The National Program Guidance
| for the
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2002-03
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
1 Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
I .EPA |;|
1 800 /N
; 2001 it f
June 2001
httD://intranet.er>a.gov/ow/strategic/gora.html
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 1: Moving the National Water Program Forward
Important efforts underway in the National Water Program.
Section 2: GPRA Goals, Objectives, and Subobjectives
Contains the strategic goals, objectives, and subobjectives under which the work of
the National Water Program falls and which were developed as part of the
strategic planning process the Agency undertook to meet requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Section 3: Program Offices' Vision, Strategies, and Guidances (revised for 2001)
Provides a brief vision statement and lists key strategies and guidances (including
sources and contacts) for each of the four water program offices within the Office
of Water. (Note: The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) will be
issuing its own guidance separately.)
Section 4: Management Agreement Instructions and Template
Instructions and template for the FY2002 Management Agreement (MA). The
template includes the FY2002 Annual Performance Goals and Measures
(APGs/APMs) and Office of Water Tribal Strategy Goals.
Section 5: Core Performance Measures
Contains the Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under
NEPPS: Clarijying.the Use and Applicability of Core Performance Measures, the
FY2000 Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for Water, the sources of
information for the CPMs, and a comparison of the CPMs to related APMs.
Section 6; Timeline (revised for 2001)
Shows key planning and accountability dates including dates for development and
finalization of the MAs and for the Mid-Year and End-of-Year Reports.
-------
Section 7: Midyear and End-of-Year Reporting (revised for 2001)
Contains initial guidance for mid-year and end-of-year reporting, the FY 01
Management Agreement Matrix (Annual Performance Goals and Measures) for the
Office of Water.
Section 8: FY 2000 Annual Report
Contains Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) Chapter from the Agency's FY 00 Annual
Performance Report and the FY 00 End-of-Year Results for the National Water
Program.
Section 9: Key Contacts (revised for 2001)
Contains lists of the Headquarters and Regionai contacts for the Office of Water's
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG).
11
-------
Introduction
Overview
The National Program Guidance for the Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2002-03 is intended to serve as guidance for the implementation of the National Water
Program. This guidance should assist all of us in providing consistent and fair implementation of
the important programs for which we are responsible. In addition, this guidance provides the
framework for EPA negotiations with our State and Tribal partners who "play a vital role in
protecting and restoring the Nation's waters. This guidance should be shared with these partners
and should serve as a primary resource for National Water Program staff and managers as they
plan and implement their programs for FY2002-03. This guidance addresses key elements of the
National Water Program's accountability system -- priorities, core program guidances,
Management Agreements (MAs), and mid-year and end-of-year reporting.
Content
This guidance consists of eight sections which are listed and described in the Table of Contents on
page i. Further key points on several of these sections follow. In Section 5, those strategies and
guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the Regional Administrator
must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a work plan
with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and strategies. In
Section 5, identical or parallel measures for all of the Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for
FY2001 are included as part of the annual performance measures (APMs) that are listed in the
template. Also, a table showing the CPMs and the parallel APMs is provided for ease in
identifying them from the longer list of annual performance goals (APGs) and APMs.
in
-------
IV
-------
Vision and Priorities for the
National Water Program
Section 1
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
2 9 2001
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TO:
SUBJECT:
DianeRege^ "/'-/" ^^ '
Acting Assistant Administratoffor Water
National Water Program
Moving the National Water Program Forward
During the first week of May, over 250 water program managers from EPA regions and
headquarters offices gathered in Washington for the third National Water Program Meeting. We
shared experiences and ideas and invested time in defining specific steps to make clean water and
drinking water programs more effective. Although we touched on virtually every aspect of our water
programs, we focused our discussion on how to better integrate the delivery of water programs.
Listening to the many discussions and presentations during these meetings, I was impressed
with everyone's dedication to the mission of ensuring clean and safe water and the determination to
move the National Water Program forward. While we develop a more comprehensive list of follow-
up actions, we have already started work on a number of key recommendations from that meeting.
Some examples include: 1) moving ahead with renewed attention to septics and other onsite systems;
2) initiating a thorough review of our management measures with both short and long term changes
expected; 3) energetically, pursuing action on information and data issues; and 4) looking at how we
can better link the thousands of source water assessments being conducted with watershed protection
efforts. .
With the discussions at the National Program Meeting fresh in mind, I want to offer some
thoughts on where the National Water Program stands'today and where we are going.
First and foremost, we are all very fortunate that President Bush has nominated Tracy Mehan
as the Assistant Administrator for Water. Tracy was the Director of the Office of the Great Lakes
in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Before that, he served at EPA and as Director
of the Department of Natural Resources in the State of Missouri. Tracy is on-board as a consultant
and will bring a valuable perspective to the table as we take on key challenges.
-------
I have had the pleasure of working as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water and, for the
past five months, Acting Assistant Administrator. I can't claim to be an unbiased observer, but I
think that, on the whole, we are able to give Tracy the reins of a National Water Program that is
fundamentally strong and effective.
We are approaching a major milestone for the National Water Programs. October 18,2002
is the thirtieth anniversary of the enactment of the original Clean Water Act The Safe Drinking
Water thirtieth anniversary is just two years later.
Over the last three decades we have dramatically improved the quality of rivers, lakes and
coastal waters and ensured safer drinking water. The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act are national success stories. Most Americans remember past water pollution problems and
recognize the dramatic improvement in the health of surface waters and drinking water. Today, we
can look back and know that millions of pounds of toxic pollutants have been removed from industrial
discharges, almost every city has improved sewage treatment, and drinking water is freer of
microbiological and other contaminants.
We have done great things over the past 30 years, but big challenges are still out there waiting
to be addressed. In addition, our success has given the public high expectations that we will continue
to make rapid progress hi improving water quality and will even eliminate pollution problems
altogether. Most of you know the dimensions of the pollution problems we face.
Too many people in this country still do not have basic water and sewer services.
Many of these people live in areas along the U.S./Mexico border or on tribal lands,
including those in Alaska.
Too many waterbodies still do not meet clean water goals. States report that over
one-third of the waters they monitored suffer from pollution problems serious enough
to prevent basic uses like fishing and swimming. Over 20,000 of these waters were
included on lists as needing restoration plans or TMDLs.
States have issued over 2,500 advisories warning that fish are too contaminated for
all to eat.
- One out of three beaches surveyed report at least one advisory or closing.
Although discharges from industry and sewage treatment plants contribute to these
pollution problems, in most watersheds across the country, the leading cause of
pollution is an array of diffuse sources of polluted runoff from agriculture, logging,
irrigation return flows, atmospheric deposition, construction, and sprawl.
We still have a long way to go to ensure that the drinking water provided by tens of
thousands of water systems, especially small systems, is free of microbiological and
-------
other contaminants.
Lack of adequate management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems has been
identified as a major problem. Approximately 25% of existing U.S. households and
33% of new development use some form of onsite or decentralized wastewater
treatment system. Based on recent data, between 10% and 25% of these systems are
failing significantly.
In looking at all the challenges that we still face, it is reassuring to know that we have a solid
foundation of core programs and a proven record of effective implementation of these programs in
cooperation with our State and Tribal partners.
