-
nants at a level that will require further measures to complete a CERCLA "remedial" action. Note
also that still further cleanup might be necessary to achieve restoration of natural resources under
CERCLA. Different regulatory and response programs may also result in different cleanup stan-
dards in different media. For example, copper standards are typically much lower in surface water
than in ground water while the reverse is true for most volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
18
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Clean Water Act
Perhaps the most important programs for consideration by the watershed cleanup team are found
in the CWA, which establishes several means to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters.1 The 1972 Act set forth a goal of achieving zero dis-
charge of pollutants by 1985 and, as an interim goal and where possible, ensuring water quality
that is both "fishable" and "swimmable" by mid-1983. While those dates have passed, the goals
remain. Under the CWA, a pollutant is broadly defined to include industrial, municipal, or agri-
cultural waste discharged into water, subject to certain exceptions. The term "pollutant" means
dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemi-
cal wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. (Note
that, as discussed below, certain categories of activities involving "pollutants" may nevertheless be
exempt from regulation under the CWA.)
The Water Quality Criteria and Standards, and Water Quality Assessment programs provide the
foundations for the CWA water quality programs. Once water quality conditions and goals have
been established, the CWA includes various programs, including TMDL, Nonpoint Source (NFS),
NPDES, and Wetlands for achieving those water quality conditions and goals. EPA and state envi-
ronment departments administer all CWA programs except for the CWA Section 404 Dredge and
Fill program (see Chapter 5 of this manual), which the USAGE jointly administers with EPA and
authorized states.
In the early years of the program, EPA and states focused more on technology-based source con-
trols (including principally the NPDES program) than on water quality-based programs such as
water quality standards. The recent emphasis on TMDLs, and on resolving complex NPDES permit
issues, has heightened the immediate need to strengthen the standards program in many areas,
and can make watershed cleanup more challenging. With EPA's assistance, states and authorized
tribes have reviewed and updated these standards on an ongoing basis; however, evolving science,
increasing implementation demands, and other circumstances have often significantly outpaced
these efforts. Examples of evolving science include the need to update criteria based on new infor-
mation, the need to reflect newly-understood local variations in pollutant chemistry and biology,
the need for clarity in the implementation of new and existing criteria, and the desirability of hav-
ing more direct measures of designated use protection through biological criteria.
www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/strategy/final.pdf
Water Quality Criteria and Standards
CWA Section 303(c) establishes the basis for a WQS program. WQS are based on three elements:
> Designated (beneficial) uses
> Numeric and/or narrative criteria
> Antidegradation policies and procedures
States are required to specify appropriate water uses to be achieved and protected, taking into
consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies; protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife; recreation in and on the water; and agricultural, industrial, and other
purposes including navigation. Typical designated water uses include recreational (primary—with
human contact, and secondary—incidental human contact), agriculture (crop irrigation and live-
stock drinking), aquatic life (cold water aquatic life, warm water aquatic life), domestic water sup-
ply, and wetlands. Section 101 (a) (2) of the CWA established as a national goal "water quality that
1 Similar to RCRA and the CAA, the 1977 Clean Water Act actually comprised amendments to existing federal water pollu-
tion control legislation, the most important of which was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
(Pub. L. 92500) (FWPCA), which established the NPDES permit system.
19
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and
on the water wherever attainable." WQSs are developed by states, but must be approved by EPA.
EPA develops National Recommended Water Quality Criteria which are expressed as levels of
individual pollutants, water quality characteristics, or descriptions of conditions of the water body
that, if met, will generally protect the designated use of the water. Criteria are expressed in either
narrative or numeric formats and may be developed to apply generally or to site-specific situa-
tions. EPA's compilation of National Recommended Water Quality Criteria contains recommended
water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water for ap-
proximately 150 pollutants. These criteria are published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the CWA
and provide guidance for states and tribes to use in adopting WQS. EPA's National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria are based solely on data and scientific judgments on the relationship be-
tween pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects. In adopting criteria,
states and tribes may:
» adopt the criteria that EPA publishes under section 304(a) of the CWA
> modify the section 304(a) criteria to reflect site-specific conditions
» adopt criteria on the basis of other scientifically defensible methods
www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.htitil
Antidegradation policies are established to protect existing uses and high quality waters. States are
required to adopt an antidegradation policy consistent with the water quality standards regulation
(40 CFR Part 131).
WQSs provide the regulatory basis for effluent limits beyond technology-based levels of treat-
ment for NPDES permits. WQS also provide the basis for allocations in TMDLs. State water quality
standards for waterbodies may be obtained from individual states online or on EPA's WATERS data-
base. www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase, www.epa.gov/waters
Water Monitoring and Assessment
Monitoring and assessment of water quality may be undertaken by many different agencies. States
are responsible for setting die water quality standards for waters under their jurisdiction, and for
assessing their water quality. States have to report to EPA every two years on the condition of their
waters under 305b. States and tribes receive pollution control and environmental management
grants from the EPA that help them establish and maintain monitoring programs.
Elements of a State Monitoring Program (EPA 2003: EPA 841-B-03-003) (see the boxes on pages 20
and 21) describes the recommended core components of a state monitoring program. State moni-
toring programs should be designed to meet multiple monitoring objectives, and sampling may be
conducted using a set of core and supplemental indicators. State monitoring program objectives
should include:
> establishing, reviewing, and revising water quality standards (Section 303(c))
I determining water quality standards attainment (Section 305 (b))
I identifying impaired waters (Section 303 (d))
> identifying causes and sources of water quality impairments (Sections 303(d), 305(b))
» supporting the evaluation of program effectiveness.
EPA's surface water assessment guidance, Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (EPA,
July 2002), provides a recommended framework for states and other jurisdictions to document
how they collect and use water quality data and information for environmental decision-mak-
ing. The primary purposes of these data analyses are to determine the extent to which waters are
20
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
attaining water quality standards, to identify waters that are impaired and need to be added to
the 303 (d) list and to identify waters that can be removed from the 303 (d) list because they are
attaining standards.
States are to submit Integrated Reports (the 305 (b) report and 303 (d) list of impaired waters) to
EPA biennially with information on the status of each water body, including information on water
quality, designated uses, and causes of nonattainment. These assessments are based on individual
state's Assessment Methodology, which may describe the state's methodology for determining
impairment; describe the minimum number of samples required to make an impairment determi-
nation; and define the age of data allowed, the type of sampling protocols accepted by the state,
and other relevant criteria. The water body assessments are to be based on existing and readily
available data, including evidence of exceedances of water quality standards, direct evidence of
impairment of beneficial uses, evidence that narrative standards are not being met, and computer
modeling. Waters that are threatened or impaired by pollutants are listed and prioritized on the
303 (d) list, also are to be submitted to EPA biennially.
While state agencies have the lead in implementing monitoring programs and assessing the condi-
tion of those waters as required by the CWA, other federal agencies are also involved in water
quality monitoring to meet their own agency and program objectives. Data from these sources
should be considered (on the basis of data quality, accessibility, and applicability) by the state
when making an impairment decision for an individual waterbody (i.e., healthy or impaired). For
example, the USGS conducts extensive chemical monitoring through its National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) at fixed locations on large rivers around the country. Its National
Water Quality Assessment program (NAWQA) uses a regional focus to study status and trends in
water, sediment, and biota. The USFWS, NOAA, and the USAGE are other examples of federal
agencies that conduct water quality monitoring to support their programs and activities.
State agencies, such as game and fish agencies, and private entities such as universities, watershed
associations, environmental groups, and industries also perform water quality monitoring. They
may collect water quality data for their own purposes, as well as to share with government deci-
sion makers. Volunteer monitors—private citizens who volunteer to regularly collect and analyze
water samples, conduct visual assessments of physical conditions, and measure the biological
health of waters—may be of great assistance in collecting data and assessing the biological condi-
tion (health) of that waterbody. Prior to implementing any locally based monitoring effort, the
watershed cleanup team should review the state's monitoring strategy, list of core indicators, and
assessment methodology. Prior to conducting any monitoring in a cleanup area, the monitoring
objectives should be established and indicators selected that ensure the predetermined objectives
will be achieved.
21
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
22
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/elements.html
The recommended ten elements of a state water monitoring and assessment program are:
1. Monitoring Program Strategy
The state has a comprehensive monitoring program strategy that serves its water quality management
needs and addresses al! state waters, including streams, rivers, lakes, the Great Lakes, reservoirs, estuaries,
coastal areas, wetlands, and ground water. The strategy should contain or reference a description of how the
state plans to address each of the remaining nine elements. The monitoring program strategy is a long-term
implementation plan and should include a timeline, not to exceed ten years for completing implementation
of the strategy. EPA believes that state monitoring programs can be upgraded to include all of the elements
described below within the next ten years. It is important that the strategy be comprehensive in scope and
identify the technical issues and resource needs that are currently impediments to an adequate monitoring
program.
2. Monitoring Objectives
The state has identified monitoring objectives critical to the design of a monitoring program that is efficient
and effective in generating data that serve management decision needs. EPA expects the state to develop
a strategy and implement a monitoring program that reflects a full range of state water quality management
objectives including, but not limited to, CWA goals. For example, monitoring objectives could include helping
establish water quality standards, determining water quality status and trends, identifying impaired waters,
identifying causes and sources of water quality problems, implementing water quality management programs,
and evaluating program effectiveness. Consistent with the CWA, monitoring objectives should reflect the
decision needs relevant to all types of state waters.
3. Monitoring Design
The state has an approach and rationale for selecting monitoring designs and sample sites that best serve its
monitoring objectives. The state monitoring program will likely integrate several monitoring designs (e.g., fixed
station, intensive and screening-level monitoring, rotating basin, judgmental and probability design) to meet
the full range of decision needs. The state monitoring design should include a probability-based network for
making statistically valid inferences about the condition of all state water types, over time. EPA expects the
state to use the most efficient combination of monitoring designs to meet its objectives.
4. Core and Supplemental Water Quality Indicators
The state uses a tiered approach to monitoring that includes core indicators selected to represent each
applicable designated use, plus supplemental indicators selected according to site-specific or project-specific
decision criteria. Core indicators for each water resource type include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological,
and biological/ecological endpoints as appropriate, and can be used routinely to assess attainment with
applicable water quality standards throughout the state. Supplemental indicators are used when there is a
reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant may be present in a watershed, when core indicators indicate
impairment, or to support a special study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern.
(continued)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA generally prohibits point source discharges of pollutants into waters of
the United States without an NPDES permit. A point source is any discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, con-
duit, discrete fissure, or container. It also includes vessels or other floating craft
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. By law, the term "point source"
also includes concentrated animal feeding operations, which are places where ani-
mals are confined and fed. Significantly, Congress exempted agricultural stormwater
discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture from the definition of point
sources, even when such is collected and discharged from a pipe, ditch, or other discrete convey-
ance. Discharge of storm water from municipal storm sewer systems require a NPDES permit.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
(continued)
5. Quality Assurance
Quality management plans and quality assurance program/project plans are established, maintained, and
peer reviewed according to EPA policy to ensure the scientific validity of monitoring and laboratory activities,
and to ensure that state reporting requirements are met.
6. Data Management
The state uses an accessible electronic data system for water quality, fish tissue, toxicity, sediment chemistry,
habitat, biological data, with timely data entry (following appropriate metadata and state/federal geo-
locational standards) and public access. In the future, EPA will require all states to directly or indirectly make
their monitoring data available through the new Storage and Retrieval (STORE!) system. For states that do
not currently operate STORET, their monitoring strategies should provide for use of STORET as soon as is
practicable. For the 2006 305(b) reports and 303(d) lists, EPA strongly recommends that all states store
assessment information using the EPA Assessment Database or an equivalent relational database and define
the geographic location of assessment units using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).
7. Data Analysis/Assessment
The state has a methodology for assessing attainment of water quality standards based on analysis of various
types of data (chemical, physical, biological, land use) from various sources, for all waterbody types and all
state waters. The methodology includes criteria for compiling, analyzing, and integrating all readily available
and existing information (e.g., volunteer monitoring data, discharge monitoring reports).
8. Reporting
The state produces timely and complete water quality reports and lists called for under Sections 305(b),
303(d), 314, and 319 of the CWA and Section 406 of the Beaches Act. EPA issued 2002 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance on November 19, 2001, to encourage integration and
consistency in the development and submission of Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d)
impaired waters lists, EPA will continue to support the use of this integrated reporting framework for future
reporting cycles. Under current regulations, Section 303(d) lists and Section 305(b) reports are due no later
than April 1 of even-numbered years. To remain eligible for Section 106 grants, the state also must submit
annual updates of water quality information. This requirement may be satisfied by annually updating 305(b)
assessment information or by annually uploading monitoring data to the national STORET warehouse.
9. Programmatic Evaluation
The state, in consultation with its EPA Region, conducts periodic reviews of each aspect of its monitoring
program to determine how well the program serves its water quality decision needs for all state waters,
including all waterbody types. This should involve evaluating the monitoring program to determine how well
each of the elements is addressed and determining how needed changes and additions are incorporated into
future monitoring cycles.
10. General Support and Infrastructure Planning
The state identifies current and future resource needs it requires to fully implement its monitoring program
strategy. This needs assessment should describe funding, staff, training, laboratory resources, and upcoming
improvements.
The CWA's NPDES program recognizes three categories of pollutants:
> "Conventional pollutants" include biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), coliform, pH, and oil and grease.
> "Toxic pollutants" are designated by EPA as those pollutants or combination of pollut-
ants, including disease-causing agents, "which after discharge and upon exposure, inges-
tion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or
indirectly by ingestion through food chains" will "cause death, disease, behavioral abnor-
malities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring." Thus far, EPA
has designated 65 categories of toxic pollutants under the CWA.
I Nontoxic "nonconventional" include any pollutants not included in the first two categories
but that still may pose a threat (e.g., ammonia and heat).
23
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
NPDES permits include discharge limits and monitoring requirements. Discharge limits are based
on technology and on water quality standards, and may be based on the mass of pollutant allowed
to be discharged, the concentration of the pollutants in the effluent, indicator concentrations,
effluent toxicity, effluent flow rate, or visual observations (i.e., sheen, foam, or floating solids).
To find out if a discharge is covered by an NPDES permit, call the EPA regional office or the state
office responsible for issuing NPDES permits.
Stormwater management is also included in the NPDES Program. The NPDES stormwater program
addresses nonagricultural sources of stormwater discharges that adversely affect the quality of the
nation's waters. The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the implementa-
tion of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants from being washed by stormwater runoff
into local waterbodies. The NPDES stormwater permit regulations promulgated by EPA cover the
following classes of stormwater discharges:
» Operators of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) in "urbanized areas" as
delineated by the Bureau of the Census.
I Industrial facilities in any of the 11 categories that discharge to an MS4 or to waters of
the United States; all categories of industrial activity (except construction) may certify to
a condition of "no exposure" if their industrial materials and operations are not exposed to
stormwater, thus eliminating the need to obtain stormwater permit coverage.
> Operators of construction activity that disturbs one or more acres of land; construction sites
less than one acre are covered if part of a larger plan of development.
The regulated entities must obtain an NPDES stormwater permit and implement stormwater pol-
lution prevention plans (SWPPPs) or stormwater management programs (both using BMPs) that
effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.
Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Implementa-
tion Guidance (EPA 833-B-03-004, December 2003) provides EPA's recommended steps and ideas for
watershed-based permitting implementation. This approach, aimed at achieving new efficiencies and
environmental results, provides a process for considering all stressors within a hydrologically defined
drainage basin or other geographic area, rather dian addressing individual pollutant sources on a
discharge-by-discharge basis, www.nacwa.org/advocacy/tmdlhb/us/2003-12-17.pdf
A state must calculate a water quality-based limitation for a NPDES discharger where there is a
reasonable potential that a discharger will cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
standards. The determination of reasonable potential must account for existing controls, vari-
ability of the pollutant in the effluent, and, if appropriate, dilution of the effluent in the receiving
water. Water quality-based effluent limits are often based on a TMDL with the wasteload allocation
component of the TMDL applicable to point source discharges. The calculation of water quality-
based limits includes a loading analysis to determine the level of control needed to achieve water
quality standards at the point of compliance in the waterbody. In the watershed approach, the
permit writer should consider the cumulative effects from multiple discharges in a basin. Section
301(b)(l)(C) requires limits be included in NPDES permits that are as stringent as necessary to
meet water quality standards.
Information about NPDES permits for major sources that discharge greater than one million
gallons of water per day is available on EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database avail-
able from EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERS) database
(www.epa.gov/waters). Data about smaller NPDES permitted dischargers may be listed in PCS
but are also available from state discharge permitting agencies and EPA regions.
24
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
When pollutants adversely affect the use of a waterbody even after implementation of effluent
limits for point source dischargers under the NPDES program, the CWA requires a study to be
conducted and a plan developed whereby the impaired _____^^_______________
segment of that waterbody will be restored. Both this
study and the actual numeric load that the stream Load is the total mass of pollutant that
can bear and still meet water quality standards are flows throuSh the water body over a
commonly called the TMDL. The TMDL establishes penod of time'
the amount of a pollutant allowed in the relevant Load = Concentration x Flow
waterbody. Section 303 (d) requires that States develop
a list of waterbodies that need additional work beyond
existing controls to achieve or maintain water quality
standards. The additional work necessary includes the establishment of TMDLs to determine the
necessary reductions in load needed to meet water quality standards. The TMDL should:
> Identify the sources and causes of the pollutant responsible for impairment.
> Identify the water quality goal. How much does the pollutant need to be reduced to meet
water quality objectives?
> Quantify the total amount of pollutant that can be allowed into the water and what reduc-
tions are needed to achieve that amount. Surrogate endpoints may be established that are
directly linked to the impairment to ensure the achievement of the water quality goals.
The following two elements are not required but may be included with a TMDL submission.
I Identify and implement the practices needed to reduce excess pollutants.
» Monitor the waterbodies to ensure the goals are being met, and modify the plan if needed.
TMDL documents are measured against the following review criteria:
1. Water Quality Impairment Status
TMDL documents should include a description of the listed water quality impairments
(pollutants). While the 303(d) list identifies probable causes and sources of water quality
impairments, die information contained in the 303 (d) list is generally not sufficiently de-
tailed to provide an adequate understanding of the impairments. TMDL documents should
include a thorough description/summary of all available water quality data such that the
water quality impairments are clearly defined and linked to the impaired beneficial uses
(e.g., aquatic life, drinking water, etc.) and/or appropriate WQS.
2. Water Quality Standards
The TMDL document should include a description of all applicable WQS for all affected
jurisdictions. TMDLs should result in attaining and maintaining WQS. WQS are the basis
from which TMDLs are established and the TMDL targets are derived, including the nu-
meric, narrative, use classification, and antidegradation components of the standards.
3. Water Quality Targets
Quantified targets or endpoints (e.g., numeric standards, macroinvertebrate diversity, etc.)
should be provided to address each listed pollutant/waterbody combination. Target values
should represent achievement of applicable water quality standards and support of as-
sociated beneficial uses. For pollutants with numeric water quality standards, the numeric
criteria are generally used as the TMDL target. For pollutants with narrative standards,
the narrative standard is translated into a measurable value. At a minimum, one target is
identified for each pollutant/waterbody combination. It is generally desirable, however, to
include several targets that represent achievement of the standard and support of beneficial
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
uses (e.g., for a sediment impairment issue, it may be appropriate to include targets repre-
senting water column sediment such as TSS., embeddeness, stream morphology, up-slope
conditions, and a measure of biota).
4. Significant Sources
TMDLs should consider all significant sources of the stressor of concern. All sources or
causes of the stressor should be identified or accounted for in some manner. The detail
provided in the source assessment step drives the rigor of the allocation step. In other
words, it is only possible to specifically allocate quantifiable loads or load reductions to
each significant source when the relative load contribution from each source has been
estimated. Ideally, therefore, the pollutant load from each significant source should be
quantified. This can be accomplished using site-specific monitoring data, modeling, or ap-
plication of other assessment techniques.
5. Total Maximum Daily Load
TMDLs include a quantified pollutant reduction target. According to EPA regulation
(40 CFR 130.2(i)) TMDLs can be expressed as mass per unit of time, toxicity, percent load
reduction, or other measure. TMDLs should address, either singly or in combination, each
listed pollutant/waterbody combination.
6. Allocation
TMDLs apportion responsibility for taking actions or allocating the available assimilative
capacity among the various point, nonpoint, and natural pollutant sources. Allocations
may be expressed in a variety of ways, such as by individual discharger, by tributary wa-
tershed, by source or land use category, by land parcel, or other appropriate scale or divid-
ing of responsibility. A performance-based allocation approach, where a detailed strategy
is articulated for the application of BMPs, may also be appropriate for nonpoint sources.
7. Margin of Safety/Seasonality
A margin of safety (MOS) is a component of the TMDL that accounts for the uncertainty
about the relationship between the pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving
waterbody (303(d)(l)(c)). The MOS can be implicitly expressed by incorporating a MOS
into conservative assumptions used to develop the TMDL. In other cases, the MOS can
be built in as a separate component of the TMDL (in this case, quantitatively, a TMDL =
Wasteload Allocation + Load Allocation + Margin of Safety).
Seasonal considerations, such as critical flow periods (high flow, low flow), should also be
be considered when establishing TMDLs, targets, and allocations.
8. Monitoring Strategy
Many TMDLs are likely to have significant uncertainty associated with selection of appro-
priate numeric targets and estimates of source loadings and assimilative capacity. In these
cases, a phased TMDL approach may be necessary. For phased TMDLs, it is EPA's expecta-
tion that a monitoring plan will be included as a component of the TMDL documents to ar-
ticulate the means by which the TMDL will be evaluated in the field, and to provide supple-
mental data in the future to address any uncertainties that may exist when the document is
prepared. At a minimum, the monitoring strategy should:
• Articulate the monitoring hypothesis and explain how the monitoring plan will test it.
• Address the relationships between the monitoring plan and the various components of
the TMDL (targets, sources, allocations, etc.).
• Explain any assumptions used.
• Describe monitoring methods.
26
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
• Define monitoring locations and frequencies, and list the responsible parties.
9. Public Participation
The fundamental requirement for public participation is that all stakeholders have an
opportunity to be part of the process, and EPA will take into account comments and
information submitted by interested parties at the time of making TMDL decisions. Public
participation should fit the needs of the particular TMDL.
10. Restoration Strategy
At a minimum, sufficient information should be provided in the TMDL document to dem-
onstrate that if the TMDL were implemented, water quality standards would be attained
or maintained. Adding detail regarding the proposed approach for the restoration of
water quality is not currently a regulatory requirement but is considered a value added
component of a TMDL document.
11. Technical Analysis
TMDLs should be supported by an appropriate level of technical analysis. It applies to all
of the components of a TMDL document. It is vitally important that the technical basis for
all conclusions be articulated in a manner that is easily understandable and readily appar-
ent to the reader. Of special importance, the cause and effect relationship between the pol-
lutant and impairment and between the selected targets, sources, TMDLs, and allocations
must be supported by an appropriate level of technical analysis.
The state develops the TMDL in cooperation with interested parties prior to formal submission for
public comment. After incorporating comments, the state submits the TMDL to EPA for approval.
EPA either approves or disapproves the TMDL.
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
The TMDL is implemented using a variety of authorities and strategies. CWA programs that may
be used to accomplish solutions to watershed pollution include the NPDES Program, 319 NPS Pro-
gram, CWA 401 authority, CWA 404 Program, and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Using
the watershed approach, CERCLA, RCRA, Brownfields, Farm Act, and other authorities and fund-
ing mechanisms may be used to effect cleanup and achieve water quality standards.
Nonpoint Sources
Congress enacted Section 319 of the CWA in 1987, establishing a national program to reduce
nonpoint source water pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt mov-
ing over and through the ground and carrying natural and anthropogenic pollutants into lakes, riv-
ers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters, and ground water. Atmospheric deposition
and hydrologic modification are also nonpoint sources of pollution.
Section 319 of the CWA authorizes EPA to award grants to states and territories (hereinafter
referred to as "states") for the purpose of assisting them in implementing approved NPS manage-
ment programs developed pursuant to section 319(b). The primary goal of the NPS program is to
control NPS pollution through implementation of management measures and practices to reduce
pollutant loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of NPSs identified in the state's
NPS assessment report developed pursuant to section 319(a). Section 319 grants are also awarded
to eligible Indian Tribes that have approved NPS assessments, approved NPS management pro-
grams, and also have "treatment-as-a-State" status.
Section 319 grants are awarded to state NPS agencies in two categories: base funds and incremen-
tal funds. States may use the "base funds" for the full range of activities addressed in their ap-
proved NPS management programs. For example, the funds may be used for protection of unim-
paired waters, restoration of impaired waters, education and training, and staffing or support to
27
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
manage and implement their NFS management programs. In general, States have great flexibility
as to how to use these base funds. States must use $100 million of Section 319 funds, referred to
as "incremental funds," to develop and implement watershed-based plans that address NFS impair-
ments in watersheds that contain Section 303 (d)-listed waters. Up to 20 percent of the base and
incremental funds may be used to develop NFS TMDLs and watershed-based plans to implement
NFS TMDLs.
EPA emphasizes watershed-based planning as a means for resolving and preventing NFS pollu-
tion problems and threats. Watershed-based plans provide a coordinating framework for solving
water quality problems by providing a specific geographic focus, integrating strong partnerships,
integrating strong science and data, and coordinating priority setting and integrated solutions. The
following information must be included in watershed-based plans to restore waters impaired by
NFS pollution using incremental Section 319 funds:
> An identification of the causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar
sources that need to be controlled to achieve load reductions and any other goals identified
in the watershed-based plan
» An estimate of the load reductions expected from the implementation of management mea-
sures
> A description of the NFS management measures needed to achieve load reduction and iden-
tification of the critical areas in which the measures will be needed to implement the plan
t An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan
I An information and education component that the state will use to enhance public un-
derstanding of the project and encourage public involvement in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NFS management measures
> A schedule for implementing the NFS management measures identified in the plan that is
reasonably expeditious
> A description of interim, measurable milestones that can be used to determine whether NFS
management measures or other control actions are being implemented
I A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward the water quality stan-
dards and for determining whether the plan needs to be revised or, if an NFS TMDL has
been established, whether the NFS TMDL needs to be revised
I A monitoring component to evaluate how effective the implementation efforts are as mea-
sured against the set of criteria developed as described previously
I EPA has published a Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our
Waters intended to help communities, watershed organizations, and state, local, tribal
and federal environmental agencies develop and implement watershed plans to meet
water quality standards and protect water resources. The Handbook is available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/.
Wetlands
Wetlands are protected under CWA Sections 401 and 402 as waters of the United States as well
as under CWA Section 404. CWA Section 404 states that dredged or fill material cannot be depos-
ited into waters of the United States if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the
aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. A permit is required
for all construction within the nation's wetlands. EPA sets environmental criteria that must be
satisfied to obtain a permit and retains other Section 404 authority; the USAGE reviews applica-
tions and issues permits. To apply for a permit, one must show that he or she has: taken steps to
28
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
avoid wetland impacts where practicable, minimized potential impacts to wetlands, and provided
compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wet-
lands. Projects with potentially significant impacts typically require an individual permit; however,
USAGE is authorized to issue categorical "general permits" permitting certain types of activities
for which it determines that the activities in such category are similar in nature, will cause only
minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal
cumulative adverse effects on the environment. General permits may be issued on a nationwide,
regional, or state basis for categories of activities (for example, minor road crossings, utility line
backfill, and bedding) as a means to expedite the permitting process. During the permitting pro-
cess, the USAGE considers the views of other federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups;
and the general public. Any adverse impacts to the aquatic environment from a permitted activity
must be offset by mitigation requirements, which may include restoring, enhancing, creating, and
preserving aquatic functions and values, www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/sec404.html
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Section 311 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), titled "Oil and Hazardous
Substance Liability," provides federal authority to respond to spills of oil or hazardous substances
"into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the
waters of the contiguous zone..." Oil is defined broadly under this section and includes "oil of any
kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil
mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil." Section 311(b) of the FWPCA further charged EPA
with the task of developing regulations designating hazardous substances other than oil that in
any quantity could result in imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare if
discharged and to develop methods for addressing such discharges.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) established new requirements and extensively amended sec-
tion 311 to provide, in part, enhanced capabilities for oil spill response (including a national Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund) and natural resource damage assessment by a federal trustee, www.
epa.gov/oilspill/opaover.html
An owner or operator may be held liable for all actual costs of response incurred under 33 USC
§1321 (c), subject to certain limitations. Costs of removal may include any expenses incurred by
the federal or state government in the restoration or replacement of natural resources damaged
by an oil spill discharge. The 311 program is a response program that operates similar to CERCLA;
indeed, the CERCLA NCP was first created under section 311.
Responsibilities under Section 311 are shared primarily by EPA and the United States Coast Guard
(USCG). Generally EPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring in inland waters,
and the USCG is the lead response agency for spills in coastal waters and deepwater ports.
Clean Water Act Enforcement
EPA or the state may issue an order to any person or company who violates the CWA. The order
may impose a civil penalty plus recovery of any economic benefit of noncompliance and may
require correction of the violation. Any person discharging a pollutant into the waters of the U.S.
is subject to the enforcement provisions of the CWA. A person is defined as an individual, corpora-
tion, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, or
any interstate body. Under Section 309 of the CWA, penalties for discharging a pollutant without
having a permit into the waters of the United States may be up to $27,500 per violation per day.
Under Section 311, a Class 1 penalty may be assessed in an amount of up to $10,000 per violation,
not to exceed $25,000; a Class II penalty may be assessed in an amount of up to $10,000 per day
per violation, but not to exceed $125,000.
29
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA protects public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. SDWA
authorizes EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water supplied to the public to
protect against naturally occurring and anthropogenic contaminants that may be found in drinking
water. SDWA focuses on treatment of drinking water, on operator training to support that treat-
ment, source water assessment and protection, funding for water system improvements and public
information to provide safe drinking water at the tap. SDWA programs are administered by EPA
and states, www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.htinl
Drinking Water Standards
Drinking water standards are set by EPA to control the level of contaminants in the nation's pub-
licly supplied drinking water. The SDWA requires EPA to set these standards, which public water
systems are required to meet. EPA has set standards for 90 chemical, microbiological, radiological,
and physical contaminants in drinking water. EPA also conducts research and collects information
to determine when currently unregulated contaminants may pose a significant widespread public
health risk and should therefore be regulated in the future.
Under the SDWA the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is the level of a contaminant
in drinking water below which there is no known or expected health risk, allowing for a margin
of safety. These goals are set without consideration for whether the technology is available to
meet them, and, therefore, are sometimes set at levels lower than public water systems can meet.
MCLGs are not enforceable.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is the maximum amount of a contaminant allowed in
water delivered to a user of any public water system or a treatment technique set at levels as close
to MCLGs as feasible, considering available technology and cost. MCLs are enforceable standards.
While under the SDWA, compliance with drinking water standards is usually at the entrance to
the distribution system, with compliance for some rules requiring monitoring in the distribution
system or at the tap. CERCLA requires that ground water cleanups achieve MCLs and non-zero
MCLGs. (See discussion of CERCLA below.)
EPA also sets Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, which are nonenforceable guidelines for
contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin and tooth discoloration) or aesthetic
effects (such as taste or odor). Water systems are not required by EPA to adopt these secondary
standards, but states may choose to adopt and enforce them.
Source Water Protection
The Source Water Protection program focuses on preventing contamination of both ground water
and surface water sources of public drinking water. The Source Water Protection program has two
primary parts: Source Water Assessment and local Source Water Protection planning and imple-
mentation. A Source Water Assessment is conducted by the state and identifies the area of the
watershed or aquifer serving one or more public water systems, and assesses potential point and
nonpoint sources of contamination to determine the relative risk or level of concern they may pose
to the public water system's sources of drinking water to provide a platform for local protection
planning. Each assessment must include four major elements:
1. delineating (or mapping) the source water assessment area
2. providing an inventory of potential sources of contamination in the delineated area
3. determining the susceptibility of the water supply to those contamination sources
4. releasing of the results of the determinations to the public.
30
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Planning includes designing contaminant source management plans and contingency/emergency
plans. Source Water Protection is voluntary and uses the results of the Source Water Assessment
with additional, local information as needed, to prevent and remediate contamination of the
public water system's source waters. Wellhead Protection programs protect underground-based
sources of drinking water by protecting the area surrounding drinking water wells—the wellhead
protection area. Source Water and Wellhead Protection programs are statutory programs and have
no associated regulations. The Sole Source Aquifer program may also be used to help protect an
aquifer serving as a drinking water source.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
Injection wells have the potential to cause contamination of underground drinking water sources.
The UIC program seeks to prevent such contamination by setting minimum requirements for state
programs regulating underground injection. The goals of the EPA's UIC Program are to prevent
contamination by keeping injected fluids within the well and the intended injection zone, or,
when injecting fluids directly or indirectly into or above underground sources of drinking water, to
require that injected fluids not endanger underground sources of drinking water. These minimum
requirements affect the siting of an injection well, and the construction, operation, maintenance,
monitoring, testing, and, finally, the closure of the well. All injection wells require authorization
under general rules or specific permits.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA governs the management of solid waste and its subset, hazardous waste, as well as under-
ground storage tanks.2 To achieve these goals, RCRA established three distinct yet interrelated
programs3 whose different characteristics the watershed cleanup team must consider when looking
at both sources of contamination and resources for cleanup. RCRA Subtitle D, the solid waste pro-
gram, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial solid
waste and municipal solid waste, sets criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and
other solid waste disposal facilities, and prohibits the open dumping of solid waste. RCRA Subtitle
C, the hazardous waste program, establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from the
time it is generated until its ultimate disposal—in effect, from cradle to grave. RCRA Subtitle I, the
UST program, regulates USTs storing hazardous substances and petroleum products. RCRA also
encourages resource recovery and waste minimization. RCRA is administered by EPA and state
environmental agencies. Funding for assessment, cleanup, and monitoring activities is the respon-
sibility of the facility owner.
Following is a brief summary of those provisions of RCRA likely to be most relevant to a watershed
cleanup; more detailed information is available in the RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA530-R-02-016
(January, 2003). www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/romtoc.pdf
RCRA Solid Waste program (Subtitle D)
Under EPA's RCRA, a "solid waste" is defined as any solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contained (
gaseous material discarded from industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations,
and from community activities. Solid waste can include garbage, construction debris, com-
mercial refuse, sludge from water supply or waste treatment plants, or air pollution control
facilities, and "other discarded materials." EPA's regulatory definition of solid waste, found
in 40 CFR section 261.2, is narrower than the statutory definition, and defines "discarded"
2 Typically, the term "RCRA" is used to refer to both the statute itself (including amendments) and the regulations
implementing it.
3 For example, EPA has long struggled with defining which types of recycled materials should not be deemed "discarded"
and thus excluded from the definition of solid wastes. However, this issue typically comes up only in the context of solid
wastes that are also hazardous waste.
31
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
material as (1) materials that are abandoned, (2) materials that are "recycled," (3) materials that
are "inherently wastelike," and (4) waste military munitions. Each of these terms is further defined
in RCRA's regulations. Exclusions from the definition of solid waste are listed in 40 CFR section
261.4(a). Key exclusions include solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to a NPDES permit under the CWA; and source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
Unlike the extensive regulatory system that governs hazardous waste management (discussed
below), solid waste is primarily regulated by states and municipalities and managed on the local
level. EPA's role in implementing solid waste management programs does include setting national
goals, providing technical assistance, and developing educational materials.4 (One of RCRA's en-
forcement tools—7003 orders—does apply to solid, not only hazardous, wastes, and is discussed
below as part of the discussion of RCRA enforcement authorities.)
RCRA Hazardous Waste program (Subtitle C)
A RCRA hazardous waste is a RCRA "solid waste" that EPA determines poses substantial or po-
tential threats to public health or the environment. For a hazardous waste to be regulated as a
hazardous waste it must first fall under the regulatory definition of solid waste, and then within
the definition of hazardous waste, both of which are described in 40 CFR section 261 Identifica-
tion and Listing of Hazardous Waste. There are two types of RCRA hazardous wastes: those that
have been specifically listed as a hazardous waste by EPA (e.g., F001 wastes, comprised of certain
halogenated solvents that have been used in degreasing activities) and those that exhibit one or
more of the following characteristics of hazardous wastes (corrosiveness, ignitability, reactivity, or
toxicity).
I Corrosive Waste. A corrosive material can wear away (corrode) or destroy
a substance. For example, most acids are corrosives that can eat through
metal, burn skin on contact, and give off vapors that burn the eyes. '4*'"•
» Ignitable Waste. An ignitable material can burst into flames easily. It poses a fire
hazard; can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; and may give off harmful vapors.
Gasoline, paint, and furniture polish are ignitable.
> Reactive Waste. A reactive material can explode or create poisonous
gas when combined with other chemicals. For example, chlorine bleach . • '
and ammonia are reactive and create a poisonous gas when they come
into contact with each other.
> Toxic Waste. Toxic materials or substances can poison people and other life.
Toxic substances can cause illness and even death if swallowed or absorbed
through the skin. Pesticides, weed killers, and many household cleaners are
toxic.
Additionally, RCRA hazardous wastes generally include materials generated by the treatment
of hazardous waste (the "derived from" rule), or that are contained in a hazardous waste (the
"mixture rule").
RCRA Subtitle C establishes an extensive management system that regulates hazardous waste
from the moment it is generated until its ultimate disposal, in effect from "cradle to grave." EPA's
Subtitle C Program establishes various administrative requirements applicable to the three catego-
Two important exceptions are the 40 CFR Part 257 federal solid waste disposal facility criteria for nonhazardous, nonmu-
nicipal landfills, and the Part 258 municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria. However, the states generally carry out
enforcement of these programs
32
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
ries of hazardous waste handlers: generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). The regulations applicable to RCRA TSDFs are the most
extensive; therefore, facilities that generate only hazardous wastes typically take steps to ship such
wastes to TSDFs before they trigger the TSDF regulations. Additional information regarding the
Subtitle C program may be found at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/rom3.pdf.
Of special interest to the watershed cleanup team, TSDFs are required to assess all their
solid waste management units, regardless of when the wastes were disposed of, and to
perform corrective action for all releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constitu-
ents. Facilities must implement corrective action when necessary to protect human
health and the environment, plus perform off-site corrective action when necessary.
EPA estimates that at least 3,700 facilities are undergoing corrective action.
RCRA corrective action follows several steps, which are largely analogous to the CERCLA
cleanup process.
1. RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). Performed to determine evidence of a release. Includes
desktop review of available information, visual inspection, and, occasionally, confirmatory
sampling. After the RFA is completed, a schedule of compliance is developed for additional
steps, if necessary.
2. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). Detailed characterization of the nature, extent, direc-
tion, rate, movement, and concentration of released contaminants. This may be performed
in stages to minimize analytical costs. A corrective measures study is required if the RFI
shows that action levels, determined on a site-specific basis, are exceeded. Action levels
may be derived from state water quality standards, SDWA MCLs, or other appropriate stan-
dards.
3. Corrective Measures Study (CMS). Study to determine the appropriate corrective mea-
sure. EPA selects the remedy, and the facility owner/operator implements the remedy with
EPA and/or State oversight. EPA or the State may administer the remedy under various
administrative mechanisms, including permits, enforcement orders, or other agreements.
4. Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI). The remedy is designed, constructed, and
operated and maintained.
Interim measures are short-term measures that can be required at any time to respond to immedi-
ate threats. Similar to the EPA CERCLA Removal Program, interim measures do not require an RFI
or CMS.
Additional information regarding the corrective action program may be found at www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/general/orientat/rom39.pdf
RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program (Subtitle I)
The underground storage tank (UST) Program regulates USTs containing CERCLA hazardous
substances and petroleum products. The RCRA UST program does not cover certain categories of
tanks.
RCRA's UST program includes technical performance standards for all USTs and regulations to
require petroleum UST owners and operators to have the financial means to pay for cleanups and
to compensate third parties. The program also includes a detailed corrective action procedure.
EPA is authorized to undertake corrective action in response to a petroleum release from a UST
only if such action is necessary to protect human health and the environment, and one or more of
the following situations exist:
1. No owner or operator can be found within 90 days to carry out the corrective action.
Relationship between
CERCLA hazardous
substances and RCRA
hazardous wastes.
33
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
2. A situation exists which requires prompt action.
3. Corrective action costs at a facility exceed the requisite financial responsibility amounts.
4. The owner or operator had failed or refused to comply with a corrective action order.
When an underground storage tank owner/operator fails to start or complete an appropriate
cleanup following an underground storage tank release, a corrective action order may be issued.
RCRA Section 9003 (h) authorizes EPA to issue administrative orders to compel owner/operators
of leaking underground storage tanks to take specific corrective actions to:
> Carry out investigative studies
» Take action to fix the tank and cleanup what was leaked
I Close the underground storage tank
Additional information on RCRA's underground storage tank program can be found at www.epa.
gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/rotn4.pdf
RCRA Enforcement Authorities
RCRA has several cleanup enforcement authorities available to compel cleanup, both at RCRA-reg-
ulated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as well as any place where RCRA solid waste has
been handled that has created an imminent and substantial endangerment. Cleanup enforcement
under RCRA generally means that EPA, or the authorized state, closely monitors the hazardous
waste handler (e.g., generator, transporter, and TSDF) activities, provides compliance incentives
and assistance, and takes legal action when a facility does not comply with the regulation. Facility
inspections by federal and state officials are the primary tool for monitoring compliance.
The federal RCRA cleanup enforcement authorities listed below can be valuable tools for accom-
plishing cleanup of a contaminated watershed:
> RCRA Section 3013. EPA has the authority to issue an order requiring the owner or opera-
tor of a RCRA hazardous waste TSDF to conduct monitoring, testing, analysis, and report-
ing to ascertain the nature and extent of a hazard.
I RCRA Section 3007. Allows EPA to request information regarding hazardous waste prac-
tices and events at a facility and to gain access to a facility to collect waste samples.
I RCRA Section 3008(a). EPA uses its general RCRA enforcement authority to compel com-
pliance with any violation of Subtitle C, as well as to assess penalties.
» RCRA Section 3008(h). Allows EPA to issue an order requiring corrective action at an in-
terim status facility when there is evidence of a release of a hazardous waste or a hazardous
constituent into the environment.
I RCRA Section 7003. EPA uses this authority to address situations that may present an im-
minent and substantial endangerment. It is important to note that Section 7003 applies to
the management of any solid waste that may present an imminent and substantial endan-
germent, not merely RCRA hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA, frequently referred to as Superfund, provides federal authority to respond to releases or
threatened releases in the environment of "hazardous substances" or "pollutants or contaminants"
that may present an "imminent and substantial threat" to human health and the environment.
While both CERCLA and RCRA address land contamination and have overlapping provisions, their
underlying focus is different. CERCLA is a response program designed to remedy poorly made past
waste management decisions wherever contamination has come to be located, whereas the RCRA
waste management standards comprise a largely regulatory, prescriptive set of rules that are gen-
34
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
erally applicable to operating facilities and are designed to prevent such mistakes in the present
and future.
The NCP provides the framework for response to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants under CERCLA as well as oil and hazardous substances
under the CWA, 40 CFR Part 300.
Several important terms are common to all aspects of CERCLA.
Hazardous substances: A "hazardous substance" under CERCLA is any substance that has
been designated under specific sections of several other federal environmental statutes,
including the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Section 112 toxics), the CWA (Section 1317(a) toxic
pollutants), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (Section 2606 imminently hazardous
chemical), and any RCRA hazardous waste. In addition, EPA may designate additional sub-
stances as hazardous substances under CERCLA. Hazardous substances under CERCLA do
not include "petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, which is not otherwise
specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance." EPA maintains a list of hazard-
ous substances at 40 C.F.R. Part 302.
Pollutant or contaminant: The phrase "pollutant or contaminant" is broadly defined under
CERCLA to include essentially any substance that may cause "death, disease, behavioral ab-
normalities, cancer," or other physical injuries. Petroleum products are also excluded from
the definition of "pollutants or contaminants." Although broader than "hazardous substanc-
es," "pollutants or contaminants" are generally not subject to EPA's enforcement authorities
under Sections 106 and 107.
Release: The term "release" is also defined broadly under CERCLA to include "any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment."
Facility: The term "facility" under CERCLA essentially means any place where a hazardous
substance, pollutant or contaminant has come to be located.
Environment: The term "environment" under CERCLA includes surface water, ground
water, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air, as well as the navigable waters and
ocean waters within the United States or under jurisdiction of the United States.
The release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants can be
determined in several ways: notification of EPA by a state or local government, or a private party,
as well EPA's own efforts. The five basic steps in the CERCLA response process include: discovery
or notification, assessment, response alternative consideration, cleanup decision, cleanup, and
closeout.
CERCLA cleanups may be performed by EPA, other federal agencies, states, innocent parties, or
parties responsible for the contamination. However, only EPA is authorized to spend CERCLA
funds. Additionally, CERCLA bars the expenditure of CERCLA remedial action funds on federal
facilities. EPA first tries to get responsible parties to undertake response work themselves, either
through consensual agreements or by taking other enforcement actions. If necessary, EPA will per-
form response actions and seek cost recovery from those responsible for the release.
EPA's CERCLA activities includes the removal program, which generally responds to immediate,
short-term threats; the site assessment program, which considers whether a particular site should
be placed on the NPL comprising the nation's most serious sites; and the remedial program,
which addresses NPL sites and governs the necessary assessment, planning, and response actions.
The following discussion also addresses CERCLA enforcement issues, federal facilities and EPA's
involvement with natural resources damage assessments and restoration.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
36
CERCLA Removal Program
The Removal program responds to situations where a release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance poses an immediate, unacceptable threat to the public health or environment. Removal
actions are often short-term federal responses to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that have been released into the environment,
or where there is a substantial threat of a release. Removal actions may be conducted at non-NPL
sites or in conjunction with the remedial program at an NPL site. Removal actions may include, for
example, stabilization of an impoundment, removal of sediment hotspots, installation of a security
fence, or removal of drums and transportation to a RCRA TSDF.
A CERCLA removal may be conducted during any step of the response process at an NPL site, as
well as at non-NPL sites. In most cases, an on-scene coordinator (OSC) designated by the lead
agency (generally EPA at privately-owned sites; the relevant federal agency at federally-owned
facilities) directs a removal action, and the work is done by emergency response contractors.
When a removal takes place at an NPL site, it may be directed by a remedial project manager and
performed by remedial contractors.
EPA differentiates among three types of removal actions depending on the urgency of the situa-
tion. The type of removal action at issue can also affect who conducts or otherwise supervises the
response. All removal actions require preparation of an "action memorandum," which documents
the basis for taking the action.
I A classic emergency requires actions within minutes or hours of discovery. Actions are taken
under the authority of the NCP and with the guidance of Regional and Area Contingency
Plans to take the necessary actions to ensure an efficient, coordinated, and effective re-
sponse to discharges of hazardous substances. The Superfund Emergency Response pro-
gram maintains a response system ready for virtually any emergency wherever it occurs.
EPA may undertake (or supervise) emergency removal actions at privately owned sites, and
on lands owned by federal land managers (FLM) [FLMs such as DOI or USDA]. The Depart-
ment of Defense (DoD) and DOE undertake emergency removal actions on their lands.
> A time-critical removal action (TCRA) may be done if less than six months are available
before site activities must be initiated to protect human health. A removal assessment is
performed and alternatives to correct the problem are considered. EPA may undertake (or
supervise) TCRAs at privately owned sites. The FLMs, DoD, and DOE undertake emergency
removal actions on their lands.
I A non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA) is generally called for if greater than six months
are available before site activities must be initiated. A removal assessment is performed to
determine the extent and nature of contamination, and an EE/CA is prepared to document
site characteristics, identify removal action objectives, identify applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs), identify and analyze potential removal action
alternatives, and provide a recommended removal action alternative. After public comment,
the removal action is selected and performed. EPA undertakes (or supervises) NTCRAs at
privately owned sites. The FLMs, DoD, and DOE undertake NTCRAs on their lands.
CERCLA Site Assessment Program
The CERCLA Site Assessment program conducts screening investigations to evaluate potential
threats to human health and the environment associated with a specific site. The program helps
identify and prioritize sites that should be on the NPL. The following site assessment steps are
taken prior to NPL listing:
1. Site Identification or Discovery. Sites may be discovered by anyone, but are frequently identi-
fied by concerned citizens who call the local or state health department or EPA to report a
release (or the threat of a release) of a hazardous substance to the environment. Once identi-
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
2.
3.
4.
fied, EPA enters the site into the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS) database that tracks all sites investigated using
funds from CERCLA.
Preliminary Assessment (PA). The PA is a limited-scope
investigation in which available information about a site
and its surrounding area is compiled. The PA is designed to
distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to hu-
man health and the environment and sites that may require
further investigation. If the PA results in a recommendation
for further investigation, an SI is performed.
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL:
1. EPA's HRS.
2. Each State or Territory may designate one
top priority site regardless of score.
3. The third mechanism allows listing a site if
it meets all three of these requirements:
I The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S.
Public Health Service has issued a
health advisory that recommends
removing people from the site.
I EPA determines the site poses a
significant threat to public health.
I EPA anticipates it will be more cost
effective to use its remedial authority
(available only at NPL sites) than to
use its emergency removal authority to
respond to the site.
Site Inspection (SI). The SI involves collecting on-site charac-
terization samples and off-site ground water, surface wa-
ter/sediments, soil, air, or fish tissue samples to determine if
substances at the site are being released to the environment,
and to assess if they pose a threat to nearby targets (such as
water intakes). The SI can be conducted in one stage or two.
The first stage, or focused SI, tests hypotheses developed dur-
ing the PA and can yield information sufficient to prepare an
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) scoring package. If further
information is necessary to document an HRS score, an ex-
panded SI is conducted. To save time and money, the PA and
SI phases may be completed at once. Often states are funded by EPA to undertake PAs and Sis.
Hazard Ranking System Scoring. The HRS is a numerical screening system used to prioritize
sites for listing on the basis of data from the PA and SI and that is used to decide which sites
should be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Scoring is done using three factors related to
risk and four pathways of exposure. The three risk factors are likelihood of release, charac-
teristics of the waste, and the people or sensitive environments affected by the release. To
determine an HRS score for a site, EPA looks at migration pathways—how contamination
moves in the environment. EPA examines four migration pathways:
• Ground water that may be used for drinking water
• Surface water (like rivers and lakes) used for drinking water and for plant and animal
habitats
• Soil that people may come in contact with or that can be absorbed lower in the food
chain
• Air that carries contaminants
Air deposition
A site can score high on the HRS even if only one
pathway score is high. Sites with a preliminary
HRS score of 28.50 or greater are eligible for list-
ing on the NPL. Sites ranking high enough on the
HRS may then be proposed by EPA for listing on
the NPL. Each state may also nominate a site for
the NPL. Contaminated sites placed on the NPL
may require long-term response under the CER-
CLA Remedial program. Note that not all sites
with a preliminary HRS score of 28.50 or above
will be placed on the NPL.
HRS scores do not determine the priority for funding of remedial investigations, because the infor-
mation collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient to determine either the extent of contami-
nation or the appropriate response (if any) for a site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do
37
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
not necessarily come to the EPA's attention first. EPA relies on more detailed studies in the RI/'fea-
sibility study (FS) which typically follows listing.
NPL sites may be as small as a few thousand square feet or thousands of acres. Some are complex
and highly contaminated, requiring many years to fully study the problem, to develop a remedy,
and to complete the cleanup.
CERCLA Remedial Program
Once a site is listed on the NPL, the EPA remedial program (or the responsible party with over-
sight by EPA), conducts a RI/FS to define the extent of contamination, estimate the risk to human
health and the environment, and evaluate effective remedial alternatives to address the problem.
Federal agencies conduct their own RI/FSs at facilities under their jurisdiction, custody, or control.
A ROD is prepared describing the selected action to clean up the site and documenting the remedy
selection decision. The remedial action is undertaken, according to the remedial design. Long-term
operations and maintenance (O&M) are conducted as necessary. After cleanup is complete, at all
sites at which hazardous substances remain at levels that do not allow for unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure, EPA is required to review the remedy every five years to ensure the remedy
remains protective.
The CERCLA Process
1. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The RI is conducted to determine the risk to human health
and the environment posed by the site and to gain information required to evaluate the feasibility of
remedial alternatives. The RI/FS generally includes baseline risk assessments (human health and
ecological), hydrologic studies, ground water studies, treatability studies, and any other studies required
to determine site conditions, threats to human health and the environment, and determine appropriate
and cost effective actions to clean up the site. The short- and long-term aspects of three criteria (i.e.,
effectiveness, implementability, cost), will guide the development and screening of alternatives as
appropriate. Alternatives that remain after the initial screening must undergo a detailed analysis that
consists of an assessment of individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria. The RI/FS
considers all ARARs.
2. Proposed Plan (PP). The lead federal agency under CERCLA (EPA at privately owned sites or the FLM,
DoD, or DOE at sites under their jurisdiction, custody, or control) issues a PP, summarizing the RI and FS
and presenting a recommended alternative. The public (including potentially responsible parties- PRPs) is
given 30 days to comment on PPs, which is extended upon request or an additional 30 days.
3. Record of Decision. On the basis of the findings of the RI/FS, a decision is made concerning actions that
will be taken to protect human health and the environment The ROD explains the selection of the final
remedy by documenting all relevant facts, analyses, and policy considerations.
4. Remedial Design/Remedial Action. The selected remedy is designed, normally by the potentially
responsible party, and then submitted to EPA for approval. The remedy is implemented/constructed
according to the selected remedial design. The remedial design and remedial action may be financed and
performed by the PRP and/or EPA.
5. Maintenance/Monitoring. The remedy is maintained for as long as is deemed necessary for protection
of human health and the environment. Routine monitoring is conducted to ensure the remedy is operating
according to plan and that risks are being reduced.
6. Five-Year Reviews. Where hazardous substances are left at a site at levels that do not allow unrestricted
use of the property, CERCLA requires that the remedy be evaluated no less often than every 5 years to
determine its effectiveness and to determine if it continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. The community is encouraged to provide input, and the results are presented to the public.
38
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
CERCLA Enforcement Authorities
A key element of CERCLA is its emphasis on enforcement. CERCLA provides EPA with enforcement
authorities to get PRPs to implement removal or remedial actions at sites, either through consen-
sual settlements or unilateral enforcement orders. CERCLA also provides EPA (as well as state and
local governments and even private parties) the authority to seek reimbursement of its costs from
PRPs. EPA's guiding philosophy in implementing the Superfund program is to pursue "enforce-
ment first" throughout the process. In this way, EPA seeks to compel those who are responsible for
hazardous waste sites to undertake the cleanup and to conserve the resources of the trust fund for
those sites where no PRPs can be found.
Under CERCLA, a person (which can include a corporation, a governmental entity, and a variety of
other organizations, as well as individuals) can be liable for response costs where:
ft There is a release or a threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility into the
environment that causes incurrence of response costs, and
I The person is included in at least one class of PRPs
Section 107(a) of CERCLA identified four categories of PRPs:
» Current owners or operators of a site. As passed in 1980, CERCLA imposed potential li-
ability on virtually any current owner of contaminated property. In 2002, Congress passed
amendments to CERCLA that, among other provisions, allowed those who acquired prop-
erty after January 11, 2002, and who met and maintained certain conditions (exercised due
diligence before acquiring the property, and cooperated with government cleanup agencies
after acquisition, etc.) to avoid liability. Such parties are termed "bona fide prospective pur-
chasers" (BFPPs).
• Former owners or operators of a site at the time of disposal. Courts have differed as to
whether passive migration during one's ownership of a site constitutes "disposal."
> Those who arranged for disposal. "Generators" are by far the largest category of PRPs, and
can include virtually anyone who participated in the chain of disposal of hazardous sub-
stances, from the business that generated the wastes, the hauler who removed them, and
the site owner or operator that moved them around at the site.
I Transporters that selected disposal sites. Includes transporters who also substantially par-
ticipated in the selection of a disposal site.
CERCLA provides EPA with multiple authorities to achieve cleanup and payment for cleanup.
Table 2-2 lists those most commonly used.
Table 2-2. Most Commonly used CERCLA Enforcement Authorities
Section 104 ! While much of Section 104 addresses the President's authority to take removal and remedial
; actions, Section 104(e) authorizes EPA to gather information and get access to a site from others
and assess penalties for noncompliance.
Section 106 EPA can order, or ask a court to order, PRPs to clean up a site or take other necessary response
action when an imminent or substantial endangerment may exist at a site. This section also au-
thorizes penalties for failure to comply with such orders and sets forth procedures whereby a PRP
that complies with such an order, yet believes it is not exclusively responsible for the contamina-
tion, can seek reimbursement from the CERCLA Trust fund.
Section 107 ! Commonly referred to as EPA's cost recovery authority, this section describes the four categories
| of PRPs from whom EPA (and other parties) can recover cleanup costs. This section (in conjunc-
j tion with other provisions of CERCLA) also describes certain defenses and exemptions to liability,
I including the BFPP provisions.
|™^~™,™,,.~~^v~,,-™^~~~~~~~~~~~™~~~™~~~™™™™~™~~~™ ™™, ^,™,~~~™~~^,m~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~™~,~~™~~,
I Section 120 : Provides that federal facilities must achieve the same degree of cleanup as private facilities, and
i sets forth the requirements and procedures under which EPA and/or the states supervise such
i cleanups.
[Section 122 Sets forth procedures whereby EPA can negotiate cleanup agreements with PRPs.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Federal Facility Issues
Watersheds typically contain land owned by a variety of private and public owners. EPA's role under
CERCLA varies depending on who owns the land. On privately-owned lands, EPA undertakes or
supervises all response actions. EPA shares CERCLA response authority with the FLMs on land owned
by FLMs. Specifically, EPA has CERCLA emergency removal authority on such lands, while the FLMs
have nonemergency removal and remedial CERCLA authority. (Note that on federal lands not on the
NPL, the state, not EPA, is typically the lead regulator.) The DoD and the DOE have all removal and
remedial response authority under CERCLA, and EPA's involvement typically is limited to oversight of
cleanups of such that are on the NPL. (Note that EPA can use authorities other than CERCLA, such as
RCRA and the SDWA, to compel DoD and DOE to undertake cleanups on their lands.)
Federal facilities, particularly those belonging to DoD and DOE, often pose challenging cleanup
issues because of their broad range of contaminants, facility size, and reuse requirements. CERCLA
generally bars the spending of Superfund money on the cleanup of federal lands, so funding must
come from DoD, DOE, and FLM appropriations. Increasingly, FLMs are taking enforcement actions
themselves under CERCLA. CERCLA Section 120 (a) does provide that federal facilities are subject
to, and must comply with, CERCLA in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedur-
ally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity. Mixed ownership sites (part federal land,
part private ownership), often found in watersheds, provide opportunities for EPA and the FLMs
to develop creative working relationships. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) may be used,
but is not required, to define specific roles and responsibilities. Because many federal facilities are
also subject to RCRA regulations, a Federal RCRA/CERCLA Coordination Policy was developed to
eliminate duplicative efforts to meet regulatory requirements.
Further information about the cleanup of federal facilities can be found at EPA's Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse office, www.epa.gov/swerffrr, and www.fedcenter.gov. The Yellow
Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities, EPA 315-B-98-011
(Feb. 1999), offers a comprehensive summary of the principal federal environmental statutes, and
how they apply at federal facilities. (Available at www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/yellowbk.pdf.)
Natural Resource Issues
By Executive Order 12580 and the NCP, the President has designated the Secretaries of Defense,
Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy as Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) for various
federal natural resources. Trust resources that are assigned to each Trustee are identified in Table
2-3. State Trustees are assigned by the state governor for state resources and are typically the di-
rectors of state departments having related responsibilities (i.e., health, environmental protection,
natural resources, parks and recreation). States commonly have more than one Trustee. Trustees
for tribal lands are the tribal chair or his/her designee.
Under CERCLA, if Natural Resources Trustees determine that remedial or removal actions are in-
sufficient to restore the natural resources injured by releases from a Superfund site or if use of the
resource is lost or curtailed, the Trustees may seek to collect damages from CERCLA responsible
parties. Damages may be assessed against a responsible party, but Superfund money may not be
used for restoration. Executive Order 13112, February 3, 1999, does support alternative, benefi-
cial approaches using native species for required revegetation as part of the overall remediation
at some sites. NRDA is the responsibility of Natural Resource Trustees, not EPA; however, CER-
CLA and the NCP require that EPA notify and coordinate with Trustees throughout the Superfund
process. Because it relates to both CERCLA and the CWA, the NRDA process is described in more
detail below.
Additional support for CERCLA assessment and cleanup is available from a variety of agencies, in-
cluding: USAGE, U.S. Coast Guard Strike Force, USFS, DOI (USFWS, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
[BOR], BLM), Department of Labor, and Natural Resource Trustees.
40
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Watersheds often include lands held in trust for use by the public. CERCLA and OPA (passed as
amendments to the CWA) allow Natural Resource Trustees to assess injuries to such public natural
resources, determine damages, and require responsible parties (CERCLA PRPs) to provide for res-
toration of resources injured due to the release of oil and hazardous substances. Natural resources
are broadly defined to include "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water
supplies, and other such resources." The statutes recognize that when oil or hazardous substances
(the term does not include pollutants or other contaminants) enter the environment, they may
harm natural resources, reduce the public's use or enjoyment of them, or degrade an ecological
function that they provide. When the changes to the resource are adverse and measurable, the
affected resource is said to be injured. Injury to natural resources serves as the basis for a damage
claim under CERCLA and OPA.
NRDA may be performed by Trustees concurrently with other CERCLA actions, including
emergency response, removal, PA/SI, and remedial actions, though this is not always the case in
practice. Although EPA guidance encourages NRDA activities to occur concurrently with CERCLA
or OPA response actions, NRDA can begin after remedial action is underway, or even complete.
Additionally, Trustees may pursue compensation for injuries to natural resources even if they are
not going to be addressed by CERCLA or OPA response actions. For sites located where cross-
programmatic watershed cleanup may be implemented, NRDA may be coordinated with other
aspects of watershed assessment and cleanup.
Table 2-3. Federal Natural Resource Trustees
I
Department of Interior (DOI)
I Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
! Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
I Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of Mines (BOM)
I Minerals Management Service
• National Park Service (NPS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
; Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service (USFS)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
Certain anadromous fish (fish that spend a portion of their lifetime in
both fresh and salt water, e.g., salmon).
Certain endangered species
Certain marine mammals
Federally owned minerals
Migratory birds
National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
National Parks and Monuments
Tribal resources, in cases where the United States acts on behalf of
the Indian Tribe
Federal rangeland
Federally managed fisheries
Federally owned or managed farmland
Land enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program
National forest land
Coastal environments, including salt marshes, tidal flats, estuaries,
or other tidal wetlands
Designated Estuarme Research Reserves or Marine Sanctuaries
Endangered marine species
Marine mammals
Rivers or tributaries to rivers which historically support or presently
support anadromous fish (For cases involving resources in coastal
waters and anadromous fish streams, DOC acts as a co-Trustee with
the Department of the Interior.)
Department of Defense (DoD)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Lands owned by DoD or the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense
Logistics Agency. These lands include military bases, training
facilities, research and development facilities, and munitions plants.
May share responsibility with other federal trustees.
DOE's land-holdings include national research and development
laboratories, facilities, and offices. May share responsibility with
other federal trustees.
41
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
NRDA is described at 43 CFR 11, and additional information is available at www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/nrd. The elements of a NRDA include the following:
1. Preassessment Screen. Readily available data is reviewed to determine whether a release
justifies a NRDA. Five questions must be answered affirmatively to proceed with an NRDA:
• Has a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance occurred?
• Have natural resources for which the federal or state agency or tribe may assert trustee-
ship under CERCLA been, or are they likely to be, adversely affected by the discharge or
release?
• Is the quantity and concentration of the discharged oil or released hazardous substance
sufficient to potentially cause injury to those natural resources?
• Is data sufficient to pursue an assessment readily available or likely to be obtained at
reasonable cost?
• Will response actions, if any, not sufficiently remedy the injury to natural resources with-
out further action?
2. Assessment Plan. Planning, coordination, and involvement of die public, PRPs, and Trustees
are used to identify and document the methodologies that will be used in the assessment. A
preliminary estimate of damages and a Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan are
developed to ensure that assessment costs are reasonable compared to the estimated damage.
3. Assessment. Actual damage assessment is performed in three steps: Injury Determination,
Quantification of Service Effects, and Damage Determination. The Injury Determination estab-
lishes that the resource has been injured as the result of a hazardous substance release. The
Quantification of Service Effects quantifies the reduction in natural resource services resulting
from die injuries attributed to the hazardous substance release. The Damage Determination
values the natural resource damages as the sum of restoration costs, diminution in value of
natural resource services between the release and restoration, and damage assessment costs.
4. Post-Assessment. An assessment report is prepared, the claim for damages is presented to
responsible parties, and a restoration account is set up with the damage payment. A res-
toration plan is prepared documenting actions that will be taken to restore, rehabilitate,
replace, or acquire equivalent resources and how the loss of services will be addressed
consistent with the damage award.
Similar regulations (15 CFR 990) have been prepared by NOAA for NRDAs related to coastal
releases of oil and hazardous materials under the CWA, OPA, CERCLA, and the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. The NOAA NRDA is performed in three steps:
1. Preliminary Assessment. The Trustees determine whether injury to public trust resources
has occurred. Their work includes collecting time-sensitive data and reviewing scientific
literature about the released substance and its impact on trust resources to determine the
extent and severity of injury. If resources are injured, Trustees proceed to the next step.
2. Injury Assessment/Restoration Planning. Trustees quantify injuries and identify possible
restoration projects. Economic and scientific studies assess the injuries to natural resources
and the loss of services. These studies are also used to develop a restoration plan that out-
lines alternative approaches to speed the recovery of injured resources and compensate for
their loss or impairment from the time of injury to recover.
3. Restoration Implementation. The final step is to implement restoration and monitor its
effectiveness. Trustees work with the public to select and implement restoration projects.
Examples of restoration include replanting wetlands, improving fishing access sites, and re-
storing salmon streams. The responsible party pays the costs of assessment and restoration
and is often a key participant in implementing the restoration.
42
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Brownfields
EPA's Brownfields Program is designed to empower states, communities,
and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together
in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustain-
ably reuse brownfields. The program began as an administrative
effort within the CERCLA program and was then formalized
under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revi-
talization Act, (Public Law 107-118), enacted as amendments to
CERCLA in 2002. EPA's Brownfields Program provides financial
and technical assistance for brownfields activities through an
approach based on four main goals: protecting the environment,
promoting partnerships, strengthening the marketplace, and sustaining reuse.
The law defines a Brownfields site as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant." The term includes abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or commercial facilities,
agricultural and residential land, among other types of uses, but does not apply to federal lands,
NPL sites, or land subject to enforcement actions or certain response actions under CERCLA or un-
der certain provisions of other federal environmental laws.
The Brownfields process is tailored to the specific end use of the property. Cleanup standards
generally are determined according to the expected property use. Property owners may be able
to obtain funding from public programs and private banks and institutions. Sampling plans are
flexible and dynamic and allow for adjustments in the field. Generally EPA funded Brownfields
cleanups go through state cleanup programs. While the Brownfields process is flexible, it includes
the following general steps:
1. Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence. Obtain background information to determine
the extent of contamination and legal and financial risks.
2. Phase II Site Investigation. Sample the site to identify the type, quantity, and extent of
contamination.
3. Evaluate Remedial Options. Compile and assess possible remedial alternatives.
4. Develop Remedy Implementation Plan. Coordinate with stakeholders to design a remedy
implementation plan.
5. Remedy Implementation. Perform necessary actions to reduce health or environmental risk.
6. Begin Redevelopment.
While EPA provides funding opportunities, brownfields investigations and cleanups are typically
undertaken by state or local redevelopment agencies or private parties. EPA Brownfields grants are
available to eligible entities5 to perform site assessments, community involvement, cleanup, job
training, and workforce development; for capitalization of revolving loan funds; and as state/tribal
grants to help in developing Brownfields response programs.
Another program with criteria similar to the Brownfields program is EPA's Superfund Redevelop-
ment Initiative (SRI). As part of the Superfund Redevelopment Program, EPA has developed a pilot
program to help local governments participate in the cleanup and reuse of Superfund sites. Reuse
of sites is integrated into the Superfund risk assessment and cleanup. Under the pilot program,
EPA provides, or seeks to have PRPs provide, up to $100,000 in financial assistance or services
to local governments for specified activities to help determine the future use of their sites. This
program also encourages partnerships with states, local government agencies, citizen groups, and
other federal agencies to restore previously contaminated properties to beneficial use.
y "'ii -
e.g., state and local governments
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Similarly, RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative focuses on RCRA facilities not in full use where
there is redevelopment potential but reuse or redevelopment is slowed due to real or perceived
concerns about contamination, liability, or RCRA requirements. The initiative has funded projects
that illustrate how innovations and reforms under RCRA can reduce barriers to reuse and rede-
velopment of RCRA Brownfields sites. The RCRA Brownfields Prevention Targeted Site Efforts
Initiative provides support to sites where cleanup has been delayed to prevent them from becom-
ing Brownfields sites. Funding is applicable to sites with significant redevelopment potential and
limited EPA support to complete the project.
EPA's UST Fields Initiative was created to encourage the cleanup and reuse of abandoned proper-
ties contaminated with petroleum from USTs. "UST fields" are abandoned or underused industrial
and commercial properties where revitalization is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination from USTs.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601 et seq.) was enacted in
1976 to give EPA the authority to track chemicals produced in or imported into the
United States. EPA tracks the thousands of new chemicals developed each year and
repeatedly screens all chemicals. EPA can require reporting or testing of chemicals
that may pose environmental risks or human health hazards and ban the manufac-
ture or importation of any chemicals that may pose unreasonable risks. TSCA supple-
ments the Clean Air Act and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) under Emergency Planning
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, TSCA regulations in the United States (40
CFR Part 761) dictate restrictions on the manufacture, sale, use, disposal, import and export of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TSCA also includes provisions for allowable uses of PCBs.
TSCA regulations establish a concentration-based hierarchy that governs all aspects of PCB use and
disposal and dictates specific behaviors that are necessary for compliance. Regulations and policy
specify:
I How PCBs may be used, processed, distributed, manufactured, exported, and/or imported
t Acceptable storage and disposal conditions
> Spill cleanup requirements
> Recordkeeping and reporting requirements
EPA is developing policy to clarify the implementation of TSCA's PCB Disposal Regulations at
Superfund sediment sites.
B Stakeholders
The following stakeholders may be part of the Watershed Cleanup Team.
Federal Government Stakeholders
» EPA
• Water Programs
• RCRA
• Superfund
• Brownfields
> Natural Resource Trustees (See Table 2-3)
I Land/Resource Management Agencies
• Department of Interior (BLM, BIA, BOR)
44
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
• Department of Agriculture (USFS, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm
Service Agency (FSA))
• Department of Commerce (DOC)
» USAGE
ft Other federal facilities, including DoD and DOE
ft Federally established interstate or international coalitions
Federal agencies may provide regulatory authority and responsibility, financial resources, contract-
ing resources, and scientific resources. Additional federal agencies that provide invaluable resourc-
es for watershed assessment and cleanup are presented in Section 3.
State and Tribal Government Stakeholders
State agencies may provide regulatory authority, resources, and technical assistance for watershed
planning, assessment, and cleanup.
ft Environment Departments (Water, RCRA, State "Mini Superfunds," and other programs)
ft Watershed Management Groups
ft Water Engineer/Water Authority
ft Health Department
ft Fish and Wildlife Agency
ft Natural Resource Agencies (as designated by state governor/tribal leader)
Local Government Stakeholders
The roles of local government stakeholders will vary depending on the watershed issues and local
interest. Roles may include implementation of zoning and land use restrictions, accessing funding,
encouraging participation and funding from federal and state agencies, lobbying for action, and
establishing special districts for watershed protection or redevelopment.
ft Water and Wastewater Districts
ft City and County Health/Environment Departments
ft City and County Planning Departments
ft Soil and Water Conservation Districts
ft City and County Officials
ft Special Districts (e.g., water allocation agencies)
Nongovernment Stakeholders
A variety of nonregulatory stakeholders may have an interest in and contribute to the watershed
cleanup process. Individuals may also be interested in participating in the watershed cleanup
process, so citizens should be notified of the watershed effort at key points in the process. The
participation of local and nongovernment stakeholders may positively influence funding decisions
of state and federal agencies and may attract funding from a wide range of sources.
Community Action Groups
Community action groups have a vital interest in and intimate knowledge of the area. They repre-
sent the people who have to live with the problems and solutions and are most concerned about
watershed contamination and the issues associated with watershed cleanup. They offer knowledge
of local information, community issues, and acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. The most
effective community action groups will be balanced and represent a wide range of interests in the
community. Organizations with a limited focus or perspective should be represented in the primary
watershed group but should not dominate the group. Community action groups may pre-exist the
watershed effort or may be formed to directly address the watershed issues.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Industry
Industry associations and individual industries may help develop solutions to common problems.
The TMDL program addresses both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, however, the regula-
tory requirements for implementation falls only on point source dischargers (NPDES permits are
required to be consistent with wasteload allocations). These regulated point sources are frequently
interested in the development and implementation of TMDLs and can provide significant resourc-
es. Revitalized land may also interest various industry groups.
Educational Institutions
Universities can provide assistance for communities in assessment and cleanup of watershed and often
have previously undertaken relevant research. Cooperative efforts benefit both the university and the
community. Universities can provide a high level of expertise at low cost. University studies are often
seen in the community as unbiased. The university benefits from community outreach and opportuni-
ties for student education. The university also develops relationships with agencies and is seen as a
positive influence on the community. Studies and pilot projects can be performed by students under
the guidance of experienced faculty and financed by grants from federal environmental programs, the
National Science Foundation, and other sources. Universities can provide expertise in a wide range of
areas including but not limited to: study design, sampling, assessment, monitoring, modeling, physi-
cal and biological waterbody assessments, volunteer training, mapping, and group facilitation.
Environmental Action Groups
Numerous environmental action groups, such as Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy
may have an interest in watershed issues such as habitat and resource management. The groups
can be a powerful advocate in lobbying for grants and funding. The listed groups are for illustra-
tion only. Many of the groups have local chapters that could partner in the actual watershed effort.
American Rivers is a national conservation organization dedicated
to protecting and restoring America's river systems and to foster-
ing a river stewardship ethic. Along with conservation efforts,
American Rivers promotes public awareness about the importance
of healthy rivers and the threats that face them. American Rivers,
Inc. is a nonprofit organization recognized under Internal Revenue
Service Tax Code 501(c)(3). Provided by American Rivers, www.amrivers.org
The Renewable Natural Resources Foundation (RNRF) is a nonprofit,
public, tax-exempt, operating foundation established to advance sciences
and public education in renewable natural resources; promote the appli-
cation of sound, scientific practices in managing and conserving renew-
able natural resources; foster coordination and cooperation among professional, scientific, and
educational organizations having leadership responsibilities for renewable natural resources; and
develop a Renewable Natural Resources Center, www.rnrf.org
Restore America's Estuaries is a national nonprofit organization established
to preserve the nation's network of estuaries by protecting and restoring the
lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. Work
includes on-the-ground restoration projects and production of collaborative
tools and resources to guide the restoration process, including A National
Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat, Funding for Habitat Restora-
tion Projects: A Citizen's Guide, and Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration.
www.estuaries.org
46
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
UNLIHITED
Trout Unlimited is a grassroots network formed to conserve, protect, and
restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Trout
Unlimited promotes coldwater conservation and protects rivers and fisheries.
Trout Unlimited accomplishes this mission on local, state, and national levels
with an extensive and dedicated volunteer network. The organization employs
professionals who testify before Congress, publish a quarterly magazine, inter-
vene in federal legal proceedings, and work with the organization's volunteers
to keep them active and involved in conservation issues, wwwr.tu.org
The Nature Conservancy focuses on preserving plants, animals, and natural communities by pro-
tecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The approach is to identify the highest priority
places and protect and manage them to ensure their survival. The Nature Conservancy has five
priority conservation initiatives to address the principal threats to conservation at the sites where
it works, focusing on fire, climate change, freshwater, marine, and invasive species. The organiza-
tion promotes conservation and the participation of communities, TllP l\lnhirf>
businesses, governments, partner organizations, indigenous people
and communities, and individuals to preserve the world's lands and
waters, http://nature.org
l Lf&l QRŁAT PlACiS Oh EARTH
Other partners may include Ducks Unlimited, the National Association of Service and Conservation
Corps, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, and the Wildlife Habitat
Council.
Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs
Data gathered by River Watch volunteers has been used by state water
quality agencies, regional planning commissions, local planning com-
missions, departments of public works, conservation districts, USFS,
EPA, and nonprofit conservation agencies, www.riverwatch.org
Landowners/Citizens
Landowners have a vested interest in cleanup of their watersheds and can be the best source of
information regarding the problems that need to be addressed and solutions that will be effective
and acceptable to the community.
47
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
";.,•
..;- i
Integrated Watershed Assessment and Cleanup Integration
Left Hand Watershed, Colorado
LEFTHAND CREEK WATERSHED LOCATION IN BOULDER COUNTY,
30 MILES NWFROM DENVER,
COLORADO
1 3 3 ««**
y
48
Left Hand Watershed-Problem Identification and First Steps
The Left Hand Watershed encompasses approximately 85 square miles in northcentral Colorado
on the east slope of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains northwest of the city of Boulder.
The Left Hand Watershed is listed on the State of Colorado's 1998 303(d) list as impaired for not
supporting the aquatic life use classification due to metal contamination from historical mining
wastes. In May 2002, the Boulder County Board of Health sent a letter to the Colorado Governor's
office requesting support for the NPL designation for the Captain Jack Mill site. The site was listed
on the NPL in September 2003.
When approached by the EPA about the possibility of NPL designation for the Golden Age Mining
District and the Slide Mine site to fund cleanup activities within the Left Hand watershed outside
of the Captain Jack Mill NPL site, the community showed little public support. In response, EPA
provided fundingto the State of Colorado, which issued a
Superfund Block Cooperative Agreement for prelisting ac-
tivities to the Boulder County Health Department (BCHD)
to provide community involvement support and for sub-
contract work from the Western Center for Environmental
Decision-Making, a nonprofit organization. This allowed
BCHD to create a community-based task force to explore
alternatives to the NPL designation and inform the im-
pacted communities about Superfund and other cleanup
options. In 2001, the BCHD facilitated the formation of
the Left Hand Watershed Task Force to assess existing
environmental and health data related to the watershed,
determine if a cleanup action was necessary, and, if
necessary, evaluate cleanup options and recommend
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
(continued)
the preferred options. EPA's Technical Outreach Services to Communities (TOSC) provided an
independent study summary to identify the size and levels of impacts and possible pros and cons
of cleanup under Superfund. The 2002 Left Hand Watershed Task Force Report indicated that
despite numerous individual studies of the watershed, no comprehensive, systematic study of the
entire watershed could conclusively establish the exact extent of potential risks to aquatic life and
human health, the potential effects to water quality from a catastrophic storm or similar event, the
source(s) of contaminants, or the appropriate remediation strategies to remove contaminants. As
a result of the study, the Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group (LWOG) was formed to direct future
efforts at cleaning up mine wastes.
Lefthand Watershed Project Funding
RCRA37%
Water Programs 2.49%
/ Superfund 12.20%
USFS29%
Industry 12%
'Brownfi«kb5.20%
Stakeholders 1.75%
Program Integration
The Left Hand Watershed was selected as a pilot
project of EPA's One Cleanup program in 2003 on
the basis of the potential for cross-programmatic
watershed assessment and cleanup. The Left Hand
Watershed pilot is a cross-programmatic, multi-
agency approach to addressing pollution problems
found in a watershed impacted by abandoned
mines. The goal of the watershed-based approach
was to provide a transparent and efficient cleanup in
partnership with the community and local, state, and federal agencies. A TMDL Specialist within
EPA's Water Program was assigned as the Program Manager for the cross-programmatic effort.
Key contacts were identified, preliminary data was consolidated and mapped, a fact sheet was
prepared, and a meeting was held for participants to discuss their interests in the watershed and
the resources available to conduct work. Early in the process commitments were obtained to de-
sign and coordinate a novel environmental assessment and cleanup program for this watershed,
adhering to a specific plan of action that capitalized on the multiple funding mechanisms and
program priorities of all participants. The Left Hand Watershed cross-programmatic effort showed
an innovative cooperation strategy among EPA program personnel from the CERCLA Remedial,
Removal, and Assessment Programs; CWA NPS, and TMDL Pro-
grams; SDWA Programs; Brownfields Program; RCRA Program;
and the Federal Facilities Program. The initiative also brought
together notable non-EPA stakeholder groups including BCHD,
University of Colorado (CD), the James Creek Watershed Initia-
tive, Colorado River Watch, Trout Unlimited, USFS Abandoned
Mines and Watershed Programs, and USFWS. The coordinated
efforts eliminated duplication by combining resources to con-
duct collaborative watershed-wide characterization activities
and feasibility assessment. The results were used to prioritize
sources of contaminant loading to the watershed and desig-
nate responsibility for implementation of cleanup activities at
those sites. The resources identified and used for assessment,
cleanup, and community involvement in Left Hand Watershed
activities as of May 2005 are shown on the table at the end of
this Case Study. Contribution of financial resources is shown in
the pie chart above.
Collaborative Assessment and Feasibility Analysis
A collaborative watershed assessment program was implemented to allow multiple agencies and
programs to gather data to meet the needs of all stakeholders. The EPA Left Hand Watershed
Program Manager worked with state and federal participants to prepare an SAP that incorporated
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
the data quality objectives of all participants and clearly stated the project goals and methods to
accomplish those goals. Sampling, equipment, training, and technical resources were identified and
participating programs and agencies were assigned specific tasks. Key state and federal program
participants worked side by side to perform field sampling, with training and oversight provided
by the EPA Region 8 laboratory. The sampling campaign was executed by field teams consisting of
15 people per day for an entire week each season. Analysis for metals was provided by the Super-
fund Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) contract. The EPA Region 8 lab conducted the analysis for
sediment, nutrients, and macroinvertebrates and measured particle size distributions. The Region
8 NPDES program provided a water quality grant to the LWOG and CU for salt-injection studies
and macroinvertebrate tissue analysis. The combined stream flow and metals concentration data
provided the information needed to calculate metal loads and apportion source contributions for
the TMDL. A database with a spatial interface was developed for the project by the Superfund
Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor using EPA Site Assessment funding
and provided a tool to display data to allow collaborative decision making among the cleanup team.
Evaluation of alternatives for cleanup were streamlined by conducting a site-wide feasibility assess-
ment that included surveying and cost estimation of cleanup alternatives for all significant loading
sources in the Little James Creek subbasin. The feasibility assessment was funded by the EPA
TMDL contract. The results of these efforts were used to prepare program-specific assessments of
cleanup alternatives throughout the basin by the Water, CERCLA, and Brownfields Programs.
Leveraged Resources for Remediation, Restoration, and Reuse
Cross program collaboration has expedited and expanded cleanup, restoration, and revitalization
within the watershed. This has been most evident in the areas of public participation, assessment,
and revitalization. Examples of program coordination in revitalization include the State Voluntary
Cleanup Program (VCP) coordination with the TMDL program to design the Burlington Mine remedia-
tion using the estimated load reductions required to meet water quality standards. The Brownfields
program expanded its Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TEA) support from the initial scope of a
single site at the Argo Mine on property purchased by Boulder County for Open Space to include a
ground water impact assessment for the entire upper Little James Creek subbasin. The 319 NPS
Program provided the community with grants for the development of a watershed management plan
and for implementation of NPS controls in the watershed and may be a source of cleanup/imple-
mentation funding. A TMDL is being developed for the entire Left Hand Watershed that will identify
all significant loading sources in the watershed and quantify load reductions necessary to meet
WQS. The combined efforts of EPA and USFS expedited assessment and cleanup planning for the
Streamside Tailings and Bueno Mine (mixed private/federal ownership) sites. An MOU between EPA
Region 8 and USFS Region 2 was developed for the Left Hand Watershed project to describe the
roles each program will play in assessment and cleanup of mixed ownership sites. The MOU will
apply to other mixed ownership sites within the regions. One lead agency will be designated for each
site, but work will be cooperative unless the agencies prepare an Interagency Agreement to transfer
funding for a single agency to perform the cleanup.
Enhanced Community Participation
The BCHD, LWOG, Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE), USFS, and EPA's
Region 8 have effectively engaged citizens in the affected communities. CERCLA provided support
through the TOSC Program and a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). When the Left Hand Water-
shed Task Force (LWTF) Report recommendations from the LWTF called for further assessment
and remediation under the auspices of the Superfund Captain Jack Mill NPL site, and further as-
sessment using alternatives to Superfund throughout the remainder of the Left Hand Watershed,
the agencies worked with the community to determine a plan of action. As part of the additional
assessment work, Boulder County Open Space requested a TBAfrom Colorado's Brownfields pro-
gram and EPA Region 8 Brownfields program leveraged the State's effort to complete and expand
the assessment when resources limited its completion. Colorado River Watch Network contributed
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
tons
(continued)
to the effort with ten years of
monitoring data, using support
from the state's water quality
program and Colorado Divi-
sion of Wildlife. River Watch
volunteers perform monthly
surface water sampling at 13
sampling locations and annual
macroinvertebrate and habitat
analysis, allowing a continual
picture of watershed health.
Public interest spurred the
USFS to prioritize funding for
this project. The USFS Service
proposed the Left Hand Water-
shed as its priority watershed
for the USGS Central Colorado
Assessment Project (biological
and water chemistry assess-
ment) of the Roosevelt National Forest due, in part, to high community interest in the watershed.
The agencies and programs worked together in public education and participation efforts. For
example, program coordinators designed a fact sheet tailored for the Left Hand communities
describing the watershed process. The fact sheet was unique in that it did not simply describe
the site activity but provided brief descriptions of the various programs, existing and upcoming
activities, potential funding opportunities, and key contact information. The fact sheet provided
stakeholders with a reference document to simplify the myriad of agencies and programs involved
in the watershed.
Well-attended community meetings solicited input regarding sampling design and remediation al-
ternatives from across the various programs. Field training was provided for the multiple sampling
events. Community members and water district personnel assisted in all sampling. A critical com-
ponent of community outreach was education on the various programs involved in the cleanup.
This included meetings to explain the ramifications and opportunities related to such programs as
Superfund, Brownfields, and TMDL. In addition, a workshop was provided to describe the funding
restrictions and opportunities. The LWOG provided suggestions and comments on the sampling
plan and site selection and the LWOG coordinator was a participant in all of the planning meetings
and has been a great liaison with the community.
Success of Cross-Programmatic Watershed Cleanup
The synchronization of multiple agencies and programs has streamlined complicated interagency
boundaries, provided for timely assessments and interpretation of results, investigation of a range
of potential remedies, and focus of resources on collaborative cleanup. All the involved programs
expanded beyond their typical site/program boundaries to contribute resources to this compre-
hensive watershed approach. By working together, assessment information will be used across
programs rather than being program-specific, which is the more traditional way of doing work at
EPA and the state.
51
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
52
Left Hand Watershed Funding
••
Regional Geographic
Initiative Funds
TMDL Contract EPA R8
319 NPS Grant EPA R8
To University of Colorado for salt-injection study, and
macroinvertebrate analysis for high and low flow loading
analysis.
Little James Creek TMDL (complete). Left Hand Watershed
TMDL (in progress). Little James Creek subbasm Feasibility
Analysis.
319 NPS Funds CDPHE
319 NPS Base Funds
From CDPHE to James Creek Watershed Initiative for CU off-
road vehicle recreation study. Phase 1 2001.
James Creek Restoration Project, Phase II. Reclamation of
James Creek's riparian corridor.
From CDPHE to Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group for
Watershed Management Plan Development
Water Quality Cooperative
Agreement
Source Water Assessment
I Water quality monitoring (synoptic sampling) to characterize all
j source areas and load contributors within watershed.
' CDPHE source water assessment of raw water sources for
; each public water system.
Superfund Block Community
Agreement
EPA One Cleanup Program
EPA One Cleanup Program
CERCLA USFS/EPA
EPA Region 8 Laboratory
! CERCLA Remedial
j CERCLAJRemedial EPA R8
j CERCLA Site Assessment
; Grant from CERCLA to CDPHE Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division to Boulder County for task force to
review existing data and make recommendation on NPL listing
and alternatives analysis.
$25K
Preparation of a multi-agency, multi-program watershed clean-
I up manual. ', $38K
! Watershed wide feasibility analysis offering cleanup options to \
I multiple agencies and programs. (Coordinated with TMDL.) | $38K
• Golden Age, Bueno Mine, and Streamside Tailings Cleanup.
> Little James Creek Assessment and Feasibility Analysis. $500K
Laboratory analysis. Personnel for water quality, fish tissue,
and macroinvertebrate sampling support.
j Captain Jack RI/FS. Prior to NPL designation, two Sis were
j performed.
j CERCLA Site Assessment
I CLP sample analysis of surface water, sediment, and fish tis-
| sue samples during collaborative sampling events.
| EPA R8 START Contractor for site-wide database with spatial
[ component. Map development.
I To EPA R8 START Contractor for HRS package development for
1 Slide Mine.
FIJI 015$.
i Targeted Brownfields
1 Assessment
1 Brownfields
j Cleanup Grants and Loans
From EPA and CDPHE for surface water and ground water
assessment at Argo, Orphan Johnny, and Evening Starr mines
(owned by Boulder County Open Space) within the Little James
Subbasin.
$780K
$75K
$35K
$10K
$30K EPA
$10K CDPHE
i Boulder County Open Space has applied for a Brownfields \ Application is
\ Cleanup Grant to perform cleanup on three Open Space prop- = for $200K per
I erties within the Little James Subbasin. \ site.
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
(continued)
Left Hand Watershed Funding
; Assessment,/Cies
»/
tance
Raytheon
RCRA RFIs, Interim Remedial Measures, ground water sam-
! pling, ground water pumping, vapor extraction, and water
\ treatment.
USFWS, USGS, USFS
\ USFS-Watersheds Program
1 and Volunteer groups
USFS-Abandoned Mines
Program
USFS—Abandoned Mines
Honeywell—Voluntary
Cleanup
Left Hand Water District
i Stakeholder Matching Funds
Personnel for watershed high and low flow sampling and
macromvertebrate collection and assessment. Loading assess-
ment.