We have a proven tool for financing water infrastructure in the clean water and
drinking water State revolving loan funds.
We have basic, technology-based controls for industrial dischargers and sewage
treatment plants.
We have water quality standards and drinking water standards that are based on
sound science.
We have effective permit programs for both discharges to waters and for protection
of wetlands.
We have worked with States to develop effective programs for reducing runoff from
a wide array of nonpoint sources.
We have strong programs supervising public water systems, informing consumers of
drinking water quality, and protecting sources of drinking water.
So, as we approach the end of three decades of hard work to ensure clean water and safe
drinking water, what do we need to do next? In the short term — over the 18 months between now
and the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act - there are a number of important efforts underway
to refine and improve our core programs. Let me say at the outset that this list is in no specific order
and there are any number of important projects not on this particular list.
• Water Quality Standards - We need to strengthen State water quality standards by
expanding our water quality criteria in key areas, such as nutrients and pathogens, and
by working with States and Tribes to assure that their standards are appropriate and
fully protect designated uses. Because the standards are the foundation for our move
to focusing on water quality, the standards, and public support for appropriate
standards, will be an important determinant of our success.
-------
Charting a Course For Effluent Guidelines - We recently kicked-off a major
review of the effluent guidelines program with the goal of involving a wide range of
stakeholders in helping us set priorities for review and revision of industrial and
pretreatment effluent guidelines. This effort is especially important because, for the
first time in several years, we have the opportunity to show that EPA can get this job
done without judicial oversight.
Reducing Nonpoint Pollution - It is critical that we continue and expand the work
we are doing with States to strengthen section 319 programs and to support diverse
and innovative efforts to reduce polluted runoff such as diversifying the kinds of
nonpoint source projects financed through Clean Water State Revolving Funds. We
will encourage states to use innovative funding mechanisms to provide SRF financing
to non-traditional recipients, such as farmers and individual septic tank owners, with
important needs. The number of states using their Clean Water State Revolving
Funds to fund nonpoint source projects has grown rapidly, and we will continue
encouraging states to increase this use of their Funds. Our immediate goal is that
$200 million in SRF funds be used for nonpoint source projects per year. Finally, we
will increase our efforts to describe and communicate the environmental results of the
Federal investment in nonpoint source programs, particularly with respect to nutrient
and sediment loading reductions.
Water Monitoring and Reporting - In April of next year, we expect to receive
important new information from States about the health of our waters, including both
general reports concerning water quality and specific lists of impaired waters. This
new information is a good opportunity to present to the public more and better
information about our progress in protecting the Nation's waters.
Restoring Impaired Waters ~ Over the past several years, we have debated at
length the specifics of how to restore polluted waters through the TMDL program.
Whatever happens to the new TMDL rule, it seems clear that States and EPA will be
doing a substantially larger number of TMDLs. And, there is great public interest in
the details of each of these projects. Over the next year, we need to both resolve the
basic regulatory ground rules and proceed with a steady effort to develop TMDLs
that will reduce the number of polluted waters around the county.
Discharge Permit Program and Backlog, and Wet Weather Pollution — EPA,
States and Congress all agree that the backlog in discharge permits is too large and
that we need to substantially reduce it by next year. Congress expects us to follow-
through on this commitment. While we undertake this work, we are challenged to
better understand and explain the environmental importance of permits. We also need
to find appropriate permit program solutions to address wet weather pollution
including Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs),
storm water, C AFOs, and mining operations, and come to grips with a range of other
-------
difficult permit program issues ranging from when new discharges should be allowed
to impaired waters to control of ballast water from ships.
Implement New Legislation Enacted By Congress - Last year, Congress passed
a number of new clean water initiatives - including the new beach safety legislation
and the new wet weather grant legislation. Both of these new efforts are funded in
the President's budget and we need to launch these new programs successfully. In
addition, Congress enacted a multi-faceted estuary bill and a comprehensive
restoration plan for the Florida Everglades, both of which will require increased
coordination with our Federal, state, and local partners to be successful..
Develop Drinking Water Regulations - Since the reauthorization of the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1996, we have made good progress in developing new
standards for contaminants in drinking water. Over the next year, we will be finalizing
standards for radon in drinking water and establishing new requirements for control
of microbiological contaminants in small surface water systems and ground water
systems.
We will be conducting an intensive process to review the science and costs related to
arsenic in drinking water and come to a decision about a new arsenic standard. The
Agency has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a review of
a range of 3 ppb to 20 ppb, and we will likely continue the same compliance dates for
systems as are identified in the January 2001 rule. This means that systems that are
at or near 20 ppb should be planning now to lower the arsenic levels in their finished
waters. The process that we are now following to work with the NAS and the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council will provide useful information that will
help us reach a sound decision on arsenic in a timely manner.
Drinking Water Contaminant Selection - In addition to developing new drinking
water standards, we will be working hard to evaluate unregulated contaminants that
should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the years to come. This
Spring, we will publish for comment notice of the contaminant selection process we
expect to follow in the future and will identify contaminants to be regulated in the
next several years. We will also be seeking comment on which of the existing
drinking water standards should be the highest priority for review and revision.
Source Water Protection ~ After several years of work by EPA and the States, we
expect that source water protection programs will emerge over the next several years
and take on an increasingly important role in the National Water Program.
Persistent Bioaccumaiitive Toxics (PBTs) - In 2002 and 2003, we will continue
to participate in a cross-agency effort to produce measurable results in reducing the
use and release of priority PBT pollutants in the environment and in reducing
-------
exposure to PBTs, especially to sensitive and vulnerable populations.
This is a challenging list of projects and there is lots of important work that is not on this list,
whether it's building our programs in Indian country, developing cooling water intake regulations,
managing the wetlands program, protecting estuaries, or overseeing State Revolving Loan Funds.
While I expect that the new management team will be closely involved in all the projects I just
mentioned, I expect that they will also be looking for ways to give the National Water Program new
energy and direction. Over the next several months, as some of the pressing, holdover issues are
addressed and Tracy Mehan is confirmed as Assistant Administrator, the time will come to think
about longer-term, strategic directions for the water programs.
It is hard to say what new directions might emerge for the National Water Program in the
coming years. But, we should expect to be asked what new directions we think are called for and we
should be ready to put some ideas on the table. Here are some of the strategic questions I hope the
new management team will think about.
• Partnerships — The water program needs to reach across organizational boundaries
and build strong partnerships with other federal agencies, other government agencies,'
and with private entities. It is only through the combined work of all of us that our
clean water goals will be achieved.
• Program Integration - Clearly,-better integration of water programs at the State,
watershed and waterbody level has the potential to accomplish our clean water and
drinking water goals more effectively. As I indicated above, we are working now to
assemble specific recommendations for enhancing program integration based on the
work at the recent National Water Program meeting.
• Water Infrastructure — There is growing concern that the nation is unprepared to
deal with pressing water infrastructure financing needs and some have estimated that
we have a shortfall in funding of over $20 billion per year. Without new investment
and better management approaches, growing populations and aging facilities could
erode some of the important water quality gains of the past decades. We need to
complete our own analysis of this problem and work with Congress to ensure that
there is a common understanding of this problem. If Congress chooses to develop
legislation, we must be ready to participate in this effort.