; Revegetate off-road vehicle area impacting James Creek east
: of Castle Gulch. Equipment and supplies were funded by
'. a grant from the Colorado State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle
program. Volunteers from four wheel drive groups.
EE/CA for Golden Age was completed this year through AML
I funds. $600K has been designated for cleanup within the Left
; Hand watershed. Proposed $2.6M. $600K approved as of
> 5/05. _ _ _
PA/SI and Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
for Fairday Mine. Planned Removal Action Implementation.
Stakeholder Matching Funds
Stakeholder CU
Colorado River Watch
Colorado Division of Wildlife/
i Colorado River Watch
Voluntary cleanup to prevent water from contacting waste rock
at Burlington Mine, Jamestown.
: Mitigate impacts of sediment in James Creek. Support for
Watershed Coordinator.
From CU Outreach Committee, REU, Honeywell, and in-kind
technical advising for water quality assessments.
Watershed Management Plan Development ($20K from
: CDMG, BCHD, LHWD, landowners), Seacresttoxicity study
i ($30K). _
I Study the effect of off-road vehicle recreation. Undergraduate
I Research Opportunity Grant, NSF Grant. Plus 50 volunteers.
[ Monthly volunteer surface water sampling at 13 locations. An-
j nual macroinvertebrate and micro/macro habitat analysis.
I Analysis of monthly surface water samples collected by James
j Creek Watershed Initiative Stakeholders.
j Monthly Laboratory metals and IDS analysis of 13 samples.
1 High and low flow nutrient analysis.
Field support
$600K
$405K
$1.5 million
$103.5 K^
\ $53K
$7K
53
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
54
Regulatory Authorities and Stakeholders
-------
Watershed-based cleanups may be accomplished through various funding and other resources
available for investigation, cleanup, monitoring, and community involvement. This section
presents government funding opportunities available to various stakeholders, applicability of
funds, accessing the funds, and project requirements in use of the funds. Additional sources of
funding may be available through state programs and government appropriations. A thorough
review of grants and other funding available for specific projects should be conducted to determine
potential assistance. A summary of assessment and cleanup finanical resources is provided in Table
3-1 at the end of this chapter. One Web site that can assist in finding federal grants for a variety of
tasks and grantees is www.grants.gov.
This section also presents nonfinancial resources available through government and nongovern-
mental agencies, such as scientific resources, contracting resources, facility and manpower re-
sources, and analytical resources.
^. Leveraging Funding ''
Environmental partnerships enable agencies working together and with com-
munities to face complex environmental challenges on a scale that cannot eas- ... x,tp
ily be secured when an environmental program acts alone. Targeting problems JK
at a watershed scale which include reducing the effects of toxic substances on human health
and ecosystems often require leveraging resources across programs, agencies, and community-
based organization. Most grant programs encourage collaboration and partnerships. Combining
multiple external sources for project support can be a very successful strategy. This can result in
a "multiplier" effect, as the different funding sources can provide the match for each other. Mul-
tiple objective projects are particularly suited to this practice. Reviewers for grant awards often
view this strategy favorably, as it also enhances their "leveraging" (getting more for their money).
Different funding sources can be used at variety of sites; activities supported by different federal
programs at otherwise independent sites within a watershed can be coordinated for the benefit
of the entire watershed. Funds should be selected on the basis of project objectives (e.g., wetland
creation, education, recreation, stream restoration) with multiple compatible objectives increasing
the number of potential sources, and thus potential available funds. Federal sources typically do
not allow other federal sources to be used as match. A unique exception are the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF and DWSRF). The SRFs are made up of federal
capitalization grants, state match, loan repayments, interest earnings and leverage bond proceeds.
The SRFs allow loans made from funds other than the federal capitalization grants and associated
state match to match other federal programs, if allowed by the other federal programs. The follow-
ing scenario is an illustration of how leveraged funding can work.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Demonstration Scenario: Project for stream restoration with erosion control and wetlands creation
and restoration.
Funding opportunities:
1. $3M state revolving fund loan at 4 percent requires $221,000 payment per year for 20 years
with no down payment.
2. The $3M is split into three increments:
) $1M to support a $2M USAGE project = $3M
I $1M to support a $2M Urban Drainage project = $3M
I $1M to support a $2M state Wetlands Program grant = $3M
This scenario is simplified and hypothetical, but it illustrates how a $3M loan can be leveraged
into $9M for a project (or projects). Integration of other objectives or funding sources into this
scenario could increase leveraging further. Match requirements can also be fulfilled through in-
kind support, which is frequently utilized in 319 Nonpoint Source grants and CERCLA community
support funds.
Paying attention to the applicability of funds can also maximize available funding resources.
Superfund can only be used to fund cleanups necessary to eliminate unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment; they cannot otherwise address ecological restoration activities, such
as natural damage claims and riparian corridor restoration. However NPS 319 water program and
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) funding may support restoration activities that
the Superfund program cannot. Put another way, if restoration is an objective of the Watershed
Cleanup Team, Superfund dollars could be used for contaminant assessment and remediation, and
CWA 319 NPS funding and NRDA funding, if available, could be used to complete restoration. At-
tempts should be made to coordinate the remediation activities with the restoration goals.
Ł. Program Funding
Funding is available from EPA and states through EPA's water programs. Loans with advantageous
terms can be issued through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) or the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), subject to state priorities and eligibility under the Act.
Grants and cooperative agreements are also available. The SRF is a permanent revolving fund to
provide loans and other assistance (40 CFR section 35.3115). Because communities must repay
SRF loans, the SRF program alone will not generally be useful in funding watershed assessment
and cleanup projects. However, communities may use the money borrowed from the SRF as
matching funds to meet grant requirements, thus multiplying the value of the funds borrowed.
CFDA 66.458. www.epa.gov/water/funding.html
Water Program Loans
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is managed largely by the states, and
makes loans to communities, municipalities, individuals, citizens groups, and non-profit organiza-
tions for high priority water quality activities. Funds are then repaid to CWSRF's over terms as
long as twenty years. Funds are typically used to finance large municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, but may also be used to help manage NPS pollution, runoff control, wet weather flow
control, alternative treatment technologies, and water reuse and conservation projects. Funds may
also be used to fund wetlands, estuaries, Brownfields remediation, and Polluted Runoff Abatement
projects or implement Comprehensive Coastal Management Plans developed through EPA's Nation-
al Estuary Program. Brownfield sites that suffer from water quality impairment can use the CWSRF
as a powerful financial instrument for planned corrective action.
56
Resources
-------
The list of brownfield projects that may be eligible for CWSRF funding includes, but is not limited
to:
I excavation and disposal of underground storage tanks
I constructed wetlands (filtering mechanism)
I capping of wells
I excavation, removal, and disposal of contaminated soil or sediments
I tunnel demolition
> well abandonment
> Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III assessments
Some potential repayment sources include:
> fees paid by developers on other lands
I recreational fees (fishing licenses, entrance fees)
I dedicated portions of local, county, or state taxes or fees
> property owner ability to pay (determined during loan application)
> donations or dues made to nonprofit groups
I stormwater management fees
I wastewater user charges
Loan eligibility and funding priorities vary from state to state. Typical applicants for wastewater
and stormwater projects are municipalities and other public organizations, but nonprofit organiza-
tions or private entities may also apply for nonpoint source and estuary protection projects. The
loans offer advantageous interest rates and repayment periods. States set funding priorities.
The Drinking Water SRF is used to issue loans to communities for drinking water systems improve-
ments. States can customize loan terms to meet the needs of small and disadvantaged commu-
nities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking
water. Loans are available to both publicly and privately owned community water systems, and
nonprofit non-community water systems are also eligible for funding. However, some states only
allow public facilities in their state to receive funds. Loans made under the program can have
interest rates between 0 and market rate and repayment terms of up to 20 years. For communities
that qualify for disadvantaged assistance, loans can include principal forgiveness and terms up to
30 years.
Water Program Grants
Research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to
the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution are eligible
for water program grants. Activities that are not eligible for water program grants are: routine pro-
gram implementation, implementation of routine water quality protection or restoration measures,
regulatory compliance or mitigation, land acquisition, recreational features such as hiking trails,
purchase of vehicles, or completion of work which was to have been completed under a prior
grant. Region 8 criteria for their Consolidated Funding Process are summarized at the end of this
section. Projects are funded from $10,000 to $200,000 with an average of $45,000.
EPA National or Regional priorities, funding levels, current specifications, and review criteria for
proposals will be identified in the competitive funding announcements. Applicants should go to
www.grants.gov to identify potential competitive funding opportunities for water program fund-
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
ing. The competitive announcements will identify proposal/application specifications and evalua-
tion criteria.
See the Left Hand Watershed Case Study in Chapter 2 to see examples of grants that have been
awarded and the types of work they are funding.
The Water program funding sources listed below are managed differently in the various EPA re-
gions. Because of the regional differences in the management of these funds, a review of regional
procedures and priorities should be performed to determine what resources are most useful for a
watershed.
Assessment and Watershed Protection Program Grants and Cooperative Agreements (SWA Sec-
tion 104 (b) (3), CFDA 66.480). The AWPPGs provide eligible applicants an opportunity to carry
out projects to develop effective, comprehensive programs for watershed protection, restoration,
and management. The projects that eligible applicants can undertake are diverse. Projects should
be innovative or demonstrative in design and contribute to overall development and improvement
of watershed programs. In the past, award recipients have pursued a wide range of activities, such
as developing management tools, advancing scientific and technical tools for protecting watershed
health, improving availability of data and information about watersheds, and training watershed
managers and the public about watershed management. No cost share or match is required; how-
ever, projects with matching funding, in-kind services, or other support are favored.
These grants may not be used solely for the operational support of specific watershed projects, for
example, support for the implementation of individual watershed projects or the development of
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for specific water bodies (normally funded under Section
106/319 grants) or for in-depth monitoring (beyond traditional volunteer monitoring programs)
for individual water bodies. All projects funded through this program must contribute to the over-
all development and improvement of watershed programs. Project funding ranges from $5,000 to
$80,000.
Water Quality Pollution Control Grants. (CWA Section 106) States and interstate agencies are
eligible for grants to establish and implement ongoing water pollution control programs. This pro-
gram takes a watershed protection approach at the state level by looking at water quality problems
holistically and targeting the use of limited finances available for effective program management.
Total Maximum Daily Load Program Funds. (CWA Section 104(b)(3), CFDA 66.436) Surveys,
Studies, Investigations Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Water Quality Projects) EPA funds
are available for projects that lead to the completion of a Total Maximum Daily Load or contribute
toward the development of a TMDL or multiple TMDLs. These funds are referred to as "extramural
funds" and can be used for contract support, grants to states or tribes, or interagency agreements
(LAGs) with other federal agencies (i.e., Forest Service, USGS, USFWS, etc.). State, Tribal, and
interstate agencies interested in using these funds may not receive grants for routine TMDL de-
velopment purposes normally funded with Section 106 or 319 funds. In these cases, projects must
be innovative or demonstrative in nature consistent with Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water
Act. Reuse of contract funds by State, Tribal, or interstate agencies may also be restricted in some
cases.
Wetland Program Development Cooperative Agreements and Grants. (Clean Water Act, Section
104(b)(3), as amended; Public Law 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3), CFDA 66.461) States, tribes,
and local governments are eligible for wetlands program grants to aid in developing wetland
protection programs. Projects must contribute to the direct protection of wetlands, must result in
product/deliverables, should address national and regional priorities, should be consistent with
state/tribal/local government wetlands conservation priorities or strategies, and must demonstrate
a 25 percent nonfederal match. While grants can be used to build and refine any element of a
comprehensive wetland program, priority is currently given to projects that address the four prior-
58
Resources
-------
ity areas identified by EPA: strengthening state/tribal comprehensive wetland programs, develop-
ing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program, improving the effectiveness of compen-
satory mitigation, and refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources.
Regional Geographic Initiative. (RGI) (CFDA 66.034, 66.424, 66.436, and 66.716) Most RGI
grants are awarded under the authorities under Section 103 (b)(3) of the Clean Air Act or Section
104 (b)(3) of the Clean Water Act and therefore must qualify as a "survey, study, research, inves-
tigation, experiment, training, or demonstration." RGI is not a grant program but a pot of funds
that the regions receive annually to address high priorities identified each year. The money can
be used to fund grants but there are other funding vehicles used for this money (includes fund-
ing contracts, etc.). Each region has full authority to determine their own priorities for using this
money, there are no set dollar amounts identified for water, watershed, or waste projects. Grants,
cooperative agreements, and inter-agency agreements can be made available to state water pol-
lution control agencies, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,
organizations and individuals to fund unique, geographically based projects that fill critical gaps in
EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment. RGI projects:
> address places, sectors, or innovative projects
I are based on a regional, state, tribal, or other strategic plan
I address problems that are multimedia in nature or fill a critical gap in the protection of hu-
man health and the environment
> demonstrate state, local, or other stakeholder participation
I identify opportunities for leveraging other sources of funding
Projects may receive funding for one or more years, but generally will not receive RGI funds for
more than four years. Each EPA Regional Office is responsible for the execution of the RGI pro-
gram within its states. To obtain information about the availability of funds for a project, contact
the appropriate Regional RGI Coordinator.
Source Water Grants. (Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, as amended; Public Law 104-182,
CFDA 66.424) may be available on an irregular basis to assist communities in protecting their wa-
ter sources. Tribes or federal agencies and nonprofit organizations working with tribes are eligible.
Source water projects use the results of source water assessment to implement a water protection
policy. Funding priorities under 66.424 include but are not limited to: research on the occurrence
of contaminants in drinking water, source water protection and treatment methods, measures to
protect water quality in the distribution system and at the tap, tribal source water protection pro-
gram support, tribal operator certification program support, tribal capacity development program
support, and assistance to tribes in administration of the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants
health effects associated with drinking water contaminants. There is funding for Tribal Source Wa-
ter Protection managed by the regions. Tribes should contact their region for more information.
Nonpoint Source Funds. (CWA 319(h)) Section 319 grants are awarded to states and territo-
ries (hereinafter referred to as "states") for the purpose of assisting them in implementing NPS
management programs. Section 319 grants are awarded to state NPS agencies in two categories:
base funds and incremental funds. States may use the "base funds" for the full range of activities
addressed in their approved NPS management programs. For example, the funds may be used for
protection of unimpaired waters, restoration of impaired waters, education and training, and staff-
ing or support to manage and implement their NPS management programs. In general, States have
great flexibility as to how to use these base funds. States must use $100 million of Section 319
funds, referred to as "incremental funds," to develop and implement watershed-based plans that
address NPS impairments in watersheds that contain Section 303(d)-listed waters. The watershed-
based plan must be designed to achieve the load reductions called for in the NPS TMDL. If a TMDL
has not yet been developed, the plan must be designed to reduce NPS pollutant loadings that are
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
contributing to water quality threats and impairments. Up to 20 percent of the base and incre-
mental funds may be used to develop NPS TMDLs and watershed-based plans to implement NPS
TMDLs.
The NPS grant to the state requires a nonfederal match of 40 percent. The federal share of the cost
of each management program implemented with federal assistance shall not exceed 60 percent of
the cost incurred by the State in implementing such management program and shall be made on
the condition that the nonfederal share is provided from nonfederal sources. The nonfederal match
can be provided by individuals, organizations, local governments, or state agencies. In-kind dona-
tions can also be used for the match—this might involve the use of equipment or space, a donation
of time, or volunteer services.
Approved state NPS management programs provide the framework for determining what activi-
ties are eligible for funding under Section 319(h). Examples of previously funded projects include:
the installation of best management practices (BMPs) to control animal waste from animal feeding
operations (not subject to NPDES permit requirements), streambank stabilization and shoreline
restoration projects, forest road decommissioning to reduce erosion and sedimentation, basinwide
landowner education programs, and wetlands restoration projects. Section 319 funds may also be
used to fund abandoned mine land reclamations projects and urban storm water activities that are
not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit. Additional details regarding these types
of projects is given below:
> Updating and refocusing the state NPS Management program and NPS Assessments to
improve program effectiveness. States may use up to 20 percent of their base section 319
allocation for this purpose. States should refine their programs to reflect their most press-
ing needs and highest-priority water quality problems. Activities and analyses that may be
funded include establishing indicators and milestones, developing TMDLs and watershed
plans, and improving assessment efforts.
> Implementing ground water protection activities. Ground water activities are eligible for
section 319 grants if they are identified in the state's NPS Management program, Ground
water Protection Strategy, or Comprehensive State Ground water Protection program.
I Funding urban storm water runoff activities if those activities meet the following condi-
tions: (1) the activities are not specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit, and
(2) the activities do not directly implement a draft or final NPDES permit. Activities that
might meet the above requirements include technical assistance; monitoring to address
implementation strategies; BMPs; information and education programs; technology transfer
and training; and development and implementation of regulations, policies, and local ordi-
nances to address storm water runoff.
> Funding abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation projects designed to protect water
quality if those activities meet both of the following conditions: (1) the activities are not
specifically required by a draft or final NPDES permit, and (2) the activities do not directly
implement a draft or final NPDES permit. Activities that might meet the above requirements
include remediation of water pollution from abandoned mines or portions of abandoned
mines, mapping and planning of remediation, monitoring, technical assistance, information
and education programs, technology transfer and training, and development and imple-
mentation of policies addressing AMLs.
> Implementing lake protection and restoration activities except for in-lake work such as
aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging unless the sources of pollution have been ad-
dressed sufficiently to ensure that the pollution being remediated will not recur. States are
encouraged to use section 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been funded in
previous years under CWA section 314 (Clean Lakes Program).
60
Resources
-------
Additional Water Program Support
The Watershed and Water Quality Modeling Technical Support Center provides assistance to
EPA regions, state and local governments, and their contractors in the implementation of the CWA.
The Center, which is part of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), is committed to
providing access to technically defensible tools and approaches that can be used in the develop-
ment of TMDL, waste load allocations, and watershed protection plans. The Center reaches out to
experts throughout EPA and states to bring technical expertise together, www.epa.gov/athen-
swwqtsc/index.html
EPA Central Geographic Information System (CIS) support programs are available in every
region and are usually found in EPA regional Information Technology support program. They can
provide an array of mapping and CIS support, including aerial photography and satellite images
access via TerraServer and GlobeXplorer web services tools within their ArcGIS systems. TerraSer-
ver image services includge panchromatic Digital Orthophoto Quads down to one-meter resolu-
tion. GlobeXplorer image services include both panchromatic and color images, satellite and aerial
photos, down to sub-meter resolution. Both image Web services are currently available to all EPA
employees running the ArcGIS software.
The Volunteer Monitoring Program helps volunteer water monitors build awareness of pollu-
tion problems, become trained in pollution prevention, help clean up problem sites, provide data
for waters that may otherwise be unassessed, and increase the amount of water quality informa-
tion available to decision makers at all levels of government. Volunteer data provide delineation
and characterization of watersheds, screening level assessments for water quality problems, and
measure baseline conditions and trends. EPA sponsors national conferences that bring together
volunteer organizers and agency representatives, manages a listserve for volunteer monitoring
program coordinators, supports a national newsletter for volunteer monitors, maintains a directory
of volunteer monitoring programs, and publishes manuals on volunteer monitoring methods and
on planning and implementing volunteer programs. Information is available at http://yosemite.
epa.gov/water/volmon.nsf. Regional EPA offices provide technical assistance related to data
quality control, serve as contacts for volunteer programs, manage grants to state agencies that in-
clude provision for volunteer water monitoring and public participation, and provide information
exchange services for volunteers.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Region S Consolidated Funding Process RFP
Region 8 2005 Criteria to Assist in Selecting Potential Funding
Opportunities for Watershed Projects
Region 8 combines the water program grants under one RFP, called the Consolidated Funding Pro-
cess (CFP). The description of the funding programs and the review criteria for the 2005 RFP are
summarized below. The Region 8 criteria are based on EPA program specific guidelines. The priori-
ties and criteria can vary in each region. Because EPA National and Regional priorities and funding
levels may change overtime, the current RFP specifications and criteria should be reviewed prior
to submission of any proposal.
General requirements for outcomes and outputs are outlined in all RFPs. The 2005 guidelines
include the following:
In compliance with EPA Order 5700.7 on environmental results, applicants are required to address
outcome and output environmental measurements in their proposals. The term "outcome" means
the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or
activity. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related, or programmatic in nature
but must be quantitative. There are two major types of outcomes—end outcomes and intermediate
outcomes. End outcomes are the desired end or ultimate results of a project or program. They rep-
resent results that lead to environmental or public health improvement. A change in water quality
and resultant change in human health or environmental impacts are examples of end outcomes.
Intermediate outcomes are outcomes that are expected to lead to end outcomes but are not them-
selves "ends." For example, for an air pollution project, reductions in emissions may be viewed as
an intermediate outcome to measure progress toward meeting or contributing to end outcomes of
improved ambient air quality and reduced illness from air pollution.
The term "output" refers to an environmental activity or effort and associated work product that
will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantita-
tive or qualitative but must be measurable during the funding period. Examples of outputs include,
but are not limited to, the number of stakeholder groups involved in the process, the number of fa-
cilities participating in a demonstration, the development of a report or training manual, increased
monitoring, the number of workshops or training courses conducted, and the number of people
trained.
Description of Funding Programs
There are seven funding programs for which awards are expected to be made under the Region 8
2005 RFP. Each of these programs and their expectations for outcomes and outputs is described
below.
I Tribal Source Water Protection: The Source Water Protection program is looking for proposals
to complete source water assessments in accordance with EPA guidelines and implement
Source Water Protection for public water systems in Indian Country within Region 8. Protection
may include addressing sources of existing contamination and/or activities or facilities that
pose a threat but do not currently contribute contaminants to either surface or ground water
used for public water supply. Note that a complete source water assessment per EPA guide-
lines includes the following steps: 1) delineation of Source Water Protection Area(s), 2) comple-
tion of inventory of potential contaminant sources, 3) susceptibility analysis to determine
relative risk to water source posed by inventoried potential contaminant source, and 4) provide
a report to the public. Construction activities are not eligible for funding under this program.
Match is optional.
62
Resources
-------
(continued)
I Projects funded under this program support progress towards EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2,
Sub-objective 2.1.1 (Water Safe to Drink) and Goal 4, Sub-objective 4.2.1 (Sustain Community
Health).
Anticipated outcomes for Triba! Source Water Protection projects include but are not limited to:
I Identification of relative risks to sources of drinking water from potential contaminants
I Heightened awareness to the public, governmental agencies, and private sector regarding the
importance of protecting sources of water used for drinking water
I Enhanced coordination, cooperation, and/or development of partnerships, among individuals,
-governmental agencies, and private sector for protecting sources of public drinking water from
identified sources of existing or potential contamination
I Implementation of management measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate risks from contami-
nants to drinking water
I Development of contingency planning strategies to deal with water supply contamination or
service interruption emergencies
Anticipated outputs for Tribal Source Water Protection projects include but are not limited to:
> Completion of source water assessments that identify relative risks to water sources
I Studies or investigations to further define risks to water sources
I Development of source water protection plans for addressing medium to high risks
I Specialized studies or investigations to further define protection measures
I Development of best management practices to reduce or mitigate risks
I Undertaking non-construction protection measures, including land use practices or controls
Applicants seeking funds for Tribal Source Water Protection must address the general and pro-
gram-specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
I Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) and Environmental Priorities Program (EPP): RGI and
EPP funds support projects that have been identified as a high priority by the Region, States,
Tribes, localities, or citizen groups due to high or potentially high human health or ecosystem
risk, or due to significant potential for risk reduction or avoidance. Three types of projects will
be considered for RGI and EPP funding:
1) Projects that protect and restore water quality on a watershed basis: Projects must contribute
directly to the achievement of the watershed and water body restoration measures under this
strategic goal (for more information on the strategic goal, refer to EPA's website at http://www.
epa.gov/water/waterplan/documents/FY06NPGNarrative.pdf). Projects may contribute to meeting
the measures by conducting restoration of impacted waters to achieve measurable improvement,
or by improving the States' and/or Tribes' capacity to target, achieve, measure, and report water
quality improvement on a watershed basis. Note that RGI and EPP funds cannot be used by States
or Tribes to carry out activities that would normally be funded under water quality (Section 106)
or non-point source (Section 319) State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Projects funded under this
program support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 4, Sub-objective 4.2.1 (Healthy Commu-
nities).
Examples of outcomes for RGI or EPP watershed projects include but are not limited to:
63
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
I Implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) and restoration projects that improve ripar-
ian and in-stream physical, chemical, or biological health. Some examples include miles of
stream channel restored, miles of riparian vegetative buffer installed, and pounds of pollutant
loading reduced or eliminated as a result of improved practices or restoration activities.
I Improved water quality as measured by pre- and post-project monitoring of water chemistry,
physical habitat, or biological indicators. EPA recognizes that for most water quality restora-
tion activities, measurable responses in water quality are likely to take longer than the project
period.
I Improved capability by a state or tribe to conduct assessment activities that measure effec-
tiveness and environmental results of actions conducted as part of the nonpoint source or
other restoration programs, or assistance provided by the state to local partners in measuring
environmental results.
Examples of outputs for RGI or EPP watershed projects include but are not limited to:
I A comprehensive characterization of all sources and causes of water quality impairment within
a watershed that will allow recipients to develop a restoration plan
I Development of a comprehensive watershed management plan that establishes priority resto-
ration actions needed to address water quality impairments watershed-wide
I A final project report that documents and quantifies BMPs and restoration activities imple-
mented
I Enhanced multi-sector partnerships that are capable of leveraging resources from multiple
sources to implement planned restoration actions
Applicants seeking funds from the RGI or EPP programs to protect and restore water quality on a
watershed basis must address the general and program specific criteria in Section V of this solici-
tation.
2) Projects that address community-based air toxics: For air toxics projects, proposals must sup-
port and promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, dem-
onstrations, surveys, and studies relating to local air toxics assessment, reduction, and/or elimi-
nation projects; however, priority will be given to proposals where the majority of federal dollars
go to education and outreach activities related to air toxics and/or demonstration projects which
implement mitigation activities as stated in criteria number 3 on page 20. For more information on
EPA's community air toxics program go to the web site www.epa.gov/air/toxicair/community.html.
Projects funded under this program support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 1, Objective
1.1 (Healthier Outdoor Air).
Anticipated outcomes for air toxics projects include but are not limited to:
I Reducing risks from exposure to air pollutants through collaborative action at the local level
I Developing a comprehensive understanding of sources of risk from air toxics and setting priori-
ties for effective action
I Creating multi-faceted partnerships at the local level to improve local air toxics conditions
Anticipated outputs for air toxics projects include but are not limited to:
I Creation of multi-stakeholder partnerships
ft Promotion and establishment of multi-stakeholder partnerships/collaborations
9 Knowledge of refined risk information on the local level (improved inventories, modeling)
64
Resources
-------
(continued)
I Understanding of local areas of highest risk
ft Localized risk information to supplement the National Air Toxics Assessment
ft Integrating efforts to understand mobile, indoor, and stationary sources
ft Integrating relevant health information
ft Development of federal/state/local capacities in air toxics assessment
ft Implementation of air toxics reduction activities
ft Development of means to measure results
ft Development of outreach and education materials addressing air toxics
ft Development and conduct of training courses addressing air toxics
Applicants seeking funds from the RGI or EPP programs to address community-based air toxics
must address the general and program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
3) Projects that address non-tribal Source Water Assessment and Protection: The Source Water
Protection program is looking for proposals to implement Source Water Protection measures at
public water systems in Region 8. Protection may include addressing sources of existing contami-
nation, and/or activities or facilities that pose a threat but do not currently contribute contami-
nants to either surface or ground water used for public water supply. Construction activities are
not eligible for funding under this program. Match is optional. Projects funded under this program
support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2, Sub-objective 2.1.1 (Water Safe to Drink) and
Goal 4, Sub-objective 4.2.1 (Sustain Community Health).
Anticipated outcomes for non-tribal Source Water Protection projects include but are not limited to:
ft Heightened awareness of public agencies, governmental agencies, and the private sector of
the importance for protecting sources of water used for drinking water
ft Enhanced coordination, cooperation, and/or development of partnerships among individuals,
governmental agencies, and the private sector for protecting sources of public drinking water
from identified sources of existing or potential contamination
I Implementation of management measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate risks to drinking
water
I Development of contingency planning strategies to deal with water supply contamination or
service interruption emergencies
Anticipated outputs for non-tribal Source Water Protection projects include but are not limited to:
ft Studies or investigations to further define risks to water sources
ft Development of source water protection plans for addressing medium to high risks
I Specialized studies or investigations to further define protection measures
ft Development of best management practices to reduce or mitigate risks
ft Undertaking non-construction protection measures, including land use practices or controls
Applicants seeking funds from the RGI or EPP programs to address non-tribal source water assess-
ment and protection must address the general and program specific criteria in Section V of this
solicitation.
ft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: This program will evaluate projects for TMDL
development for water bodies that have been identified on an EPA-approved Clean Water Act Sec-
integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
tion 303(d) list. States and Tribes that receive Section 106 grant funding are not eligible to receive
TMDL grant funding. Projects funded under this program support progress toward EPA Strategic
Plan Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water), Objective 2 (Conserve and Enhance Nation's Waters), Sub-Ob-
jective 1 (Restore and Protect Watersheds).
Anticipated outcomes for TMDL projects include but are not limited to:
I Restore and maintain watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health and
support recreational activities and provide healthy habitat for fish and wildlife
> Improve the quality of water and sediments to allow the safe consumption offish
> Restore water quality to allow swimming safe from waterborne diseases
I Attain water quality standards in waters previously identified as not attaining standards
I Improve water quality in Indian country
I Reduce levels of phosphorous contamination in rivers, streams, and lakes
Anticipated outputs for TMDL projects include but are not limited to:
> Development of TMDLs necessary to protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis
I Completion of assessments that characterize water quality and pollutant loading in order to
identify waters that need TMDLs, or to develop TMDLs for waters already listed on a state Sec-
tion 303(d) list
Applicants seeking funds from the TMDL program must address the general and program-specific
criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
I Wetlands Program Development Grants (WDPG): The Wetlands Program Development Grant
program places emphasis on projects that will demonstrate how the use of management, tech-
nical, and information tools lead to positive environmental outcomes. The outcomes should be
expressed in terms of a goal to document improvement in wetland quantity and quality in specific
geographical areas, and across an entire State or Tribal nation. States and Tribes are encour-
aged to integrate wetland monitoring goals with their existing State and Tribal wetland strategies.
Projects that collect environmental data must have an approved Quality Assurance plan and the
data must be made available as a part of the existing public databases or lead to the creation
of that type of database. Projects from non-governmental entities can be funded, but only as a
pass-through grant to the lead wetland coordination agency and must be closely coordinated with
them. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that project proposals be routed through the appropri-
ate point of contact prior to being submitted to EPA. See Attachment B for a list of State contacts.
EPA will support the local government initiative and Tribal efforts by targeting at least 15% of their
Regional allocation to local government and Tribal applications. Tribes are encouraged to submit
proposals which involve watershed-based wetlands and stream corridor projects. See Attach-
ment C for a list of Tribal contacts. This supports the EPA's Program Activity Measure (IV-WD-3) as
specified in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Water Program Guidance. Projects funded under this
program support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2, Objective 2.2 (Protect Water Quality).
Anticipated outcomes for WPDG projects include but are not limited to:
I Building capacity at all levels of government to develop and implement effective, comprehen-
sive programs for wetland protection and management
I Developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program
> Improving the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation
I Refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources
66
Resources
-------
(continued)
The anticipated output for WPDG projects includes but is not limited to:
I A final report that includes a summary of the project and a description of progress made
toward the outcomes
While WPDGs should be used by recipients to build and refine any element of a regulatory or non-
regulatory wetland program, emphasis will be given to funding projects that best meet the general
and program-specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
I Source Reduction Assistance (Pollution Prevention) Program: The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 defines "source reduction" to mean any practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal, and reduces
the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. Source reduction practices may include equipment or technology
modifications, process procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution
of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
The term "pollution prevention" means source reduction, as defined under the Pollution Preven-
tion Act, and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through increased
efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources or protection of natural
resources through conservation.
The applicant will have the flexibility of scaling up prior source reduction or pollution prevention
projects to generate greater environmental impact. Projects that have the potential to be scaled up
must include activities that align with one of the regional priorities.
Projects relating to ENERGY STAR® and renewable energy, and projects that support the Resource
Conservation Challenge would be considered under this funding source. Information about the
ENERGY STAR® program can be found at www.energystar.gov and information about the Resource
Conservation Challenge can be found at www.epa.gov/rcc.
Projects funded under this program support progress toward the following goals in EPA's Strategic
Plan:
I Goal 1, Objective 1.5 (Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity)
> Goal 3, Sub-Objective 3.1.1 (Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling)
I Goal 5, Objective 5.2 (Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation)
Examples of outcome-based metrics for pollution prevention include but are not limited to:
> Pounds of pollution reduced
I BTUs of energy conserved
> Carbon reductions
> Pounds of waste reduced, recycled, or put to beneficial use
I Gallons of water saved
> Dollars saved through pollution prevention efforts
Examples of outputs for pollution prevention include but are not limited to:
I Number of stakeholder groups involved in a process
I Number of workshops, training, and courses conducted
67
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
Applicants seeking funds from the Source Reduction Assistance program must address the gen-
eral and program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
I Strategic Agriculture Initiative: The purpose of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Strategic
Agricultural Initiative (SAI) Grant Program is to help implement FQPA and support "transition"
efforts by growers to more environmentally-sound pest management practices. The program
supports grants for education, extension, demonstration, and implementation projects for
FQPA transition and reduced-risk practices for pest management in agriculture. Priority is
placed on project proposals that include a "whole systems" approach by integrating pest,
soil, and crop management practices; address an array of commodities; focus on sustainable
agriculture; incorporate conservation planning; and are submitted by applicants that have a
proven track record of grower participation and adoption of sustainable pest management
practices. Successful applicants will also have an outreach and extension component to their
program. "Sustainable" agriculture refers to farming practices that are environmentally sound,
economically viable, and socially responsible. FQPA/SAI funds are not intended to support
basic research; however, proposals may include a component for applied on-farm research, as
long as they also have demonstration, education, and/or outreach activities. Proposals that
maximize the use of resources for "on-the-ground" activities will be viewed more favorably
than those proposals with high administrative costs. Measures of success should be linked to
reduction of pesticide use/risks, implementation of alternative agricultural practices, and/or
similar impacts. For assistance with measuring results of projects, see the SAI Toolbox http://
www.aftresearch.org/sai (SAI Grant Applicants, Performance Measures). Projects funded
under the Strategic Agriculture Initiative will support progress toward EPA Strategic Plan Goal
4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems; Objective 4.1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide
Risk; Program/Project 92 - Field Programs.
Anticipated outcomes for Strategic Agriculture projects include but are not limited to:
I Increased number of growers using reduced-risk/IPM tools and techniques
I Quantitative and qualitative benefits to human health, the environment, and communities
I Partnerships between crop producers, EPA, other federal/state/local agencies, and other
interested stakeholders to implement reduced-risk/IPM programs and to leverage funds from
other sources to increase the scope of the FQPA/SAI program
Anticipated outputs for Strategic Agriculture projects include but are not limited to:
> Educational and outreach materials for growers
> Conservation plans for growers that include reduced-risk pest management
I Conferences, seminars, and on-site field training
> Partnerships established between federal and non-federal programs to provide reduced-risk/
IPM programs for crop producers
Applicants seeking funds from the Strategic Agriculture Initiative must address the general and
program specific criteria in Section V of this solicitation.
Types of Award Agreements
Awards will be in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, or inter-agency agreements, depend-
ing on the source of funds. Inter-agency agreements are made between two federal agencies for
projects that meet the needs and interests of both agencies. Grants have minimal EPA oversight.
Cooperative agreements permit substantial involvement between the EPA Project Officer and
the selected applicants in the performance of the work supported. EPA sees its role as providing
training, tools, technical assistance, and other support. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms
68
Resources
-------
(continued)
and conditions relating to substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated
substantial Federal involvement for projects selected may include:
I close monitoring of the recipient's performance;
> collaboration during the performance of the scope of work;
I in accordance with 40 CFR 31.36(g), review of proposed procurements;
I approving qualifications of key personnel (EPA does not have authority to select employees or
contractors employed by the recipient);
I review and comment on content of publications (printed or electronic) prepared under the
cooperative agreement (the final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient).
Dollar Range of Awards
The estimated dollar range of awards will be between approximately $10,000 and $200,000 de-
pending on the project type, but we anticipate that most projects awarded will be in the $25,000-
$75,000 range.
Eligibility Information
A. Eligible Applicants: The types of entities eligible to receive EPA funding vary according to the
requirements of each grant program and CFDA number. Table 1 on page 16 specifies eligible appli-
cants for each of the funding programs and CFDAs included in this solicitation. Note that for most
funding programs, private individuals and for-profit organizations are not eligible to apply directly
to EPA for funding; however, they may be able to participate in a project voluntarily or through a
contract mechanism as described below. The only exception is that individual farmers can apply
directly for funding under the Strategic Agriculture Initiative.
B. Eligible Uses of Funds: Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI), Environmental Priorities Program
(EPP), and TMDL Program funds may not be used for any activities that the Congress funds from
the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) account. This includes all categorical grant programs,
with two exceptions for RGI and EPP and only the second exception for TMDL: 1) These funds may
be used for Section 103 Clean Air Act grants, IF the purpose of the project is to conduct investiga-
tions, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training to support program implemen-
tation AND the recipient is either an air pollution control agency or a non-profit organization; 2)
These funds may be used for certain activities under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act.
(Any submissions that fall in this category will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.)
In general, EPA funds may be used to pay for personnel, fringe benefits, travel expenses, out-
reach materials, supplies, and equipment (though there are typically limitations on equipment).
Awardees cannot use federal funds to purchase land, vehicles, or other capital equipment and
cannot use federal funds to lobby or to complete work which was to have been done under a
prior grant. Funding may be used to contract for services, provided the recipient follows procure-
ment and sub-award or sub-grant procedures contained in 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as applicable.
Successful applicants must complete contracts for services and products and conduct cost and
price analyses to the extent required by these regulations. The regulations also contain limitations
on consultant compensation. Applicants are not required to identify contractors or consultants
in their proposal. Moreover, the fact that a successful applicant has named a specific contractor
or consultant in the proposal EPA approves does not relieve it of its obligations to comply with com-
petitive procurement requirements. Contracts must follow procurement guidelines.
C. Match Requirements: The Wetlands Program Development Grant (WPDG) program requires a
match of 25%. To calculate the appropriate dollar match for WPDG, divide the amount of funds
being requested by 3. For example, if you are requesting $100,000 from EPA, divide that by 3 and
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
the match requirement is $33,333. The final match requirement may be reduced for successful
Tribal applicants if, upon selection, the proposal is placed in a performance partnership grant (see
regulations at 40 CFR 536(c)).
The Source Reduction Assistance program requires a match of 5%. To calculate the appropriate
dollar match, divide the amount of EPA funds being requested by .95 for the total, then subtract
the requested amount to get the match. For example, $25,000 of EPA funds divided by .95 equals
$26,316. Subtract $25,000 from $26,316 and the match required will be $1,316.
For the other five programs listed in this solicitation, match is optional but leveraging funds from
other sources will be considered in the evaluation of proposals. See Table 1 for more information
on match requirements.
TABLE 1 Description of Funding Programs and Eligibility
Tribal Source Water 66.424
Optional
Regional Geographic - 66.436 or
Initiative (RGI) and 66.034
Environmental Priori-
ties Program (EPP)
Total Maximum Daily 66.436
Load (TMDL)
Optional
Wetlands Program 66.461
Development Grant
Source Reduction 66.717
Assistance (Pollution
Prevention)
Strategic Agriculture - 66.716
Initiative
Optional
25%
5%
Optional
(far-
t, Cooperative
Agreement, or
Inter-Agency Agree-
ment
Grant, Cooperative
Agreement, or
Inter-Agency Agree-
ment
Grant, Cooperative
Agreement,
Inter-Agency Agree-
ment, or contract
support
Cooperative
Agreement
Grant or Cooperative
Agreement
Grants
Tribes, institutions of
higher ed, commu-
nity-based environ-
mental and non-
profit organizations,
federal agencies.2
States, tribes, local
gov., federal agen-
cies, institutions of
higher ed, commu-
nity-based environ-
mental and non-profit
organizations.
States, tribes, local
, gov., non-profits,
federal agencies
States, tribes, local
gov.
States, tribes, local
gov., school dist and
, higher ed, non-prof-
its, community-based
, grassroots orgs.
States, tribes, local
• gov., institutions of
; higher ed, non-profits
including commodity
' groups/associations,
farmers groups and
individual farmers.
1 The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) can be viewed on the Web site http://www.cfda.gov.
2 EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan goals, objectives, and sub-objectives can be viewed on the Web site http://www.
epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htni
Resources
-------
•A
Resources for conducting RCRA assessment and cleanup activities come from business/property
owners. RCRA-related Brownfields projects may be funded as described below.
UST/LUST Funds
The 1986 amendment created the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to
provide federal funds for corrective actions and pay for cleanup at UST sites where the owner or
operator is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond, or that require emergency action. Revenues
for the trust fund are derived from a gasoline tax.
The 2002 Brownfields law authorized EPA to grant funds to states and communities so they can
inventory, assess, and clean up low-risk, petroleum-contaminated brownfields. In 2003, EPA pro-
vided almost $23 million to state and local governments to assist them in assessing, cleaning up,
and reusing petroleum brownfields. This program complements the USTfields initiative of 2000
and 2001 for the reuse of abandoned gas stations. A total of 50 USTfields Pilots were awarded up
to $100,000 each from the LUST Trust Fund to assess, clean up, and ready for reuse high-priority,
petroleum-impacted sites.
"•
Funds for assessment and cleanup of CERCLA sites may be provided by EPA CERCLA allocations
from Congress or PRPs. (The special taxes that Congress enacted to fund the dedicated Hazardous
Substance Superfund expired on December 31, 1995, and have not been renewed.) EPA's CERCLA
Site Assessment program funds work (its own, and states' under cooperative agreements) to assess
possible releases at sites. Once EPA has determined that there is a need
for CERCLA response action(s), it first considers its enforcement options.
Ideally, one or more PRPs agree to perform the work under EPA supervi- r
sion. (As noted above, federal facilities generally undertake cleanup work ,
under CERCLA at their own facilities, using separately authorized funds.) ;, I ;-
Where PRPs only contribute money, and EPA performs the work, funds '' 'f*,
from the PRPs are generally placed in a special account that is used only '-.•;, :
for work at that site. The NRDA aspect of CERCLA is funded by the Trust-
ees and PRPs. %;
EPA, states, and FLM agencies each manage certain CERCLA activities,
but only EPA is empowered to disburse CERCLA funds. CERCLA grants to >
fund site-specific activities are not available to other agencies to conduct •'•
activities except for funding available for communities to meet the Com-
munity Involvement requirements of CERCLA. (Grants under the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act are discussed separately.) This section describes assessment and
cleanup resources available through CERCLA.
Pre-Remedial Program
Pre-remedial program funds are used to perform tasks required for site assessment and listing on
the NPL. Funding for a specific project is on the basis of annual allocations and priorities of EPA
regions. Projects with high interest from the community or state or federal agencies are often
given priority for resources. The amount of funding allocated for a PA or SI at a site is based on the
complexity of the site, nature of contaminants, regional priorities, and regional funding available,
but is limited by the nature of the studies.
71
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Remedial Program
Remedial activities are funded through the Superfund as supplemented by congressional appro-
priations, as well as by PRPs. For remedial actions funded by Superfund and congressional appro-
priations, EPA regions prioritize their sites and then negotiate with EPA Headquarters and other
regions to determine what projects will be funded. For remedial actions funded by potentially
responsible parties, EPA encourages site cleanup teams to establish "special accounts" at each site,
allowing payments by potentially responsible parties to be used at the site. Additionally, the reme-
dial program may draw on the many CERCLA resources described below, including EPA Regional
Laboratories, the CLP, the Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT), and the Response Ac-
tion Contracts (RACs).
Removal/Emergency Response Program
There are three tiers to Removal/Emergency Response funding according to the urgency of the
problem.
I Emergency Response: On-scene coordinators (OSCs) have a $200,000 warrant to respond
to situations that pose an immediate risk to public health. An action memo must be pre-
pared after the action to document decisions. For expenditures beyond $200,000 in an
emergency situation or after the site moves from an emergency to time-critical removal sta-
tus, the OSC documents the continued threat in an Action Memo (including revised upward
budget) and obtains emergency response management and Assistant Regional Administra-
tor approval and enforcement concurrence.
I Time-Critical Removal: Time critical actions may be taken to protect public health. Gener-
ally as much as $2 million may be spent after consultation with EPA's Enforcement program.
Additional approval is required for spending above $2 million, or if the removal action will
exceed 12 months, and EPA Headquarters must approve of expenditures over $6 million. An
action memo must be prepared prior to project implementation.