• Suburban Growth — As we gradually get the remaining pollution problem areas
cleaned-up, we will increasingly focus on prevention of future problems and our
attention is likely to turn to the water quality impacts of unsustainable development
and suburban growth. To enhance prevention, we can provide new tools to help local
governments, stakeholders and others plan for growth in ways that protect sources
of drinking water, protect precious water resources, plan for adequate infrastructure,
-------
and contribute to a high quality of life in urban areas.
• Innovation — Innovation is an ongoing challenge - today's innovation quickly
becomes tomorrow's tradition. The Agency is refocusing and re-energizing the
innovations effort and water programs need to be part of this process. We need to
continue to build on innovations work, such as water pollution trading, strategically
promoting the use of environmental management systems and other innovative tools
like asset management, while continuing to look for smarter, cheaper, faster ways to
run the water programs.
• Valuing All Our Employees - The increasing diversity of our workforce is a terrific
opportunity for us to bring in new ways of looking at our work. As we become more
diverse, we can strengthen our partnerships with different communities outside the
Agency. Taking full advantage of this strength will require us to adapt our
organization, making sure that many voices can be heard.
As we approach the end of three decades of hard work to ensure clean and safe water, we can
be proud of our accomplishments and challenged by the difficult problems that are before us. Judging
from the energy and enthusiasm I saw among people at the National Water Program meeting, the next
few years will include great strides toward cleaner and safer waters.
cc: Administrator .
Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
-------
-------
GPRA Goals, Objectives, and
Subobjectives
Section 2
-------
-------
Agency's Strategic Plan submitted to Congress, September 2000
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 1: By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by
community water systems will receive water that meets health-based drinking water
standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to
microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
Subobiective 1.1: By 2005, the population served by commuriity water systems
providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards (issued under the
SDWA as amended in 1986) will increase to 95% from a baseline 83% hi 1994. For
standards issued in 1998 and beyond (under the SDWA as amended in 1996), the
population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets
such new health-based standards will reach 95% within five years after the effective
date of each rule.
Subobiective 1.2: By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional
10 high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon) will be issued
and will provide increased protection to the general population as well as sensitive
subpopulations such as children, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised.
Subobjective 1.3: By 2005, demonstrate the effectiveness of both voluntary and
regulatory activities to protect sources of drinking water by (1) ensuring that 50% of
the population served by community water systems will receive their water from
systems with source water protection programs in place; and, 2) managing identified,
high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g., wellhead,
source water, sole source aquifer, etc.) and all Class I, II, and III injection wells.
Subobjective 1.4: By 2005,5% of the waters with fish advisories will demonstrate
a decline in fish tissue contamination, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish
will be reduced, and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting
the consumption offish and shellfish will increase.
Subobjective 1.5: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination
in waters used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining
the designated recreational uses will increase.
Subobjective 1.6: Through 2005, provide a stronger scientific basis for future
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Note: This Subobjective belongs to
. ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Page 2-3
-------
Objective 2: By 2005, increase by 175 the number of watersheds where 80 percent or more
of assessed waters meet water quality standards, including standards that support healthy
aquatic communities. (The 1998 baseline is 501 watersheds out of a national total of 2,262.)
Subobjective 2.1: By 2005,5,000 additional miles of water will attain water quality
standards and specific interim milestones will be achieved in 50,000 impaired miles.
Subobjective 2.2: By 2005, and in each year thereafter, the work of federal, state,
tribal, and local agencies; the private sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and
citizen groups will result in a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands.
Subobjective 2.3: Through 2005, provide means to identify, assess, and manage
aquatic stressors, including contaminated sediments. (Note: This Subobjective
belongs to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Objectives: By 2005, reduce pollutant loadings from key point and nonpoint sources by at
least 11% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants will be reduced to 1990 levels.
Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, using both pollution control and prevention approaches,
reduce at least 3 billion pounds of annual point source loadings from key sources,
including a combined 11% reduction from industrial sources, publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
Subobiective 3.2: By 2005, through the work of federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies and the private sector, nonpoint source loadings (especially sediment and
nutrient loads) will be reduced or prevented, including a 20% reduction from 1992
levels of erosion from cropland (i.e., reduction of 235 million tons of soil eroded)
Subobiective 3.3: Through 2005, deliver decision support tools and alternative, cost-
effective wet weather flow control technologies for use by local decision makers
involved in community-based watershed management. (Note: This Subobjective
belongs to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Subobjective 3.4: By 2005, improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted
persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50 percent compared
to 1990 levels, as measured by the National Toxics Inventory. Also by 2005, reduce
ambient nitrates and total nitrogen deposition to 1990 levels, as measured by the
National Atmospheric Deposition Network and the Clean Air Status and Trends
Network.
Page 2-4
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems
Objective 6: By 2005, EPA will assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the
condition of their environment, help in building the tribes' capacity to implement
environmental management programs, and ensure that EPA is implementing programs in
Indian Country where needed to address environmental issues.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks
Objective 1: By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to human health and shared ecosystems
in North America, including marine and Arctic environments, consistent with our bilateral and
multilateral treaty obligations in these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to tribes.
Subobiective 1.2: By 2005, the population in the U.S./Mexico Border Area
(including tribes) that is served by adequate drinking water, wastewater collection and
treatment systems will increase by 1.5 million through the design and construction of
water infrastructure.
Subobjective 1,4: Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of
toxic substances, protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and restoring and
maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
Page 2-5
-------
-;.:, -, i.It:fr»«sj:isjr:----«p**J«ni!"'
rAfe^aiiH^i^fAJSA
:i'*~r.;=;; is.^!5^^:Ki;""^j r"V-.
||y?ijii|iapi|i^
^^'^^11.
tjp2prf5:.:;;.!r::;?V!
lfi§tlllSiiig||::i5
c
TO
^
o
o
D)
b:
"(O
I
o3
c.
o
'w
c
CO
CL
X
LU
O
oi
I
0)
'o
O
CO
CO
TJ
O
O
LL.
I
CO
CO
(0
£
O
03 03
*- -J
§j
C t->
£ -c
0 .-g
Q ^
-i s
^1 C
03
a.
O E
o
oi O
c
(D
CD
O)
03
(0
0)
>
t5
£
LU
o
T3
-------
l^ftffji
'-*-. "^-*:- ' ^H^ft! - ^£-J'" S% ^^gm J-^^ '(
*a»fe>fi&fs
-•sAmLi! W« '!_<;. _IQ.».!.".i'r
:^^^3j!-ji,lCpv>.«
,if "•.r^!^.,- .'ft w- ;:b--;r*s,;:;;j
'f: • :v -rA * 'S'. *' 7-*;* «!•. W••"?
K^r.vVHS^S!
:t .f.;'".'^,'' •..:...JjsK .-jijim .j:--fc 4,
tefti*-;'!'™'*!:!
if;3s^«S»i>
•'"4*...
. •&.'-.. d"'.:. ^
ufcSJ , , ^".^C'i.^.^
^fcK-^-'%X!«A
W"i^:r:s^Km
Ic
o .2
co tS
.£ -D
O
§>
§.*
p|8
Mi
uj a.
co 8
—; CM
CO
E
to
to"
"ro
D)
c
1*:
_c
Q
"c
3
o
O
CO
CD
T3
ra
>k Contaminant St
U9
"§>
X
3
75
Water / Ground W
on Programs
81
8?
CO 0.
CO
is
•^^
_c
c
(0
iZ
T3
^
(0
c
B
0
o
J2
^J
1
^0
0
CO
ID
75
c
o
15
2
o
0)
a:
;r Scientific Base
w
D)
C
o5 i.
-------
CO
0
co
CD
IP-- . -».
O1"
0''.
^ -
CD: ^
CD
O
CD
•a
•a
O "f
^^ *; o)
^•* to O
f/\ 0) (J
Wl _^ QJ
C •- c $
g §11
^- -o « 52,
I- llcf
!_
0)
"S
o
CQ
O
O
'x
ff
a.
(0
S 5
O CO
J_l n
S i-S
? P
C <-> s1
O ao
IS
< -i
11
0) c
•^ o
n ~
E >
ULJ
c
O) CO 3
co E o
sl°
S §*
^
-------
Program Specific Visions,
Strategies, and Guidances
(Strategies and Guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the Regional
Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a
work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked Guidances and
Strategies.)
(Strategies and Guidances appearing for the first time in this update are marked with a &.
Section 3
-------
-------
Contents
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water page 3-5
Office of Science and Technology page 3-16
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds page 3-30
Office of Waste-water Management page 3-41
-------
-------
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
/. Vision
The fundamental mission of the National Drinking Water Program is to protect public health
by ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The framework within which the EPA strives to
achieve this mission is the "multiple barrier approach." Under this approach, in FY 2002-2003,
EPA, its partners - - States and Tribes - - and stakeholders (public health and environmental
organizations, utilities, communities, and the public) will continue to engage in a comprehensive set
of activities to protect the public from contaminants in drinking water. These activities cover the
entire process for providing safe drinking water to Americans, from protecting water at the source
to ensuring consumer confidence in the safety of the water flowing from the tap.
The multiple barrier approach comprises several strategic components that allow EPA,
partners, and stakeholders to achieve our mission as effectively and efficiently as possible. These
include:
• protecting drinking water sources from contamination through conducting source water
assessments, protecting wellhead areas and sole source aquifers, arid ensuring that disposal
of waste through underground injection does not contaminate drinking water sources
setting national health-based "primary" standards based on sound science and health risk
information, and periodically evaluating the effectiveness of these standards in protecting
public health
• ensuring that states and tribes have sufficient financial, managerial and technical capacity to
implement safe drinking water programs through regulatory guidance, grants and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (D WSRF). Funding from loans and set-asides allows
states and water systems to upgrade water infrastructure, and DWSRF set-asides allow states
to target program areas in need of additional support
• providing continual training and technical assistance to water system operators to maintain
their ability to implement existing and new regulations effectively
• monitoring source water and drinking water to ensure compliance with national standards,
and
• providing citizens with annual reports on drinking water quality, and notifying them when
drinking water emergencies occur. At the same time, EPA and its partners understand that
public participation in the implementation of drinking water programs adds value and helps
us serve the public more efficiently and effectively.
Page3-5
-------
Another vital component of the multiple barrier approach is better coordination of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act programs. In 2002-2003, EPA will work with States and
Tribes to explore innovative ways to utilize the programs and funding offered by both federal statutes
to protect sources (ground and surface) of drinking water from contamination.
//. Key Strategies
Comprehensive Drinking Water Research Strategy/National Drinking Water Research Agenda
(Final: December 2001) . • .
Applicability: Drinking Water Community
Contact: Maggie Javdan, 202-260-9862.iavdan.maggie@epa.gov
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Chuck Job, 202-260-7084, iob.charles@,epa.gov
Copies Available: www.epa.gov/safewater
Source Water Contamination Prevention National Strategy
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 202-260-6672 , farrellv.joan(g),epa.gov
Copies Available: www.epa,gov/safewater
///. Key Grant Guidances
* Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Guidelines (1997)
Section 1452 of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act authorize the Agency to
award DWSRF capitalization grants to states; which in turn can provide low-cost loans and other
types of assistance to eligible systems.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette. veronica@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail:
center, water-re source@.epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/docs/guidtoc.html
IV. Rules and Guidances Issued in the Last Year (May 2000-May 2001) (By Major Activity)
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
*Federal Register Notice on Changes in Allotments for DWSRF (May 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States
Page 3-6
-------
Contact: Veronica Blette: 202-260-3980: blette.veronica@epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf .html
* DWSRF Regulations: Final Rule (August 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kimberley Roy; 202-260-2794; kimberlev.rov@epa. eov
Copies Available: internet
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/dwsrf .html
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Final Rule (May 2001)
Applicability: States, conventional and direct filtration public water systems that practice recycling
Contact: Jeff Robichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.i eff@epa.gov
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Quick Start Guide (May 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568, robichaud.ieffigtepa.gov
Public Notification Rule
Public Notification Rule: Draft Implementation Guidance and Handbook (July 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kathy Williams, 202-260-2759, williams.kathv@epa.gov
Copies: www.epa.gov/safewater/public notification
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions: Technical Guidance and Compliance Guidance (April 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Ron Bergman, 202-260-6187, bergman.ron@epa. eov ; Ed Thomas, 202-260-0910,
thomas .edwin@epa.goy
Copies Available: internet
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/implement
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule/Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rules (lESWTR/Stage 1 DBF)
lESWTR/Stage 1 DBF Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (May 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicole@epa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov
Copies Available: during comment period only
Page 3-7
-------
Web Address: comment period closed, final expected soon.