I Non-Time Critical Removal: Applicable to sites that pose a health or environmental threat
for which more than six months are available for planning. An EE/CA must be performed to
compare removal options. Funding is limited by regional allocations for the Removal/Emer-
gency Response program.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Under CERCLA and OPA, Trustees assess injuries to public natural resources, determine dam-
ages, and require PRPs to provide for restoration of resources injured due to the release of oil and
hazardous substances. Natural Resource Damages are recovered from PRPs and may be used for
assessment and restoration activities.
Funds deposited into the DOI's NRDA and Restoration Fund may be used as nonfederal match-
ing funds for federal grants if the money is deposited pursuant to a joint and indivisible recovery
by the DOI and a nonfederal Trustee and the money is transferred to the nonfederal Trustee. The
money may not be used for nonfederal matching funds if it is transferred to the federal Trustee
agency, then distributed to a nonfederal agency.
Superfund Community Involvement Resources
TAGs are awarded by EPA to community groups to contract with independent technical advisors to
interpret and help the community understand technical information about the NPL site or pro-
posed site in their community. Groups eligible to receive grants under the TAG program are those
whose members may be affected by a release or threatened release of toxic wastes at any facility
listed or proposed for listing on the NPL, and where preliminary site work has begun. In general,
eligible groups are those groups of individuals who live near the site and whose health, economic
72
Resources
-------
well-being, or enjoyment of the environment are directly threatened. A group applying for a TAG
must be incorporated as a nonprofit (or working toward incorporation). PRPs, academic institu-
tions, local governments, or groups established or supported by the government are not eligible
for TAG awards. If more than one group applies for a TAG, they are encouraged to form a coalition
to apply for the grant (because only one TAG may be awarded). Up to $50,000 is available for the
community to participate in decision making at their site. A 20 percent match, which may include
donated or in-kind services, must be contributed by the community group, www.epa.gov/super-
fund/tools/tag/index.htm
The TOSC program provides free, independent, nonadvocate technical assistance about contami-
nated sites. Services and products may include: explanation and review of technical documents,
help to understand health risks and environmental issues, learning experiences to explain basic sci-
ence and environmental policy, information about existing technical assistance materials, training
for community leaders in facilitation and conflict resolution, and assistance to help communities
participate in the cleanup decision-making process, www.toscprogram.org
EPA Internal CERCLA Resources
The Environmental Response Team (ERT) is a group of EPA technical professionals who provide
EPA regional and headquarters offices; USCG district offices; federal, state, local agencies; and
foreign governments experienced technical and logistical assistance in responding to environmen-
tal emergencies such as oil or hazardous materials spills. The staff serve as inhouse consultants
on innovative and emerging technologies and are recognized experts in several fields of science.
In addition to its emergency response tasks, the ERT provides remedy recommendations/imple-
mentation, technology efficacy/cost effectiveness, and emerging technology evaluation through
bench, pilot, and full-scale studies promoting the One Cleanup Program. Members are involved in
land revitalization efforts and ecological risk assessment as well as revegetation of sites fostering
implementation, resulting in a more robust solution. The ERT is also active in policy development,
evaluation, and implementation in areas such as soil and ground water indoor air vapor intrusion,
ecological risk assessment, contaminated sediment remediation, and counterterrorism and home-
land security.
The ERT can provide a limited amount of technical assistance, but requires site funding for large
efforts. The ERT operates through EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innova-
tion (OSRTI), but is available for assistance on Brownfields, RCRA, water, or other EPA projects.
EPA's Office of Research and Development supports Technical Support Centers (TSCs) funded by
the OSRTI and the Technical Support Project. Site-specific assistance and technical support is avail-
able to EPA regions and to EPA program offices, www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/tscs.htm
Technical Support Centers are operated through National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory offices in Ada, Oklahoma, and Cincinnati, Ohio. The Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration
Division in Ada conducts research and technical assistance to provide the scientific basis to support
the development of strategies and technologies to protect and restore ground water, surface water,
and ecosystems impacted by man-made and natural processes. The Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division in Cincinnati, Ohio, conducts research, development, and demonstration projects
on management of hazardous wastes and contaminated media. www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL
Technical Support Centers are also provided through National Exposure Research Laboratory of-
fices in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Las Vegas, Nevada. The Microbial and Chemical Exposure Assessment
Research Division in Cincinnati performs research to measure, characterize, and predict the expo-
sure of humans to chemical and microbial hazards. The Environmental Sciences Division in Las Ve-
gas operates the TSC for Monitoring and Site Characterization and provides technical support and
assistance to regional staff including: analytical chemistry; statistical analysis/consultation; ground
water/soils modeling, monitoring, and fingerprinting; air modeling and monitoring; and review of
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
documents. This group works with the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and OSCs throughout
a site characterization event, i.e., from planning and design to analysis and data interpretation.
When on-site work is required, the Las Vegas TSC mobilizes specialized teams of field scientists
equipped with portable or deployable instruments to aid the regions with screening level assess-
ments and site characterization, www.epa.gov/nerl
The National Air & Radiation Environmental Lab performs analyses on samples for a number of
radionuclides and hazardous materials. Typical samples include air, water, soil, vegetation, human
tissue, and food. The laboratory routinely provides analytical and technical support for the charac-
terization and cleanup of Superfund and Federal Facility sites. It also operates the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). The system consists of sampling stations in each
state that regularly collect air particulate, surface water, drinking water, precipitation, and milk
samples for radioactivity analyses. The system can also track airborne radioactivity from any ac-
cidental release. If necessary, the ERAMS sampling frequency can be increased to meet the needs
of any radiological emergency response, www.epa.gov/narel
The Radiation and Indoor Environment National Lab specializes in developing, demonstrating,
and employing field technologies. Technical staff support the cleanup of contaminated sites using
state-of-the-art fixed and mobile laboratories, monitoring vehicles, and an extensive collection of
calibrated field instruments. They also conduct field studies in radiation-contaminated areas and
provide site-specific computer modeling and dose assessments. The laboratory also provides ana-
lytical services for testing and monitoring indoor environments for both radiological and chemical
contaminants, www.epa.gov/radiation/rienl
The Superfund Sediment Resource Center (SSRC) assists EPA staff on technical issues related to
the cleanup of contaminated sediment sites. The center focuses on providing timely and helpful
input on site-specific issues for topics related to sediment site characterization, such as data col-
lection and evaluation; sediment stability; modeling (e.g., hydrodynamic, contaminant fate and
transport, and food chain); ecological and human health risks; and the efficacy of remedies such
as capping, dredging, monitored natural recovery (MNR), and treatment technologies, www.epa.
gov/superfund/resources/sediment/ssrc.htm
The Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Web site provides information about
innovative treatment and site characterization technologies to the hazardous waste remediation
community. It describes programs, organizations, publications, and other tools drawn from various
federal and private organizations to be used by federal and state personnel, consulting engineers,
technology developers and vendors, remediation contractors, researchers, community groups, and
individual citizens. The site was developed by EPA but is intended as a forum for all waste reme-
diation stakeholders, http://clu-in.org
EPA CERCLA Contracting Resources
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
The CLP provides analytical services for CERCLA-related projects through a nationwide network of
laboratories under contract to EPA. The CLP provides a range of state-of-the-art chemical analytical
services of known and documented quality on a high-volume, cost-effective basis to support ongo-
ing Superfund enforcement, emergency response and remedial actions, site investigations, and
state-lead assessments. The CLP provides flexible analytical services to support Superfund field
activities from a preliminary site inspection to more complex large-scale remedial, monitoring, and
enforcement actions. Routine Analytical Services (RAS) are used for standardized services. Special-
ized analyses may be performed by the Special Analytical Services program (SAS). Samples that
require lower than standard detection limits or for different media and analytes than typical may
require analysis by an independent laboratory using a standard bidding procedure. Funding for the
CLP is generally not allocated to individual projects.
74
Resources
-------
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT)
The ESAT contract was developed to expand EPA's existing capabilities for providing hazardous
waste sample analysis and related support to Superfund sites. Although primarily a Superfund
vehicle, ESAT also supports EPA's RCRA program and other non-Superfund analytical efforts. ESAT
contractors provide multidisciplinary technical teams to each region within their respective areas.
The teams perform chemical and biological analysis; field analytical screen project activities, spe-
cialized analytical services support and data validation/data review support; review of site-specific
quality assurance, site investigation, and sampling plans; support for the development of new ana-
lytical methods; and logistical and administrative functions. The ESAT contractor may also provide
CIS/mapping support.
Regional Laboratories
The regional laboratories provide a full range of routine and specialized chemical and biologi-
cal testing of air, water, soil, sediment, tissue, and hazardous waste for ambient and compliance
monitoring as well as criminal and civil enforcement activities. The analytical capacity of the labo-
ratories is enhanced by the presence of the ESAT, a dedicated Superfund contractor. In addition to
fixed laboratory analytical support, the regional laboratories provide significant field sampling and
training and field analytical support.
EPIC—Remote Sensing and Mapping Support Contract
EPA's ORD has established a nationwide contract program to provide remote sensing and aerial im-
agery acquisition and interpretation support to the Program Offices and each of the ten Regional
Offices of EPA. The Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) provides support for
site-specific to regional environmental characterization and change analyses, emergency response
to hazardous developments, waste site inventories for large geographical areas, and topographic
mapping of sites.
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START)
The START contracts provide technical support for EPA's site assessment, response, prevention, and
preparedness activities. This support includes gathering and analyzing technical information, pre-
paring technical reports on oil and hazardous substance investigations, and technical support for
cleanup efforts. The scope of the contract involves all types of scientific, engineering, and technical
support such as sampling and field analysis, mapping and CIS support, EE/CA preparation, PA/SI/
HRS support, and Homeland Security preparedness and readiness activities.
Response Action Contracts (RACs)
The RACs provide professional architect/engineering services to EPA to support response planning
and oversight of activities under CERCLA. Services provided by RACs include: program manage-
ment, RI/FS preparation, remedial action design, EE/CA preparation, issuing and managing
subcontracts for construction of selected remedies, and engineering services for construction over-
sight. RACs services also include enforcement support, community relations, sampling and analyti-
cal support, and predesign investigations. RACs contractors may also provide oversight of remedial
activities performed by a state, the USAGE, or PRPs identified in enforcement actions.
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS)
The ERRS contracts provide emergency, time-critical removal and quick remedial response cleanup
services for the CERCLA, OPA and UST programs. ERRS contractors may also provide cleanup
support for natural disasters, such as floods, pursuant to the National Response Plan, and conduct
international/transboundary responses. Regionally based contracts are awarded to provide clean-
75
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
up personnel, equipment, and materials to contain, recover, or dispose of hazardous substances,
analyze samples and provide site restoration.
Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC)
The REAC provides scientific support to EPA's ERT. The primary task is to respond to releases of
hazardous materials at spills and abandoned waste sites. Response activities include field investi-
gations and report writing for the following types of studies: multimedia extent of contamination,
bioassessment, treatability, contaminant transport, engineering/feasibility, and risk assessment.
These studies are conducted to support EPA OSCs and RPMs for removal and remedial actions,
respectively. The REAC contractor also performs evaluation or engineering design studies of in-
novative commercially available technologies to confirm and document their performance. The
contractor performs air monitoring studies at hazardous waste sites and incidents of deliberate
release of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups. To support field and engineering stud-
ies, the REAC contractor provides on-site and mobile analytical services, conducts rapid analyses
of complex waste mixtures and environmental samples, and develops analytical methodologies for
on-site and field laboratory equipment.
§'
EPA provides funding to eligible entities6 in the form of assessment grants, revolving loan fund
grants for cleanups, direct cleanup grants, and job training grants. Additional funds are provided
to states and tribes for the establishment or enhancement of state and tribal response programs,
as well as to perform Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs). EPA also has the authority to
conduct TBAs. Brownfields funding priorities vary from year to year, so current priorities should
be investigated by community, industry, local, state, and federal stakeholders, http://www.epa.
gov/brownfields/applicat.htm
Brownfields Grants
Brownfields grants or loans can be used to pay response costs at a brownfield site for which the
recipient of the grant or loan is potentially liable under CERCLA §107. This means that applicants
are not eligible for grants or loans at sites for which they are liable parties under CERCLA. Note,
however, that CERCLA § 107 does not apply to petroleum sites. In addition, CERCLA provides
I ! ! ; < certain liability protections for owners and prospective purchasers of contami-
!t, • ^.*> I nated properties who are not responsible for the contamination (and not af-
' \ I , filiated with a responsible party) and comply with certain specific conditions
'' provided in the statute.
* y. y>
*>'*' ^ Trf * , Jj,
&', , ll 1 || , ; The Brownfields Law clarified the innocent landowner provision and estab-
Its / .I ^1 J ^
Tr ' lished liability protections for contiguous property owners and bona fide
prospective purchasers of contaminated land. Applicants that own or plan to
purchase a contaminated site may qualify for one of these landowner liability protections and be
eligible for funding. To qualify for the liability protections, landowners must comply with certain
obligations to take "appropriate care" after purchasing a property, and prospective landowners
must conduct "all appropriate inquiries" prior to purchasing a property. For more information on
these liability protections, please refer to the Brownfields Law and the March 6, 2003, EPA guid-
ance entitled "Interim Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order to Qualify for
Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent Landowner Limitations
on CERCLA ('Common Elements')." http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/
cleanup/superfund/ common-elem-guide.pdf
76
Resources
e.g. state and local governments
-------
To summarize the available Brownfields grant types, criteria, and funding priorities, the 2005
Region 8 Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview is provided in Table 3-2 on page
99. Please consult the latest proposal guidelines for current information regarding Brownfields
Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grants, www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.
htm
Brownfields Assessment Grants (CFDA 66.818) are provided on a site-specific or community-
wide basis to conduct inventories, characterization, assessment, and cleanup planning. Up to
$200,000 may be granted for a site with hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants and up
to $200,000 for sites with petroleum-only contamination. A waiver may be granted to allow up to
$350,000 per site. No matching funds are required.
Priorities for Brownfields assessment grants, revolving loan grants, and direct cleanup grants
include:
I Projects that stimulate the availability of other assessment and cleanup funding7-8
I Projects that stimulate economic development and address or reduce threats to human
health and the environment
I Projects that facilitate the reuse of existing infrastructure or create/preserve a park, green-
way, undeveloped property, recreational property, or other property for nonprofit purposes
> Projects in small or low-income communities without other resources
> Projects that allow for the fair distribution of funds between urban and non-urban areas
and provides for community involvement
> Projects that identify and reduce threats to the health and welfare of children, pregnant
women, minority or low-income communities, or other sensitive populations
Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants (CERCLA Section 101(39), Section 104(k)(6), CFDA
66.818) are available to states, local governments, land clearance authorities or similar quasi-
governmental agencies under control of local government, government entities created by state
legislatures, regional councils, redevelopment agencies chartered by states and tribes. The funds
may be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund or to award subgrants to eligible entities or loans
to private entities. Up to $1,000,000 may be available per eligible entity. A 20 percent match is
required unless a hardship waiver is granted.
Brownfields Cleanup Grants (CERCLA Section 101(39), Section 104(k)(6), CFDA 66.818) are
available to states, local governments, land clearance authorities, or similar quasi-governmental
agencies under control of local government, government entities created by state legislatures,
regional councils, and redevelopment agencies chartered by states, tribes, and nonprofit organi-
zations. Cleanup grants are used to perform cleanup activities on brownfields sites owned by the
grant recipient at the time of award. Up to $200,000 is available per site for a maximum of five
sites. A 20 percent match is required unless a hardship waiver is granted.
Brownfields Job Training and Workforce Development Grants Section 101(39), Section
104(k)(6), CFDA 66.815) are available to colleges, universities, and nonprofit training centers
to bring together affected parties to provide training for residents in communities impacted by
brownfields. Projects that facilitate cleanup of brownfields sites contaminated with hazardous
materials and prepare trainees for environmental employment are preferred. Up to $200,000 is
available with no matching share required.
The Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities program helps communities clean and re-
develop properties that have been damaged or undervalued by environmental contamination. The
The list of entities eligible for Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants can be found at CERCLA
section 104(k)(l). Nonprofit organizations are also eligible for cleanup grants.
The list of entities eligible for Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants can be found at CERCLA
section 104(k)(l). Nonprofit organizations are also eligible for cleanup grants.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
purpose is to create better jobs, increase the local tax base, improve neighborhood environments,
and enhance the overall quality of life. The program provides training regarding leadership, risk
assessment, brownfields processes, site assessment, and cleanup alternatives. Technical assistance
is provided to stakeholders through Hazardous Substance Research Centers, the Interstate Tech-
nology Regulatory Council, and the Technology Innovation Program.
Targeted Brownfields Assessments and State and Tribal Response Program Grants
Federal Brownfields funds are also available for TBAs and state and tribal Response Program
Grants. States may allocate the funds for site-specific assessments, cleanups of Brownfields, for a
revolving fund, or for insurance, www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/tba.htm
EPA's TEA Funds (CERCLA Section 101(39), Section 104(k)(6), CFDA 66.818) are available
through EPA Regional Brownfields offices for federally led environmental assessments. TEA funds
-maybe used for Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments and establishment of cleanup
options and cost estimates from future uses and redevelopment plans. Priority is given to proper-
ties that are abandoned or publicly owned, have low to moderate contamination, include issues
of environmental justice, suffer from the stigma of liability, have high potential for cleanup and
redevelopment, have strong municipal commitment of resources and community support, and for
projects that align with other EPA/federal agency initiatives.
State/Tribal Response Program Grants (CERCLA Section 128(a)) are available to states and
federally recognized tribes to establish or enhance the state/tribal response program cleanup
capacity. TEA funds are available for assessments conducted by states or tribes under cooperative
agreement with EPA. States and tribes may also use these grants to capitalize revolving loan funds.
Matching funds are required only if the money is to be used for a Revolving Loan Fund, CFDA
66.817. A variety of information to assist tribal governments regarding environmentally related
financial assistance programs within EPA is available through the following EPA Web page: www.
epa.gov/indian/tgrant.htm.
EPA Superfund Redevelopment Initiative provides eligible local governments as much as
$100,000 in funds or services to support assessment and public outreach to help determine the
future use of a site. This program also encourages partnerships with states, local government agen-
cies, citizen groups, and other federal agencies to restore previously contaminated properties to
beneficial use. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.htm
Brownfields Federal Partnerships
The Brownfields Federal Partnership was formed by EPA and other agencies working together to
help communities more effectively prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brown-
fields. In addition to EPA's commitment to funding the above programs, the following commit-
ments have been made by participants in the Brownfields Federal Partnership:
> Commitments by the U.S. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), DOI, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor to offer funding priority to brownfields communities through their respective
grant mechanisms.
I NOAA's commitment to lead an interagency "Portfields" project that focuses on the redevel-
opment and reuse of brownfields in and around ports, harbors, and marine transportation
hubs. There are currently three Portfields Pilots that are well under way—Bellingham, WA;
New Bedford, CT; Tampa, FL—and a report and video will be available November 2005.
Resources
-------
USAGE'S announcement of eight new pilots under its "Urban Rivers Initiative" to address
restoration in and around urban rivers, www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/partners/
federal_partnerships.htm
ii EPA Assessment and
Targeted Watershed Grants (CWA Section 104(b)(3), CFDA 66.439)
Targeted Watershed Grants are available for groups ready to implement actions to protect
critical watersheds valued for drinking water, fisheries, recreation and other important uses.
Grants are awarded to watershed organizations and coalitions that are
in the best position to make on-the-ground improvements to water ,,„«*'
quality. Grants range from $600,000 to $900,000, with a 25 percent ' *.. j., . ;
nonfederal match required, and are subject to an appropriation. ' ,v.,. *- *
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative !>*i»«'
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants
(Clean Air Act, Section 103(b)(3) as amended; Clean Water Act, Section 104(b)(3), as amended;
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001, as amended; Toxics Substances Control Act, Section 10, as
amended; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Sections 18 and 20, as amended;
Safe Drinking Water Act, Sections 1442(a), and (c)(A), as amended; and Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 203, as amended, CFDA 66.035)
CARE grants provide funding and technical support to communities working to reduce risks
from toxics in their communities. In 2005, the Brownfields Program made $600,000 for Targeted
Brownfields Assessments available for CARE communities. Under Level I, communities may receive
up to $75,000 to establish collaborative partnerships for reducing toxic releases in their environ-
ment. Level II offers up to $300,000 to communities that have a broad-based collaborative part-
nership in place and are ready to implement risk reduction strategies. For additional information
on this collaboration between the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and OSWER, please contact
Stacy Swartwood at (202) 566-1391 or email her at swartwood.stacy@epa.gov or visit http://cf-
pub.epa.gov/care.
Five Star Restoration Program
The Five Star Restoration program of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds brings
together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landown-
ers, and government agencies to provide environmental education and training through projects
that restore wetlands and streams. The program provides challenge grants, technical support, and
opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects. EPA fund-
ing levels are modest, from $5,000 to $20,000, with $10,000 as the average amount awarded per
project. When combined with the contributions of partners, projects that make a meaningful con-
tribution to communities become possible, www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star
Environmental Finance Program
The Environmental Finance Program was developed by EPA to assist communities in their search
for creative approaches to funding environmental projects. Resources of the Environmental Fi-
nance Program include:
The Environmental Financial Advisory Board focuses on environmental finance issues at all
levels of government, particularly with regard to impact on local governments and small commu-
nities. The Board seeks to increase the total investment in environmental protection by facilitating
greater leverage of public and private environmental resources, www.epa.gov/efinpage/efab.
htm
79
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
The Environmental Finance Center (EFC) Network is a university-based program that provides
financial outreach services to regulated communities. Nonregulated community groups such as
watershed groups may qualify for assistance in certain circumstances. EFCs educate state and local
officials and small businesses on lowering costs of compliance and pollution prevention, increasing
investments in environmental protection, improving financial capacity to own/operate environ-
mental systems, encouraging the full cost pricing of environmental services, and identifying and
evaluating financing tools and options, www.epa.gov/efinpage/efcreg.htm
The Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection Web site is a searchable
database of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of
watershed protection projects. The Web site provides searches on the type of assistance, eligible or-
ganizations, required matching funds, and keywords for the type of problem/project. The database
does not contain significant information about small, site-specific federal sources or most nonfed-
eral sources, http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund
The Guidebook of Financial Tools is a basic financial reference document for public and private
officials with environmental responsibilities and describes financing tools that federal, state, and
local governments and the private sector can use to pay for environmental programs, systems, and
activities.
Environmental Justice
In many communities, there are individuals and groups of persons who are disproportionately af-
fected by an environmental burden, but who do not know that they have a right to express them-
selves or are reluctant to make their concerns known for a variety of historical or cultural reasons.
The environmental justice (EJ) program in EPA was created to address such circumstances. The
program was formally created in 1994 with the signing of Executive Order 12898, titled "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-Income
Populations." The order directs federal agencies to develop environmental justice
strategies to aid federal agencies to identify and address adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs and policies on the nation's popu-
lations.
The EJ program operates to assure that no group of persons bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental impacts resulting from the
execution of environmental programs. EPA considers environmental
justice while setting standards, permitting facilities, making grants,
issuing licenses or regulations, and reviewing proposed actions of
other federal agencies under the authority of EPA's various pro-
grams (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA, CAA, National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), etc). To facilitate and assist in this process, EPA supports a staff of environmental pro-
fessionals who work with staff from all the programs and also engage directly with communities.
Calling on this staff simplifies the process of identifying strongly held, but unvoiced, concerns that,
if unaddressed, can have a significant impact on the effective clean up of target watersheds. EJ
staff can assist in identifying community concerns early and begin to build trust among what may
be disinterested or disaffected members of the community.
The EJ program offers grants annually to communities for addressing environmental problems
from an EJ perspective. In addition, the program works with EPA's operating programs to identify
technical, human, and financial resources that might be made available to communities interested
in addressing environmental injustices.
www.epa.gov/Compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html
80
Resources
-------
I* ; ^
J*'«..: 1...
Region 10 Serves as a Model for Making Funding Accessible for
Coordinated Watershed Programs
The region participates in the national Sustainable Finance Workgroup and has a cooperative
agreement with the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at Boise State University. This agree-
ment includes Web-based and on-the-ground technical assistance on the following projects:
I Online newsletter that describes current funding issues and related topics, which can be
found at: http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/News/NewsWinter2004.html.
I Online funding workshop to be used for the state of Alaska; advanced workshop in An-
chorage, Alaska.
I Directory of Watershed Resources, a searchable database of funding sources in Region
10 states. States from Regions 3 and 4 are also starting to build the directory. This data-
base includes information from federal, state, and private funding sources.
> Plan2 Fund, a tool to create a strategic financial plan to fund watershed plans from start
to finish.
I Prioritization Tool—Piloted with the Chehalis Basin Partnership, the EFC moved the group
closer to implementation by offering a process and Web-based tool to identify decision
rule to prioritize plan objectives.
I Agricultural BMP Cost Analysis—Developed with the partnership of various state and
federal agricultural agencies, this tool will add a financial cost component to the Idaho
One Plan to help landowners identify the cost of conservation practices and how to fund
implementation of these practices.
I:' Department of and
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
The BOR stores and supplies water for irrigation and for use in homes and industry. The BOR
generates hydroelectric power, provides flood control, and helps meet fish and wildlife needs and
compliance with water quality standards. The BOR can assist in watershed cleanups by providing
historical and projected stream flow data and by using best management practices during releases
to minimize streambank erosion and habitat disruption.
The Water Resources Research Laboratory performs research to improve BOR efforts, including
fish protection/screening, fish passage, reservoir release water quality, river restoration, and wet-
lands. River restoration is an important component of enhancing environmental compatibility of
the many BOR structures and activities affecting streams and rivers. Mining, flood protection, land
use channelization, and many other factors have altered, to some degree, most of America's rivers.
In some cases, these activities have greatly degraded the natural riverine environment. The labora-
tory is working with other federal, state, and local organizations to revitalize rivers that have been
severely impacted. www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab
The Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group provides many levels of analysis ranging from
simple technical advice or a field trip, through a multiyear study integrating with other disciplines
and project needs. This group provides hydrologic modeling, including dam removal or modifica-
tion, sediment studies, integrated geomorphic and sediment studies, river restoration analysis and
design, river and reservoir surveys, multiple scope analysis, channel maintenance and stability,
hazard classification, flood inundation mapping, flood warning and evacuation time, hydraulic
modeling (ID, 2D, 3D), sediment transport modeling, and riparian vegetation modeling. The
81
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
group also performs sediment transport analysis, development of computer models, manuals and
guidelines, geomorphic studies and river restoration plans, reservoir sediment management plans,
and flood inundation mapping and emergency planning, www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS provides scientific information and performs scientific studies in many fields, includ-
ing geologic mapping, contaminant biology, pollution, water quality wetlands, and environmental
studies. Departments that may be useful for watershed cleanup include Contaminant Biology; Co-
operative Water Program; Geographic Analysis and Monitoring; Fisheries and Aquatic Resources;
Hydrologic Networks and Analysis; Hydrologic Research and Development; Mineral Resources;
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping; National Streamflow Information; National Water Quality
Assessment; State Water Resources Research Institute; Toxic Substances Hydrology; Terrestrial,
Freshwater, and Marine Ecosystems; and Wildlife and Terrestrial Resources. USGS science provides
comprehensive, high-quality, and timely scientific information about the quantity, quality, and
availability of natural resources to decision makers and the public. Because it has no regulatory
or management mandate, the USGS provides impartial scientific expertise. USGS scientific efforts
include long-term data collection, monitoring, analysis, and predictive modeling. USGS scientists
cover a range of disciplines, including hydrology, geology, geophysics, biology, geography, and
statistics. Projects within a specific watershed may be funded by grants, interagency agreements,
congressional appropriation, or occasionally from internal program funding. Water-quality studies
may be initiated with the USGS by contacting a state representative to discuss the USGS coopera-
tive funding program.
Through the National Water Information System (NWIS), USGS provides water data, including
real time water data, surface water flow measurements, ground water measurements, and water
quality measurements, from over 1.5 million sites throughout the nation. Since 1991, USGS scien-
tists with the NAWQA program have been collecting and analyzing data and information in more
than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the nation to develop long-term consistent and com-
parable information on streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound manage-
ment and policy decisions. USGS is available to support development of TMDLs. www.usgs.gov,
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/FS-130-01, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis, http://
water.usgs.gov/nawqa
In support of the National Forest Plan revisions, which occur every five years, the USGS and USDA/
FS coordinate on an assessment of geological resources on NFS lands.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS is tasked to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of people. USFWS is the designated Natural Resource Trustee for certain anad-
romous fish, certain endangered species, certain marine mammals, and migratory birds. Funding
to support efforts related to protection of trust resources affected by contamination is available
under the Contaminants Program. USFWS has a wide range of technical expertise and has many
agreements in place to support ecological assessment and cleanup efforts. One example is pre-ap-
proved permits for support fish shocking or other wildlife collection and evaluation efforts.
Through a national agreement between USFWS and EPA, USFWS supports CERCLA and OPA re-
sponse, removal, and remedial programs by reviewing documents and plans and providing techni-
cal assistance to the regional Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) or other designated
ecological risk assessment program personnel. Coordination of USFWS and EPA risk assessment
efforts can allow issues to be resolved in advance and reduce the time and effort required for site
remediation and restoration. NRDA are conducted under CERCLA authority but are not funded
by the interagency agreement. USFWS provides scientific expertise and authority for preparation
82
Resources
-------
of NRDAs plus conduct species and habitat-related research. USFWS may initiate NRDA efforts on
behalf of trust resources. USFWS may access funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for
work related to oil spills.
In addition to CERCLA and OPA responsibilities, USFWS has the authority
to act under the Endangered Species Act, the Eagle Protection Act, and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Worth American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants program pro-
vides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have devel-
oped partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. The Standard Grants Program provides
funds to Canadian and U.S. partners for projects that focus on protecting,
restoring, or enhancing critical habitat. Projects must support long-term
wetlands acquisition, restoration, or enhancement and partners must
minimally match the grant request at a one-to-one ratio. Mexican partners
may also develop training and management programs and conduct studies
on sustainable use. The Small Grants Program supports the same kinds
of activities as Standard Grants but usually involve fewer project dollars. Except that grant requests
may not exceed $50,000, and that funding priority is given to projects that have a grantee or part-
ners that have not participated in an Act-supported project before, criteria for funding a project are
the same as for Standard Grants, www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawca/grants.htm
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is a USFWS program that provides technical and financial assis-
tance for habitat restoration projects on lands not owned by a state or federal government. State,
federal, tribal, and private conservation organizations use Partners for Fish and Wildlife to provide
watershed management, conservation easements, and river restoration in cooperation with volun-
tary landowners. Priority is given to projects that most benefit USFWS trust resources. The USFWS
develops a cost-sharing agreement with the partner; typically a 50 percent cost share is required
and funding from the program is provided after completion of the project. Technical assistance
is available. Typically the NRCS, the state fish and game agency, or other conservation agencies
participate in project planning, www.fws.gov/partners
Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
The OSM regulates coal mining facilities. The Surface Mining Law provides for the restoration of
lands mined and abandoned or left inadequately restored before August 3, 1977. The Abandoned
Mine Reclamation Fund is used to pay the reclamation costs of AML projects.
AML Grants are provided to states with an approved program, or specific Indian tribes, and are
funded from fees paid by active coal mine operators on each ton of coal mined. Funds are used to
operate a state AML program, perform construction to reclaim abandoned mine sites, and estab-
lish trust funds that may be spent by the state for specific targeted purposes. AML grants are 100
percent federally funded, www.osm.gov/grantsprograms.htm
The Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program awards cooperative agreements to nonprofit
organizations, especially small watershed groups, that undertake local acid mine drainage (AMD)
reclamation projects. These funds are available as part of the Appalachian Clean Streams Initia-
tive. The maximum award amount for each cooperative agreement will normally be $100,000
to assist as many groups as possible to undertake actual construction projects to clean streams
impacted by AMD.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM is responsible for the management of federal lands under the auspices of the Department
of Interior. The BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, site evaluations,
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
and prioritization of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves working with
EPA, state environmental quality departments, counties, and PRPs (both public and private) to
fund and expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites, www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htjn
National Park Service
The National Park Service aims to protect and restore natural resources.
The Fisheries Program provides guidance and support in the implemen-
tation of the recreational fisheries program, "A Heritage of Fishing;"
develops policy and guidance for the protection of aquatic biological
resources; coordinates policy review of the fisheries and aquatic resourc-
es-related aspects of environmental compliance documents; provides
program guidance and technical support for fish population/habitat
restoration; provides guidance and technical assistance in the develop-
ment of fishery management plans; and coordinates with other agencies
on fisheries and aquatic resources-related regulatory matters.
The National Park Service monitors water quality vital signs in parks. Concerns include the use of
personal watercraft and snowmobiles in parks, source and NPS contaminants, land rezoning, and
identifying impairment thresholds.
Through the Natural Resource Challenge, the Water Resources Division conducts Watershed Condi-
tion Assessments system-wide. Watershed Condition Assessment involves applying a set of descrip-
tive or quantitative technical methods to describe the ecosystem health of a watershed. Typically,
these methods develop and integrate assessments of discrete ecosystem components at a variety
of landscape scales. Researchers and managers have developed numerous assessment methods for
use in various ecosystems and for a wide range of purposes.
The Wetlands Program provides policy and guidance pertaining to park wetlands protection and
restoration, identifies and assesses existing and potential threats to park wetland and riparian
resources, provides technical assistance to parks for wetland and riparian zone restoration and
protection, provides wetland regulatory compliance and review, and coordinates with other agen-
cies on wetland-related regulatory matters.
84
3i of Agriculture and
Resources
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA/FS)
The USDA/FS performs watershed assessment and cleanup efforts related to USDA/FS managed
lands. Assessment and cleanup may be conducted under CERCLA authority/responsibility or as
part of enhancing and maintaining healthy watersheds and habitat.
The Watershed Program is focused on maintaining healthy watersheds. Data is collected to deter-
mine if a watershed within USDA/FS property is impacted, and project implementation is conduct-
ed where necessary to ensure watershed health. The Watershed Program is allocated a set budget,
and this funding is split among the individual national forests. Funding priorities for watershed
program activities are determined by the individual forest managers.
The USDA/FS has established an AML program to support the Watershed Program to clean up and
reclaim abandoned mine sites on National Forest lands. The Forest Service has CERCLA author-
ity for investigations and remediation on nonemergency hazardous waste sites on lands that they
manage. The Forest Service AML program conducts CERCLA assessment, removal, and remedial
actions following the NCR CERCLA funding is allocated to USDA/FS each year. Funding for specific
Resources
-------
projects is designated on a case by case basis—sites compete for funding of each phase of CERCLA
action. In addition to the USDA/FS CERCLA allocation, USDA has an allocated budget each year
for hazardous waste removal. All USDA agencies compete for that allocation to fund AML and
other hazardous waste cleanups. Projects with wide scale interest, such as watershed cleanups
with a high level of community involvement, are given priority for funding. Community benefits,
family benefits, and ecological benefits are all factors considered in funding decisions.
The USDA/FS Fisheries and Wildlife Programs perform fisheries improvement and wildlife habitat
improvement within national forests, www.fs.usda.gov
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Under the 1996 Farm Bill, the NRCS provides assistance for landowners seeking to preserve soil
and other natural resources. The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program (ECARP)
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to designate watersheds, multistate areas, or regions of
special environmental sensitivity as conservation priority areas that are eligible for enhanced fed-
eral assistance. Assistance in priority areas is to be used to help agricultural producers comply with
NPS pollution requirements of environmental laws, www.nrcs.usda.gov
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary program that provides as-
sistance to farmers and ranchers who face threats to soil, water, air, and related natural resources
on their land. Through EQIP, the NRCS provides assistance to agricultural producers to promote
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals, optimize environmen-
tal benefits, and help farmers and ranchers meet federal, state, tribal, and local environmental
requirements. EQIP is reauthorized in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm
Bill). Funding for EQIP comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Optimizing environ-
mental benefits is achieved through a process that begins with the definition of national priorities.
The national priorities are:
I Reduction of NPS pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or excess salinity in
impaired watersheds, consistent with TMDLs where available, as well as reduction of
ground water contamination and conservation of ground and surface water resources
I Reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and ozone pre-
cursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards
> Reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land
> Promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program provides funding to conservation dis-
tricts, local governments, and state/territorial/tribal agencies for projects in watersheds containing
less than 250,000 acres. Up to $10 million is available per project; cost sharing is required.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/watershed
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that supports
ongoing stewardship of private agricultural lands by providing payments for maintaining and en-
hancing natural resources. CSP identifies and rewards those farmers and ranchers who are meet-
ing the highest standards of conservation and environmental management on their operations.
CSP provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of
soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal and private
working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and
range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp
85
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
The FSA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program for agricultural landown-
ers who can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term,
resource conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC makes annual rental payments on the
basis of the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50
percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants en-
roll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The program is administered by the CCC through the FSA,
and program support is provided by NRCS, Cooperative State Research and Education Extension
Service, state forestry agencies, and local soil and water conservation districts.
www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep.htm
Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service is USDA's main in-house scientific research agency. They find
solutions to agricultural problems, including sustaining soils and other natural resources, and pro-
vide research support to other federal agencies.
'» of and
Resources
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (IMOAA)
NOAA conducts research and gathers data about the global oceans, atmosphere, space and sun, and
applies this knowledge to science and service. NOAA Fisheries is the federal agency responsible for
the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitat, (www.noaa.gov),
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/funding_opportunities/funding.html
The Community Based Restoration Program provides funding to regional governmental bodies
and public or private organizations including business, community/watershed groups, nonprofit
groups, educational institutions, conservation districts, local governments, and state/territorial/
tribal agencies to restore fishery habitat around the coastal United States. The required 1:1 cost
match may be cash, salary, equipment, supplies, in-kind services, or labor.
The NOAA Fisheries/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Habitat
Restoration Partnership funds restoration and educational efforts. Currently,
the funding is distributed nationally and regionally through a series of NFWF
funding initiatives including: Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grant Program,
Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program, Living Shorelines Initiative,
Pinellas County Environmental Foundation (directed appropriation), Dela-
ware Estuary Program, North Gulf Coast Initiative, and the Pacific Grassroots
Salmon Initiative.
Five Star Restoration Grants are available from NOAA for locally-driven, on-
the-ground habitat restoration projects that address important habitat issues
within communities. The program emphasizes a grass-roots, bottom-up ap-
proach to restoring fishery habitat across coastal America. In most instances,
NOAA technical staff work closely with concerned communities to strengthen the development and
implementation of sound projects. Communities participating in habitat restoration ultimately moni-
tor and maintain these restoration efforts, heightening environmental awareness.
86
Resources
-------
• Other Federal Funding Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
The USAGE carries out environmental and natural resource management programs at its projects,
managing thousands of square miles as forest and wildlife habitat, monitoring water quality at its
dams, operating fish hatcheries in cooperation with state wildlife agencies, and, in some cases,
restoring the environment at projects built in earlier days. The USAGE has significant expertise and
experience with water resource related projects such as: planning, designing, building, operating,
and maintaining projects that provide river and harbor navigation, flood control, water quality and
supply, hydroelectric power, environmental restoration, wildlife protection, and recreation.
The USAGE has regulatory authority under the Rivers and Harbors Acts for regulating construc-
tion, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under navigable waters, or any work that
would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters. USAGE also has regula-
tory authority for permitting construction activities that occur in the nation's waters, including
wetlands according to CWA Section 404(d) (See Section 5 for more details).
The Water Resources Program provides several resources for watershed assessment and cleanup.
The Institute for Water Resources examines water resources problems and offers practical solu-
tions through a wide variety of technology transfer mechanisms. In addition to hosting and leading
USAGE participation in national forums, technology transfer mechanisms include the production of
white papers, reports, training sessions, and manuals; the development of new planning and deci-
sion-support methodologies, improved hydrologic engineering methods, and software tools; and
the management of national waterborne commerce statistics and other information systems. Water
resources projects include ecosystem restoration to reestablish the attributes of a natural, function-
ing and self-regulating system. Over the last ten years, small ecosystem restoration projects have
grown increasingly popular throughout the country. In one of the largest restoration projects ever
attempted, the USAGE and the National Park Service are cooperating on restoring the hydrologic
regime for the Everglades in Florida with funds provided by both agencies. Collaboration has al-
lowed the USAGE to expand traditional environmental activities and enhance or restore natural
resources at their projects.
The USAGE Restoration of Abandoned Mine Sites (RAMS) Program, under authority of Section
560 of the Water Resources Development Act, provides technical, planning, and design assistance
to federal and nonfederal interests in carrying out projects to address water quality problems
caused by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive non-coal mines. Applied
engineering and scientific support may be provided to allow the efficient and cost-effective per-
formance of projects intended to manage drainage; restore and protect streams, rivers, wetlands,
other waterbodies, and riparian areas; and demonstrate management practices and innovative and
alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate adverse environmental ef-
fects. Support also includes the development and population of a database of remedia-
tion technologies. RAMS projects have included development of a stakeholder design
and planning manual, watershed-based cleanup, including prioritization, design,
and implementation; evaluation of technologies and successes/failures and lessons
learned; and partnering with other federal agencies to combine resources to collec-
tively address pollution created by acid mine drainage.
The USAGE Floodplain Management Services Program, under the authority of
Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 as amended, provides a full range of information,
technical services, and planning guidance needed to support and promote effective floodplain
management. The USAGE provides technical services and planning assistance such as flood and
floodplain data development and interpretation on all aspects of floodplain management planning.
This program can also develop or supply guides and pamphlets associated with floodplain man-
87
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
agement. All program services to state, regional, or local governments or other nonfederal public
agencies are free of charge, within program funding limits. Program services can also be provided
with 100 percent of the funds coming from the requesting entity. Federal agencies and private enti-
ties are required to provide funds to cover 100 percent of the cost of services provided.
The USAGE Planning Assistance to States Program, under the authority of Section 22 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974 as amended, can provide technical planning assistance
in all areas related to water resources development in which the USAGE has expertise. These
areas include, but are not necessarily limited to: flood damage reduction; bank stabilization;
sedimentation; dredging; hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes; navigation; water conserva-
tion; water quality; surface water recreation; hydrologic analysis; hydraulic analysis; hydropower;
flood hazard mitigation; environmental preservation and enhancement; fish and wildlife; cultural
resources; floodplain information; ecosystem and watershed planning; and stream bed degrada-
tion. Assistance is available to states, public entities within states, and federally recognized tribes
in the preparation of plans for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related
land resources. Assistance is limited to $500,000 in federal funds per state or tribe per year, on the
basis of available appropriations. The assistance is reconnaissance level in detail. Most studies are
completed within 12 months. Studies are cost shared on a 50-50 basis with one (or more) nonfed-
eral sponsors (a state, a public entity within a state, or tribe).
The USAGE Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment Program, under Section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as amended, may modify the structures or
operations of previously constructed USAGE water resources projects to improve the quality of the
environment in the public interest. The types of work that can be undertaken under this program
are structural or operational changes to existing projects for restoration or enhancement of envi-
ronmental values, especially fish and wildlife values. Any modifications for environmental im-
provement must be both feasible and consistent with the authorized project purposes. The USAGE
coordinates with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies on any actions taken.
If a nonfederal sponsor is interested in cost sharing a project, the USAGE will pay all the cost to
prepare a study proposal. If the study proposal is approved, the subsequent feasibility study, plans
and specifications, and construction costs are cost shared. The sponsor's share is 25 percent of
these costs but is not payable unless and until the project enters the construction phase. In-kind
services provided during design or construction can be credited toward a sponsor's share. Sponsors
are usually public agencies; however, tribes and national nonprofit organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation may also qualify as sponsors. A private interest
may qualify as a nonfederal sponsor if the proposed modifications do not require future opera-
tion and maintenance. A sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
and disposal sites (LERRDs) for required implementation of the proposed modifications. Costs to
acquire the LERRDs are credited toward the sponsor's 25 percent share of total costs. The sponsor
is responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement costs required
for the project, although, by subagreement, a third party can provide these responsibilities for the
sponsor. Modification costs cannot exceed $5 million (federal costs) per project, unless specifically
approved by USAGE Headquarters. No minimum cost per project has been established; however,
the planning and design costs should not exceed the costs of the project modifications.
The USAGE Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program, under authority of Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, restores historic habitat conditions (aquatic ecosystems) at
any location to benefit fish and wildlife resources. The types of work that can be undertaken under
this program are structural or operational changes to improve the environment. This includes proj-
ects that would reconnect old river channels and backwaters, create wetland subimpoundments on
the perimeters of reservoirs, improve water quality through the reduction of erosion and sedimen-
tation, manipulate wetlands and vegetation in shallow headwaters of reservoirs, and involve plant-
ing woody vegetation in floodplains.
8O
O
Resources
-------
If a nonfederal sponsor is interested in cost sharing a project, the USAGE will pay all the cost to
prepare a study proposal. If the study proposal is approved, the subsequent feasibility study, plans
and specifications, and construction costs are cost shared. The sponsor's share is 35 percent of
these costs but is not payable unless and until the project enters the construction phase. In-kind
services provided during design or construction can be credited toward a sponsor's share. Sponsors
are usually public agencies; however, tribes and national nonprofit organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation may also qualify as sponsors. A private interest
may qualify as a nonfederal sponsor if the proposed modifications do not require future opera-
tion and maintenance. A sponsor must provide all (LERRDs) for required implementation of the
proposed modifications. Costs to acquire the LERRDs are credited toward the sponsor's 35 percent
share of total costs. The sponsor is responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilita-
tion, and replacement costs required for the project, although, by subagreement, a third party can
provide these services for the sponsor. Modification costs cannot exceed $5 million (federal costs)
per project, unless specifically approved by USAGE headquarters. No minimum cost per project
has been established; however, the planning and design costs should not exceed the costs of the
project modifications.