Radionuclides
Draft Implementation Guidance for Radionuclides and Quick Reference Guide (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Ed Thomas; 202-260-0910; thomas.edwin@.epa.gov
Copies Available: internet
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/implement
Radionuclides Final Rule (November 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Dave Huber; 202-260-9566, huber.david@.epa.eov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater
Notice of Data Availability for Radionuclides other than Radon (March 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Bill Labiosa; 202-260-4835; labiosa@erols.com
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater
Radon
Draft Implementation Guidance for Radon (August 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, and public water systems
Contact: Robert Jordan; 202-260-2328; jordan.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: During comment period only
Web Address: Comment period closed. New draft will be available with final rule
Source Water Protection
National Association of Counties Source Water Protection Kit (May 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Kevin McCormack, 202-260-7772, mccormack.kevin(S).epa.eov
Copies Available: May 2001
Web Address: www.naco.org
ICMA (International City/County Management Association) Source -water Awareness Media Tool
Kit (March 2001)
Applicability: Local governments, public water systems, states
Page 3-8
-------
Contact: Steve Ainsworth, 202-260-7769, ainsworth.steve@.epa. gov
Copies Available: available on the internet
Web Address: www.lgean.org/html/tooldetail.cfm
Underground Injection Control
State Implementation Guide (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce@.epa.gov. Howard Beard, 202-260-8796,
beard.howard(g),epa.gov
Copies Available: no '•
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/c5imp.html
Class V, Phase II Initiative: Publish Proposed Class VPhase II Determination (April 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments
Contact: Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 202-260-6672, farrelly.ioan@.epa.gov
Copies Available: upon request
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/c5imp.html
Conversion of a Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Well - A VIC Director's Guide (November 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce@epa.gov. Howard Beard, 202-260-8796,
beard.howard@.epa. gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/
Technical Assistance Document for Delineating "Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas "
(December 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski. 202-260-7275. kobelski.bruce@epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address:vwf\v .epa.gov/safewater/uic/ -,
Small Entity Compliance Guide: How the New Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Well Rule Affects Your
Business (December 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce@epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List 2 Rule
*Revisionsto the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule for Public Water Systems: Final Rule
Page 3-9
-------
(January 2001)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Charles Job, 202-260-7084, job.charles@epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/
K Rules and Guidances Issued/To Be Issued June 01 through FY02 (By Major Activity)
Arsenic
Arsenic Rule: Final Rule (February 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Irene Dooley, 202-260-9531. doolev.irene@epa.gov
CCL Regulatory Determinations
CCL Regulatory Determinations: Final Notice (August 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Dan Olson, 202-260-6269, olson.daniel@epa.gov
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Report to Congress on the Status of the DWSRF Program (est. February 2002)
Applicability: all drinking water stakeholders
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette.veronica@epa.gov
Filter Backwash
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Technical Guidance (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (late 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.mcoiefa).epa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov
Ground Water Rule
Ground Water Rule: Final Rule (2002)
Page 3-10
-------
Applicability: States, public water systems using ground water
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric@epa.gov
Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Ground Water Systems (2002)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.
Guidance Manual for Conducting Hydrogeohgic Sensitivity Assessments of Public Ground Water
Supplies (2002)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; bumeson.eric@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.
Corrective Actions for Fecal Contamination in Public Ground Water Systems (2002)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Ken Rotert; 202-260-5748; rotert.kenneth@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.
Small Systems Compliance Guidance for the Ground Water Rule (2002)
Applicability: public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson: 202-260-1445: burneson.eric@,epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.
X
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicole@epa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov
Hydraulic Fracturing
Study of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Wells: Final Report (February 2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, oil and gas industry
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite, 202-260-0713, cronkhite.ieslie@epa.gov. Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275,
kobelski.bruce@epa.gov
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term 1 Rule: Final Rule (Summer 2001)
Page 3-11
-------
Applicability: States, public water systems using surface water, serving fewer than 10,000 persons
Contact: Jeff Robichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.iefffgepa.gov
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Quick Start Guide (August 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.iefflg>epa.gov
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Technical Guidance: Filtration &
rwr&/<%(September 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieff@.epa.eov
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Technical Guidance: Disinfection Profiling
(September 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieff@.epa.eov
Individual Filter Self Assessment How-to Video (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud. ieff@epa.gov
Disinfection Profiling How-to Video (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.jefffg.epa.gov
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (Fall 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicolergtepa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo. katie@.epa. go v
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Final Rule (May 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems using surface water
Contact: Dan Schmelling, 202-260-1439, schmening.daniel@epa.gov
L T2 Laboratory Instruction Manual (September 2001)
Applicability: laboratories (PWS, State, commercial)
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crvstal@epa.gov
Guidance on Contracting Laboratories for LT2 Monitoring (May 2002)
Applicability: Public water systems using surface water
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crvstal@epa. gov
Page 3-12
-------
Data System User's Manual (Draft: Dec. 2001, Final: May 2002)
Applicability; Public water systems using surface water, laboratories, states
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crvstal@,epa. gov
Federal Register Notice: Laboratory Evaluation and Approval (July 2001)
Applicability: Public water systems using surface water, laboratories, states
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodger5.crvstal@.epa.eov
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicole@epa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov
MTBE
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation for MTBE: Proposed Rule (Fall 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: James Taft, 202-260-5519, taft.james@.epa.gov
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Ron Bergman, 202-260-6187, bergman.ron@.epa. gov ; Ed Thomas, 202-260-0910,
thomas.edwin@epa.gov
Public Water Systems, Especially Small Systems
Technical and Financial Assistance for Small Systems (August 2001) &• $
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems . .-9 o o
Contact: Peter Shanaghan, 202-260-5813, shagnahan.peter(S).epa.gov ~£ ^ c g
Copies Available: Internet after August 2001 t= 8 < w
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/utiUties/tfassistance.html § ™ .2 Q
li ^ J» §
SDWA Regulation Overview for Water Systems (June 2001) £ -•= |* ra
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems ' i? S « if
Contact: Peter Shanaghan, 202-260-5813, shanaghan.peter@.epa.gov "f £ JS
Copies Available: Internet after June 2001 ^ ^
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/utilities/sdwaoverview.html ""
Radon
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Radon: Revisions to Final Rule (July 2001)
Applicability:
— --Page 3-13.
-------
Contact: Mariana Cubeddu-Negro, 202-260-5746, negro.mariana@epa.gov
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (after revisions in July 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Ron Bergman, 202-260-6187, bergman.ron@epa.gov ; Ed Thomas, 202-260-0910,
thomas.edwin@epa.gov
Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
First Notice of 6-Year Review of National Primary DrinkingWater Regulations: Propose in Federal
Register (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Judy Lebowich, 202-260-7595. lebowich.judv@epa.gov; Wynne Miller, 202-260-0259,
miller.wynne@epa.gov
Final Notice of 6-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Publish in Federal
Register (August 2002)
Applicability:
Contact: Judy Lebowich, 202-260-7595, lebowich.judv@epa.gov ; Wynne Miller, 202-260-0259,
miller. wynne@epa. gov
Source Water Protection
Source Water Protection Pocket Guide (June 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Kevin McCormack, 202-260-7772, mccormack.kevin@epa.gov: Steve Potts, 202-260-
5015.-potts.steve@epa,gov
-- L'
~* ..-
^Resource List for the Web (June 2001)
'Applicability: All drinking water stakeholders
Contact: Beth Hall, 202-260-5553, hall.beth@epa.gov
Stage^.Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
^ i' s- .-
Stage 2 "D/DBP: Final Rule (May 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McClain, 202-260-0431, mcclain.i enni fer@epa. eov
Stage 2 DBPR Distribution System Guidance Manual (May 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McLain, 202-260-0431
Small Systems Guidance Manual (May 2002)
-Page 3-14
-------
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McLain, 202-260-0431
Consecutive Systems Guidance Manual (May 2002)
Applicability; States, public water systems
Contact: Thomas Grubbs, 202-260-7270
Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicole@.epa.gov ; Katie Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie@.epa.gov
Underground Injection Control
*Class I VIC Rule: Final Regulatory Revision for Florida (March 2002)
Applicability: Region 4, State of Florida
Contact: Howard Beard, 202-260-8796, beard.howard@,epa.eov
Wastewater Management Risk Analysis in Support of Class IUIC Regulation Revision for Florida:
Report to Congress (February 2002)
Applicability: EPA Region 4, State of Florida
Contact: Howard Beard, 202-260-8796, beard.howardfgiepa.gov
Class V, Phase II Initiative
*Class V, Phase II Initiative: Final Determination (May 2002)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States
Contact: Robin Delehanty, 202-260-1993, delehanty.robinGbepa.gov. Lee Whitehurst,
202-260-5532, whitehurst.lee(q).eva. gov
Page 3-15
-------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
/. Vision
The role of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) is to set national water quality
baselines reflecting current science and the best pollution control technologies, and provide tools,
guidance and training to help State, Tribal and local watershed managers protect human health and
maintain and improve the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. These tools and
guidances help environmental managers implement Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
programs.
The Office's priorities include strengthening and modernizing the basic structure of the water
quality criteria and standards program. We will work with states and tribes to improve processes for
developing and adopting water quality standards. We will work with states to establish mutually-
accepted commitments and schedules to conduct triennial reviews of water quality standards within
the three-year review cycle required by the Clean Water Act. We will also work with states and
tribes to reduce and eventually eliminate the backlog of water quality standards actions. By
expanding the suite of ecological and human health criteria and working with states and tribes to
adopt the appropriate criteria, we will strengthen the program's scientific base for managing water
resources on an integrated, watershed basis. Applying strong water quality standards and
implementation procedures on a watershed basis should result in reduced exposure to microbial and
other contaminants in recreational waters, reduced consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish,
and reduced stress on aquatic communities. We will also work with our stakeholders to select and
develop technology based effluent regulations that will reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants from
industrial sources and also reduce harmful discharges from feedlots and urban storm water.
One of the highest priorities of the drinking water program is to protect the public health of
all Americans by ensuring that the water is safe to drink. It is critical that the program sets drinking
water regulations based on good science and data and sound risk assessment. We will continue to
provide scientific support for these regulations, including risk assessments for contaminant selection
and regulation.
//. Key Strategies
The National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, published in the Federal
Register on June 25,1998
The Strategy describes the approach the Agency is taking to develop scientific information relating
to nutrient over enrichment of the Nation's waters and to work with the States and Tribes to assure
that State water quality standards reflect this nutrient information. This information includes
waterbody-type guidance and ecoregionally derived nutrient criteria. Once guidance and ecoregional
criteria are published, the Agency will assist states and tribes in adopting numerical nutrient criteria
into water quality standards by the end of 2003. National default ecoregional nutrient criteria will
Page 3-16
-------
be published by the Agency for four types of water bodies across 14 ecoregions starting in 2000,
where data are available. Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to include water
quality criteria for nutrients, EPA's Office of Water will recommend to the Administrator that she
act under Section 303© of the Clean Water Act. This action will assure that the protective criteria
for nutrients apply in all states no later than 3 years after the National default criteria are published.
Applicability: Regions, States, and Tribes
Contact: Robert Cantilli, 202-260-5546, Cantilli.Robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Robert Cantilli
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/June/Day-25/wl6941 .htm
EPA Plan For Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/600/R-98/079.
The "Beach Plan" is a multi-year strategy for reducing the risks of infection to users of recreational
water through improved recreational water quality programs, risk communication, and scientific
advances. The plan promotes consistent management of recreational water quality programs and
improves the science that supports water monitoring programs. To support these objectives, EPA
will identify needs and deficiencies in recreational water programs, assist states/Tribes in
strengthening their recreational water quality standards, and work with local managers in their
transition to the recommended criteria. We will issue guidance on managing risk and using Agency-
developed monitoring methods and indicators at recreational waters. Improving the science that
supports recreational water monitoring programs includes research into rapid analytical methods and
better indicators of enteric pathogens, evaluation of modeling and monitoring tools, and research on
exposure and health effects. The transition to E. Coli and enterococci indicators will be a priority
for the triennial reviews of water quality standards that will occur in FY 2000-02. Beginning with
FY 2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices will develop management agreements that will
include commitments to have states and tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria-1986. Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to include the 1986 criteria
or criteria and standards that are as protective of human health as EPA criteria, EPA will act under
Section 303 © of the Clean Water Act and pursuant to the requirements of the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, to promulgate the criteria with the goal
of assuring the 1986 criteria apply in all states not later than April 2004.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes and local communities
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, 202-260-0642, Hoffmann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies Available: With the title and document number from National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) (1 -800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/BEACH Watch
III. Key Grant Guidance ,
& New-Federal Register Notice of Availability of Grants for Development of Coastal Recreation
Water Monitoring and Public Notification Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) signed into law on
October 10,2000, amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) to reduce the risk of disease to users of the
*
Page 3-17 • • •
-------
Nation's recreational waters. The BEACH Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to award program development and implementation grants to eligible States,
Territories, Tribes and local governments to support microbiological testing and monitoring of
coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, that are adjacent to beaches or similar points
of access used by the public. BEACH Act grants also provide support for development and
implementation of programs to notify the public of the risk of exposure to disease-causing
microorganisms in coastal recreation waters. This Federal Register notice announces the availability
of grants to develop comprehensive coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification
programs and provides grant application procedures. Indian tribes will not be able to apply for these
grants until EPA develops a rule that will establish procedures so that Tribes may be treated in the
same manner as a state for purposes of this program. EPA is currently developing this rule.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Charles Kovatch, 202-260-3754, Kovatch.Charles(g).epa.gpv
Copies Available: FR Notice is expected to be published in May, 2001
* & New-National Beach Guidance and Grant Performance Criteria for Recreational Waters
This document will be used by potential grant recipients (identified in the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000) to adopt criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators,
to implement effective programs for the monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters
adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public, and to provide for prompt public
notification of any exceedance of or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality standards
in coastal recreation waters. This document also establishes performance criteria which EPA will
use to evaluate potential grant recipients' programs.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, 202-260-0642, Hoffmann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies Available: Document is expected to be published in October 2001
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances (those issued in the last year are noted new)
Permit Guidance Document for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Point Source
Category EPA-821-B-00-003
This permit guidance document for bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
facilities is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing NPDES
permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards established as part of the Cluster Rules promulgated April 15,1998. The document
discusses permitting issues such as in-process compliance points, compliance deadlines, production
definitions, mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program (VATIP).
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Mark Perez, 202-260-7175, perez.mark@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Mark Perez
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/pulppaper/permitguide/
Page 3-18
-------
Permit Guidance Document for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (40
CFR Part 439)
This document is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing
NPDES permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the revised
pharmaceutical manufacturing effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated September
21,1998.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Frank Hund, 202-260-7182, hund.frank@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not yet available in final; expected Summer 2001
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST' s website.
* New - Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
(40 CFR Part 136). EPA-821-B-00-004.