The USAGE Support for Others Program, under authority of the Economy Act and the Inter-
governmental Cooperation Act, provides the USAGE with opportunities to serve the nation and
enhance its capability to accomplish its assigned missions. Any work performed must be consistent
with USAGE organizational purposes and capability. Work under this program is done generally
to provide environmental protection and restoration or to provide facilities and infrastructure.
Work varies from employing one or several of the USAGE'S skills to using the whole range of the
USAGE'S planning, engineering, real estate, contracting, construction management, and legal
skills. USAGE'S capabilities include, but are not limited to, the following areas: environmental
planning and compliance, economic and financial analyses, floodplain management, cultural re-
sources management and evaluation, and general planning.
Before the USAGE can support state and local governments, the requesting government must cer-
tify that it cannot obtain the services reasonably and expeditiously from private firms. The techni-
cal services that may be provided include studies and planning activities, engineering and design
(including plans and specifications), construction management assistance, and training. Construc-
tion management assistance is limited to technical advice to improve state or local management
capability in contract preparation, negotiation, and evaluation; contract administration; quality
assurance; and supervision and inspection. The USAGE may not acquire real estate nor can it serve
as the contracting officer for project construction for a state or local government. All USAGE costs
must be provided by the customer agency. Under the program, the customer retains responsibility
for program planning, development, and budgeting, www.usace.army.mil,
www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/pd-p/CivWeb.htm
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
HUD offers a variety of funding opportunities for projects that involve urban area renewal and
economic development. The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) is a key com-
petitive grant program that HUD administers to stimulate and promote economic and community
development. BEDI funds are used for local governments and private sector parties to commence
redevelopment or continue phased redevelopment efforts on brownfields sites where either poten-
tial or actual environmental contamination are known and redevelopment plans exist.
www.hud.gov/grants/index.crm
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Team Up to Restore Contaminated
Rivers
EPA and the USAGE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in July 2002, committing them
to a partnership for restoration of degraded urban rivers. As part of this agreement, EPA and the
Corps jointly selected eight demonstration pilot projects. A new MOU was signed in 2005 to continue
monitoring these projects.
In partnership with state and local governments, tribal authorities and private organizations, the
projects focused on water quality improvement, cleanup of contaminated sediments, and human
and animal habitat restoration. The projects demonstrated how coordinated government and private
sector efforts can not only restore contaminated rivers but also revitalize urban environments.
The MOU aimed to improve coordination of hazardous waste cleanup, water quality improvements,
and environmental restoration activities under the CWA, Superfund, the RCRA, and the various
Water Resources Development Act authorities. (The Water Resources Development Act is a federal
statute that addresses watershed environmental restoration activities under the authority of the
USAGE.)
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group is an interagency group that has
developed a publication (referenced below) to be used as a common technical reference for stream
corridor restoration technology. Participating agencies include:
I USDA—Agriculture Research Service, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service, USDA/FS, NRCS
I United States Department of Commerce—NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
> United States Department of Defense—USAGE
» HUD
» DOI—BLM, BOR, USFWS, National Biological Service, NFS, USGS Biological Resources
Discipline and Water Resources Division
I EPA
I Federal Emergency Management Agency
I Tennessee Valley Authority
Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency Stream
Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the U.S. government). ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration
IP and
Voluntary Cleanup Programs
Many states have established Voluntary Cleanup Programs ("VCPs") to help address properties
whose contamination (if any) is not believed to be great enough to bring it under an existing
federal or state regulatory program, but whose site owners (or prospective owners) want to assess
and cleanup a site to facilitate property sale, foster redevelopment, or improve value. While each
of these programs is different, the following principles generally apply.
90
Resources
-------
A state's VCP typically requires an applicant to submit Phase I and Phase II site studies, which
the state reviews and must approve. The applicant then makes a cleanup proposal, which (upon
approval) is carried out. The VCP often allows the applicant to choose one of several alternative
cleanup standards, which often include meeting state-wide established cleanup standards, site-
specific risk-based standards, or background. Upon successful completion of the cleanup the state
issues a "certificate of completion," or similar document, that gives owners and lenders some as-
surance that no further cleanup will be needed.
A key issue is the extent to which EPA will defer to a state's VCP program in carrying out its own
response authorities under federal cleanup statutes. Typically, EPA enters into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with a state in which both governments set forth their expectations with respect
to VCP sites. MOAs typically provide that EPA does not expect to undertake response or enforce-
ment action at sites which have successfully gone through a state's VCP program, subject to several
reservations. For example, such MOAs typically provide that the following categories of sites are
not immune from action by EPA, regardless of their status under a state's VCP: property listed or
proposed for the NPL, facilities that do or should fall under RCRA regulation (though certain sites
may be allowed under certain circumstances), property subject to corrective action under RCRA,
property subject to an order under water quality regulations, and property subject to UST rules.
Additionally, EPA typically reserves its right to take action where new information or changed site
conditions necessitate its use of authorities to address imminent and substantial endangerments.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/reforms/2-10.htm
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
The NFWF is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and
plants, and the habitat on which they depend. The Foundation meets these goals by creating
partnerships between the public and private sectors and strategically invests in conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources. The Foundation does not support lobbying, political advo-
cacy, or litigation. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grants fund projects to conserve and
restore fish, wildlife, and native plants through matching grant programs. The Foundation awards
matching grants to projects that address priority actions promoting fish and wildlife conservation
and the habitats on which they depend, work proactively to involve other conservation and com-
munity interests, leverage Foundation-provided funding, and evaluate project outcomes. Federal,
state, and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations are welcomed
to apply for general matching grants throughout the year. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Special Grants are available with specific guidelines and timelines, www.nfwf.org
Volunteer Monitoring Groups
Volunteer Monitoring Groups work under a variety of names including River Watch, River Net-
work, and Watershed Network. Groups have a wide range of involvement in water assessment
and monitoring all the way from providing samplers for a single sampling event under direction of
state agency personnel to recruiting, sampling, laboratory analysis and data validation, and main-
tenance of databases and laboratories. Some groups receive state funding through contracts with
state agencies, while others must depend on grants. Funding for coordination, laboratory analysis,
and supplies may come from state or federal agency grants and allocations.
River Network
River Network helps people establish strong and enduring watershed conservation organizations
and programs and provides tools and training they need to be effective. Assistance comes in the
form of training and consultation. River Network programs include the following: Partnership
Program, Organizational Development, River Watch, River Protection and Restoration, Health and
Environmental Justice, RiverSmart, River Rally, and River Heroes. River Network's River Watch
91
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
program helps volunteers understand, protect and restore their local rivers, streams, lakes, wet-
lands, and estuaries. Community-based monitoring programs are carried out by schools, nonprofit
organizations, government agencies, and Native American tribes. They monitor local waters,
determine conditions and trends, identify problems and their sources, and develop effective and
creative ways to solve existing problems and prevent new ones. River Network's River Watch
program provides guidance and support by helping these groups plan and carry out their programs
and work closely with national, regional, and state service providers—including other nonprofit
organizations, government agencies, and academic institutions—to assess the needs of monitoring
groups and find the best ways to work together to meet them, www.rivernetwork.org/index.cfm
Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)
The RTDF was established by EPA to foster collaboration between the public and private sectors
in developing innovative solutions to mutual hazardous waste problems. The RTDF has grown to
"include partners from industry, several government agencies, and academia who share the com-
mon goal of developing more effective, less costly hazardous waste characterization and treatment
technologies. The RTDF is designed to foster public-private partnerships to conduct laboratory and
applied research to develop, test, and evaluate innovative remediation technologies. Through the
RTDF, companies, government agencies, and universities voluntarily share knowledge, experience,
equipment, facilities, and even proprietary technology to address mutual remediation problems.
www.rtdf.org
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)
The CTIC is a nonprofit, public-private partnership working to equip agriculture with realistic,
affordable and integrated solutions to environmental concerns, www.ctic.purdue.edu
National Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (CWRP)
The CWRP is a public-private partnership between the federal government, state governments,
and private corporations to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats. The CWRP's objective is
to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats by partnering to leverage the
collective resources, skills, and processes of the private and public sectors. The CWRP is facilitated
by the Coastal America Partnership in Washington, D.C. Corporations contribute funds to a partici-
pating private foundation or state trust fund. Funds are matched by federal and state agencies to
undertake aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects, www.
coastalamerica.gov/text/
cwrp.html
92
Resources
-------
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State , C
Revolving Fund
Varies by state priority list.
Generally municipalities and
other public organizations.
Can be nonprofit organiza-
tions or private entity.
Community
Loans for projects that promote
water quality. Generally for waste-
water treatment facilities, but also
for NPS pollution, runoff control,
wet weather control, alternative
treatment technologies, and
water reuse and conservation
projects. May also be used to fund
Wetlands, Estuaries, Brownfields
Remediation, and polluted runoff
abatement projects or implement
comprehensive coastal manage-
ment plans.
Loans for drinking water system
and source water improvements.
Water Quality
Cooperative
Agreements
Assessment t A/C
and Watershed I
I Protection >
; Program Grants
: and Cooperative
Agreements
Water Quality A/C
Pollution Control
Grants
Total Maximum ; A/C
Daily Load ;
: Program Grants
and Cooperative
Agreement
Wetland Program A/C
Development
Cooperative
Agreements and
Grants
Source Water Grants , A/C
State water pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit agen-
cies, institutions, organiza-
i tions, and individuals.
; States, local government,
tribes, interstate associa-
tions, intertribal consortia,
public or private nonprofit
groups, nongovernmental
institutions, and individuals.
States, interstate agencies.
State water pollution control
agencies, Indian tribes,
interstate agencies, other
public or nonprofit agencies,
institutions, organizations,
and individuals.
States, tribes, local
governments.
Communities with highly
or moderately susceptible
drinking water sources, tribes,
federal agencies, and non-
profit organizations working
with tribes.
$10K—$200K for projects related
to NPDES program.
$5K-$80K to develop and imple-
ment effective, comprehensive
programs for watershed protection,
restoration, and management.
Up to $200K to establish and
implement ongoing water pollution
control programs.
Up to $100K to assist in develop-
ment of TMDLs, support imple-
mentation, or provide additional
support in reaching settlements.
NOTE: State, Tribal, or interstate
agencies may not use these funds
for routine TMDL developmental
activities.
Projects must contribute to direct
protection of wetlands and be
consistent with state/tribal/local
government wetlands conservation
priorities or strategies. A 25 per-
cent nonfederal match is required.
Available periodically for protection
of water sources using a resource-
based or watershed approach.
Projects use the results of source
water assessment to implement a
water protection policy.
93
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Nonpomt Source
Funds
A/C
State nonpoint source
agencies.
Incremental funds: $100 mil-
lion to develop and implement
watershed-based plans and TMDLs
for impaired waters. Base funds:
staffing and support to manage
and implement state Nonpoint
Source Management Program, or
support for projects that identify
and address NPS problems. Up to
20 percent may be used to develop
NPS TMDLs and watershed-based
plans to implement NPS TMDLs.
Regional Geographic A/C
Initiative
State water pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies,
and other public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions, organi-
zations, and individuals.
Up to $200K to fund unique
geographically based projects that
fill critical gaps in EPA's ability
to protect human health and the
environment.
Watershed and A/C/CI
Water Quality
Modeling Technical
Support Center
Volunteer Monitoring A
Program
EPA Regions, state and local
governments and their con-
tractors.
Volunteer water monitoring
groups.
Technical assistance to support
: development of TMDLs, waste load
allocations, and watershed protec-
tion plans.
Technical assistance to organize
and operate effective volunteer
water monitoring networks.
Pre-Remedial A
Program
Remedial Program A/C
Removal/Emergency A/C
Response Program
EPA
EPA N PL sites
Sites with hazardous materi-
als that pose a threat to
public health.
Funding and resources for assess-
ment.
Funding and a wide array of techni-
cal and contracting resources to
assess and clean up NPL sites.
I Up to $6 million in EPA/Poten-
tially Responsible Party funding to
perform assessment and cleanup.
More funds if additional findings
are made.
Technical Outreach Cl
Support to
Communities
Communities
Technical assistance about con-
taminated sites. Assist community
participation in cleanup decision-
making process.
Technical Assistance Cl
Grants
Nonprofit community groups
in communities with an NPL
site or proposed NPL site.
Up to $50K for community groups
to hire technical advisors to help
the community understand techni-
cal information about the NPL
site or proposed NPL site in their
community. A 20 percent match is
required, but may include donated
or in-kind services.
94
Environmental
Response Team
(ERT)
A/C
Superfund programs
Technical assistance on innovative
technologies, land revitahzation, re-
vegetation, technology evaluation,
and response to environmental
emergencies.
Resources
-------
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
National A/C
Laboratories <
rrrrrm^ _^ „„ „,,„ „ tl „, ,4 ™
Abandoned Mine A/C
Land Program
Contract Laboratory
Program
Environmental | A
Services Assistance |
Team :
Regional Superfund A
Laboratory
Remote Sensing and A
Mapping Support
Contract
Superfund Technical A
Assessment and
Response Team
Response Action
Contracts
A/C
Emergency and
Rapid Response
Services
Response
Engineering and
Analytical Contract
A/C
Brownfields , A
Assessment Grants ',
Brownfields ' A/C
Revolving Loan Fund i
Grants
Brownfields Cleanup C
Grants
Superfund programs, some-
: times other EPA programs.
I Superfund programs,
- federal land management
agencies, states, tribes, mine
owners and operators, and
community stakeholders.
.;." ft • .
i Superfund programs
Superfund programs
• Superfund programs
; Superfund programs
Superfund programs
Superfund programs
Superfund removal programs
EPA Environmental Response
Team
i Local governments, land
clearance authorities, or
: similar quasi-governmental
agencies under control of
local government, govern-
ment entities created by state
legislatures, regional coun-
cils, redevelopment agencies
charted by states and tribes.
See above
See above
Technical assistance on assess-
ment, engineering, and implemen-
tation.
Technical expertise in abandoned
mine site issues. Coordination with
stakeholders on mine research,
characterization, cleanup, and
redevelopment.
Laboratory analytical services
Contractor for analytical services
and GIS mapping
Laboratory analytical services
Remote sensing, GIS support
Technical support for site assess-
ment, engineering, planning and
preparedness, and emergency
response.
Architect/engineering services, Rl/
FS, remedial design and actions,
EE/CA, construction oversight, and
enforcement support.
Emergency, time-critical removal,
and quick remedial response
cleanup services. Personnel,
equipment, and materials for
cleanup and restoration.
Scientific and emergency response
expertise.
Up to $200K to conduct invento-
ries, characterization, assessment,
and cleanup planning.
Funding to capitalize a revolving
loan fund or to award sub-grants
to eligible entities. Up to $1 million
per eligible entity with a 20 percent
match required unless a hardship
waiver is granted.
Up to $200K to perform cleanup
activities on property owned by
the grant recipient at the time of
award, for a maximum of five sites
per owner. A 20 percent match is
required unless a hardship waiver
is granted.
95
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
96
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
Brownfields Job • A/C
Training & Workforce
Development Grants *
Technical Assistance Cl
to Brownfields
Communities
Targeted Brownfields A
Assessments
State and Tribal A/C
Response Program
Grants
Brownfields Federal A/C
Partnerships
Colleges, universities, and
nonprofit training centers.
Communities
EPA Regional Brownfields
Offices
States, tribes
Various stakeholders
Up to $200K to provide training for
residents in communities affected
by brownfields. Projects should
; facilitate cleanup of brownfields
sites contaminated with hazardous
materials.
Training and technical assistance
to stakeholders.
EPA Brownfields program performs
or directs assessment.
Up to $200K per site to supple-
ment state/tribal response pro-
grams' cleanup capacity. May be
used for site-specific assessment
and cleanup.
Grants and other resources from
federal agencies to provide sup-
port for brownfields assessments
and cleanups.
Environmental
Finance Program
A/C/CI
Targeted Watershed C
Grants
Community Action
for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
Grants
A/C/CI
Five Star Restoration C/CI
Program Grants
Bureau of
Reclamation
Water Resources
Research laboratory
A/C
Sedimentation and
River Hydraulics
Group
Watershed
Protection and Flood
Prevention Program
U.S. Geological
Survey
A/C
Communities, agencies
Watershed organizations and
coalitions ready to make on-
the-ground improvements to
water quality.
Communities
Students, conservation
corps, other youth groups,
citizen groups, corporations,
landowners, and government
agencies.
; Federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
Resources to find creative ap-
proaches to funding environmental
projects
$600K-$900K to implement ac-
tions to protect critical watersheds
Federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
Conservation districts, local
governments, and state/tribal
agencies. For watersheds of
less than 250,000 acres.
Level l-Up to $75K to establish
collaborative partnerships to
reduce toxic releases. Level II—Up
to $300K for communities with
collaborative partnerships to imple-
ment risk reduction strategies.
Technical support, education, and
up to $20K to complete projects
that restore wetlands and streams.
Stream flow data. Implement best
management practices for water
releases.
Assistance in river restoration
Scientific and engineering
expertise regarding riverine studies
and modeling.
Up to $10 million per project, with
cost sharing for watershed protec-
tion.
Scientific information and exper-
tise in many natural science fields.
Data collection, monitoring, analy-
sis, and predictive modeling. Water
flow and water quality databases.
Resources
-------
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
\ U.S. Fish & Wildlife ' A/C
Service
Partners for Fish
and Wildlife
North American Wet- A/C
lands Conservation
Act Grants Program :
Office of Surface
Mining
Abandoned Mine A/C
Land (AMI) Grants
Watershed Coop- ', A/C
erative Agreement !
Program :
Watershed | A/C
Cooperative
Agreement Program
Federal, state, and local
stakeholders.
Organizations and individuals.
States/tribes with approved
programs.
Nonprofit organizations,
especially small watershed
groups.
Nonprofit organizations,
especially small watershed
groups.
Scientific expertise for protection
offish, wildlife, and their habitats.
May perform projects to protect
endangered species and habitat.
For habitat restoration on lands
not owned by state or federal
government. Typically a 50 percent
cost share. Technical support
available.
Funding for wetlands conservation
projects that focus on protecting,
restoring, or enhancing criti-
cal habitat. 1:1 matching funds
required. Up to $50K for the Small
Grants program. Higher funding for
larger projects.
Regulates coal mining operations.
To operate a state coal mining AML
program, perform reclamation, and
establish trust funds.
Up to $200K for local coal mining
acid mine drainage reclamation
actions.
Up to $200K for local coal mining
acid mine drainage reclamation
actions.
Watershed Program A/C
Abandoned Mine A/C
Land Initiative
Environmental j C
Conservation Acreage j
Reserve Program i
Conservation C
Security Program j
Emergency
Watershed Program
Mining sites with hazardous
waste on USDA/FS land.
Landowners
Landowners, communities
Landowners
CERCLA assessment and cleanup.
Assistance in compliance with NPS
pollution requirements.
Grants to restore fishery habitat.
Requires a 1:1 cost share that may
be cash, salary, equipment, sup-
plies, in-kind services, or labor.
Cleanup from natural disasters.
Community Based
Restoration Program
Five Star Restoration
Grants
Regional government bodies,
business, community/
watershed group, nonprofit
groups, educational
institutions, conservation
districts, local government,
and state/terntonal/tribal
agencies.
Communities
Grants to restore fishery habitat.
Requires a 1:1 cost share that may
be cash, salary, equipment, sup-
plies, in-kind services, or labor.
Assistance in developing and
implementing sound projects to
restore fish habitat.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
TABLE 3-1 Assessment and Cleanup Financial Resources Summary (continued)
98
: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE)
Restoration of
Abandoned Mine
Sites (RAMS)
Program
A/C
Communities/agencies
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
A/C
Urban communities
Technical, planning, and design
assistance for projects to address
water quality problems caused
by drainage and related activities
from abandoned and inactive non-
coal mines.
Funding for urban renewal and
economic development.
Voluntary Cleanup A/C
Programs :
National Fish and ; A/C
Wildlife Foundation !
Technologies
Development Forum
Conservation
Technology
Information Center
National Corporate
Wetlands
Restoration
Partnership
Landowners
Federal, state, and local
governments, educational
institutions, and nonprofit
organizations.
agencies
Volunteer Water
Monitoring Groups
River Network
Remediation
A
A/CI
C
Communities, i
; Communities
j Public and pnv
stakeholders.
Agriculture stakeholders
Federal and state agencies
and private corporations
partner to leverage collective
resources, skills and
processes.
Program allows owner to volun-
tarily assess and clean up property
to facilitate sale or redevelopment
or to improve value.
Various grants and assistance to
; conserve and restore fish, wildlife,
\ and native plants.
Water monitoring
Assistance in developing water
monitoring networks.
Assists communities in developing
innovative solutions to mutual haz-
; ardous waste problems. Voluntary
: sharing of knowledge, experience,
equipment, facilities, and technolo-
gies to address common problems.
Assistance in finding affordable
and integrated solutions to environ-
= mental concerns.
Funds to perform aquatic ecosys-
; tem restoration projects.
Resources
-------
Table 3-2 EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview
: Purpose: To promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields and to provide financial assistance
; for brownfields revitalization. To establish or enhance state and tribal brownfields response
; programs.
Definition: Brownfields are real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollut-
ant, or contaminant as defined in Public Law 107-118.
; Local governments, land clear-
ance authorities or similar quasi-
governmental agencies under
j control of local government, gov-
i ernment entities created by state
! legislatures, regional councils,
: redevelopment agencies chartered
; by the state, states, and federally
recognized tribes.
In addition to the above, nonprofit
organizations are also eligible for
cleanup grant funding only and
all eligible entities must own the
property in order to qualify for a
cleanup grant.
Colleges, universities, nonprofit
training centers exempt from tax-
ation under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3),
community job training organiza-
tions, states, cities, towns, coun-
ties, U.S. territories, and federally
recognized tribes are eligible.
1 To assess
,f,v,.. \ brownfields
I sites and to test
• cleanup and
''• redevelopment
; models (assess-
: ments to be
done according
to ASTM Stan-
dards).
Up to
$200,000 per
hazardous
substance site;
$200,000 per
petroleum site.
No matching
share required.
! September
i 2005
JTW, ' Fall 2005
•'•<*!'' \
To capitalize a
Revolving Loan
Fund. Also,
can be used to
award sub-
grants to eligible
entities.
Up to
$1,000,000 per
eligible entity.
20 percent
matching share
required (hard-
ship waiver
available)
September
2005
Fall 2005
To perform
cleanup activi-
ties on a prop-
erty/properties
! owned by the
grant recipient
at the time of
award.
Up to
$200,000
; per site for a
maximum of
five sites.
20 percent
matching
share required
(hardship
waiver avail-
able)
September
2005
September
2005
To provide train-
ing for residents
of communi-
ties affected
by brownfields
to facilitate
cleanup and
prepare trainees
for future em-
ployment in the
environmental
field.
Up to
$200,000.
Additional fund-
ing possible.
No matching
share required.
September
2005
Fall 2005
States and federally
recognized tribes,
Alaska Native
Regional/Village
Corporation and the
Metlakatla Indian
Community
To supplement state
and tribal response
programs' cleanup
capacity.
Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006 Spring 2006
For FY 2005, ap-
proximately $50
million was awarded
nationwide to EPA
regions.
Matching share
required if money
is to be used for
a Revolving Loan
Fund; otherwise no
matching share.
States and tribes
can do some limited
site specific work
such as assess-
ments and cleanups
of eligible brown-
fields.
Contact EPA region
contacts listed below
for more information.
99
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Table 3-2 EPA Brownfields Revitalization Program Assistance Overview (continued)
Projects that stimulate the
availability of other funding
for assessment, cleanup, and
reuse.
Projects that stimulate
economic development;
address, identify, or reduce
threats to human health and
the environment.
Projects that facilitate the
reuse of existing infrastructure;
create/preserve a park,
greenway, undeveloped
property, recreational property,
or other property for nonprofit
purposes.
Projects that meet the needs of
a community unable to draw on
other resources because of the
small population or low income
of the community.
Projects that allow for the
fair distribution of funds
between urban and nonurban
areas; provide for community
involvement.
Projects that identify and
reduce threats to the health
and welfare of children,
pregnant women, minority or
low-income communities, or
other sensitive populations.
Projects that bring together
community groups, job training
organizations, educators,
investors, lenders, developers,
and other affected parties
to address issue of providing
training for residents in
communities impacted by
brownfields.
Projects that facilitate
cleanup of brownfields sites
contaminated with hazardous
substances and prepare
trainees for future employment
in the environmental field.
j No part of a grant or loan may be used for the payment of:
1 « a penalty or fine
I a federal cost-share requirement
' ' an administrative cost
a response cost at a brownfields site for which the recipient of the
grant or loan is potentially liable under CERCLA section 107
a cost of compliance with any federal law (including a federal law
specified in section 101 (39)(B)), excluding the cost of compliance
with laws applicable to the cleanup
EPA Regional Contact
Region Web site: www.epa.gov/region7/brownfields
\ National Web site: www.epa.gov/brownfields
: E-mail addresses: lastname.firstname@epa.gov
? States and
tribes with a
Voluntary Cleanup
Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA).
State and tribal
programs w/out
MOA need to
establish
or enhance
the following
elements:
timely survey
and inventory
of brownfields
sites
oversight and
enforcement
authorities
or other
mechanisms
and resources
mechanisms
and resources
to provide
meaningful
opportunities
for public
participation
mechanisms
for approval of
a cleanup
plan and
verification
and
certification
that cleanup is
complete
* States or tribes
need to establish
a public record &
update annually.
Prohibitions do not
apply to Section 128
grants unless recipi-
ent uses funding for
Revolving
Loan Fund activities
or if site-specific ac-
tivities are complet-
ed on sites owned by
the recipient
100
Resources
-------
Multi-Agency, Multi-Program Funding Resources and Cooperation
Do/ores Watershed, Colorado
The presence of surrounding mining districts and air deposition of mercury from powerplants
throughout southwestern Colorado have potentially effected hundreds of square miles of the
Dolores River watershed extending from the San Juan Mountains at an elevation of 14,000 feet
in the southwestern part of the state down to McPhee Reservoir. Impacts include residential soil
contamination with lead concentrations up to 50,000 ppm, acid mine drainage from numerous
mines, and mercury contamination resulting in a fish consumption advisory. The watershed is on
the Colorado list of impaired waters (CWA 303(d) list).
A phased TMDL was completed in 2004 for mercury in
McPhee and Narraguinnep Reservoirs. A second TMDL
is under development for Silver Creek for cadmium and
zinc.
Multi-faceted problems and issues have lead the Town of
Rico, the state of Colorado, and multiple federal agen-
cies to use nontraditional solutions including community
based decision-making and cross-program coordination
to assess the various impacts.
I Voluntary cleanup in Silver Creek
I Site Assessment and the TMDL program conducted
ultra-clean sampling for mercury throughout the wa-
tershed to determine sources and develop a phased
TMDL
101
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
102
State of Colorado modified its Perfor-
mance Partnership Agreement to encour-
age coordination between the state
Water Quality Division and Air Pollution
Control
USFWS and EPA provided funding for a
Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sta-
tion at Mesa Verde National Park
State Air Quality program and TMDL
program provided funding to USGS for
sampling seasonal snowpack
USGS collected a core sample from Nar-
raguinnep Reservoir to study the histori-
cal pattern of mercury deposition
USGS, under an Interagency agreement from the TMDL program, conducted a source-receptor
study
Superfund Emergency Response has responded to the potential failure of treatment ponds
and an abandoned cyanide heap leach area
Targeted Brownfields Assessment by the state for facilitating cleanup and potential reuse of
contaminated properties
Water monitoring by local participants through an Environmental Justice grant
Mercury sampling conducted by EPA National Laboratory at both high and low flows—joint SAP
with TMDL program.
Air Modeling based on MDN, snowpack, and source receptor data funded by the TMDL pro-
gram and designed by USGS, Colorado Air Pollution Control, and EPA Air program
"*%•
Resources
-------
Assessment and Data Integration
Chapter 4 presents certain fundamental aspects of water and waste programs—what data is
collected and why—and presents opportunities for program integration. The chapter begins
with two primary opportunities for integration during watershed assessment: coordinating
preliminary data compilation and streamlining additional data collection. A tool for preliminary
data compilation, the Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment, is presented first
because of its value in the early stages of cross-programmatic watershed cleanup. Coordinated
and collaborative data collection saves agencies and programs time and money while reducing the
waste of duplicative sampling efforts. A discussion of strategies for collecting additional watershed
data follows. Figure 4-1 presents a guide to initial watershed assessment activities.
To integrate data compilation and collection, the Watershed Cleanup Team must consider the data
requirements of the various programs. Background information is provided about data quality,
data evaluation, benchmarks, and data collection strategies. For the data to be useful, it must
be available and accessible to all participants and organized in a consistent manner. Therefore,
data management issues that must be considered at the onset of a
collaborative watershed effort are presented. This chapter ends with a
brief summary of typical program-specific data collection efforts and
suggests potential opportunities for integration. An example that
compares TMDL, Brownfields, CERCLA
Site Assessment, Remedial, and Removal
Program data requirements for water
samples collected in a typical mining
watershed is presented in Table 4-1.
Similar comparisons may be appropriate
to help evaluate data integration issues
with other pollutants, in other types of
watersheds, or between other programs.
103
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
104
Figure 4-1 Assessment Flow Chart and Overview
1
Identify
waterbody
status
www.epaygov/waters/tmdl http://dpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cuBites/
2
Retrieve existing
watershed data
USGSWQData I Superfund Records
http://water.usgs.gov/data.html I EPA Regional Offices
3
Identify existing
uses and
benchmarks
WQS& Beneficial Uses I STORET I MCLs
www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards I www.epa.gov/storet I www.epa.gov/OGWDW/md.htmllmcls
5
Develop
Comprehensive
Watershed
Assessment
Existing NPDES permits, RCRA permits
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_query.html
www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris)r(iis_queryjava.html
Identify public water sources
www.epa.goĄ/envir6/htrBj/sdwK/sdwis_query,html
Data, rnapsef property ownership, geology, hydrology, aerial photography
from county offices, city engineers, or USGS '
Identify
additional
data needs
Conduct a review of data and I Determine whether new
determine if data gaps exist I data collection is needed
7
Program/agency
coordination
Set priorities I Identify resource I Obtain commitments and
availability | coordinate fieM 0ews
8
Conduct
reconnaissance
Collect field chemistry (e.g., pH, conductivity}, qualitative
surveys of macroinvertebrates, document GPS locations
9
Sampling
and analysis
Define data I Write multi-program SAP/QAPP (e.g., I Finalize sampling locations,
quality objectives I analyze total metals, dissolved metals I provide field training, and prepare
and collect flow data at all sites) I chain of custody and labels
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Table 4-1 Comparison of Surface Water Related Data Collection and Analysis Requirements for Mining
Watersheds
Sample »
Purpose
Sample •
Analysis
Detection
Limits/
Bench-
marks
T^ iii%i ,
IT! PL, '
Identification
of all
significant
sources.
Describe
watershed
characteristics.
Dissolved
metals, total
recoverable
metals, pH,
conductivity,
hardness.
Depends on
water quality
standards.
Water quality
criteria may
be expressed
as dissolved,
total, or total
recoverable.
Must have
associated flow
data.
Below water
quality
standards.
*:w.^3*
Determination of
site risk
CifQ
one
characterization
Depends on
pathway and
receptor.
Typically metal
concentrations,
PH
Dependent on
receptors and
exposure path-
way. Based on
standard values
for comparison
such as SCDMs,
Region 3 RBCs,
Region 9 Prelimi-
nary Remedia-
tion Goals (PRGs)
*v*'f>»n*
"• Only those
samples
necessary for
conclusive
determination
of whether site
scores above
28.5 on MRS.
Background
samples are
required to
establish a
release and
establish ambient
conditions.
Depends on
pathway and
receptor being
evaluated. Total
metals if values
will be compared
to human food
chain or environ-
mental threat
values. Dissolved
metals if values
will be compared
to standards for
drinking water
threat values.
Depends on
rationale for
sample. Must
be adequate to
compare results
to values in
SCDMs. (Samples
with high
concentrations do
not require a low
detection limit.)
• ^s^yy-
•- Site
characterization
Rick
r\lor\
assessment
Flow, pH,
temperature,
total suspended
solids,
suspended
sediment,
salinity,
and metal
concentration.
* Varies by
factor being
evaluated.
For Risk
Assessment
samples,
detection limits
will depend on
toxicity of the
contaminant.
''^,Jv-V'/
- Identification
of human
health threat
Site
characterization
Determine
removal
alternative
feasibility.
___„
concentrations,
PH
Based on
standard risk
values such
as SCDMs, Re-
gion 3 RBCs,
Region 9
PRGs, or other
published val-
ues indicating
toxicity.
105
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
& Comprehensive
The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed Assessment (see box below) is an effective tool that
assists in understanding watershed conditions and the development of a preliminary watershed
conceptual model. The conceptual model will be used to help identify interested parties and focus
the Watershed Cleanup Team on important issues. The Comprehensive Preliminary Watershed As-
sessment should include, at a minimum: maps and aerial photographs depicting the entire watershed
and displaying any property ownership/zoning; identification of water quality standards for each
waterbody within the watershed and current waterbody status in meeting the standards; readily
available data (including summaries/references to monitoring data reports collected through vari-
ous regulatory programs, identification of potential human and environmental receptors (humans,
fish, birds, soil community, etc.)); location of historical and current sources of contamination; key
findings of previous geological, hydrological, and hydrology studies; NPDES permits (with identifi-
iiiiii
-------
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
&
To save time and money, the Watershed Cleanup Team may want to consolidate future data col-
lection efforts. Depending on the participants, overlap of data needs, funding, and other consider-
ations, additional data may be collected by individual programs/agencies (cooperative sampling)
or a multiagency/stakeholder sampling effort (collaborative sampling). It is likely that a combina-
tion of approaches will be used. No matter how data collection is structured, cooperation between
Team programs/agencies will save time and precious resources despite the additional initial plan-
ning efforts.
Cooperative Data Collection
In some cases, the Team may decide that individual agencies/programs will conduct future data
collection efforts separately. In that case SAP should be available for review by the Watershed
Cleanup Team in advance to maximize integration. An example of the benefit of sharing plans in
advance might be at an NPL site where the RI contractor will be collecting quarterly surface water
samples at three locations to assess seasonal stream gains from a contaminated aquifer. Because
surface water quality and stream flow data are important to most programs involved in water-
shed cleanup, the plan should be reviewed to determine the applicability of the data to the state
water quality data set, the NRDA, and the TMDL programs. It might mean that the data collection
techniques or analytical parameters are adjusted slightly (i.e., adding flow rate to the field mea-
surements, or collecting samples for both total and dissolved metals concentrations) to accommo-
date other program needs, but might also prevent unnecessary and wasteful duplicative sampling
efforts by another program.
Collaborative Data Collection
The Team may decide to collaborate on some data collection efforts. A common approach and
consistent methods should be used to accommodate the needs of the multiple programs involved.
A multiagency SAP will be necessary to guide the sampling. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) will
provide the focus for preparing these documents. The SAP should include consensus among stake-
holders on site naming conventions, sampling locations, media collected, protocols for sampling
and analysis, and detection levels. Preparation of a consolidated SAP may be performed by the
Watershed Program Manager if support is not available elsewhere.
Information may need to be gathered on the differences in cost between collecting lower- and
higher-level quality data. Discussion will need to occur among all watershed participants who will
use the data to be collected regarding what data quality each participant desires and requires, who
will pay for higher quality data, and when such data needs to be collected.
Before the final selection of sampling locations, a thorough reconnaissance of the watershed
should be conducted utilizing the information summarized in the Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment. The reconnaissance may include stream measurements for conductivity,
pH, dissolved oxygen, qualitative macroinvertebrate analysis, and GPS readings for all potential
sampling locations (including any other appropriate field measurements that will indicate poten-
tial sources of the pollutants of concern).
Integrating data types and quality assurance requirements can be challenging, both in determin-
ing protocols and in obtaining funding for field work and laboratory analysis. Again, a cooperative
approach can provide solutions to some of these problems. Given the example of the RI contrac-
tor collecting surface water samples in the cooperative sampling section, the TMDL and NRDA
programs could send personnel to assist in sampling in exchange for additional sample analysis or
lower laboratory detection limits.
108
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
While sampling performed by individual programs is often conducted by contractors, collaborative
data collection may be performed by program personnel from several programs and agencies to re-
duce costs. Such an effort will require planning and the acquisition of field measurement devices,
sample containers and preservatives, vehicles, and other site-specific tools. EPA Regional Laborato-
ries may be able to provide some of the necessary items and technical support. Prior to sampling,
all sampling team members must be trained for the activities they will be expected to perform. For
example, personnel doing pebble counts should be instructed on the appropriate methodology, and
personnel conducting macroinvertebrate surveys should be taught the method and provided with
sketches of the organisms that should be present in that geographical location at that time of year.
In general, surface water sampling designs must include flow measurements to provide calcula-
tions to quantify loads and help prioritize sites. Water samples should be analyzed for both total
and dissolved metals with detection levels below water quality standards. Sampling should also
consider seasonal variations in flow and contaminant loading to determine critical conditions.
Biological Data Collection
In preliminary and subsequent data collection (including Sis and RIs), the importance of biological
data collection must be strongly emphasized. Bioassessments can be good indicators of water qual-
ity and watershed health. As a preliminary data collection strategy, qualitative macroinvertebrate
assessments are simple and quick and may guide selection of potential sampling locations that
should be investigated further. Sketches of macroinvertebrate species expected to be found in simi-
lar unimpacted sites can be utilized for rapid identification of the species composition in the study
area. Bioassessments may include macroinvertebrate, fish, and aquatic vegetation surveys. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols may be used to direct the work. Habitat quality should be evaluated con-
currently to determine if any perceived degradation in species number or diversity may be due to
habitat limitations rather than contamination.
For more information on this subject, please see:
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroin-
vertebrates, and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/
download.html
& and Ewalyation
When integrating data from various sources or when planning additional data acquisition, data
quality is an important issue that can greatly influence the usability of data by the various pro-
grams. This is one aspect of a cross-programmatic watershed effort that can cause divisions if not
carefully addressed, because the various programs often collect data for different purposes. When
planning additional data acquisition within the watershed, a QAPP should be prepared specifying
all the procedures that will be used to ensure adequate data quality. Development of Data Qual-
ity Objectives (DQOs) is part the QAPE Development and use of DQOs will help ensure that the
data is of the type, quantity, and quality useful for all watershed participants. For cooperative data
collection, the QAPP should be reviewed by the Watershed Cleanup Team along with the FSR For
consolidated data collection efforts, the FSP and QAPP will be prepared collaboratively. As noted
earlier, watershed participants should agree on what data quality is needed for the various pur-
poses of the data, the schedule for data collection, and who will pay for the collection of such data.
After the field and laboratory data are available, it should be compared against the DQOs to en-
sure it meets these objectives. The reviewed and validated data is analyzed for trends, compared
against benchmarks, and/or used to make program decisions.
109
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Data Quality Objectives
The DQO process is a series of planning steps using scientific methods that ensure that the type,
quantity, and quality of environmental data used in decision-making are appropriate for the in-
tended purpose. The EPA has issued guidelines to help data users develop site-specific DQOs. The
DQO process is intended to:
> Clarify the study objective.
» Define the most appropriate type of data to collect.
» Determine the most appropriate conditions from which to collect the data.
> Specify acceptable levels of decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the
quantity and quality of data needed to support the design.
The DQO process specifies project decisions, the data quality required to support those decisions,
specific data types needed, and data collection requirements and ensures that analytical techniques
are used that will generate the specified data quality. The process also ensures that the resources re-
quired to generate the data are justified. The DQO process consists of seven steps; the output from
each step influences the choices that will be made later in the process. These steps are:
Step 1: State the problem.
Step 2: Identify the decision.
Step 3: Identify the inputs to the decision.
Step 4: Define the study boundaries.
Step 5: Develop a decision rule.
Step 6: Specify tolerable limits on decision errors.
Step 7: Optimize the design.
During the first six steps of the process, the planning team develops decision performance criteria
that will be used to develop the data collection design. The final step of the process involves refin-
ing the data collection design based on the DQOs.
For more information on this subject please see:
Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA/600/R-96/055. August 2000.
Data Evaluation
During data evaluation, laboratory data are reviewed and validated to determine its usefulness
and applicability for further evaluation (site models, statistical analyses) or decision-making. The
reviewer examines sampling dates, locations, depths, and descriptions; sample collection and
preparation techniques; laboratory preparation techniques; analytical methods and analytical re-
sults; method detection limits or sample quantitation limits; QA/QC samples; and documentation.
The data reviewer reviews data reports for transcription and typographical errors, determines if
sampling protocols were appropriate, compares data against field and trip blanks to detect cross-
contamination, compares field replicate sample results, reviews laboratory QC (laboratory blanks,
method standards, spike recovery, duplicates), reviews detection limits, deletes unusable data,
attaches qualifiers to usable data, and explains limitations of qualified data. Laboratory analytical
packages are validated by a chemist and the laboratory. Validation compares the QA objectives of
the user against the laboratory data package. Validation may include evaluation of sample hold-
ing times, initial and continuing calibration verification, interference check samples for inorgan-
ics, determination of bias (percent recovery), precision (from replicate analyses), detection limits,
and field conditions that may have modified sampling procedures. A summary of the review and
validation processes is preferably provided to the project manager.
110
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Once the data are validated, data that meets the requirements may be used to evaluate site condi-
tions. Various numerical and graphical analytical methods may be used to evaluate the data based
on the study objectives. For example, the user may need to know if data support statistical assump-
tions regarding the presence or absence of contamination or biological response to the contami-
nation. At other times, the user may want to determine if there is a trend to the data or correla-
tion between two variables. For some studies, mean or median values and standard deviation or
another determination of variance are adequate for the purposes of the study. Environmental data
may require transformation prior to statistical analysis.
The flow and water chemistry loading data should also be reviewed to ensure they provide enough
spatial and temporal variability with regard to high and low flow to determine critical conditions
within the watershed.
t.
Data should be compared against appropriate standards such as those provided in the following
table. Values used for comparison will depend on the sample matrix, the contaminant of interest,
the contaminant pathway being evaluated, and program requirements. One screening concentra-
tions benchmark of note in the table below are the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM), a
compilation of values for use in the HRS. Many of the values listed on the SCDM are derived from
or applicable to other program benchmarks, so this document is valuable for the determination of
benchmarks that will be used by a variety of programs involved in the watershed cleanup. Criteria
and standards for dissolved metals are hardness-based and are typically presented as a hardness-
based formula. Table 4-2 presents typical benchmarks for comparison.
Table 4-2. Benchmarks for Data Comparison
State and tribal Water Quality
Standards under the Clean
Water Act (designated uses,
water quality criteria, antideg-
radation pjDlicies)
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs)
Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals (MCLGs)
Screening Concentrations
Food and Drug Administration
Action Levels
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Surface water (some states
have also issued ground water
standards under state law).
Ground water, surface water,
drinking water.
Ground water, surface water,
drinking water.
Ground water, surface water,
drinking water, air, soil, biota.
Biota
Air
Air
; State, tribal and territorial water quality
I standards, www.epa.gov/waterscience/
j standards/states
National Primary Drinking Water
Standards, www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.
html#mcls
National Primary Drinking Water
Standards.www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.
htm|#sec
Superfund Chemical Data Matrix.
EPA. January 2004. www.epa.gov/
superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/
scdm.htm
Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations.
EPA. April 2005. www.epa.gov/
regShwmd/risk/human/index, htm
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation
Goals www.epa.gov/region09/waste/
sfund/prg/index.htm
Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide.
EPA540/R-96/018. July 1996.
Supplemental Guidance for Developing
Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. December
_2002. _
Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious
Substances in Human Food and Animal
Feed.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR Pa/t 50.
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. 40 CFR Part 61.
Ill
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
112
i5
Triad Approach
EPA often uses the Triad approach for planning site assessment activities. The Triad approach al-
lows the field work to be conducted cost-effectively and logically. The Triad approach is a three
step process that includes systematic planning, dynamic work strategies, and real-time measure-
ment technologies.
t Systematic planning includes developing a conceptual site model that shows sources, path-
ways, and receptors. The seven step DQO process is used by the planning team to ensure
that project decisions meet the requirements of the project. Stakeholders are identified in a
project organization diagram and may include multiple agencies, community groups, tribal
organizations, and appropriate experts required for the project, such as a risk assessor. The
results of this planning process are documented in the FSP and the QAPP.
I Dynamic work strategies means using field analytical data generated on-site to determine
the direction of subsequent field work, thereby reducing the overall time and cost of site
activities and allowing better discretion in sample selection. A combination of less expen-
sive field analytical data and collaborative laboratory analytical data allows for a more
cost-effective way to more fully address all of the Data Quality Indicators (DQIs). The three
DQIs—precision, accuracy, and sensitivity—must be established to ensure that the data
used in decision-making are of acceptable quality by quantifying the acceptable amount of
error in the data collection and analytical process. Data Quality Assessment (DQA) crite-
ria are defined as part of the DQO process and documented in the SAP The results of the
inspection/assessment, including qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the DQIs, are
documented in the Analytical Results Report.