This guidance document provides additional clarification of whole effluent toxicity (WET) test
methods that are approved at 40 CFR part 136 for use in monitoring under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. This document is designed to assist
EPA Regional, State, and local authorities; regulated entities; and environmental laboratories by
providing guidance on the conduct of WET tests and interpretation of WET test results. Specific
technical guidance is provided on nominal error rate adjustments, confidence intervals,
concentration-response relationships, dilution series, and dilution waters.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes, Industry, and Testing Laboratories
Contact: Marion Kelly, 202-260-7117, kelly .marion@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Marion Kelly
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OSTAVET/guide
& New - Guidance for Implementation and Use of EPA Method 163If or the Determination of
Low-Level Mercury (40 CFR part 136) EPA-821-R-01-023
This document is intended to provide assistance to the analytical community, permit writers, States,
Tribes, and the regulated community in the application and use of EPA Method 1631 for the
determination of mercury in ambient water and for monitoring requirements established when
issuing NPDES permits. The document discusses the use of clean sampling techniques to prevent
contamination when measuring low levels of mercury, known matrix interferences and what to do
to overcome these matrix interferences, and flexibility to make certain changes to the method.
Additionally, the document provides responses to frequently asked questions on quality control and
other analytical issues.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States, Tribes, Local Governments, and Analytical Laboratories
Contact: Maria Gomez-Taylor, 202-260-1639, gomez-taylor.maria@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Maria Gomez-Taylor
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/methods/! 631 .htrril
$• New - Permit Guidance Document: Transportation Equipment and Cleaning Point Source
Category EPA-821-R-01-021
This document is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing
Page 3-19
-------
NPDES permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the effluent limitations
and standards that EPA promulgated on August 14, 2000, for Transportation Equipment and
Cleaning Point Source Category.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: John linger, 202 260-4992, tinger.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact John Tinger
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/teci/
* National Coordination of EPA's Water Quality Standards Actions. Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, May 9,2000. This memorandum sets forth
a process to achieve an increased level of coordination and communication to provide consistent,
defensible, and appropriately protective EPA decisions on water quality standards. The
memorandum includes attached Guidelines for National Coordination of EPA's Water Quality
Standards Actions, which outline a process for Headquarters and Regions to follow in water quality
standards reviews, approvals/disapprovals, and promulgations.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions
Contact: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542, leutner.fred@epa.gov
Copies Available: From the Office of Science and Technology
Web Address: None (since this is internal EPA guidance)
*1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia, Notice of Availability, 64 FR
71973, and criteria document, EPA-822-R-99-014, December 22, 1999. Contains EPA's
recommended ammonia criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. These criteria are
EPA's recommendations for states, territories, and authorized tribes to use as guidance in adopting
water quality standards. The 1999 Update incorporates revisions made in response to comment on
the 1998 Update and supercedes all previous freshwater ammonia criteria. The adoption of numeric
criteria for ammonia will be apriority for the triennial reviews of water quality standards that will
occur in FY 2001-2003. Beginning with FY 2001, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices will
develop management agreements that will include commitments to have states and tribes adopt
numeric criteria for ammonia. Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to include
water quality criteria for ammonia that will ensure protection of designated uses, EPA's Office of
Water will recommend to the Administrator that she act under Section 303© of the Clean Water Act
to promulgate numeric criteria with the goal of assuring that the protective criteria for ammonia
apply in all states not later than 2004.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809, thompson.brian@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/
* & NEW- Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health (2000). (EPA-822-B-00-004) was published in October 2000.
This is the first revision of the methodology since 1980. The revised methodology provides EPA
Page 3-20
-------
and the States a more sound scientific basis for developing new or revised ambient water quality
criteria to protect human health. The methodology incorporates the latest science in important areas
such as fish consumption, bioaccumulation and cancer risk.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@.epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/method/index.html
*
* J^ NEW- Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health (2000): Technical Support Document Volume 1: Risk Assessment. (EPA-822-B-00-
005) was published in October 2000.
The TSD provides detailed information on how to evaluate data when conducting a risk assessment
of a particular chemical for the protection of human health. An Exposure TSD and Bioaccumulation
TSD will be prepared in the near future.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@.epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/method/index.html
* National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
A compilation of recommended water quality criteria for approximately 150 pollutants to protect
human health and aquatic life.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Cindy Roberts, 202-260-2787, roberts.cindy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Cindy Roberts
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/wqcriteria.pdf
J$" NEW-Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-
005) was completed March 2001. .
The guidance is intended to add to and complement the 1994 Interim Guidance on Determination and
Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-B-94-001). Whereas the 1994 Interim Procedure
applies to essentially all situations for most metals, the Streamlined Procedure is recommended only
for situations where copper concentrations are elevated primarily by continuous point source
effluents. The entity conducting the study may choose between using the Interim Procedure or using
the Streamlined Procedure.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Charles Delos, 202-260-7039, delos.charles@epa.gov
Copies A vailable: Contact Charles Delos
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/standards
* * NEW- 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium EPA 822-R-01-OOL
Published April 2001.
The 2001 update document incorporates new data, identified by a recent literature review, into the
data base utilized to develop previous aquatic life criteria for cadmium. The new freshwater
dissolved criterion continuous concentration (CCC or "chronic criterion") for cadmium is 0.15 ug/L,
Page 3-21
-------
at a hardness of 50 mg/L. This criterion is more stringent than EPA's previous freshwater dissolved
criterion continuous concentration of 2.2 ug/L, at a hardness of 50 mg/L.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Cindy Roberts, 202-260-2787, roberts.cindy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Cindy Roberts
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqualife/cadmium/
# NEW • Draft Technical Basis for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESG's)for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to establish the technical basis of the Draft ESGs. The draft
guidance explains equilibrium partitioning theory and its relationship to the bioavailability of
chemicals to benthic organisms.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell
J*" NEW- Draft Methods for the Derivation of Site-Specific Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to adjust national ESGs to reflect site-specific conditions.
Recommended for use when the species at a site are more or less sensitive than those used in the
tests to derive the guidelines or when the chemical or physical attributes of a site are particularly
unique.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell
& NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for dieldrin. The draft ESG
provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell
jfr NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Endrin. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for endrin. The draft ESG
provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Page 3-22
-------
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell
j£ NEW-Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Metals Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc). March
2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for metals mixtures. The draft
ESG provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell
& NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for PAH mixtures. The draft
ESG provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies A vailable: Contact Heidi Bell
j£- NEW-Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs)for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics Compendium. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive national tier II ESGs for 32 nonionic organic
chemicals. The draft ESG provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when
assessing sediments for contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic
organisms from sediment contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Scott Ireland, 202-260-6091, ireland.scott@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Scott Ireland
&NEW- Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Salt Water: Cape Cod to Cape
Hatteras). EPA 822-R-00-012. Published November 2000.
The guidance document provides EPA recommended ambient water quality criteria for protection
of aquatic life in marine waters from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. Criteria can also be applied to
other waters where same species are present or site specific data is available.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Erik Winchester, 202-260-6107, winchester.erik@epa. eov
Copies A vailable: Contact Erik. Winchester
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/standards
Page 3-23
-------
Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on MTBE
Developed to support the immediate needs for information by state and local drinking water facilities
and public health personnel on MTbe contamination of potable water.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Diana Wong, 202-260-7838, Wong.DianaM@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Diana Wong
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/MtBEaa.pdf
& NEW-Stressor Identification Guidance Document (EPA-822-B-QQ-Q25). Published December
2000. This technical guidance document is designed to assist water quality managers in identifying
unknown causes of biological impairments in water bodies through a logical, scientific eco-risk
assessment process.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes and other stakeholders.