» Real-time measurement technologies and tools are used to manage data in the field and
provide the information, including statistics, to make real-time decisions in the field where
applicable, www.clu-in.org/triad
The Triad
Systematic «" Dynamic
Project Work
Planning ^,. Strategies
Uncertainty
Management
Real-time
Measurement
Technologies
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
€ Management
Organizing data so it can be easily compiled and retrieved is one of the big challenges for multi-
program, multiagency cleanup efforts. The Watershed Project Manager must ensure that data is
collected, compiled, and managed so that it allows participants to easily access, query, and view
important site information. A data management plan may be prepared with the assistance of
regional EPA data management specialists and other Watershed Cleanup Team members. The fol-
lowing issues are some that should be considered in developing a data management plan:
I Who will manage data and who will map data (internal EPA data management, community
action group, contractor, USGS, USAGE, others).
ft Select single data repository (single point of contact).
ft Funding for database development and mapping.
ft Platform for data management (STORET, other database).
ft Standard data submission requirements and tools for all groups submitting data (see Table 4-3).
ft Level of effort allowable for existing data compilation.
ft Mapping platform (hard copy maps only, mapping application, query and view requirements).
ft Data display requirements.
ft Mapped coverages (roads, streams, towns, topographic features, aerial photos, site features,
data points, etc.).
ft Sampling location naming conventions.
Frequently, data will be available from previous monitoring, assessment, and remediation efforts
in the watershed. In the best case, all participants will readily contribute all available data, but the
data may be provided in a variety of formats with varying degrees of usefulness for the project.
The level of effort to compile existing data will depend on the format (text tables, spreadsheet
data, laboratory electronic deliverables, and databases) and completeness of data provided by par-
ticipants. Clear communication of data formatting needs may reduce the cost of data management.
It will often be necessary for the Cross-Programmatic Watershed Project Manager to compile the
existing data early in the process.
Data collected after the formation of the Watershed Cleanup Team should be provided in the
standard format decided upon by the project team to ensure funds are not wasted on unnecessary
data conversions and time-intensive discussions between data collection groups and GIS or data
conversion specialists. A consistent sample naming convention should be determined in advance and
used by all participants.
STORET (WQX)
Data mapping may be provided by EPA personnel or contractors or may be performed by other Wa-
tershed Cleanup Team members or contractors, depending on funding, agency capability, and data
viewing requirements. In some cases, a hard copy of the maps may be provided to participants
at the beginning of the projects and at important milestones. In other cases, an easily viewable,
queryable GIS application may be needed. Mapping support for Superfund projects is available
through EPA personnel and the ESAT contract. Water programs and other programs may access
internal GIS personnel or find a mechanism to fund a mapping contractor. Enviromapper is EPA's
113
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
standard for mapping, however, the program may not provide all the features desirable for the Wa-
tershed Cleanup Team. EPA Region 10 has developed an Arc Internet Mapping Solution (ArcIMS)
application for use with STORET. Each EPA region has standardized coverages available for use in
mapping applications.
While a variety of platforms may be used to manage data, the EPA standard is the STORET data-
base. STORET is being redesigned into a new system called The Water Quality Exchange (WQX)
to facilitate easier flow of data into the data warehouse, and ultimately, greater access to the data.
The other major national database of water quality information is the USGS NWIS. Other data-
bases are available with regional or local data. These may be useful but should be compatible with
STORET. Table 4-3 presents typical
data requirements for using sam- Table 4-3 Sample Data Requirements
pling data in a site database. ^.-^*i*»Ie ">ir;. ; .,.:-.,- -i>r% '
The STORET database is EPAs re-
pository for water quality, biological,
physical, soil, sediment, air habitat
assessment, and field measurement
metadata collected by a variety of
sources—from state and federal
agencies to volunteer monitors.
STORET is primarily used by states
to report required water data to EPA;
however, it may be used to manage
all types of data from a variety of
sources. Potential data sources may
include EPA programs such as Super-
fund, RCRA, and Brownfields; other
federal agencies; tribes; state water
and environmental agencies; and
local/regional groups such as com-
munities, municipalities, watershed
councils, and volunteer monitoring
organizations.
Project name
Project or watershed ID
Who collected data
Why data was collected
How data was collected
Location ID
Latitude/longitude
Datum
Method to determine lat/long
Sample ID
Data type (water, soil, sediment,
air, biota, field data, laboratory
data)
Date
Parameter name
Parameter value
Sample fraction (dissolved or
total)
Lab and/or validator qualifiers
Analytical method
Detection limit
Sampling method
Additional information may
be necessary for specific
watersheds and pollutants. The
project manager and Watershed
Cleanup Team must set up data
requirements according to the
particular project.
STORET is an ideal way to manage
data in a multi-programmatic wa-
tershed cleanup effort for several
reasons. STORET's data retrieval
functions are Web-enabled so the ~ ~
public can use the Internet to query
and download data. Data providers can submit data to STORET via data entry modules that oper-
ate on personal computers and are available free of charge to monitoring organizations. Web tools
are also available to data providers who would like to submit data to STORET but do not want to
use the standard STORET software. See the Region 8 case study on managing data and Web tools
below. Data in STORET are available to all in a consistent format that allows mapping, sample
location identification, and data viewing, www.epa.gov/storet
114
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Region 8 Using Web Tools for Data Management
Region 8 requires that data from all samples collected or analyzed using EPA funds be provided in a
standardized format for use in STORET. Formatting requirements are presented in: Standard Guidance
to Format Sample Results, Field Measurements, and Associated Metadata. EPA Region 8. December
1, 2003. (See Appendix B.) Region 8 states use the STORET database to meet CWA requirements.
Other EPA programs, including Superfund, RCRA, and Brownfields programs, also provide site data to
STORET. Data collected by other organizations using EPA funding must also be reported to STORET.
Several projects are underway or have been completed to simplify data reporting requirements. A Web
tool to simplify tribal data submission has been developed. CWA 319 funds were used to create a
Web tool and training to facilitate data entry from local groups submitting data from nonpoint source
projects. Funding for a Web site to host the WEB SIM Tool along with the STORET database and an ARC
IMS application and to provide training on the tool has been approved for the Colorado Water Quality
Monitoring Council. Through this project, all watershed groups in Colorado will have access to the Web
site and receive training for data input and viewing.
Additional Databases
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
SDWIS is used to meet the requirements of the SDWA. SDWIS is a database designed and imple-
mented by EPA to meet its needs in the oversight and management of the SDWA. The database
contains data submitted by states and EPA regions in conformance with reporting requirements
established by statute, regulation, and guidance. A "sister" system, SDWIS/State is a database
designed by EPA and the states to help states (and EPA regions) run their drinking water programs
and fulfill EPA reporting requirements. www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/state.htm
National Water Information System (NWIS)
NWIS is a database of surface water and ground water data from 1.5 million sites around the
country. Current and historical surface water characteristics such as streamflow and stage, plus
water quality data such as temperature, specific conductance, pH, nutrients, pesticides, and VOCs
are included in the database, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environ-
mental Results (WATERS)
WATERS is an integrated information system for
the nation's surface waters. Water quality infor-
mation must be gathered to fulfill the require-
ments of the CWA and the SDWA, the two main
federal laws that protect our nation's waters.
The EPA Office of Water has various programs
that store data in associated databases. These
databases are separately managed, but under
WATERS, the 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).
By linking to the NHD, one program database
can reach another, and information can be
shared across programs. Databases linked to
WATERS include: Water Quality Standards
Database (WQSDB), National Assessment
Opportunities for Integration
> A combined or coordinated database is a
crucial tool to ensure coordinated assessment,
cleanup, and monitoring. All relevant site
information should be available to each
stakeholder so assessment needs and priorities
can be readily evaluated. The combined effort
will require less effort than the development
of individual databases for each program. The
combined database will have a more complete
dataset, providing additional information for
decision-making.
I CIS mapping of information in the database
allows the watershed team to evaluate
data needs, determine focus areas for
additional study, see the relationships
between sources and stream loads, evaluate
cleanup/implementation/restoration
alternatives, discuss priorities for site cleanup/
implementation/restoration, and develop a
comprehensive monitoring plan.
115
-------
116
Database (NAD), National Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking System (NTTS), STORET, NPDES
PCS, SDWIS, National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database, Nutrient Criteria
Database, and the Beaches Environmental Assessment Closure & Health (BEACH) Watch database.
Section 319 projects have been georeferenced to the NHD and the location of the 319 project can
be seen if that layer is "turned on" on CIS maps in Enviromapper for WATERS. Currently you can-
not actually link to the Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (CRTS).
www.epa.gov/waters
Better Assessment Science Integrating Point & Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) is a multipurpose en-
vironmental analysis system designed for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing
watershed- and water quality-based studies. It integrates a geographical information system (GIS),
national watershed data, and state-of-the-art environmental assessment and modeling tools into
one convenient package. This system makes it possible to quickly assess large amounts of point
source and nonpoint source data in a format that is easy to use and understand. Installed on a per-
sonal computer, BASINS allows the user to assess water quality at selected stream sites or through-
out an entire watershed. This invaluable tool integrates environmental data, analytical tools, and
modeling programs to support development of cost-effective approaches to watershed manage-
ment and environmental protection, including TMDLs. www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins
^
Various programs and agencies conduct studies within contaminated watersheds and of contami-
nated waterbodies. Primary studies include: CWA Surface Water Monitoring Use Attainability
Analyses (UAA) and TMDLs, CERCLA PAs, Sis, RI/FSs, Risk Assessments, and NRDA, RFA, Facility
Investigations, CMSs, and Brownfields Assessments. This section describes the objectives and focus
of each of the major studies and the typical data collected. It suggests opportunities for integra-
tion. Because some of these studies are directed at assessment, cleanup, and/or monitoring the
portions of the studies related to cleanup are presented in Chapter 5, where possible.
A variety of other studies may have been or should be conducted within any specific watershed.
This section does not intend to be a comprehensive description of all useful studies that might be
performed within a watershed.
CWA State Water Quality Monitoring Programs
Water quality monitoring approaches vary from state to state. Degrees of sampling effort and
density, and the chemical/physical/biological analyses performed on the samples can vary widely.
Efforts are being made to make state monitoring programs more consistent, and states are now
required to begin implementation of the strategy described in the recommended Elements of a
State Monitoring Program. This section describes state water quality monitoring on the basis of this
document.
The ten elements of a state monitoring program include:
I Monitoring program strategy
> Monitoring objectives
» Monitoring design
I Core indicators of water quality
) Quality assurance
I Data management
I Data analysis and assessment
I Reporting
-------
> Program evaluation
I General support and infrastructure
Sampling Objective. Monitor state waters to meet state monitoring and assessment objectives.
Sampling Strategy. The most efficient combination of monitoring designs (e.g., fixed station,
intensive and screening-level monitoring, rotating basin, judgmental and probability design) to
meet state monitoring and assessment objectives are preferred. The state monitoring design should
support statistically valid inferences about the condition of all state water types over time.
Samples and Analysis. A core set of indicators (e.g., water quality parameters) should be desig-
nated for each water resource type that include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological, and bio-
logical/ecological endpoints as appropriate; that reflect designated uses; and that can be used rou-
tinely to assess attainment with applicable water quality standards throughout the state. This core
set of indicators is monitored to provide statewide or basin/watershed level information on the
fundamental attributes of the aquatic environment and to assess water quality standards attain-
ment/impairment status. Previously, chemical and physical indicators were emphasized; however,
biological monitoring and assessment should assume a more prominent role in state monitoring.
www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2004/g2-12.pdf
Supplemental indicators are used when there is a reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant
may be present in a watershed, when core indicators indicate impairment, or to support a special
study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern. Supplemental indicators are often key
to identifying causes and sources of impairments and targeting appropriate source controls. These
supplemental indicators may include each water quality criteria in the state's WQS, any pollut-
ants controlled by the NPDES, and any other constituents or indicators of concern. Table 4-4 lists
recommended core and supplemental indicators.
Data Quality. Data may be screening or definitive depending on compliance with QA/QC proto-
cols and the sampling objective. States report data in STORET and also maintain the data in their
own database. States also provide appropriate geospatial data to enable the use of current CIS
tools. The 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance, Appendix B,
asks states to define the geographic location of assessment units using the NHD.
www.fgdc.gov/metadata/metadata.html.
Data Uses. Data are used to meet the needs of the State Water Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram as required by the CWA. Data are used to compile the Section 305 (b) water quality inven-
tory report and the Section 303 (d) list, and provide information on monitoring and notification
programs for coastal recreation waters. Data may also be used for preparation of triennial reviews,
Opportunities for Integration
> State water monitoring data may be directly incorporated into the combined watershed database.
> The state program may be integrated with TMDL, NPDES, CERCLA, and other long-term monitoring efforts.
For example, surface water monitoring data collected as part of monitoring a NPL site remedy may be
used in the state water assessment program, or data from state surface water monitoring may be used to
determine the effectiveness of the remedy if the data collected for each sample meets the needs of each
agency.
I The watershed effort generally stimulates community interest. Volunteer monitoring programs, when well-
managed, may provide data to meet the needs of state and federal assessment and cleanup agencies.
I Monitoring information will be used for assessing the status of the states' waters; determining trends in
water quality and contaminant loadings; implementing pollution control strategies, such as TMDLs and
NPDES permits; identifying emerging issues; and developing policies and standards.
117
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Table 4-4 Recommended Core and Supplemental Indicators
Recommended
Core Indicators
Supplemental
Indicators
Condition
of biological
communities (EPA
recommends the
use of at least two
assemblages)
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Conductivity
PH
. Habitat
assessment
Flow
Nutrients
Landscape
conditions (e.g., %
cover of land uses)
Additional indicators
for lakes:
Eutrophic condition
Additional indicators
for wetlands:
Wetland
hydrogeomorphic
settings and
functions
Water column
toxicity
Sediment toxicity
Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
Health of
organisms
Pathogen
indicators (E. coll,
enterococci)
•f Nuisance plants
Flow
Nutrients
Chlorophyll
. Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
Additional indicators
for lakes:
Seech i depth
Additional indicators
for wetlands:
Wetland
hydrogeomorphic
settings and
functions
Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
Hazardous
chemicals
Aesthetics
Trace metals
Pathogens
Nitrates
Salinity
Sediments/TDS
Flow
Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
VOCs(m
reservoirs)
Hydrophyllic
pesticides
Nutrients
Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
Algae
Pathogens
Mercury
Chlordane
DDT
PCBs
Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
118
UAAs, standards revisions, water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in permits, TMDLs, NFS
programs, and watershed plans.
For more information about this subject see:
Elements of a State Monitoring Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. March 2003.
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/elements03_14_03.pdf
Water Quality Standards—Use Attainability Analysis (UAA)
A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use that may
include physical, chemical, biological and economic factors. The factors are evaluated through a
waterbody survey and assessment. They address the current uses, causes of impairment, and uses
that can be attained on the basis of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics.
A UAA is performed by states to determine if the waterbody is able to support quality when the des-
ignated use is not included in CWA Section 101 (a) (2), to remove a designated use that is specified
in Section 101 (a) (2), or to adopt subcategories of a Section 101 (a) (2) use that require less stringent
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
criteria. A generic UAA may also be performed for groups of similar waterbody segments to deter-
mine attainable uses.
Sampling Objective. UAA data collection is conducted to determine factors that limit designated
uses, determine if waterbody integrity can be restored, determine the feasibility of modifying the
physical habitat, and determine if the use can be obtained given the existing limitations.
Sampling Strategy. The sampling approach may be adapted to the waterbody and other state-de-
termined priorities. Available information is evaluated first, then field testing or surveys should be
conducted to fill in for lacking or incomplete information and to confirm the existing data. As-
sessment of factors limiting waterbody use may be simple or complex, depending on the amount
of available data, the degree of accuracy and precision required, the importance of the resource,
site-specific conditions, and controversy associated with the site. The sampling strategy may be to
provide a general survey of conditions, to focus on site-specific problem areas, to assist in evaluat-
ing trends, or to determine a cause-effect relationship between factors. Characteristics that may be
evaluated include:
» Physical Factors. In-stream characteristics (channel size, flow/velocity, annual hydrology,
total volume, re-aeration rates, gradient/pools/riffles, temperature, sedimentation, chan-
nel modifications, and channel stability), substrate composition and characteristics, chan-
nel debris, sludge deposits, riparian characteristics, and downstream characteristics. Field
measurements and analysis, modeling, and existing information may be used to determine
physical factors affecting use. USFWS habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) and habitat suit-
ability indices (HSI) are sometimes used for habitat evaluation.
> Chemical Factors. Dissolved oxygen, toxicants, suspended solids, nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorus), sediment oxygen demand, salinity, hardness, alkalinity, pH, dissolved solids.
Available data, water and sediment samples, or modeling may be used to determine chemi-
cal factors affecting use.
> Biological Factors. Biological inventory for existing use analysis (fish, macroinvertebrates,
microinvertebrates, phytoplankton, periphyton, macrophytes), biological potential analysis
(diversity indices, habitat suitability indices, models, tissue analyses, recovery index, intol-
erant species analyses, omnivore-carnivore analyses), and biological potential comparisons
with reference reach.
Data quality. Data quality requirements should be based on the site-specific topics being addressed by
sampling.
Benchmarks. Data should be compared to existing water
quality standards, scientific references and data from
reference waterbodies.
Data Use. Data should be used directly for assessment of the
applicability of existing water quality criteria and designated
uses and to determine if designated uses can be attained by
feasible waterbody improvements.
For more information about this subject see:
Water Quality Standards Handbook. Second Edition. EPA
823-B-94-005a. August 1994.
www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/wqstandards/
handbook, pdf
Opportunities for Integration
I Biological information exchange
between UAA, Risk Assessment,
and NRDA efforts can benefit all
programs.
> Results of UAA may impact RCRA,
CERCLA, and Brownfields cleanup
priorities and remedies and TMDL
endpoints and Implementation
strategy. Partners should work
together to align cleanup priorities
and ensure cleanup actions
complement the UAA.
119
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Technical Support Manual. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume I. EPA. 1983.
Technical Support Manual Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume II, Estuarine Systems. EPA. 1984.
Technical Support Manual. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III, Lake Systems. EPA. 1984.
TMDL
A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and
still attain water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount among the pollutant's sourc-
es. In other words, it is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing
point and nonpoint sources. The calculation includes a margin of safety and accounts for seasonal
variation in water quality. TMDLs are prepared for impaired water bodies identified on the state's
303(d) list of waterbodies not attaining WQS.
This section describes the assessment portion of the TMDL. Load allocation, implementation and
monitoring are discussed in Chapter 5. Crossprogrammatic assessment and implementation of PCB
load reductions is demonstrated in the Delaware Estuary case study at the end of this chapter.
TMDL Tasks Related to Assessment
Problem Identification.
I. Identify the applicable water quality standards (designated/existing use(s) and the numer-
ic/narrative criteria) for the impaired water body listed on the states' 303 (d) list. ("Existing
^^ uses" are defined as those uses that have occurred on or
_ . . . , ^ _, „ after November 28, 1975.)
Opportunities for Integration
2. Collect all readily available water quality data for
I The Problem Identification portion ,..,,,
of the TMDL ,s closely related to the ^P^ed water body.
the CERCLA PA. Development of 3. Conduct necessary sampling to determine sources
the Comprehensive Preliminary of pollutant(s) and to calculate pollutant loads
Watershed Assessment and the ._ . . ,. ,. . , „
Targeted Brownfields Assessment (flow multiplied by concentration equals pollutant
described in Chapter 3 will assist in load or mass of pollutant per time).
problem identification. 4 Document waterbody characteristics (geology, hy-
drology, land use).
5. Identify pollutant(s) preventing the attainment of
designated use.
Target Analysis. Determine benchmarks that will be used to measure success and state how the
measure will be used to track progress. This depends on whether the TMDL goal is to meet a nu-
meric water quality criterion, comply with an interpretation of a narrative water quality criterion,
or attain a desired condition that supports meeting the designated use. Identify the waterbody's
critical conditions such as peak loading seasons or events. Identify appropriate ways to measure
progress toward achieving the stated goals. Tie the measures to pollutant loading.
Source Identification and Assessment. List and characterize individual pollutant sources, catego-
ries of sources, or subcategories of sources responsible for waterbody impairment. Identify the
extent to which each source contributes to the problem: source type, relative location, magnitude
of loading, transport mechanisms of concern, and duration and frequency of pollutant loading.
Many tools are used including existing monitoring information, air photography analysis, simple
calculations, spreadsheet analysis using empirical methods, and computer modeling. Selection of
analysis is on the basis of the complexity of the problem, availability of resources, time constraints,
J. 4™! \J
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
availability of monitoring data, and the management objectives under consideration. Sources may
be grouped into categories if appropriate.
Linking Water Quality Targets and Sources. Compare water quality targets (benchmarks) to
pollutant loads. If long-term water quality data are available, it is used to associate waterbody re-
sponses to flow and loading conditions. When long-term monitoring data is not available, synoptic
sampling is used with analytical tools, including models and qualitative information to define such
characteristics as baseline water quality conditions, pollutant source loading rates, and waterbody
system dynamics.
' ^-—Delaware River Watershed PCB TMDL—Multi-Program
Assessment and Implementation
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
The Delaware River presents a set of
issues common to many watersheds Delaware Estuary
in the industrialized northeast of the
U.S.: a river bordered by many different
communities; a long history of residen-
tial and industrial uses whose legacy 3 states
remains in contaminated sediments . """"I- ^
and runoff; and a myriad of local, state, 2 EPA Re&ons
and regional authorities which share 1 Interstate Compact fA \ '
various jurisdictions over it. In response 134milestong \
to high levels of PCBs found in fish
throughout tidal portions of the River, 6 million pe°P/e
a tight timeframe for development of a 162 industries x i- i**1***
PCB TMDL, and a diverse range of PCB 30Q CSOs ,," - l**"*r^.
sources, a broad coalition of govern-
ments and NGOs has come together to
j. * "•" DE
seek innovative, cross-programmatic, np-
collaborative ways to address the prob-
lem as efficiently as possible.
The Delaware River is the longest undammed river east of the Mississippi, extending 330 miles
from Hancock, New York, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. The basin covers 13,539 square
miles, draining parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware in 236 individual
watersheds, including the Schuylkill and Lehigh Rivers in Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction over the
Basin is shared by 42 different counties, 838 municipalities, 25 congressional districts, two EPA
Regions, the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, and five USGS offices. The Delaware Bay itself covers
782 square miles. Nearly 15 million people (approximately five percent of the nation's population)
rely on the waters of the Delaware River Basin for drinking and industrial use, but the watershed
drains only 0.4% of the total continental U.S. land area.
Much progress has been made under the CWA to reduce the loading of conventional pollutants in
the Delaware River, and dissolved oxygen levels rose appreciably throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
But some pollutants remain a problem, particularly PCBs. [PCBs are a class of synthetic com-
pounds that were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including electrical,
heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics and rubber products; in
pigments, dyes and carbonless copy paper and many other applications. Although banned from
121
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
manufacture since the late 1970s, PCBs are still in use due to the I •—
extended life span of equipment in which they were used. Ad-
ditionally, PCBs are hydrophobic and thus tend to bind to organic ' ^nft,i,,n>, ' 23v-
particles in sediment and soils. Because of their chemical stability '" \ , "4 .^ « '.,..!
PCBs tend to persist in the environment. PCBs enter fish and other ', ... -• -^f*' •-'vX.
wildlife through absorption or ingest/on, and accumulate in their [ ./"-"""^ "^;
tissues at levels many times higher than in the surrounding water "'.' ,toneS\
and at levels unsuitable for human consumption. EPA has deter- > > " ,
mined PCBs to be a probable human carcinogen; they also have ' '" <*»»/ ; ^
been shown to have an adverse impact on human reproductive ' 0^Mr, ' ****
and immune systems and may act as an endocrine disruptor.] • T
In the late 1980s the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (through its }- I , •"•*••».«•
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)), and "" ', •""' '*" .
the states of Delaware (Delaware Department of Natural Resourc- " '
es and Environmental Control (DNREC)), and New Jersey (New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP)), began issuing fish consumption advisories for portions of the Delaware Estuary due
to elevated concentrations of PCBs measured in fish tissue. In 1996 water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants including PCBs were adopted for Zones 2-5 of the river. The criteria generally decrease as
one moves down the river, from 44.4 picograms per liter in Zones 2 and 3, down to 7.9 picograms per
liter in lower Zone 5. (The criteria in Zone 6 is higher.) The more stringent criterion in the lower estuary
reflects the different water uses that are made within the different zones, particularly with respect
to fish consumption. As a result, achieving the necessary reductions in the lower zones will require
much larger reductions in the upper zones than would otherwise be necessary. Significant reductions
are required throughout the estuary as ambient concentrations of PCBs in the water body currently
exceed the criteria by two to three orders of magnitude. In 1998 all three states included Zones 2-5
on the lists of 303(d) impaired waters under the CWA, requiring establishment of a TMDL for PCBs.
Today, the states' fish consumption advisories cover the entire estuary and bay, ranging from a
no-consumption recommendation for all species taken between the C&D Canal and the Delaware-
Pennsylvania border to consumption of no more than one meal per month of striped bass or white
perch in Zones 2 through 4.
Given the variety of government agencies with jurisdiction over the river,
in 2000 the relevant states and EPA Regions II and III agreed that the Del-
aware River Basin Commission (DRBC) should take the lead in developing
the PCB TMDL. The DRBC is a federal-interstate compact agency created
by the U.S. and the states of Delaware, New Jersey and the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania to jointly manage water resources within the ba-
sin. The DRBC, under its independent authority, had issued water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants that have been largely adopted by the states.
To aid its work the DRBC formed a Toxics Advisory Committee (TAG), a
thirteen member group comprised of representatives from the states, the two EPA Regions, municipal
and industrial dischargers, academia, agriculture, public health, environmental organizations and fish
and wildlife interests. The DRBC also initiated an extensive program of scientific investigations and
data collection efforts. Additionally, several coalitions of NPDES permitted dischargers were formed,
one of which provided technical support in the development of the water quality model.
A number of factors made the preparation of a PCB TMDL for the Delaware River difficult, including:
the different types of PCBs present in the river with varying characteristics (209 PCB compounds
can exist, depending on the distribution of chlorine atoms); differences in fish consumption advi-
sories among the states; the large, widely dispersed source load of PCBs in runoff, contaminated
ground water, sediments, air and other sources; the particularly diverse group of affected stake-
holders (industrial and municipal point and NPSs, most of whom also relied on the basin's waters);
extremely low detection limits for PCBs and the ubiquity of PCBs at these levels; the fact that the
122
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
(continued)
original sources of PCBs are often not the same as the Loading Source categories; and questions
over the dynamics of tributary loading and sediment redistribution.
Two aspects of the PCB problem in the Delaware River made a cross programmatic, multi-stake-
holder approach particularly useful: the short timeframe that was required to develop the TMDL,
and the predominance of nonpoint discharge sources of PCBs in the River.
Short Timeframe for TMDL Development
PMPs Rely on Adaptive Pursuant to provisions of a 1997 consent decree, the
Management gtates (Qr EpA) were requjred to estab|ish a PCB TMDL by
While PMP plans must be detailed December, 2003. Given the short timeframe, a two phase
and cover specific topics, the PMP approach was adopted. In the first stage, TMDLs (for the dif-
Rule is not prescriptive. ferent zones) were established, comprising individual waste-
Premise: dischargers know their load allocations (WLAs) for 142 potential PCB point sources;
facilities better than regulators a Load Allocation (LA) for NPSs; and a MOS, based upon a
Ensures that each facility takes simP|ified methodology and extrapolations from data and
a deep look at its operations and model simulations for one category (or congener ) of PCBs.
conditions Because of the predominance of NPSs of PCBs in the river
(discussed below) as well as uncertainties associated with
Wide flexibility for achieving ^ |ogdjng ca|CU|ationS| EPA agreed with the NPDES permit-
reductions tjng autnoritjes that it was appropriate for the potential PCB
Different facilities will have different point sources to receive non-numeric WQBELs, to be imple-
approaches mented at their five year NPDES permit renewal point. Stage
What works for one may not work for 2 TMDLs, which will include additional individual WLAs
another (including numeric or non-numeric limits for NPDES permit
holders) and Load Allocations (LAs) for non-point sources,
Encourage creative solutions w||| be deve|oped |n
-------
(continued)
from nonpolnt sources, the rule allows the DRBC to require PMPsfor contaminated sites where
releases are not being addressed entirely through other state or federal regulatory programs.
The PMP rule embodies the principle of adaptive management, which encourages experimenta-
tion, measurement, and readjustment depending on the results of the actions taken. It reflects an
awareness that while dramatic reductions in loadings from all source categories will be required to
achieve the PCB TMDLs over several decades, uncertainty as to the effectiveness of any particular
reduction activity currently remains.
The PMP rule contemplates that as individual NPDES permits come up for renewal on their
five year cycle, the requirements of the rule will be incorporated by the various state permitting
authorities. The DRBC's PMP Rule also provided that a peer review advisory committee would be
established to evaluate the PMPs and advise regulators on their anticipated effectiveness. The
committee will also provide advice on additional measures that may be practicable.
There are early signs that the PMP
adaptive management approach can
work. In Wilmington, Delaware, a rail
facility demonstrated an approximate
90% reduction in PCBs in surface runoff
after implementing erosion control; and
a chemical company demonstrated
an initial 22 to 32% load reduction by
making changes in its handling of raw
materials, processes, and settling and
sand filtration, with significantly more
reductions expected by 2007. A refinery
in southeast Pennsylvania had removed
PCB equipment years ago, but after
developing a PMP plan identified and
removed contaminated sediments in a
stormwater drainage ditch.
Identifying NPS PCB Loading to the Delaware
River: Major Collaborative Steps to DelTRiP
Implementation
Step 1: DelTRiP will identify contaminated sites in each
state within the basin using EPA and state
databases, including but not limited to Superfund
listings (NPL and CERCLIS), RCRA, EPCRA TRI,
and state brownfield and hazardous waste sites.
Other listings, such as those developed by fire
departments or building inspectors, or through
municipal wastewater treatment plant trackdown
programs, might also be used to identify sites.
Step 2: Sites identified from "other listings" will be referred
to the appropriate federal/state agencies for
consideration.
Step 3: DRBC will locate and incorporate identified sites
into GIS.
Step 4: State and federal agencies will quantify the PCB
loads being released or that have the potential to
be released from contaminated sites identified
above.
Step 5: DelTRiP will develop criteria to rank each site (i.e.:
to determine its significance and to decide if it is to
be prioritized for tracking and reporting).
Step 6: DelTRiP will prioritize the contaminated sites that
significantly contribute, or have the potential to
significantly contribute, to the PCB load to the basin.
Step 7: DRBC will assemble status information for each
prioritized site and track the remediation progress
and other actions taken to reduce the releases to
the Basin from the contaminated waste sites.
Step 8: DBRC will publish an annual report detailing
measurable reductions and the status of
implementation activities at each prioritized
contaminated site, highlighting key milestones and
accomplishments.
Nonpoint Sources of PCBs
The second aspect of the Delaware
River PCB TMDL that made a cross-pro-
grammatic, multi-stakeholder approach
important was the fact that much of
the PCB load comes from NPSs. Cur-
rent data suggest that NPSs, including
contaminated sites and stormwater
discharges, are the largest categories of
PCB loadings in the Delaware River. The
CWA's NPDES and TMDL programs fall
most directly on point discharges; NPSs
are typically more difficult to measure
and address. There is often a wealth of
data which has been gathered by EPA
and state programs as part of their as-
sessments of and responses to contami-
nated lands, yet historically it has been
difficult to feed this information into
those same governments' water protec-
124
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
(continued)
tion programs for use in restoring
waterbodies.
To help identify and prioritize for
response contaminated sites and
other NPSs which are contribut-
ing PCBs and other toxics to the
Delaware River, the Delaware
River Toxics Reduction Program
(DelTRiP) was created in 2004
as ajoint effort of DNREC, New
Jersey DEP, Pennsylvania DEP,
EPA and the DRBC. DelTRiP's
goal is to cull information held
by federal, state and local pro-
grams (CERCLA, RCRA, EPCRA
TRI, Brownfields programs, etc.)
regarding contaminated sites,
and then identify, prioritize, track, and report the status of such sites within the basin that do or
could significantly contribute toxic loadings to the Delaware River Basin. EPA and the various state
programs each play a role in ensuring that the information held by one program gets to others.
Difficult issues remain with respect to nonpoint sources of PCBs in the Delaware River, because
the different EPA, state, and regional environmental programs do not always use the same ap-
proaches to achieve their common goals.
TMDL Sample Collection
The preferred method for TMDL development is to use long-term monitoring data; however, ad-
equate data are not always available, especially in watersheds with primarily nonpoint source and
background pollutant loading. When data is not available, sampling may be conducted to support
any aspect of the TMDL, including determination of benchmarks, loading estimates, loading alloca-
tions, and monitoring. Examples of data that may be collected for the TMDL are flow rates, water
chemistry/toxitity, physical habitat evaluation, biological community structure, source loading stud-
ies such as tracer studies, and qualitative macroinvertebrate studies.
Sampling Objective. Sampling is conducted to determine concentrations of contaminants in the
water body, seasonal variation in contamination, and acceptable pollutant loading that protects
designated uses; identify sources of pollution and the amount of pollutant each source contributes;
and determine mass loading from various sources so pollutant loads may be allocated to sources
and limited to achieve water cleanup goals. Samples may be collected to monitor progress toward
meeting WQS.
Sampling Strategy for Monitoring. Episodic samples are collected to ensure the waterbody is
meeting or is making progress toward meeting water quality criteria. Water quality samples are
collected and the flow rate is measured at each sampling point within the watershed. Samples are
analyzed for contaminant(s) of interest (dissolved analysis for metals), and the analyses from the
sample data and the water flow rate are used to calculate pollutant loads. Samples are collected at
appropriate times of the year to determine the seasonal variation in pollutant loading and seasonal
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
TMDL requirements. Physical and biological samples and data may also be collected as necessary
to relate TMDL activities to water quality standards.
Laboratory Analysis: Samples are analyzed for the TMDL pollutant and associated indicators
Data Quality. Data must be shown to be reliable and in accordance with applicable data collec-
tion and/or QA/QC program requirements. Data quality requirements are variable; for example,
samples collected for water quality analysis generally have a high level of QA/QC, while samples
collected for source identification and assessment may have lesser data quality requirements.
Data Uses. Data are used to determine acceptable pollutant loads based on the designated water
use, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards on a seasonal basis, where and how pollutant loading must be reduced, and if the TMDL
is achieving the desired goals.
For more information about this subject see:
Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440-4-91-001. April 1991.
Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) 9355.0-85 DRAFT. January 2005.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control EPA/505/2-90-001. PB-127415.1991.
Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development. EPA841-B-97-006. 1997.
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs, First Edition. EPA 841-B-99-004. October 1999.
Stressor Identification Guidance. EPA 822-F-00-012. December 2000.
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
RCRA studies are performed at sites that actively manage hazardous wastes. The RCRA process is
similar to the CERCLA process, but the responsible party performs the work under EPA and state
supervision. To facilitate expeditious site evaluation and cleanup, the assessment requirements are
procedurally flexible and only the elements required to make good cleanup decisions are required.
The following are elements common to most contaminated RCRA facilities.
Similar to a CERCLA PA, the RFA is performed to determine the existence of continuous or non-
continuous releases of hazardous wastes. Information is gathered on solid waste management
units and other areas of concern. The information is evaluated to determine the need to proceed to
a RFI. The RFA does not generally include sampling and analysis.
Opportunities for Integration
» Developing combined assessment and
monitoring programs with consistent
sampling and analysis protocols can be
useful to multiple programs and agencies.
I Multiple programs and agencies can
conduct seasonal basin loading studies
to assist in source identification and
priorrtization, load allocations, and
appropriate cleanup/implementation
strategies.
> Source identification may identify sites
requiring implementation of CERCLA, RCRA,
or Brownfields authorities. Conversely, sites
already investigated by those programs may
be included in the TMDL
126
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Similar to a CERCLA RI, the purpose of the RFI is to
gather data to fully characterize the nature, extent,
and rate of migration of hazardous wastes. The
agency(s) conducting the investigation use the data
to determine the need for corrective measures and
to help select and implement the measures.
CERCLA Site Assessment
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Objective. The purpose of the PA is to determine
if a site has the potential to pose a threat to hu-
man health and the environment. Information is
collected to determine whether a SI is warranted.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the decision-making process
for conducting a PA/SI.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Figure 4-3 PA/SI decision tree
Site Identification/Initiation
of PA/SI
Impaired
Water?
!,.YES
Contact TMDL
Program
NO
Perform
traditional PA/SI
Program
Integration
Indicated?
^ YES
NO
Comprehensive Preliminary
Watershed Assessment
Watershed-wide reconnaissance.
Loading study/synchronized sampling.
Identify potential sources.
Coordinate PA/SI with TMDL
Ideal sampling: low detection dissolved
metals or organic samples, water body
flow measurements, qualitative
macroinvertebrate sampling, sediment
samples, GPS locations for all samples,
consistent sample IDs
Data Collected. PA data collection may be limited to desktop research but often includes a brief
site visit. Data collected for the PA includes:
> General Site Information. Location, ownership, type of facility, years of operation.
> Source and Waste Characteristics. Source types and locations, size of sources, waste types
and quantities, hazardous substances present, plant processes.
I Groundwater Use and Characteristics. General geology, aquifer characteristics, locations
of private, municipal, and drinking water wells, wellhead protection area, blended systems.
> Surface Water Use and Characteristics. Nearest water body and other surface water bodies
within 15 miles downstream, flood frequency, sensitive environments, wetlands, fisheries,
surface water flow characteristics, and surface water intakes.
I Soil Exposure Characteristics. Populations, schools, facility workers, sensitive environ-
ments.
Information is gathered from searches of federal, state, and/or local records, site sketches, inspec-
tion reports, aerial photographs, databases and any other available source. Data are used to calcu-
late a preliminary HRS score to determine the need for further investigation.
127
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Opportunities for Integration
> An amended approach to the
UFA may be appropriate for sites
within a contaminated watershed.
Proposed additions to the Region
3 UPA requirements include
identification of existing water
flow and water quality data and
identification of the CWA 303(d)
status of the watershed (available
in EPA databases). If the site is
within an impaired or potentially
impaired watershed and has a
potential pathway to surface water,
additional data collection should
be specified, including collecting
land use and ownership data,
maps, and aerial photography for
the entire watershed.
Unified Phase Assessment (UPA)
EPA Region 3 has developed and tested an initial envi-
ronmental assessment tool, the Unified Phase Assess-
ment, to organize information about a site in a way that
will meet the requirements of CERCLA, RCRA, USTs,
and Brownfields PAs (Unified Phase Assessment Guid-
ance Manual, EPA Region III. Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Division, September 15, 2004). The UPA process allows
the site to be referred to the most applicable program
without repeating the PA process, thereby increasing
the speed and effectiveness of SI and cleanup. The UPA
contains three parts:
1. a single page quick reference
2. the primary assessment containing elements common
to all initial assessments
3. program-specific data including QC information, large
maps, and other data and background information.
128
Data applicable to individual programs are included in program-specific attachments. The UPA can
be completed in two phases, similarly to the PA method: UPA I is an initial assessment of the site
and UPA II delineates on-site contamination, possible off-site impact of the contamination, and
the impact of contamination migrating onto the site from off-site sources. Additional information
is developed for potential purchasers/stakeholders in making further decisions concerning the de-
velopment potential of the property. UPA II may involve site sampling and possible limited off-site
sampling. A limited hydrogeologic investigation may be included in the UPA II.
Site Inspection (SI)
Sampling Objective. The objective of an SI is to gather site-specific information to support a deci-
sion about the need for further Superfund attention. Data are collected to determine the nature of
contamination, investigate the exposure of potential targets, establish background concentrations,
and establish a pathway between the contamination and targets based on data gaps identified dur-
ing the PA. The full extent of contamination at the site is not investigated, and a risk assessment is
not performed. Pathways investigated include ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air.
Targets include wells and surface water intakes supplying drinking water, populations, human food
chain organisms, sensitive environments, wellhead protection areas, and resources.
Sampling Strategy. The Triad approach may be used to direct sampling activities. Soil, source
material, surface water, ground water, sediment, and air may be sampled, depending on the nature
of the site, contaminants and pathways. All media are not sampled for each SI, only those that the
PA indicates will be essential to provide a decisive HRS scoring package. Additional sampling may
be performed but only as needed to establish a link of the contamination to the site or to support
the HRS scoring package. Background samples are required to establish release of a hazardous
substance and establish representative ambient concentrations.
Samples. Water samples may be filtered or non-filtered, depending on the contaminant and the
HRS factor being evaluated. Filtered samples allow comparison to drinking water benchmarks and
unfiltered samples are used to compare with surface water environmental benchmarks. Ground
water sampling should be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbance and turbidity so that
filtering is not necessary unless it is specifically required for geochemical speciation modeling.
Laboratory Analysis. Analytical parameters vary significantly depending on source materials
and the potential threats of those materials to the identified receptors. Detection levels for each
sample/analyte are dependent on the specific HRS factor being evaluated and the benchmark that
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
will be used for comparison. The detection levels may not match the Contract Required Quantita-
tion Limits (CRQL) or the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDL).
Data Quality. The minimum data quality requirements for each analysis depend on the chemical
and the specific HRS factor being evaluated. Data used to document the site HRS score must be
legally defendable. Data used for determining source dimensions, for example, may be screening
level data. Proper sample collection and handling procedures are used and quality control samples
are collected, including field duplicate, field blank, trip blank, and field rinsate samples. Samples are
sent to CLP laboratories or non-CLP laboratory services. Data are validated. Field screening data are
used only for discrete source samples that do not require a background sample in the HRS.
Data Uses. Data are used in the HRS models to determine if the site should proceed to a potential
NPL listing. Listed sites may then move to the remedial stage where more thorough site investiga-
tion is performed (RI) and solutions determined (FS).
Table 4-5 indicates the benchmarks for each exposure pathway threat.
Table 4-5 PA/SI Benchmarks
' •• '*S ,,:.«'- :'•",, sy/th"'"';? • sif*- ••• > 'f''f*
Ground Water Maximum contaminant levels
Maximum contaminant level goals
Screening concentrations
Surface Water Drinking water threat
Maximum contaminant levels
: Maximum contaminant level goals
Screening concentrations
Human food chain threat
? Food and Drug Administration action levels
Screening concentrations
Environmental threat
Ambient water quality criteria
Ambient aquatic life advisory concentrations
Soil Exposure Screening concentrations
Air National ambient air quality standards
National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
Screening concentrations
For more information about this subject see:
A Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-91/013, September 1991.
A Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA. EPA 540-R-92-021, Directive 9345.1-05,
September 1992.
Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. EPA 540-R-92-026. November 1992.
Unified Phased Assessment Guidance Manual, E.S. EPA Region III - Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Division. September 15, 2004.
CERCLA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The RI/FS is conducted to characterize the nature and extent of risks posed by NPL sites and to
evaluate potential remedial options. The objective of the RI/FS process is to gather information
sufficient to support an informed risk management decision regarding which remedy (combination
of treatments) appears to be most appropriate for a site. The RI includes site characterization and
risk assessment. The FS provides an evaluation of potential remedial alternatives. The following
129
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
discussion presents the site characterization portion of the RI/FS. Risk Assessment is discussed in
the following section and the FS is discussed in Chapter 5.
Site Characterization
The site characterization portion of the RI/FS includes collection of a wide range of information
regarding the site, setting, contaminants, source areas, and contaminant fate and transport. Treat-
ability studies may be performed to help select and evaluate remedial alternatives. Developing the
RI/FS may be an iterative process, and data collection may be performed throughout the process,
becoming increasingly refined as the understanding of the site conceptual model is refined. The
following data may be collected, depending on site-specific conditions:
I Site Geology Information. Unconsolidated soil/sediment and bedrock geology, including the
influence on aquifers and contaminant fate and transport. Data are collected from available
information, site reconnaissance mapping, and subsurface explorations.
> Soil and Vadose Zone Information. Soil characteristics (type, holding capacity, tempera-
ture, biological activity, and engineering properties), soil chemistry characteristics (solubil-
ity, ion speciation, adsorption coefficients, leachability, cation exchange capacity, mineral
partition coefficients, and chemical and sorptive properties), and vadose zone character-
istics (permeability, variability, porosity, moisture content, chemical characteristics, and
extent of contamination). Data are collected from existing information, borehole sampling,
laboratory analysis and measurements, aquifer tests, tracer tests, leaching tests, laboratory
experiments, and other specialized testing.
> Surface Water and Sediment Information. Drainage patterns (overland flow, topography,
channel flow pattern, tributary relationships, soil erosion, and sediment transport and deposi-
tion), surface water body information (flow, channel width, water depths, channel elevations,
flooding tendencies, and physical dimensions of surface water impoundments), water struc-
tures, surface water/ground water relationships, and surface water quality (pH, temperature,
total suspended solids, suspended sediment, salinity, and specific contaminant concentrations).
Numerous samples of surface water and sediment are generally collected directly downgradient
of the site as well as upstream to evaluate the site's impact on the surface waterbody. In tidally-
influenced sites, sampling should be conducted at different stages of the tidal cycle. The number
of samples collected should be enough to calculate the background concentration with a speci-
fied Upper Confidence Limit (e.g., 90 percent). Data are collected from existing information
including aerial maps, ground surveys, topographic maps, data from public agencies, water level
measurements, and modeling.
> Ground water Information. Occurrence (aquifer boundaries, locations, and ability to transmit
water), ground water movement (direction and rate of flow), recharge/discharge (locations and
rates), and ground water quality (pH, total dissolved solids, salinity, and contaminant concen-
trations). Data are collected from existing literature, pumping and injection tests, monitoring
well installation and testing, water level measurements, geophysical studies, modeling, slug
tests, tracer tests, pump tests, calculations from soil and geological data, and field mapping.
> Atmospheric Information. Local climate (precipitation, temperature, wind speed and direction,
and presence of inversion layers), weather extremes (storms, floods, and winds), release char-
acteristics (direction and speed of plume movement; rate, amount, and temperature of release;
and relative densities). Data are collected from existing information and on-site measurements.
> Ecological Information. Land use characteristics, water use characteristics, ecosystem compo-
nents and characteristics, critical habitats, and biocontamination. Data are collected from exist-
ing information, agency reports, ground and aerial surveys, and sample collection.
> Source Information. Facility characteristics (source location, type of waste/chemical contain-
ment, integrity of waste/chemical containment, drainage control, engineered structures, site
security, known discharge points, mapping, and surveying) and waste characteristics (type,
JL O \J
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
quantities, chemical and physical properties, and concentrations). Data are collected from exist-
ing information, previous studies, site surveys, remote sensing, surveying, and sampling and
analysis).
Additional data may be collected to evaluate potential remedial actions. Treatability studies are
conducted to provide sufficient data to allow complete evaluation of treatment alternatives and to
reduce the cost and performance uncertainties of a specific treatment alternative.
Sampling Strategy. Samples are collected for a variety of purposes and the strategy used to deter-
mine the type, quantity, and locations of samples will vary accordingly. For example, the location
of samples collected to determine the nature of source material may be determined judgmentally,
while the locations of samples collected to determine the extent of ground water contamination
may be determined using a stratified random approach. Data may be collected in multiple sam-
pling efforts to use resources efficiently—the level of accuracy may increase as the focus of sam-
pling is narrowed and depends on the use of the data.
Laboratory Analysis. Chemical analysis will include contaminants of potential concern and deg-
radation products plus characteristics that may affect contaminant fate and transport or potential
remedial alternatives.
Benchmarks. Remediation goals are media-specific and
site-specific and developed either in conjunction with, or
following completion of, the Risk Assessment. Standard-
ized criteria, such as those listed in the Superfund Chemi-
cal Data Matrix (SCDM), Soil Screening Levels (SSLs), or
Region 3 Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs), may also be
used.
Data Quality. Data quality requirements for RI sample
analysis may vary according to data uses. Data that will
be used to support enforcement and/or cost-recovery
actions or establish risk will require a higher level of
confidence than data collected for planning, monitoring,
or implementation activities. The data quality objective
process is followed for all samples collected to ensure
the sampling and analysis protocols meet the data use
requirements. Data quality objectives are revised as the
site model is refined.
Opportunities for Integration
I Data linking ground water and
surface water interactions will
be helpful to identify and assess
sources and to link sources to loads
in the TMDL
I The RI/FS may provide mapping and
aerial photography that includes
the site plus areas upgradient and
downgradient of the site.
I Integration between programs and
agencies can streamline collection
of the extensive site characterization
information required for the RI.
Conversely, RI data can be useful
for several aspects of TMDL
development.
For more information about this subject see:
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection
Decision Documents. EPA 540-R-98-031. July 1999.
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA - Interim
Final. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. October 1988.
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Web site, www.clu-in.org
Superfund Policies and Guidance, www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance
CERCLA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments are part of the RI; they determine how
threatening a hazardous waste site is to human health and the environment and help determine
appropriate cleanup strategies. Risk assessment is performed to facilitate defensible site-specific
risk management decisions, including identification and characterization of current and potential
131
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
threats from a hazardous substance and identification of cleanup levels that would protect human
health and the environment. Risk assessors seek to determine a safe level for each potentially dan-
gerous contaminant present. For humans, this is a level at which health effects are unlikely and the
probability of cancer is very small. For ecological receptors, determining the level of risk is more
complicated and is a function of the receptors of concern, the nature of the adverse effects caused
by the contaminants, and the desired condition of the ecological resources.
Risk Assessments are conducted on a site-by-site basis. The process is conducted in four steps: data
collection and analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The
exposure assessment includes analysis of contaminant releases, identification of exposed popula-
tions, identification of potential exposure pathways, estimation of exposure concentrations for
each pathway, and estimation of contaminant intakes for each pathway. The toxicity assessment
includes collection of qualitative and quantitative toxicity information and determination of appro-
priate toxicity values. Risk characterization investigates the potential for adverse effects and the
related uncertainty. Standardized assumptions may be used to streamline the assessment. These
are very conservative assumptions and are not applicable to every site, so site-specific information
is often required to provide the most reasonable estimation of risk to determine the most appropri-
ate cleanup strategy.
Note: The Risk Assessment process requires experienced personnel with specialized knowledge
and a thorough understanding of contaminant fate and transport, ecosystem structure, receptor
biology, risk evaluation methods, and many other topics. For the purposes of this manual, only por-
tions of the Risk Assessment process directly related to
the watershed assessment and cleanup efforts of other
programs and agencies are presented. For more detailed
presentation of the Risk Assessment process, please
see references from this section. Regional BTAGs are
available to provide guidance and support to Remedial
Project Managers. The BTAG will communicate with
Trustees to ensure continuity between the remedial and
restoration processes.
Opportunities for Integration
I Risk Assessment personnel should
be included in RI/FS scoping
meetings to ensure integrated data
collection and reduce duplication of
effort.
Ecological Risk Assessments
and Natural Resource Damage
Assessments (NRDA) have several
common components. A Risk
Assessment does not complete the
requirements of a NRDA, but it might
establish the causal link between site
contaminants and specific adverse
ecological receptors, and thereby
might be useful in the NRDA process.
If a NRDA might be performed at
the site, NRDA personnel should be
included in Risk Assessment site
decisions to prevent duplicative
efforts. For an example of integrating
Risk Assessment and NRDA efforts,
please see Integrating Natural
Resource Da mage Assessment
and Environmental Restoration
Activities at DOE Facilities, Office of
Environmental Guidance, Washington
DC, October 1993.
Risk Assessment and TMDL may
integrate efforts for water sampling,
toxicity testing, accumulation
and tissue residue studies, and
population/community evaluations.
132
SampZing Objective. Samples are collected to identify
and characterize the toxicity and levels of hazardous
substances present in relevant media; environmental
fate and transport mechanisms within specific envi-
ronmental media; potential human and environmen-
tal receptors, potential exposure routes and extent of
actual or expected exposure, extent of expected impact
or threat and the likelihood of such impact of threat
occurring; and the level of uncertainty associated with
each element.
Sampling Strategy. A site conceptual model is prepared
and used to identify which points or assumptions in the
risk assessment include the greatest degree of conser-
vatism or uncertainty. Field sampling is performed to
quantify the risk model parameters that have the most
important effects on the risk estimates. Samples may be
collected to establish a pathway to the receptor (deter-
mine exposure) or to determine effects of exposure on
specific populations; therefore, soil, water, air, sedi-
ments, or biota samples may be collected from on-site,
upgradient, and downgradient locations. The number,
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
type, and locations of samples are determined using the type and duration of possible exposures,
potential exposure routes, and key exposure points for each medium, and the relative importance of
each. Sample quantity is determined by the size and complexity of the site and the need to perform
a statistical evaluation of risk. The Ecological Risk Assessment frequently includes field studies for
bioaccumulation and tissue residue studies, population/community evaluations and toxicity testing.
Laboratory Analysis. In addition to analysis of physical and chemical characteristics such as
temperature, pH, and chemical concentrations, field sampling and/or laboratory analysis may be
performed to determine such information as biological community structure, toxicity to various or-
ganisms, and impacts on growth or reproduction. Laboratory detection limits must be low enough
for comparison with toxicity reference values. Required detection limits are generally based on the
SCDM but must also account for additive values and carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.
Reference values may be lower than CRDLs or CRQLs, so pre-planning for the appropriate level of
analysis is essential. Field screening techniques are used only to streamline the sampling and risk
assessment process by indicating if and where more detailed sampling should be performed.
Data Quality. Data collection and analysis techniques are very specific. Definitive data are re-
quired for use in the risk assessment. QC samples are collected. Data are validated using strict
criteria.
Benchmarks. Benchmarks or measurement endpoints are specific to the site contaminants, po-
tential receptors, and likelihood of exposure. Risk assessment endpoints are based on statutory
mandates and are specific to the receptor, contaminant, and other site-specific criteria. Typical
benchmarks are from the SCDM, SSLs, Region 9 TMDL, or Region 3 RBCs.
Data Uses. Data are used to determine the statistical risk to human health and environmental re-
ceptors. The results of the risk assessment are used to determine what level of cleanup is required
to achieve an acceptable level of risk from the site.
For more information about this subject see:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Super/and (RAGS), Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part A. EPA/540/1 - 89/002. December 1999.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual,
PartB. EPA/540/R - 92/003. December 1991.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part C. OSWER/9285.7-01C. October 1991.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual,
PartD. OSWER/ 9285.7-47. December 2001.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part Ł DRAFT. EPA/540/R/99/005. September 2001.
Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER/9285.7-53. December 2003.
Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological
Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006. June 1997.
Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment. EPA/540/G-90/008. September 1990.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
Under the CWA, OPA, CERCLA, and other environmental laws, trustees perform an NRDA to
determine compensation for injuries to natural resources that have not been nor are expected to
be addressed by response actions conducted pursuant to the NCR As stated in Chapter 2, DOI and
NOAA each have regulations for NRDA preparation.
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
134
DOI NRDA Process
DOI's regulations provide a framework and standards for the NRDA process in coastal and marine
environments (Type A) and other environments (Type B). The Type A process involves the use of
a computer model to assess damages in a standard and simplified manner that result from chemi-
cal or oil discharges in coastal and marine environments. The Type B process is used in situations
that require an individual approach. Because the Type A process does not include additional site
assessment activities, the following descriptions are for Type B NRDAs. The regulations require
trustees to coordinate the assessment efforts, including the pre-assessment screen, with the lead
response agency in any situation where response activity is planned or underway at a site [40 CFR
Data collected in the pre-assessment screen determine whether an injury has occurred and a
pathway of exposure exists. This determination is often made using existing information. The As-
sessment Plan/Implementation Phases include data collection necessary to quantify injuries and
determine damages. Laboratory and field studies are used to quantify injuries by identifying the
functions or "services" provided by the resource, determining the baseline level of such services,
and quantifying the reduction in service levels that result from the impacts. In the post-assess-
ment phase, the results of the assessment are presented and a reasonable number of restoration
alternatives, including natural attenuation, are proposed. A preferred alternative is selected on the
basis of technical feasibility, relationship of costs to benefits and consistency with response actions.
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/nrda2.htm
www.darp.noaa.gov
NOAA NRDA Process
In the preliminary assessment, the trustees determine whether injury to public trust resources has
occurred. Their work includes collecting time-sensitive data and reviewing scientific literature
about the released substance and its impact on trust resources to determine the extent and severity
of injury. If resources are injured, trustees proceed to the next step. During Injury Assessment/Res-
toration Planning, trustees quantify injuries and identify possible restoration projects. Economic
and scientific studies assess the injuries to natural resources and the loss of services. These stud-
ies are also used to develop a restoration plan that outlines alternative approaches to speed the
recovery of injured resources and compensate for their loss or impairment from the time of injury
to recover. The final step, Restoration Implementation, is to implement restoration and monitor its
effectiveness. Trustees work with the public to select and implement restoration projects. Examples
of restoration include replanting wetlands, improving fishing access sites and restoring salmon
streams. The responsible party pays the costs of assessment and restoration and is often a key par-
ticipant in implementing the restoration.
Although the concept of assessing injuries may sound simple, understanding complex ecosystems,
the services these ecosystems provide, and the injuries caused by oil and hazardous substances
takes time — often years. The season the resource was injured, the type of oil or hazardous sub-
stance, and the amount and duration of the release are among the factors that affect how quickly
resources are assessed and restoration and recovery occurs. The rigorous scientific studies that are
necessary to prove injury to resources and services — and withstand scrutiny in a court of law —
may also take years to implement and complete. But the NRDA process described above helps to
ensure an objective and cost-effective assessment of injuries and that the public's concerns and
resources are fully considered.
Integration Example: Whenever possible, NOAA works cooperatively with the parties responsible
for the injury. By working with responsible parties and co-trustees to collect data, conduct assess-
ments and identify restoration projects, NOAA avoids lengthy litigation and achieves restoration of
injured resources more efficiently.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
Removal Assessment and Cleanup
A removal site evaluation consists of a removal preliminary assessment and, if necessary, a removal
site inspection. Provided that there is a substantial threat at a site and a removal action is neces-
sary, the PA and the SI may be combined into a removal site evaluation. The removal PA is done
using readily available information such as source identification, nature of the release or threat-
ened release, and an assessment of the threat to public health including the magnitude of the
threat and the factors necessary to determine the need for a removal action. The PA determines if
there is a need for additional data. A removal preliminary assessment of releases from hazardous
waste management facilities may include collection or review of data such as site management
practices, information from generators, photographs, analysis of historical photographs, literature
searches, and personal interviews conducted, as appropriate.
If there is a need for additional information, a removal SI is performed to help determine the need
for and urgency of response. The evaluation determines if a release has occurred. If such a release
of a CWA hazardous substance has occurred, the OSC shall determine whether the release results
in a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States. Factors to be considered
by the OSC in making this determination include, but are not limited to, the size of the release,
the character of the release, and the nature of the threat to public health or welfare of the United
States. Upon obtaining relevant elements of such information, the OSC shall conduct an evaluation
of the threat posed, on the basis of the OSC's experience in assessing other releases, and consulta-
tion with senior lead agency officials and readily available authorities on issues outside the OSC's
technical expertise.
The following are examples of information presented at the conclusion of a removal site evaluation:
> Identification of the nature and source of the release
> Evaluation of the threat to public health
» Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat
> Evaluation of factors necessary to make a determination of whether a removal is necessary
» Determination of whether a nonfederal party is undertaking a proper response
If the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate, action begins as soon as pos-
sible. Not all actions considered to be removal actions will be equally urgent. For example, situa-
tions involving risk of fire or explosion or contamination of a drinking water reservoir may require
more prompt and expeditious attention than certain drum removals or cleanups of surface im-
poundments. The three categories of removals are classic emergencies, time-critical removals, and
nontime-critical removals.
Removal Assessment Sampling Objectives. Samples may be collected to determine site charac-
teristics, nature and extent of contamination, contaminant properties, targets affected by site, and
information required for risk evaluation. In some cases, a treatability study may be performed to
evaluate one or more treatment alternatives. In that case, samples may be collected to test the
ability of the technology to meet treatment objectives.
Sampling Strategy. Samples are collected to meet sampling objectives; this may not provide a
comprehensive evaluation of all site characteristics.
Data Quality. DQOs should be established to ensure the data provide the information necessary
for effective site decisions. Data that may be used in subsequent site studies or evaluations should
be of a quality that sampling and analysis need not be duplicated.
Data Uses. Data are used to evaluate site risk, determine removal objectives, and evaluate treat-
ment alternatives.
135
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
For more information about this subject see:
Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA. OSWER Directive
9360.0-32. EPA. August 1993.
Brownfields Assessments
Brownfields assessments focus on evaluation of a property to determine the needed actions to al-
low redevelopment and reuse without unacceptable risk to the community.
Phase I Site Assessment. A Brownfields Phase I site assessment is similar to a Superfund PA, but
the investigation is tailored to site-specific conditions. Intended land use and exposure scenarios
are considered, as are community acceptance of the resulting environmental conditions, applicabil-
ity of government oversight programs, and factors that may impede redevelopment and reuse. A
conceptual site model is prepared to assist in a Phase II assessment (i.e., site investigation) if it is
deemed necessary.
Phase II Assessment Site Investigation. A Phase II assessment site investigation is performed
to confirm if contamination exists at the site, locate the contamination, characterize the nature
and extent of contamination, and determine if there are unacceptable environmental conditions
at the site that would be cost-prohibitive to eradicate. Possible threats to the environment or to
any people living or working nearby are important. The results can be used to determine cleanup
goals, quantify risks, determine acceptable and unacceptable risk, and develop effective cleanup
plans. The investigation takes into account any issues the community has raised regarding site
contamination or reuse. If contamination is found that may pose significant threat to local resi-
dents, compliance with other programs such as RCRA or CERCLA may be required if the site is not
cleaned up voluntarily by the site owner.
Sampling Strategy. Samples are collected to determine the nature, extent, source, and signifi-
cance of contamination, and to assess physical, geophysical, and ecological site conditions. Sam-
ples may also be collected for a site-specific risk assessment. Efficient, innovative sampling and
analysis methods are encouraged. The Triad approach to sampling is preferred but is not always
applied at brownfields sites.
Typical Samples. Soil, soil gas, ground water, surface water, sediment, and air. Migration pathways
are examined. A baseline risk assessment may be performed. Samples collected depend on the site-
specific DQOs.
Sample Analysis. Alternative analytical technologies that expedite field work are encouraged,
but should meet the site-specific data quality requirements. Screening level data are collected to
facilitate site decisions. Collaborative samples are collected and submitted for definitive analysis to
confirm the results of screening level data for critical samples.
Benchmarks. Data is compared against an accepted source of cleanup standards such as the Re-
gion 3 Risk Based Concentrations or the Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals, or are used in
the site-specific risk assessment to determine site-specific goals.
Data Quality. DQOs are site-specific—the DQOs process is a key component of the "systematic
planning" portion of the Triad assessment approach to brownfield investigations. High quality
screening level data are generally acceptable for the intended use, and real-time analysis or field
testing is performed where appropriate to streamline field sampling. The type of data collected is
dependent upon the conceptual site model developed and planned end uses for the site.
Data Uses. Data are used to identify and evaluate the applicability of various site assessment and
cleanup technologies and to help determine whether the property can be cleaned up to the level
necessary for the intended reuse. Samples collected for a site-specific risk assessment may be used
to identify site-specific cleanup levels if there are no existing standards or alternative cleanup stan-
136
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
dards also may be appropriate. Also, each state has developed voluntary cleanup programs where
specific cleanup standards may be designated, and to eliminate any future risks, property owners
may receive assurance from the state that the site has been cleaned up.
For more information about this subject see:
Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup. EPA 542-B-97-001.
Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide. EPA540/R-96/018. July 1996.
Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24.
December 2002.
Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. EPA. January 2004.
Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations. EPA. April 2005.
www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/index.htm
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
Abandoned Mine Land Initiative Assessment
An interagency task force of federal land management agencies (BLM, NFS and USFS) and the
Interior Science Bureaus (USGS and staff of the former Bureau of Mines (BOM)) has developed
a risk-based watershed approach to achieve mitigation of water quality problems from AMLs on
federal lands. The watershed approach fosters collaborative work across federal and state govern-
ment administrative boundaries, facilitates solutions to the problem of mixed ownership of sites
within watersheds, addresses important problem sites first, and greatly reduces the total cost of
mitigation compared to cleaning up every mine site. The watershed approach focuses on coopera-
tion among federal land managers in partnership with the science bureaus; prioritizes, watershed
by watershed, specific waterbodies within each state that are affected by discharges from AMLs;
and allows cleanup to proceed on a risk-based priority.
The land management agencies provide overall program management, determine land status,
coordinate with state and federal agencies, facilitate public participation, and ensure compliance
with environmental laws. Land management agencies coordinate efforts with other federal agen-
cies and states. The science bureaus provide technical support to land management agencies,
develop technology and apply engineering principles, and perform risk/economic benefit analyses
in support of water quality improvement. A description of tasks performed in each phase of the
watershed process is provided below.
Statewide Analysis/Watershed Prioritization. Land management agencies collect information rel-
evant to the risk prioritization of watersheds with support from science agencies and states and set
priorities for characterization of watersheds. The science bureaus compile and analyze existing data
on statewide AML sites, stream sediment and mine dump geochemistry, mineral deposit locations,
and water quality; develop a regional environmental geology map portraying units with varying
acid neutralization and acid generation potentials; and with state and federal agencies, develop a
statewide CIS including locations of mineral districts, AML sites, mineral deposit types, environ-
mental geology features, precipitation and storm event data, and water quality characteristics.
Watershed Characterization. The land management agencies set objectives, protocols, and
performance criteria for watershed characterization in cooperation with science agencies; provide
oversight of the watershed characterization work performed by science agencies; on completion of
watershed characterization, select sites for mitigation with input from other federal land manag-
ers and science agencies; and develop mitigation plans with support in research and engineering
performed by science agencies. The science bureaus conduct total watershed monitoring to iden-
137
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
138
tify contaminant sources and sinks, relative source contributions, and contaminant budgets on the
basis of ambient, storm, and seasonal events; conduct remote sensing surveys of the watershed to
characterize contaminant sources and their distribution and to identify stressed ecosystems; con-
duct AML site-specific field analyses including geochemical, geophysical, and hydrologic surveys
of sources and pathways to identify environmental impacts; conduct site-specific geologic mapping
and subsurface geophysical and mineralogical characterization of host and waste rock materials;
identify technologically feasible options for site-specific water quality improvement, including
the possibility of re-mining; and develop benefit and cost analyses of options. These analyses will
identify the potential environmental and economic benefits of the mitigation options on the basis
of environmental risk technical feasibility and cost.
Site Characterization and Mitigation. The land management agencies implement AML mitiga-
tion with technical assistance from science bureaus. The science bureaus prepare mineral-related
scientific, engineering, and economic information to meet the land management agencies' requests
for proposals, and assist in technical monitoring of mitigation contracts. Where economically or
technically feasible mitigation options do not exist, the science bureaus define the research that
might result in such options and include an evaluation of the potential benefits and costs of the
research. In consultation with the federal land managers and states, they mitigate various sites to
demonstrate mitigation options and new technologies. Where appropriate, the science of bureaus
identify and evaluate potential re-mining sites; participate in the review of the scientific, engi-
neering, economic, and policy efficacy of the watershed permitting approach; and model ambient
chemical conditions and effects of mitigation efforts on surface water quality in the watershed.
Monitoring. The land management agencies monitor the post-construction site and, in coopera-
tion with the state and with technical assistance from science agencies, monitor the effectiveness
of site-specific mitigation and watershed quality improvement. The science bureaus help land
management agencies develop technically sufficient and cost-effective monitoring plans, provide
monitoring training, and provide analytical support for interpretation of monitoring results.
Table 4-1 on page 95 provides a comparison of surface water data collection and analysis require-
ments in mining watersheds for the TMDL program, Brownfields Assessments, and several Super-
fund actions.
Assessment and Data Integration
-------
ill
This chapter encourages a cross-programmatic approach to selecting and implementing watershed
remediation/restoration activities and providing long-term monitoring. It discusses integrated
watershed cleanup topics such as WFAs, the "3-Rs" Approach, and Watershed Cleanup Team task
assignments. It also discusses integrated monitoring and program requirements for determining
remediation and restoration actions and for long-term monitoring of watershed conditions, and
concludes by addressing additional topics that should be considered in a watershed cleanup. Three
case studies demonstrate the use of integrated remediation, restoration, reuse, and monitoring.
^
Integrating cleanup efforts requires both cross-program cooperation and careful allocations of
funding. Coordination between agencies and programs provides the potential for streamlining and
reducing the cost of watershed cleanup, restoration, and (where appropriate) redevelopment. This
section discusses some of the practical aspects of integrating cleanup implementation and post-
remediation monitoring. Because regions and states operate with different priorities and program-
matic tools, the ideas presented here may not work for all watersheds, but similar coordination
and careful planning can allow the stakeholders to utilize various programs, laws and resources
to successfully fulfill program requirements and achieve efficient, effective, and comprehensive
results.
The Watershed Cleanup Team should cooperatively set remediation, restoration, and re-use goals. If
feasible, the team should ensure that the goab are met by project implementation by using applicable
authorities and available funding mechanisms within the various schedule, budget, and other con-
straints of the programs that will address the watershed contamination. Goals should be consistent
with the overall Watershed Management Plan, where applicable.
Utah DEQ: Prioritizing 319 Spending
The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ), part of the Department of Environmental Quality, administers
the TMDL Program in conjunction with its watershed planning program. Utah uses 106 funding to provide
contractual support in the development of the 319 watershed management plan and the TMDL, which
includes an implementation plan. Utah then prioritizes the expenditure of its 319 NPS funds towards
implementation projects or activities identified in the TMDLs. In addition, DWQ has used 319 NPS funding
to support establishment of locally sponsored watershed coordinators to not only enhance the planning
effort but to initiate and implement projects identified in the approved TMDLs or 319 plans.
139
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Watershed Feasibility Assessment
Cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA, as well as TMDL allocations and implementation plans, share
a common element: an evaluation of alternative strategies for reducing pollutant loading and risks
to human health and the environment. In the watershed approach, it will be beneficial to all pro-
grams if a watershed-wide feasibility assessment is conducted to accomplish this same goal. EPA
Region 8 developed a "WFA" protocol as part of its coordinated watershed restoration efforts that
is proving to be broadly applicable. The WFA can be a natural part of an NPS Watershed Manage-
ment Plan; it can also be conducted during the development of the TMDL. TMDL program funds,
NPS funds, and RGI funds may all be potential sources of funding for a WFA.
The WFA uses the three screening criteria used by the Superfund program to assess remedial
alternatives: effectiveness, implementability, and cost. For each source category, potential cleanup
alternatives are evaluated and compared according to feasibility, cost, anticipated reduction in
load, and a rough cost/benefit analysis. The WFA may not fulfill all the requirements of the various
programs (i.e., a CERCLA FS or EE/CA, TMDL wasteload allocation, or a 319 NPS implementation
plan), but could provide an initial, common framework to guide the data needs for each of these
documents. Fine-tuned assessment and design would be performed in subsequent steps according
to the processes of the program facilitating cleanup/implementation at each location. For example,
Superfund remedies within the watershed will need to be chosen on the basis of a detailed alter-
natives analysis under each of the nine Superfund remedial action selection criteria described in
Chapter 2.
A WFA provides critical information regarding significant sources that have been identified and
quantifies their associated loads to surface water. The analysis suggests remediation alternatives
and assigns costs associated with specific load reductions. Typically, a feasibility study conducted
under CERCLA applies only to individual sites or operable units. Thus, a WFA may cover a much
broader geographic area and includes alternatives for all categories of sources.
Significant value can be leveraged by applying various programs' funds to conduct a WFA. With
this approach, the Watershed Cleanup Team will be able to effectively rank sources by their im-
pacts to human health and the environment on a scale much larger than is typically accomplished
under individual programs. Quantitative comparisons may then be made of the potential effective-
ness of the proposed cleanup alternatives for sites throughout the watershed.
The WFA provides a tool that federal and state programs and local watershed groups can use to
review and prioritize cross-programmatic cleanup opportunities in the watershed. The assessment
would be used by the Watershed Cleanup Team to help determine which organization may be best
suited to address the contamination from each source and to set priorities for the allocation of
cleanup resources. For example, if the necessary estimated load reduction to meet water quality
standards is 12 tons per year, and Project A costs $100,000 and reduces loading by 5 tons per year,
Project B costs $1.1 million and reduces loading by 5.1 tons per year, and Project C costs $200,000
and reduces loading by 7 tons per year, the cleanup priorities may be Project A and Project C. Such
watershed-wide considerations are often more difficult to undertake under other, more facility-spe-
cific programs such as RCRA and CERCLA.
The WFA can also be used to maximize available funding sources. The ability to implement proj-
ects concurrently to reduce contaminant loading would increase as the cost is shared by several
applicable programs/agencies, and funding sources would be maximized by spreading the cost
over several programs and agencies and by collaborating to provide documentation required to
access funding. Additionally, if cleanup activities in the basin are coordinated, there is potential for
consolidating waste, establishing joint waste repositories and minimizing the disturbance to the
community by accelerating the cleanup. The WFA can also be the basis for TMDL load allocations.
The study can be used to prepare grant applications (Brownfields and 319 NPS) and as the frame-
140
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
work for programmatic documentation requirements
(TMDL allocations and implementation plan, CERCLA
EE/CA or FS, RCRA CMS), thus streamlining the efforts
of all programs. Projects that are supported by a variety
of stakeholders and agencies and implement TMDLs
frequently receive priority for grant and program fund-
ing. The WFA and subsequent prioritization of projects
by the Watershed Cleanup Team requires the participa-
tion and concurrence of the stakeholders, which will
improve the likelihood that a project will be funded.
This may also increase the level of technical support
provided by agencies such as USGS, BOR, and USAGE,
and help identify non-traditional funding sources.
Opportunity for Integration
I The Watershed Feasibility
Assessment can provide the
preliminary costs and alternatives
for a variety of programs and
agencies to estimate remedial costs
and prepare grant applications
for funding. The analysis provides
the necessary data to allow
program managers to prioritize and
coordinate cleanup activity.
«
Little James Creek Feasibility Assessment
How a Subbasin Study Can Lead to Watershed-wide Cleanup
A WFA was conducted for Little James Creek Subbasin of the Left Hand Watershed in Colorado as
part of the TMDL development. The study included surveying, mapping, and evaluating a limited
set of alternatives to remediate specific sources in the watershed. Specifically, the assessment
included the following elements:
1. A description of the individual sites (e.g., mine waste volume and surface area, topographic
mapping showing relationship of mine waste piles, adits and other features).
2. Feasibility level plans illustrating the application of the alternatives at each site.
3. Cost sheets providing feasibility level estimates (+50 percent to -30 percent) for each alter-
native. Costs included capital costs and long-term operation and maintenance costs (O&M),
where applicable.
The Little James Creek feasibility assessment has already been used to:
I Prioritize sites for coordinated USFS/EPA removal projects and to expand the previously identi-
fied scope of work.
> Apply for Brownfields cleanup grants for Argo and Evening Star Mine sites.
I Assist the Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group in making decisions regarding cleanup prior-
ity and approach.
» Develop the TMDL Implementation Plan.
The findings may be used to develop a cleanup/implementation approach for the entire water-
shed, not only the Little James Creek Subbasin.
141
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Remediation + Restoration + Reuse = Revitalization
Watershed cleanup can be summarized by the 3-Rs: Remediation, Restoration, and Reuse. These
3 Rs were coined for EPA Region 8's Land and Water Revitalization Initiative, but they also fit with
national EPA priorities and are applicable to watersheds throughout the nation. Under the 3 Rs, a
set of criteria guides resource decisions and identifies the most important steps to fully realizing
revitalization goals. They include:
> Early, planned multiprogram integration of cleanup activities
» Innovative approaches for revitalizing sites, communities, water-
sheds, and ecosystems
I Planning for reuse at the beginning of projects
> Measurable environmental and human health benefits
Programs most likely to be included are: NPDES, Wetlands, Superfund,
Brownfields, RCRA, UST, Federal Facilities (including Base Realignment
and Closure and Formerly Used Defense Sites), One Cleanup Program, Ur-
ban Rivers Restoration, and Ecosystem Protection. Each of these programs has
its own specific roles and responsibilities, but the actions conducted under the
individual programs can be tailored to meet the needs of cooperating pro-
grams in a watershed cleanup. Some examples of integrated site activities are
presented in the following paragraphs. These are only examples and should not
be considered a comprehensive listing. With a little planning and cooperation be-
tween programs and agencies, watershed remediation, restoration and re-use may be accomplished
in innovative ways.
Superfund-Restoration Integration
Superfund's goal is to reduce contamination to acceptable levels, (which may or may not be "back-
ground" or a pristine condition), not necessarily to perform "restoration" activities. Nonetheless,
CERCLA response actions can still be performed with an eye toward complementing subsequent
restoration. The following discussion reviews opportunities for integrating Superfund and restora-
tion activities, from data gathering through cleanup implementation.
Reviewing the status of the watershed assessment early in the CERCLA process at a site within the
watershed may identify opportunities for sharing information. For example, the watershed cleanup
team may collect information in the area of the CERCLA cleanup that can help identify additional
sources. Conversely, early coordination during CERCLA's Site Assessment and RI efforts (especially
with regard to ecological impacts) can ensure that resulting data will be useful for subsequent
watershed restoration efforts.
EPA CERCLA guidance provides that reasonably anticipated future land use should be considered
during the risk assessment phase of the RI/FS and reflected in the site-specific human health and
ecological risk assessments. Thus, it is appropriate to consider prospective reuse plans as part of
the RI/FS. The remedial action must meet or waive ARARs, and if WQS are considered ARARs for
the selected remedy, the remedial action must be designed to support of the designated use (i.e.,
recreational use, aquatic life, industrial). Toward this end, the ROD may include selection of reme-
dial actions to support the designated use and may also provide for administrative "institutional"
controls. For example, land use restrictions that ensure BMPs, wildlife easements, and compliance
with a particular zoning classification may be used as institutional controls that support ecological
recovery or community revitalization within the bounds of Superfund.
142
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Prior to NTCRAs or remedial actions, the EE/CA or FS
must evaluate ARARs, and the ROD or Action Memo
must state how they have been met or waived. The
RPM, to assure protectiveness and comply with ARARs,
can utilize Superfund dollars for remediation of ecologi-
cal resources. For example, Superfund may mitigate
wetlands and riparian buffers to comply with the CWA
404 ARAR.
Tasks that the Watershed Cleanup Team determines are
appropriate but that are not required under CERCLA
(i.e., not required to achieve protectiveness or meet
ARARs) that are nevertheless "restoration" may be con-
ducted with Brownfields (at qualifying sites), 319 NFS,
and NRDA funding. Tasks that are necessary to pro-
mote redevelopment may be left for actions funded by
local redevelopment agencies, private developers, and
Brownfields loans and state grants. Note that identifying
proposed restoration and redevelopment tasks dur-
ing the RI/FS stage can allow for synchronization with
remedial tasks.
Opportunity for Integration
I Watersheds with Superfund activities
often include waters listed as
impaired due to parameters not
related to the Superfund site. Typical
pollutants found include dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, and/or sediment.
The remedy selected by the RPM at
his or her Superfund site or operable
unit can potentially complement
the instream restoration of the
waterbodies necessary to achieve
WQS. For example, alternatives
to achieve bank stabilization
can include reestablishment of
riparian geomorphology or riprap.
The first alternative will provide
habitat, the other will take it away.
Coordinating remediation with the
TMDL implementation activities
often will not increase costs but
will complement the watershed
activities, provide ecological
restoration, and reduce the overall
cost of the project, resulting in a
value added to the overall watershed
revitalization.
Finally, it may be appropriate to consider use of ecologi-
cally friendly remedial alternatives when determining
the technology that will be used for remediation. Eco-
logically friendly remediation can often result in lower
O&M costs. With careful thought and communication
with specific Watershed Cleanup Team members and
other scientific resources, including the NRCS and the
BTAG, the RPM could coordinate the Superfund cleanup with other in-stream and riparian zone
restoration activities while still meeting program requirements.
The selection of removal or remedial alternatives that result in a restored natural habitat may
benefit both the remedial and restoration goals, especially for riparian zones. Remediation that
leaves natural soil and vegetation habitat in riparian zones may mitigate flooding, be cost-effec-
tive, generate and preserve soils, create self-sustaining ecosystems, meet Executive Order 13112 to
use native species and control invasive species, and minimize management needs and costs. Soils
Stabilizing Streambanks on the Upper Arkansas River
Fluvially deposited tailings from historic mining operations were capped using soil amendments
and revegetation as part of a Superfund removal action in the Upper Arkansas River. The project
required streambank stabilization in some locations to prevent erosion of the existing banks that
might expose tailings that could then be washed downstream. State Division of Wildlife person-
nel were concerned that the projects would do more to reduce riparian habitat than improve it
because of the planned riprap bank stabilization designs. Division of Wildlife personnel suggested
alternative techniques that were then incorporated into the designs used for bank construction.
Root wads were used in one location to redirect flow away from the bank. At another location,
bendway weirs were used to stabilize the banks. These methods improved aquatic habitat and
were less expensive to implement than the proposed riprap methods.
143
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
at contaminated sites are often of poor quality. If remediation includes capping, the soil quality
above the cap is a critical first step to establishing a natural habitat. Use of composted biosolids
can increase fertility and reduce metal toxicity. Recycled wastes such as municipal biosolids and
wood ash are readily available at low or no cost and can provide a fertile barrier. The NRCS office
of the USDA and the Cooperative Extension can provide information on soil profiles, native plants,
etc., to help achieve ecological restoration. The West Page Swamp wetlands project described in
the Coeur d'Alene case study presented in this chapter is an example of selecting an alternative
that leaves natural soil and vegetation habitat. Remediation that protects or enhances in-stream
habitat may also benefit both remediation and restoration processes. Bank stabilization or in-
stream structures required for other remedy components may be designed to enhance fisheries or
reduce pollutants downstream. An example of this approach is shown in the Upper Arkansas River
case study below. The possibilities of conducting remedial actions in ways that enhance or facili-
tate restoration are numerous and should be considered when selecting remedial actions within a
watershed.
TMDL Restoration Integration—Point Source Trading
Point source trading may be used to integrate TMDL requirements for NPDES facilities, NPSs and
assist in watershed restoration. EPA's current trading policy is focused on nutrients and sediments.
Trading programs for bioaccumulative and other toxics are discouraged, although they may be
considered on an individual basis. During the allocation phase of the TMDL development, the
necessary load reductions for point sources in the watershed are identified. Under trading, NPDES
facilities may elect to achieve the needed pollutant load reductions by treating sources or causes of
the pollutant other than their own effluent. Offsetting point source pollutant loading by reducing
other sources, both point and NPSs, is a form of water quality "trading." Such trading can reduce
the overall pollutant load to the watershed more economically and efficiently. Such mitigation can
be a more cost-effective alternative than additional chemical treatment or facility upgrades that
would be necessary to meet the TMDL. For example, offsetting can be accomplished by restoring
impaired in-stream habitat, as it has been shown that restoring habitat may offset the impacts of
certain pollutants.
The entity/facility responsible for a point source discharge may potentially choose to implement
a program of trading in which it would pay for various NPS improvements rather than capital up-
grades, which are often less environmentally effective than investing in a holistic strategy that ad-
dresses all environmental stressors through a combination of more modest capital improvements,
streambank stabilization, riparian corridor improvements, rerouting irrigation return flow through
constructed/treatment wetlands and other measures. Further information about EPA's effluent
trading policy can be found at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/ti-ading.htm.
144
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Trading Improves Boulder Creek Ecology
The City of Boulder is relying on a combination of in-stream restoration efforts and capital
improvements at its municipal wastewater treatment plant to address ammonia toxicity
problems in Boulder Creek. A more traditional approach to the water quality problem would
have called only for plant upgrades, in this case, to full nitrification. Instead, the City traded
ecological improvements for some point source pollutant load reductions.
The 15.5-mile section downstream from Boulder was suffering from degraded physical habi-
tat, high water temperature, and high pH. Conditions were such that plant upgrades alone
would never return Boulder Creek to a viable biological condition, according to the City's
engineers and scientists. Studies indicated that a program to restore the stream's physical
integrity also would be necessary to achieve water quality standards and a fully functional
aquatic system. In addition, fencing off livestock from the riparian zone was critical to the
success of the restoration effort. The creek passes through the center of several ranches.
Fencing and specially designed crossings now protect a 120-foot wide buffer between grazing
land and the creek.
Types of Restoration Treatments Applied in Boulder Creek
ft Streambank stabilization
I Riparian restoration
ft Development of pool habitat
I Narrowing/deepening the channel
I Returning natural sinuosity
ft Restoring wetlands habitat
ft Rerouting irrigation return flows through developed wetland
Since 1990, the City has been implementing restoration in phases over a total of 4.6 river
miles: Phase I involved installation of BMPs along a 1.3-mile reach; Phase II extended restora-
tion efforts along another 1.1 miles; Phase III added an additional 0.5 miles to the project;
and Phase IV involves 1.7 miles. Monitoring results has been an important aspect of the
overall effort, and the restoration plan has been modified between phases on the basis of
interim results. The City of Boulder and nearby Longmont, along with EPA Region 8, the USGS,
and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division have conducted monitoring or contributed
existing data.
To date, the restoration efforts have resulted in overall improvements to the creek's ecology
at substantial cost-savings over an approach that would have focused only on treatment plant
loading reductions. The stream restoration project has cost $1.4 million to date (excluding do-
nated consulting time, labor, and materials) and saved between $3 and $7 million in capital
costs over the cost of upgrading the plant to full nitrification. Both pH and temperature mea-
surements have improved, un-ionized ammonia has decreased, and the creek now attains
ambient water quality standards with improved aquatic life.
145
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Supplemental Environmental Projects
A supplemental environmental project (SEP) is an environmentally beneficial project that a
respondent in an enforcement action voluntarily agrees to perform as part of a settlement of the
matter. In return, EPA or the state may agree to reduce the monetary penalty that it would other-
wise seek as a result of the violation(s). Most enforcement actions against businesses or individu-
als for failure to comply with the environmental laws are resolved through settlement agreements.
SEPs are designed to give companies charged with environmental violations an alternative to stan-
dard fines otherwise potentially available. These projects can provide a positive outcome for the
company and the community. Acceptable SEP categories may include: public health, pollution pre-
vention, pollution reduction, environmental restoration and protection, emergency planning and
preparedness, assessments and audits, environmental compliance promotion, and other approved
projects that might benefit human health or the environment. Restoration SEPs may involve restor-
ing natural environments (ecosystems) or creating conservation land (e.g., transforming a former
landfill into wilderness land). Within certain legal constraints, EPA has broad discretion to settle
environmental enforcement cases including discretion as to the level of penalties the Agency will
accept and whether to include SEPs as an appropriate part of a settlement. Under EPA policy, guid-
ance, the amount of penalty mitigation EPA may consider is based on a number of factors. These
include the cost of the SEP and whether or how effectively the SEP:
> Benefited the public or the envi-
ronment
I Was innovative
I Considered input from affected
community
» Factored in environmental justice
issues
I Reduced emissions to more than
one media (e.g. air, land, water);
and
> Implemented pollution prevention
program techniques and practices.
Generally, the value of the SEP should be
greater than the amount of fine forgiven.
The actual percentage of penalty mitiga-
tion granted is within EPA's discretion;
however, EPA policy suggests that gener-
ally it should not exceed 80 percent of the
cost of the SEP unless the violator is a small business, a government agency/entity, or a nonprofit
organization, or the SEP implements pollution prevention. Furthermore, in all cases, the final
settlement penalty should equal or exceed: a) the economic benefit of noncompliance plus at least
10 percent of the gravity component; or b) 25 percent of the gravity component only, whichever
is greater, regardless of the cost or environmental value of the SEP For more information about
EPA's SEP policy, see http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/seps.
For examples of potential SEPs, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/
civil/seps/projectsideas42004.pdf.
146
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
A SEP Improves Health and Revitalizes Granite City, Illinois
For nearly 70 years, the NL/Taracorp facility in Granite City, Illinois, was a secondary lead smelter
that exhausted lead, deposited crushed battery casings in the community and created a 250,000-
ton slag/waste mountain on-site. This Superfund facility operated next to a residential community
where, in 1991, the blood lead concentrations of one in four children exceeded the Centers for
Disease Control's (CDC) health-based threshold.
The NL/Taracorp Team successfully negotiated three major consent decrees valued at over
$63,000,000 and assured the cleanup of 1,600 lead-contaminated residential yards. The
decrees also called for the defendants to fund a $2 million lead paint abatement program
in homes near the site through an SEP. The defendants were not legally liable for lead paint
or responsible for hiring of trained workers, but the NL team creatively addressed the overall
problem of lead contamination in the area, including the need for street sweeping. The lead
paint abatement SEP program was established through outreach in the community. Early on,
Madison County Community Development Agency showed interest in managing the program and
eventually received SEP funding to manage the lead paint program. Madison County was then
able to leverage additional funding through grants and by using a revolving fund program to start
a comprehensive lead abatement and education program in the various environmental justice
(ES) communities that suffered from numerous environmental impacts, including the NL Site and
others. This collaboration was very successful.
The settlements achieved penalties amounting to approximately $3.5 million for failure to comply
with a CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Order, including the $2 million SEP. The cleanup activities
increased the value of area properties that will help the region redevelop, created job opportuni-
ties in an EJ community, and required that the responsible parties fund a community lead-paint
abatement program.
.1; of and to
Programs/Stakeholders
Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan
The Watershed Cleanup Team should identify the existing and potential sources of funding available
to perform each implementation task and assign responsibilities for the high priority tasks, including
voluntary, mandatory, and educational efforts that will help attain and maintain goals. This informa-
tion should be memorialized in the Cross-Programmatic Cleanup Plan. This decision document
should include a clearly laid out plan for action including a list of the tasks required to complete
each project and the milestones that will be used to measure progress. During the implementation
phase, communication between participants should remain high and include frequent status updates,
sharing of work plans, remedial designs and recommended BMPs. The plan should include an annual
schedule that will allow the team to revisit milestones and make any necessary revisions.
Preparation of a worksheet similar to the Left Hand Watershed example in Table 5-1 and a Wa-
tershed Cleanup Fact Sheet that clearly states project background, cleanup goals and objectives,
the plan for action, progress to date, and a high level of interest in the project will allow cleanup
partners to demonstrate to their agencies or grant sources the high level of support and priority
being given to the project by others. This may increase the amount of funding that will be allo-
cated to the project by government regulatory and support agencies, industry, communities, and
environmental action groups. A public outreach program is a critical component to the success of
the project. Stakeholders should participate in the selection of cleanup alternatives and implemen-
tation of the NFS controls.
147
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
The results of this planning effort should be included in the TMDL Implementation Plan and in the
larger 319 NFS Watershed Management Plan.
Table 5-1 Left Hand Watershed Implementation Draft Worksheet
Evening Star Remediation Brownfield cleanup grants $200,000
Argo Remediation
Streamside Tailings
Cleanup
Bueno Tails Cleanup
Burlington Mine Cleanup
JRT Tailings
Brownfields cleanup
grants
USFS and EPA removal
USFS and EPA removal
PRP-voluntary cleanup
319 NPS funds
$200,000
$200,000
$300,000
$1,500,000
$100,000
i Improved macromvertebrate
diversity
' Improved macromvertebrate
diversity
Improved macromvertebrate
diversity
Turbidity less than 100 NTU
Reduced zinc and manganese load
Improved macromvertebrate
diversity
'•*
Under the CWA Section 106(e), states, territories and authorized tribes implement monitoring
programs that allow them to report on the attainment of WQS and to identify and prioritize waters
not attaining standards. Monitoring can also be an element of NPDES permits, TMDL assessments
and confirmation sampling. Cleanup programs such as RCRA and CERCLA typically require moni-
toring as an integral part of their implementation. State game and fish agencies perform stream
monitoring and assessment as part of their programs. Local environmental groups also have an
interest in tracking the health of their local ecosystems and often organize ongoing stream moni-
toring projects. Some watersheds will have other parties (e.g., owners of lakefront or streambank
property, local schools, and universities) interested in regular monitoring. The Watershed Cleanup
Team should ensure that a comprehensive watershed monitoring plan is prepared and implement-
ed to coordinate these efforts, where appropriate, and to ensure that interested parties have access
to all the data that may affect their interests. Typically sampling undertaken for individual pro-
grams or facilities addresses specific sites rather than cumulative impacts across the watershed. By
coordinating the sampling efforts across multiple programs the data will provide a more complete
picture of the significant sources of pollutants in the watershed and will streamline resources to
allow for more extensive field work.
A comprehensive watershed monitoring plan and QAPP should be prepared as part of the Water-
shed Management Plan and/or other regulatory requirements. The watershed monitoring plan
should identify:
> Monitoring locations
I Monitoring parameters
> Field and laboratory analyses/evaluation
t Benchmarks/detection limits
t Standard operating procedures for sample/data collection and evaluations
I Data quality requirements
I Monitoring frequency
I Monitoring responsibilities (who, where, for what period of time)
> Data management and distribution
148
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
» Funding for all aspects of monitoring
The Watershed Cleanup Team should go through the DQO procedure to ensure the requirements
of all programs are met.
Developing a watershed monitoring plan may present challenges. Key questions include: what
data are essential and to what degree of precision, what are the indicators of success, who will do
the work, and who will pay for it. Cleanup programs such as RCRA and CERCLA frequently require
only limited water quality monitoring with respect to both location and time. NRDA restoration ef-
forts are monitored, but the timespan and scope of monitoring will depend on the type and scope
of restoration efforts and Trustee priorities. State water quality assessments are ongoing but often
have limited funding. TMDLs that include a monitoring plan are generally carried out by the state
monitoring program. Even if more samples are collected or more analyses performed than an indi-
vidual program requires, overall cost savings are realized by reducing the field effort required.
?:> Program Cleanup
TMDL
TMDL components related to implementation and monitoring are described here.
Allocating Pollutant Loads: TMDL allocations should account for point sources, NPSs, and back-
ground sources of pollution. The allocation should demonstrate that water quality standards will
be met and maintained and that the load reductions are technically achievable. Factors such as
technical and programmatic feasibility, cost-effectiveness, relative source contributions, equity, and
the likelihood of implementation may be considered. Allowable loads may be expressed in many
ways and may divide up the allowable total load by percent removal, concentrations at points of
compliance, total mass per time, reduction of load, or percent removal proportional to raw load.
The process quantifies the necessary reductions in pollutant loads to meet the in-stream water
quality target. The technical analysis should demonstrate a reasonable assurance that the WLA and
LA in the TMDL will achieve WQS when implemented. When determining TMDL allocations the
following factors should be considered:
» Wasteload Allocation: Allocations assigned to point sources are frequently expressed as
numeric effluent load or concentration. These allocations are generally implemented by
use of the NPDES program using numeric standards that are incorporated into individual
NPDES permits. States developing WLAs should look at the cumulative affects of multiple
dischargers. __________,-•
I Load Allocation: LAs include NPSs, stormwater
sources for which NPDES permits are not re- Opportunity for Integration
quired, atmospheric deposition, ground water > Studies and assessments performed
and background sources of pollution. NPS LAs are ^ alf cleanup programs may
implemented through a combination of federal, h
-------
Margin of Safety: The MOS is assigned and depends on the uncertainty in load, waterbody
response and reduction feasibility.
Seasonally: Seasonality is considered in the TMDL to ensure WQSs will be met and
maintained throughout the year. Variations occur due to variations in the waterbody (as-
similative capacity caused by seasonal changes in temperature and flow or sensitive periods
for aquatic biota) and variations in loading (seasonal industries, snowmelt, precipitation
events).
Future Growth: Future growth or changes in land use may impact threatened or impaired
waters. A reasonably foreseeable allocation may be allotted to future growth. If so the
TMDL should explain how evaluation of future growth was made and the implications for
local planning processes and landowners.
-——----—--——•. » ——- | Implementation Plan: The Implementation Plan
may be developed for one or multiple TMDLs in the
watershed. The plan should include a description of
the implementation actions or management measures
required to meet the allocations and a description of
the effectiveness of the actions; a timeline of when
activities will occur including interim milestones;
reasonable assurance that the activities will occur;
legal or regulatory controls; the time required to attain
WQSs (by source or source category); a monitoring
plan (including interim milestones); a description of
milestones for attaining WQSs; and TMDL revision
procedures and triggers for revisions.
> Monitoring Plan: A Monitoring Plan is prepared
to determine the effectiveness of control measures,
whether the TMDL is working, and a procedure for
TMDL revision if standards are not being met. The
plan should be based on DQOs and should include
sampling parameters, locations, frequency, methods,
schedule, and who is responsible for implementing it.
Watershed stakeholders may participate in developing
and carrying out the Monitoring Plan.
Opportunity for Integration
ft The Implementation Plan may adopt
documentation from other programs
to provide reasonable assurance that
the designated load reductions will
occur.
Opportunity for Integration
ft For Watershed-based cleanup, the
Monitoring Plan should describe a
comprehensive monitoring effort that
meets the needs of all stakeholders.
The plan should describe what will
be performed to ensure WQS are
being met and that specific cleanup
actions (Superfund cleanups, RCRA
Cleanup Actions) are performing
to the standards set in decision
documents.
RCRA
EPA's goal is to facilitate timely, efficient and effective cleanups focused on results. Recent guidance
encourages RCRA project managers to use a flexible approach that allows innovative technical ap-
proaches and focused data collection to speed the RCRA process while still ensuring that a remedy
that will protect human health and the environment, prevent future releases, and properly manage
waste is implemented in a timely manner. The flexible approach may allow the following steps to
be conducted in a less formal atmosphere. Public participation in decision making is still required,
so it is recommended that public opinion be sought early and often when using the results-based
approach.
RCRA Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
A CMS is performed when the potential need for corrective measures is verified by an RFI. EPA sets
action levels that may be based on existing standards such as those found in the SCDM, Region
3 Risk Based Concentrations or Region 9 PRGs, state Water Quality Criteria, or other appropriate
150
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
levels. The facility may request that no further action be required on the basis of a determination
that no release poses a threat to human health and the environment. If EPA requires further action,
the CMS is prepared to analyze potential remedies. The number of remedies evaluated may vary
from site to site. Potential remedies are evaluated for performance, reliability, ease of implementa-
tion, and potential adverse impacts. The effectiveness, time required for implementation, estimated
costs, and administrative or institutional requirements are also considered. EPA sets target cleanup
levels against which the alternatives are measured. The final media cleanup standards may be more
stringent than the target cleanup levels.
EPA has determined presumptive remedies applicable to specific categories of sites. EPA has already
compared these alternatives against other alternative remedies generally applicable to that type of
site, reducing the number of alternatives that must be considered in the CMS.
RCRA Corrective Action
Site-specific media cleanup standards are set that depend on reducing risk to an acceptable level
for the current and anticipated future land use. Points of compliance are set that determine at
what location the cleanup standards must be met. For example, for ground water, the point of
compliance may be where the release enters surface water or the nearest well used for drinking
water. Using the CMS, the remedy is selected that is protective of human health and the environ-
ment and achieves media cleanup standards set by EPA, controls the source of the release and
prevents further releases to the extent practicable, and properly manages wastes generated by the
remediation. EPA also considers the long-term reliability and effectiveness of the remedy, the effec-
tiveness of the remedy in reducing the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants; the short-term
effectiveness of the remedy; ease of implementation; and cost. A compliance schedule is set and
the facility proceeds to implement the remedy. Corrective action may be conducted as a result of
permit requirements, a corrective action order, or voluntary corrective action. Long-term monitor-
ing may or may not be required.
Interim measures may be required to address immediate threats to human health and the
environment.
For more information on this subject see:
Results-Based Approaches and Tailored Oversight Guidance for Facilities Subject to Corrective Action
Under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA 530-R-03-012. September 2003.
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/resource/guidance/gen_ca/reslt-bse.pdf
CERCLA Removal Actions
EPA conducts or supervises Removal actions at sites when contamination poses an immediate
threat to human health and the environment. Removals are classified as emergency, time-criti-
cal, or non-time-critical, depending on the time in which a response must be taken. Generally, the
more time available, the more detailed the analysis of alternatives.
CERCLA Remedial Alternatives
The processes related to selection and implementation of remedial alternatives are presented
below.
Feasibility Study
The FS is conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. FS activities are fully inte-
grated with the RI. FSs can include an alternatives screening step to select a reasonable number of
alternatives for detailed analysis. To develop and screen alternatives, identify remedial action ob-
151
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
jectives that specify contaminants of concern, potential exposure pathways, and remediation goals.
Remediation goals establish the extent to which the site should be cleaned up to protect human
health and the environment. The factors to be considered include the following:
I For known or suspected carcinogens, the remediation should achieve an upper-bound life-
time cancer risk level of between 10'4 and 10~6 for high-end receptors.
I For noncarcinogenic hazardous substances, a safe exposure level should be established. This
level should represent a dose below which no adverse health effects are expected.
I For ground water, MCLs and non-zero MCLGs established under the SDWA (applicable to
certain public water supplies) are expected to be met.
> Ecological risks should be reduced to levels that are acceptable, with special attention paid
to sensitive habitats and critical habitats of species protected under the Endangered Species
Act.
» Other ARARs must be met or waived.
Potential remedial technologies are developed and screened. CERCLA requires that EPA consider
alternatives that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated material through treatment;
alternatives which call for off-site transport and disposal or containment without treatment are the
least-favored. CERCLA also requires that a "no-action" (or "no further action") alternative be con-
sidered to provide a baseline for comparison. For categories of treatment options, a representative
process option is chosen for detailed analysis.
Remedial alternatives are screened to reduce the number of alternatives that will undergo detailed
analysis and ensure that the most promising alternatives are considered. The screening criteria
are:
> Effectiveness: The degree to which an alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment; minimizes risks and provides long-term protection; complies with
ARARs; minimizes short-term impacts; and achieves protection quickly.
I Implementability: The technical feasibility and availability of the technologies each alter-
native would employ.
> Cost: Alternatives providing effectiveness and implementability similar to that of another
alternative, but at a greater cost, may be eliminated.
The alternatives retained after the screening process are subjected to detailed analysis and com-
parison to nine criteria:
(1) overall protection of human health and the environment
(2) compliance with ARARs
(3) long-term effectiveness and permanence
(4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
(5) short-term effectiveness
(6) implementability
(7) cost
(8) state acceptance
(9) community acceptance
152
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
The purpose of the comparative analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative relative to the others. These nine criteria can be categorized into three groups:
threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.
CERCLA Criteria for Selecting Remedial Action
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses whether a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all federal and state envi-
ronmental requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of the
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk that will
remain onsite following remediation and the adequacy and reliability of the management con-
trols (e.g., institutional controls).
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment addresses the degree to which treat-
ment will be used to reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminants causing site risks.
Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construc-
tion and operation of the remedy until cleanup goals are achieved.
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of the remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed for a particular option.
Cost includes estimated capital (construction), O&M, and net present worth costs. (The present
worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over different time periods by dis-
counting all future costs to a common base year, usually the current year. This analysis allows
the cost of the remedial action alternatives to be compared on the basis of a single figure repre-
senting the amount of money that, if invested in the basis year and disbursed as needed, would
be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the remedial action over its planned life.)
Modifying Criteria
State/Acceptance indicates whether the Commonwealth concurs with, opposes, or has no com-
ment on the selected remedy.
Communfty Acceptance considers whether the community agrees with the proposed remedy.
This is assessed in detail in the ROD responsiveness summary which addresses public com-
ments received on the Administrative Record and the PP.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied for a remedial alternative to be eligible for selection. Primary
balancing criteria are used to weigh trade-offs between alternatives. State acceptance and com-
munity acceptance are modifying criteria formally taken into account after public comment is
received on the proposed plan.
A variety of alternatives may be considered for a site. For example, remedial alternatives for a site
containing soil contaminated with solvents might include excavation and on-site or off-site treat-
ment, capping combined with ground water pumping and treatment, and in-situ treatment. Spe-
cial rules apply to sites where off-site transport and disposal are the selected alternative, to ensure
153
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
that the ultimate waste repository is in compliance with applicable laws. Generally, any alternative
that does not allow unlimited use of a site after the remedial action is implemented must include
institutional controls to restrict land usage.
CERCLA Removal Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
For NTCRAs, the lead agency must conduct an EE/CA, an analysis of removal alternatives for a
site. The EE/CA presents definitive information on the source, nature, and extent of contamina-
tion and risks presented by the site. The EE/CA also presents an analysis of removal alternatives.
If an Rl has been completed (because the removal is related to an NPL site), risk assessment data
from the RI may be used to support the removal action objectives and only limited data collection
will be required. The goal of the EE/CA is to identify the objectives of the removal action and to
analyze the effectiveness, implementability and cost of various alternatives that may satisfy the
objectives. For TCRAs, a similar but less formal process is conducted.
The EE/CA contains:
ft Site characterization: Site description and background (location, type of facility and
operational status, structures/topography, geology/soil/aquifer information, surrounding
land use and populations, sensitive ecosystems, and meteorology); previous removal ac-
tions; source, nature, and extent of contamination (locations of contaminants, magnitude of
contamination, physical and chemical properties of the contaminant, and targets potentially
affected by the site); analytical data (existing data and data collected during the EE/CA);
and streamlined risk evaluation (focused on the source of contamination the removal action
will address).
ft Identification of Removal Action Objectives: Statutory limits on removal actions, determi-
nation of removal scope, determination of removal schedule and planned remedial activities.
ft Identification and Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives: Effectiveness (protection of
human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs and other criteria; long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
short-term effectiveness), implementability (technical feasibility, administrative feasibility,
availability, state acceptance, and community acceptance); and cost (direct capital costs, in-
direct capital costs and post-removal site control costs). Presumptive remedies may be used
to speed selection of an alternative.
I Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives: Comparison of the alternatives.
ft Recommended Removal Action Alternative: Treatment is preferred over containment or
land disposal and permanent solutions are preferred over temporary.
The state and the public are given the opportunity to comment on the EE/CA and recommended
removal action. An action memo is prepared that documents the need for a removal response, the
proposed action, the rationale for the proposed action, and how state and public comments were
considered. The action memo must be approved prior to commencement of the work.
154
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Cooperatively Working in the Left Hand Watershed
An MOD between EPA Region 8 and USFS Region 2 was developed for the Left Hand
Watershed project to describe the roles each program will play in assessment and cleanup of
mixed ownership sites. The MOD will apply to other mixed ownership sites within the regions.
One lead agency will be designated for each site, but work will be cooperative unless the
agencies prepare an Interagency Agreement to transfer funding for a single agency to perform
the cleanup.
Proposed Plan, Public Comment, and Record of Decision
The selection of the remedial action is a two-step process, requiring first the development of a
PP that is put out for public comment, followed by a ROD. The state agency and the community
are given the opportunity to participate in the remedy selection activities. The remedy selection
process may be initiated at one operable unit (OU) at a site while other OUs are still undergoing
investigation or are in other stages of the cleanup process.
The lead agency (typically EPA at private sites; the owning federal agency at federal facilities) in
conjunction with the support agency prepares a PP that summarizes the remedial alternatives that
were analyzed, proposes a preferred remedial alternative, and summarizes the information used
to make the decision. The PP is presented to the public nn ^,...0........^J....,nt-o..l.mi:..,n--1-,.-,.,-.-In..,,,,,::rr-
and revised in response to state and public comment as Tl ___ , ,_,_,,
The ROD should address the water-
appropriate. shed cleanup goa)s and objectjves
After evaluating all comments received on the PP, the to the extent Possible. For example,
lead agency makes the final remedy selection decision. when determining ground water
This decision is documented in the ROD, which must be Cleanup lefS ,f°r
-------
state must agree to assume 100 percent of O&M. Federal funding (90 percent) of actions involv-
ing measures to restore ground water to beneficial use may continue for up to 10 years after the
remedy becomes operational and functional.
Five-year reviews are performed to ensure the remedy continues to be protective of human health
and the environment.
NRDA
The NRDA process is described earlier in Chapters 2 and 4. The goal of the NRDA process is to
restore resources—those actions undertaken to return an injured resource to its prerelease condi-
tion as measured in terms of the injured resource's physical, chemical, or biological properties or
the services it would have provided.
During settlement negotiations or after a settlement is reached, a Restoration and Compensation
Determination Plan (restoration plan) is developed. The restoration plan specifies the necessary
actions to restore the injured resources. The restoration plan documents the process to select
restoration/replacement actions and assign costs. It lists a reasonable number of possible alterna-
tives for restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources and the
related services lost to the public associated with each; selects one of the alternatives and the ac-
tions required to implement that alternative; gives the rationale for selecting that alternative; and
identifies the methodologies that will be used to determine the costs of the selected alternative
and the compensable value of the services lost to the public associated with the selected alterna-
tive. Possible alternatives are limited to those actions that restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire
the equivalent of the injured resources and services to no more than their baseline. The restoration
plan may be expanded to incorporate requirements from procedures required under other portions
of CERCLA or the CWA or from other federal, state or, tribal laws applicable to restoration, rehabil-
itation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured resources or may be combined
with other plans for related purposes as long as the requirements of this section are fulfilled. The
actions can be carried out on the lands where the contamination occurred or, if appropriate, at an
alternate site that, when restored, provides a suitable replacement for the injured or lost resources.
When selecting the alternative to pursue, the trustee considers following factors:
ft Technical feasibility
ft The relationship of the expected costs of the proposed actions to the expected benefits from
the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources
ft Cost-effectiveness
ft The results of any actual or planned response actions
ft Potential for additional injury resulting from the proposed actions, including long-term and
indirect impacts, to the injured resources or other resources
ft The natural recovery period
ft Ability of the resources to recover with or without alternative actions
I Potential effects of the action on human health and safety
ft Consistency with relevant federal, state, and tribal policies
ft Compliance with applicable federal, state, and tribal laws
The public is provided the opportunity to comment on the restoration plan during a public com-
ment period. Once a settlement is reached with the responsible party, the restoration plan is imple-
156
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
mented by the Trustees or the responsible party under the
supervision of the Trustees. The Trustees monitor restora- Opportunity for Integration
tion projects to assure that they continue to be properly | Coordination among Trustees and
operated and to determine whether the efforts are success- between Trustees and other agencies
ful over the long run in restoring the injured resources. participating in the assessments
and cleanup is required by law
,. . and will help all agencies present
DrOWnneiQS reasonable, consistent cleanup
Brownfields cleanups must protect human health and the alternatives to the community. This
,, , ,. , -urji will improve community participation
environment and be conducted in accordance with federal gnd support ^ re(juce ^ ^.^
and state laws. Cleanup levels that protect human health tnat occurs when severa, agencies
and the environment are determined by EPA and state present conflicting solutions to the
agencies and may be based on existing standards such as contamination problems in their
those found in the SCDM, Region 3 Risk Based Concentra- community.
tions or Region 9 PRGs, state Water Quality Criteria, or I Monitoring may also be integrated
other appropriate levels. Cleanup levels depend on the between TMDL, CERCLA Remedial,
intended use of the property. The approach to selecting CERCLA Removal-and NRDA
i i • i. MI t. i 11 • programs.
a cleanup alternative that will meet the cleanup levels is
flexible. Innovative cleanup technologies are encouraged,
but must meet the site-specific cleanup standards. Public participation is required prior to remedy
implementation.
& Additional Topics and Monitoring
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)
CERCLA requires that on-site remedial actions must attain or waive federal and more stringent
state ARARs upon completion of a remedial action. The NCP also requires compliance with ARARs
during remedial and removal actions to the extent practicable. ARARs are identified during the
EE/CA and RI/FS studies and are considered in the selection of alternatives. ARARs may be chemi-
cal-specific (such as WQS), action-specific (such as workplace safety), or location-specific (such
as wetlands and floodplain management restrictions). The six circumstances under which ARARs
may be waived are: the action is an interim measure, the action would cause greater risk to human
health and environment, technical impracticability, equivalent standard of performance, inconsis-
tent application of state requirements, or fund-balancing.
Opportunity for Integration
9 In an effective watershed cleanup effort, non-CERCLA programs will clearly identify their requirements to
CERCLA participants, and the programs will work together to ensure that effective, economical remedies
are implemented to meet the goals of all participating programs. Early and frequent communication
between programs is key to identifying and meeting ARARs.
I When a waiver from ARARs is necessary for on-site remedial action, the WQS program and the Trustees
can help the RPM develop targets that may still protect the existing use.
I The target for the TMDL represents the existing numeric standard or a translation of the narrative criteria/
use classification into a quantifiable criterion that is relevant to the specific sites and applies to a specific
point of compliance on a stream/segment/reach. These standards or translation of standards are ARARs.
I Collaboration between CERCLA and TMDL programs may be necessary to quantify the needed load
reductions on a source-by-source basis within the watershed to achieve the desired TMDL targets.
This should include an analysis linking the controls to the environmental indicators (e.g., water quality
standards).
157
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
Wetlands Protection
At CERCLA sites containing wetlands, wetlands protection and restoration issues should be consid-
ered during the PA/SI, EE/CA, RI/FS studies, and during RD/RA. Wetlands are considered in the
ecological risk assessment and the FS where the response action may impact the wetlands. Impacts
to wetlands from remedial actions should be avoided or minimized. Even though CWA Section
404 permits are not required for on-site Superfund actions in wetlands, the substantive require-
ments must be met, and unavoidable impacts to wetlands must be mitigated. Prior to initiating any
action that might impact wetlands, regional wetlands staff and the STAG should be contacted for
advice on Section 404 compliance and watershed protection priorities.
Setting Site-Specific Water Quality Standards/'ARARs in Eagle River and
French Gulch
Eagle River
At the Eagle Mine Superfund Site in Colorado, it was technically impracticable to achieve the
existing state WQS, so the RPM worked with EPA and state WQS programs and the community to
determine appropriate biological metrics to support a brown trout fishery. The biological criteria
were used to define a "healthy biological community." When compliance with the biological criteria
is achieved, the water quality will be measured and used to define new WQS for the Eagle River.
French Gulch
At the Wellington Oro Superfund site, metal-laden water from abandoned mine workings was dis-
charged both at a discrete seep and through dispersed subsurface flow into ground water. Most of
the water was discharged at the on-site seep so it could be treated and released to the Blue River;
however, it was suspected that additional mine pool water was being discharged at unknown
locations within the alluvial aquifer. Despite several hydrogeological studies, the underground
discharge locations were difficult to identify due to the complexity of the mine workings and the
dredge mining-disturbed stream bed. To determine the need to conduct additional costly investiga-
tions that might allow for capture and treatment of this water, a UAA was conducted for the Blue
River to determine appropriate water quality criteria downstream of the mine. The UAA provided
documentation for site-specific WQS in the Blue River and concluded that the aquatic habitat in
the Blue River was severely impacted by historic dredge mining and, despite restoration of por-
tions of the river, habitat is limited to supporting adult brown trout. The WQS for the Blue River 2
miles downstream of the French Gulch inflow were adjusted to reflect the adult brown trout criteria.
The revisions to the WQS were approved by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and
used in the final determination of the final remediation alternative. Working together, both Water
and Superfund Program goals were met, plus the property was available for reuse. A subsequent
consent decree, agreed to by the DOJ, DOI, EPA, State of Colorado, and B&B Mines, provided the
level of comfort needed to allow the sale of the property to Summit County and the Town of Breck-
enridge for use as open space.
158
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Integrated Remediation, Restoration, and Monitoring
Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho and Washington
The Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex NPL site is in northern Idaho's Coeur d'Alene
River Basin, It was listed on the IMPL in 1983. The Coeur d'Alene River Basin is one of the larg-
est areas of historic mining operations in the world. Since the late 1880s, mining activities in the
Upper Coeur d'Alene Basin contributed an estimated 100 million tons of mine waste to the river
system. Communities in the upper basin were built on mine wastes. Until as late as 1968, tailings
were deposited directly in the river. Over time, these wastes have been distributed throughout
more than 150 miles of the Coeur d'Alene and Spokane Rivers, lakes and floodplains. The Coeur
d'Alene Basin is in northern Idaho and covers approximately 3,700 square miles. The area is
characterized by high, massive mountains mantled with coniferous forests and deep, inter-moun-
tain valleys, as well as high prairie rangeland and palouse agricultural land. The waters were too
toxic for fish spawning, and Ninemile and Canyon Creeks were devoid offish and other aquatic life.
Tundra swans experienced lead poisoning. This site encompasses a large geographic area and,
therefore, is divided into OUsfor manageable cleanup. OU-1, known as "the Box," is a 21-square-
mile area surrounding the historic smelter area and includes the cities of Kellogg, Wardner, Smelt-
erville and Pinehurst, all in Shoshone County. Residential, community and smelter area cleanups
have been ongoing since the 1980s. A significant portion of these cleanups has been completed.
There are plans for upgrading the Bunker Hill Mine Central Treatment Plant, which treats acid
mine drainage.
Contaminants from mining operations in the Silver Valley spread harmful levels of heavy metals
down the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River and into the flood plains. The area addressing
mining contamination outside the box is called "the Basin." A plan for cleaning up residential and
recreational areas in the Basin was developed in coordination with the community members, fed-
eral and state (Idaho and Washington) organizations. The common goals are reducing heavy met-
als, improving fisheries, reducing downstream migration of contaminated sediments and providing
safe feeding habitat for waterfowl.
EPA has been working at this site with federal, state, and tribal partners to protect humans and
wildlife from harmful exposures to heavy metals. Other cleanup actions have been completed in
the Basin by federal agencies, states, tribes, and PRPs.
The site was divided into three OUs for cleanup:
I Operable Unit 1 designates the populated area in the Bunker Hill Box. Homes and residential
yards within the box have been cleaned up to reduce the human health risk.
> Operable Unit 2 designates the nonpopulated area of the Bunker Hill Box. The Superfund ROD
required actions to minimize human contact with contaminated materials, reduce hillside
erosion, reduce windblown dust, reduce suspended sediment and contamination loading to
surface water, minimize migration to ground water, and consolidate waste materials in reposi-
tories with engineered controls. The ROD and subsequent 5-year review required compliance
with ARARs, including water quality criteria or standards and the Idaho TMDL.
» Operable Unit 3 designates the areas of mining-related contamination outside of the Bunker
Hill Box. A ROD was issued in 2002 that describes how the Basin will be cleaned up over the
next 30 years. The primary goal of cleanup work is to protect human health in the commu-
nity, residential, and recreational areas. Actions to protect human health include education,
residential soil removals, and interior cleaning and drainage controls. Commercial rights of
way and recreational areas will be cleaned and private drinking water wells will be tested and
a safe source of water provided when necessary. Other actions were selected to protect the
environment, including removing and relocating tailings piles, capping tailings piles, stabilizing
stream banks and installing a surface water treatment pond.
159
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho and Washington
TMDL
A TMDL for dissolved cadmium, lead, and zinc was completed in 2000 for portions of the Basin in
Idaho. The TMDL designates National WQS for all except a small segment of the South Fork Coeur
d'Alene River headwaters have site-specific criteria for lead and zinc. It is expected that operating
facilities will be able to meet final TMDL allocations using water management controls and conven-
tional treatment technologies. Superfund must coordinate RI/FS evaluations and RODs with TMDL
goals.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
The DOI, USDA, and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (collectively, the Trustees) conducted a NRDA to as-
sess injuries resulting from releases of hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing
operations in the Basin in Idaho. The NRDA report summarized the data and analysis of informa-
tion obtained by the Trustees during the Phase I and II injury determination studies combined with
a comprehensive review and analysis of previously existing information concerning the natural
resources in the Basin. Authorized Trustee representatives adopted the report and its findings in
September 2000.
Basin-wide Monitoring
A Basin-wide Environmental Monitoring Program was established under the ROD for OU-3. The
plan was developed collaboratively with EPA, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Wash-
ington Department of Ecology, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Spokane Tribe, USFWS, USGS, and the BLM.
Media-specific workgroups were established to focus on the specific monitoring needs for surface
water, soil/sediment, biota, and Coeur d'Alene Lake.
The goals of monitoring were to:
» Assess the long-term status and trends of surface water, soil, sediment, and biological re-
source conditions in the Basin
I Evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedy
> Evaluate progress toward cleanup benchmarks
I Provide data for 5-year reviews
I Improve understanding of Basin processes and variability to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of subsequent remedial action implementation
Environmental indicators selected for evaluation include:
I Dissolved and total metals and nutrients in surface water
> Metals and sediment in riverine, riparian, lacustrine, and palustrine environments
I Fish, macroinvertebrates, and aquatic habitat in riverine environments
ft Songbirds, riparian vegetation, and invertebrates in riparian environments
I Waterfowl in wetland environments
I Waterfowl and fish in lake environments
This monitoring effort is integrated with other monitoring done in the area under other programs
and will be performed by EPA and the USGS and USFWS under Interagency Agreements with EPA.
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
(continued)
Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho and Washington
West Page Swamp Wetland
Restoration Project at Bunker
Hill Combining Remediation and
Restoration
The West Page Swamp (WPS) is
an 11-hectare wetland that was
used for direct tailings deposi-
tion for the Hayes Company Mill
from 1918-1929, resulting in
lead (up to 30,000 mg/kg), zinc
(up to 15,000 mg/kg), cadmium
(up to 100 rng/kg), and arsenic
contamination. The primary
ecosystem risk associated with
elevated lead levels in wetlands
is to the migratory fowl that use
these wetlands as a seasonal
feeding and nesting area. As
part of a closure agreement with
EPA Region 10, the mining companies involved with the site excavated a 2-hectare portion of the
swamp. Tailings were removed in 1997 to a depth of 0.7 m to reduce the potential for exposure of
wildlife to metal contamination.
To restore the wetland, EPA's Environmental Response Team decided
to test application of waste materials such as biosolids composts, wood
ash and log yard debris. Biosolids composts are fertile, primarily organic
materials that are similar in many respects to the organic horizon com-
monly found on the surface soil of a fully functional wetland. Composts
have successfully been used to build wetlands. Wood ash is a high cal-
cium carbonate residual that also provides potassium for plant growth.
Log yard debris is a woody material that is a by-product of the lumber
industry. It has a high carbon:nitrogen ratio and can limit release of
excess nitrogen. All these materials were used to create a new surface
horizon at the WPS.
Previous work in lead-contaminated soils has shown the potential of
these soil amendments to reduce the bioaccessibility of lead. This
reduction can be achieved by altering lead mineralogy and through a
physical separation of the contaminated sediments from edible plant tissue. By adding approxi-
mately 15 cm of fertile surface to WPS, plant species should be able to rapidly reestablish, with
rooting concentrated primarily in the compost surface horizon. For waterfowl, this suggests that
the bulk of ingested sediment will be from the newly created soil horizon, so that the risk associ-
ated with the elevated lead concentrations in the underlying horizon will be reduced.
The goal of this project was to test the feasibility of using biosolids compost in combination with
other residuals to accelerate revegetation and to limit the ecosystem impact of metals—con-
taminated wetlands. If successful, this remediation strategy could be used in the approximately
25,000 hectare of tailings-affected wetlands downstream of the mining area. Compost/logyard
waste/wood ash mixture was applied to the wetland using a loader and a bulldozer where practi-
cal. A blower system was used to apply the mixture to inaccessible wetland locations.
161
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
(continued)
Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho and Washington
Monitoring parameters included
physical changes, water chemistry
(suspended solids, pH, total lead, zinc,
cadmium, and arsenic, and nitrogen
speciation), and plant establishment.
A vegetative cover began within one
year of treatment and flourished
within one years. River otters once
again inhabit the wetland.
Working Together for Remediation, Habitat Restoration, and Reuse
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
The Jordan River, in Salt Lake County, Utah, is a highly urbanized and degraded river that has been
dewatered, channelized and polluted. Five Superfund sites on the Jordan River have been or are in
the process of being remediated. In 1991, the USFWS received a $2.3 million settlement from the
responsible parties of one of the Superfund sites known as the Sharon Steel Superfund site. The
funds were for restoring threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and wetlands affect-
ed by the release of heavy metals from the site. In 1997, the USFWS embarked on three long-term
projects to restore damaged natural resources and restore 274 acres of habitat on the Jordan River.
Other federal, state, municipal, and nonprofit organizations including Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission, EPA, USAGE, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, West Jordan City,
City of South Jordan, National Audubon Society, Great Salt Lake Audubon Society, Tree Utah, and
Trust for Public Lands have contributed both funds and in-kind services to match the $2.3 million
with $7.4 million for a total of $9.7 million. This partnership of state and federal agencies and local
organizations has begun work on properties that have been acquired for the restoration project.
Efforts are underway to contour highly erodible banks, remove nonnative invasive vegetation and to
plant trees and shrubs that are native and provide quality habitats for migratory birds. As property
values continue to rise, it becomes a race to acquire the remaining acreage with the secured funds,
and the USFWS is now looking for new partners to join the effort to preserve and protect a riparian
corridor on the Jordan River. These projects represent immense planning, negotiating and vision
from many agencies of various jurisdictions as well as nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and
private citizens that have come together to make these projects a reality.
162
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Working Together for Remediation, Habitat Restoration, and Reuse
Map of South Jordan City Wildlife Enhancement Project,
USFWS
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
The Jordan River is listed as impaired on the Utah 303(d)
list for dissolved oxygen and total dissolved solids. In early
2005, work began on a TMDLforthe Jordan River from Utah
Lake to Great Salt Lake. Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Salt Lake County, and the towns along the
Jordan River are working together to coordinate the TMDL
development, CERCLA remediation, and revitalization activi-
ties^longthe river. At the request of the Utah DEQ, EPA
and other agencies are consolidating efforts to develop the
Jordan River TMDL, identify opportunities for cross-program
collaboration, and coordinate the various implementation
projects. The EPA TMDL coordinator will work with the group
by examining ecological issues in a broader scale and reestablishing communication with the
primary stakeholders regarding riparian restoration. This project is expected to be one of the most
complex TMDLs that Utah will develop with a significant component for permitting, stormwater,
and wetlands, which will provide opportunities for instream mitigation.
An initial scoping meeting was held with USFWS, Salt Lake County, Utah DEQ, Utah Division of Wa-
ter Quality and EPA about compiling existing data, current and upcoming activities, TMDL assess-
ment, and the benefits of coordination. The parties agreed to expand the TMDL assessment from
the lower segment of the Jordan River to the entire reach. Additionally, work at the Midvale Slag NPL
site where a consent decree has recently been signed and cleanup work initiated, will be modified
to ensure it fits with multiagency and community objectives. EPA Superfund contractors will provide
modifications of stream restoration renditions to include hydraulic and hydrologic modeling. On-site
contractors will delay the bank stabilization project until after high flow, which will allow for poten-
tially more significant restoration. Midvale has agreed to review the renditions and consider more
extensive in-stream restoration that may extend beyond the existing 50-foot open space.
The following projects are ongoing along the Jordan River:
I USFWS—Natural Resource Damage Award from Sharon Steele—three projects are on hold
(Audubon Society, Tree Utah, USAGE Water Resources Redevelopment)
I USAGE—2004 Water Resources Redevelopment Project for the Jordan River $7,000,000 redi-
rected to Iraq, so activities are on hold, currently lobbying through legislature for restoration of
funds
> TMDL development is now extended to the entire Jordan River:
• Dissolved oxygen, phosphorus
• Total dissolved solids
• Fecal coliform
» Current TMDL development for Utah Lake, which contributes significant TDS loading to the
Jordan River
I CERCLA—Midvale Slag NPL Site activities continue
• Erosion control, April-June
• Additional remediation/restoration requires more funding. Any Superfund dollars require
ten percent match from state.
• Removal of sheet pile
I 50 feet along stream bank have been donated by the owner to cities for open space
163
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
164
(continued)
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah
The following items are considered the next steps to collaborative cleanup:
I Collection of all existing data to be shared by contractors:
• Historical data—two long-term monitoring sites (Narrows, Lower End)
• USGS NAWQA data, 2000-2005 (Kid Wadell)
• EMAP/REMAP data
I Superfund restoration plans will include the following:
• Geomorphic analysis
• Data acquisition
• Site reconnaissance
• Hydraulic/hydrologic analysis—model high
and low flows
• Geomorphic analysis—channel stability,
sediment transport
• Habitat analysis—structural enhancement,
riparian corridor enhancement
• Implementation plan (phasing plan/
schedule)
• Passive re-aeration, wetlands, etc.
• Water quality modeling—metals, sediment,
perchloroethylene
I Jurisdictional Wetlands on OU-1 between slag piles are not currently on redevelopment plans;
potential restoration proposed by Salt Lake County for Midvale (significant financial benefits)
• NRCS—wetland habitat improvement project funding
* Enjoin Midvale and Salt Lake into discussion
» Salt Lake County is providing engineering support for removal of sheet pile and potential
installation of cascading dissolved oxygen structure to be funded by Superfund
> Investigate Brownfields funding opportunities (restoration/revitalization in Midvale and West
Jordan)
I Investigate EJ funding opportunities
I Light Rail Crossing draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), possible mitigation funds
I Stormwater Part II permit Sandy City
I Limiting stakeholder participation during early phase due to historic problems with unwieldy
size and municipalities refusing to participate
I Midvale and West Jordan redevelopment plans currently in development
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
Milltown Reservoir Sediments Operable Unit
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments Site (Milltown Site) is an OU within the larger Milltown Reser-
voir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund site. There are Superfund cleanup activities ongoing
throughout the Clark Fork Basin. The Milltown Dam and Reservoir are at the confluence of the Clark
Fork and Blackfoot Rivers, a few miles upstream of Missoula, in western Montana. Behind the dam
are approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments, the result of historical min-
ing operations upstream in Butte. Arsenic in the sediments has polluted the local drinking water
aquifer and release of copper in the sediments threatens downstream fish and other aquatic life.
EPA issued a ROD calling for removal of the Milltown Dam and the most highly contaminated sedi-
ments. There is broad public support for this cleanup plan—98 percent of the nearly 5,000 com-
ments received during the public comment periods supported EPA's proposed plans.
The Mitltown Site is adjacent to the unincorporated communities of Milltown and Bonner. Mis-
soula, 6 miles west of the site, is home to the University of Montana and is one of the fast-growing
areas of Montana, boasting world-class Whitewater, fly-fishing, and other recreational opportuni-
ties. The Milltown area communities are poorer, predominantly white, English-speaking, and lower-
middle class. People in the Milltown area are proud of their community, school, and families and
want to maintain their quality of life. A couple dozen community members are participating in a
Redevelopment Community Action Group (funded by a Superfund Redevelopment Initiative award)
and their aim is to provide EPA with a vision of what the community would like to see in terms of
future site development. EPA and the natural resource Trustees are working to integrate remedia-
tion and restoration so they are compatible with desired local future land use.
Remediation and Restoration Goals
Remediation goals (Remedial Action Objectives) are:
> Restore the ground water to its beneficial use within a reasonable time period using monitored
natural recovery
> Protect downstream fish and macroinvertebrate populations from releases of contaminated
reservoir sediments, which occur with ice scour and high-low events
> Provide permanent protection against dam failure and the subsequent catastrophic release of
contaminated sediments
165
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
ft**
(continued)
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
I Provide compliance with the Endangered Species
Act (bull trout fish passage) and wetland protection
through consultation with USFWS, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and state agencies
Restoration goals are:
I Restore the confluence area of the Blackfoot and
Clark Fork Rivers to be naturally functioning and self-
maintaining
> Use natural, native materials, to the extent practi-
cable, for stabilizing channels, banks, and floodplain
I Improve water quality by reducing the rate of release
of contaminated sediments through bank erosion outside the area covered by the remediation
plan
> Provide high-quality fish and wildlife habitat
> Improve aesthetic values in the area by creating a diverse, natural setting
> Provide recreational opportunities such as river boating, fishing, and trail access for hiking and
biking in addition to the remedial and restoration goals set as part of the Superfund process.
The community-based redevelopment group has the following goals, believing the cleanup ef-
forts should:
• Contribute to redevelopment of a desirable community where people of all ages and in-
come levels can and want to live
• Build on current community character and strengthen roots and sense of community pride
• Protect a riparian buffer area and community open spaces that enhance community appeal
• Be compatible with and promote a stable, mixed economy with opportunities for commer-
cial, industrial, retail, and service interests
• Foster diverse, free public, river access and recreational opportunities compatible with the
natural environment of the area
• Promote infrastructure necessary for community development, maintenance and growth
• Maintain and enhance the quality of the existing school district
• Provide educational opportunities and facilities that allow people of all ages to learn about
the history of the area and redevelopment efforts
Streamlined Remediation and Restoration
EPA, the State of Montana, the Trustees, and the responsible parties (Atlantic Richfield Company/
BP and Northwestern Energy) have worked together, negotiating how the remediation and restora-
tion would be integrated. The idea is that if the remedial program is going to move dirt, it should
be put back in a way that literally lays the groundwork for planned restoration activities. Restora-
tion and remediation have been streamlined in many ways, including:
I Modifying the remedial design process to accommodate restoration elements (e.g., wetlands,
natural channel, floodplain, and vegetation designs)
166
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
(continued)
Milltown Reservoir/Clark Fork River Superfund Site, Western Montana
I Integrating restoration construction activities into the remedial process (e.g., removal of the
powerhouse, radial gate and right abutment associated with the Milltown Dam; channel, flood-
plain, and wetland construction)
Remedial and Restoration Funding
The Superfund remediation costs, estimated by EPA to be approximately $106 million, are being
borne by the responsible parties. The details of the cleanup costs and activities will be finalized
in the Consent Decree among the various parties (DOJ, EPA, the State of Montana, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and USFWS).
Restoration funds are being provided by Northwestern Energy ($23.9 million in cash and land
donations) and the State of Montana's Natural Resource Damages program. The courts approved
the State of Montana's Natural Resource Damages claim against Atlantic Richfield Company in
1999 for $135 million. The settlement provides funds to be used for restoration of natural
resources in the Clark Fork River Basin (not only for the Milltown Reservoir area). Accordingly,
about $5 million will be spent by the state from this fund.
The State of Montana and the other
Trustees will collectively contribute approxi-
mately $8 million for restoration of the
Milltown Reservoir area. There has been
substantial cost-savings by integrating
remediation and restoration. Through close
coordination and careful planning, around
$2.5 million in remediation costs will have
been saved. The responsible parties have
agreed to perform about this same amount
for restoration activities. In addition, by
keeping in mind the community's vision
for the area, remediation and restoration
activities were coordinated to allow for
planned community uses such as wildlife
observation points, additional fishing and
boating access points, a swimming beach,
skating pond, and interpretive center.
167
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
168
Implementation and Monitoring
-------
There are five appendices in this document:
Appendix A: Lefthand Watershed Collaborative Sampling Documents
Appendix B: Standard Guidance to Format Sample Results, Field Measurements,
and Associated Metadata
Appendix C: Lefthand Watershed Fact Sheet
Appendix D: Coeur d'Alene Basin-Wide Monitoring Plan
Appendix E: USFS/EPA Memorandum of Understanding
Due to their size they are only available online and can be accessed at
http://intranet.epa.gov/osrti/ard/spb/wwintegration/index.htm
169
Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds
-------
170
Implementation and Monitoring
------- |