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epa.gov
Copies Available: From Office of Water Resource Center 202-260-7786, or by email to center.water-
resource(S>,epa. go v
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.html
&NEW- Estuarine and Near Coastal Marine Waters: Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical
Guidance (EPA 822-B-00-024). Published December 2000. This technical guidance document
provides an extensive collection of methods and protocols for conducting bioassessments in
estuarine and coastal marine waters and the procedures for deriving biocriteria from the results.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epa.gov
Copies Available: From Office of Water Resource Center 202-260-7786, or by email to center, water-
resource@epa.gov.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/States/estuaries/estuaries 1 .html
Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Streams and Small Rivers, published 1996
Published to provide States and Tribes information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that support water quality decisions for streams and small
rivers.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Jackson, 202-260-1800, jackson.susank@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Susan Jackson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ceiswebl /ceishome/atlas/bioindicators/tech_guidance.html
Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Lakes and Reservoirs, published 1998
Published to provide States and Tribes information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that support water quality decisions for lakes and
reservoirs.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Page 3-24 .
-------
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@.epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitbrine/tech/lakes.html
jfr NEW-Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs EPA-822-BOO-
001 published in 2000. This technical guidance manual provides methods for assessing the nutrient
status of a lake or reservoir and presents a process for developing ecoregional nutrient criteria.
Applicability'. Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html
?f NEW-Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams EPA-822-BOO-002
published in 2000. This technical guidance manual provides methods for assessing the nutrient
status of a rivers and streams and presents a process for developing ecoregional nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html
& NEW - Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the
Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria published in 2000. This set of 17 ecoregional
nutrient criteria documents presents EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus and nitrogen
as well as chlorophyll a and turbidity for lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers and wetlands within
specified ecoregions. These recommended criteria are starting points for States and Tribes to use
in developing their own nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html
* ^ New - Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Volume I: Sampling and Analysis. Third Edition EPA 823-B-00-007
The Sampling and Analysis volume provides the latest information on sampling strategies for a
contaminant monitoring program and on selecting target species; selecting chemicals as target
analytes; and processing, preserving, and shipping samples. The volume also covers sample analysis
and data reporting and analysis.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8192)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
* ^ New - Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Volume II: Risk Assessments and Consumption Limits. Third Edition EPA 823-B-00-008
Page 3-25
-------
This volume provides guidance on the development of risk-based meal consumption limits for 25
high-priority chemical contaminants (target analytes) selected based on their documented
occurrences in fish and shellfish, persistence in the environment, potential for bioaccumulation, and
toxicity to humans.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8190)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidancefor Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys, EPA-823-B-98-007
This document provides explicit instructions for selecting a survey approach and designing a survey
to obtain consumption rate information. It emphasizes the importance of objectives in selecting a
survey approach and designing the survey; provides selection criteria for choosing among survey
approaches; and critically evaluates key components in survey design and methods, including
question development, statistical analysis, quality assurance/quality control, and data interpretation.
A statistician should also be consulted to provide advice on specific sampling and statistical analysis
considerations. The survey information can then be used to evaluate risk to persons who consume
organisms that may contain bioaccumulative chemicals at potentially dangerous levels and to
develop consumption advisories and water quality standards that protect human health.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8190)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidance to States, Tribes and Regions on Priorities for the Water Quality Standards Program
for FY 2000-2002, EPA-823-B-99-005
The FY 2000-2002 Water Quality Standards priorities are designed to strengthen and modernize the
Water Quality Standards program and the management of water resources on a watershed basis. The
priorities have four organizing themes:
• Strengthen and modernize the basic structure of the water quality standards program;
• Improve the process for developing, adopting and approving water quality standards;
• Strengthen the scientific basis of water quality standards; and
• Expand the water quality standards program's implementation in Indian Country.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Marjorie Pitts, 202-260-1304, pitts.marjorie@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards
*Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition 1994. EPA 823/B-94-005
This document supports the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131, as amended) and
Page 3-26
-------
provides direction for states and Tribes as they develop, review, revise, and implement water quality
standards. The Handbook also presents evolving program concepts designed to reduce human and
ecological risks such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife, wetlands, and
sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired biological communities in aquatic
ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Shippen, 202-260-1329, shippen.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
Describes actions that EPA intends to take to accomplish the following four strategic goals: 1)
prevent the volume of contaminated sediment from increasing; 2) reduce the volume of existing
contaminated sediment; 3) ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are managed
in an environmentally sound manner; and 4) develop scientifically sound sediment management tools
for use in pollution prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged material management. The
Strategy is comprised of six component sections: assessment, prevention, remediation, dredged
material management, research, and outreach. Each section describes EPA actions to accomplish
the four broad strategic goals.
Applicability: EPA Program Offices and Regional Offices
Contact: Richard Healy, 202-260-7812, Healy.Richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Copies of EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (document
number EPA-823-R-98-001) are available from the EPA National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information 800-490-9198
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/cs/
*lnland Testing Manual
Contains up-to-date procedures to implement requirements in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines for evaluation of potential contaminant-related impacts associated with the
discharge of dredged material in fresh, estuarine, and saline (near coastal) waters. Formally titled
"Evaluation of Dredged material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual",
it was prepared by a joint Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Workgroup. The Inland Testing Manual provides a national testing framework which comprises one
element of an overall decision-making process for determining whether dredged material can be
discharged into Clean Water Act Section 404 waters.
Applicability: EPA Headquarters and Regions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, States, Dredged
Material Dischargers
Contact: Richard Healy, 202-260-7812, Healy.Richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Printed Copies are not currently available but the document is available for
viewing and printing on the Internet in both PDF and HTML format.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/itm/index.html
BASINS Version 3.0: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources,
Page 3-27
-------
EPA-823-B-01-001
BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system for use by regional, state, and local
agencies in performing watershed and water-quality-based studies. It was developed to facilitate
examination of environmental information, to support analysis of environmental systems, to provide
a framework for examining management alternatives, and to support the development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Version 3.0 includes additional watershed models and an
automated watershed delineation tool.
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes, and Local Governments
Contact: Russell Kinerspn, 202-260-1330, kinerson.russell@epa.gov -
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications, 800-490-9198; NTIS
PB99-121295,800-553-6847.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/basins
* & NEW - Methodsfor Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates - Second Edition.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published procedures for testing freshwater
organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the potential toxicity or bioaccumulation of chemicals in
whole sediments. This second edition updates methods originally published in 1994
(EPA/600/6-94/024). It includes new methods for evaluating sublethal effects of
sediment-associated contaminants utilizing long-term sediment exposures. The sediment test
methods in this manual will be use by USEPA to make decisions under a range of authorities
concerning such issues as: dredged material disposal, registration of pesticides, assessment of new
and existing industrial chemicals, Superfund site assessment, and assessment and cleanup of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, and tribes
Contact: Scott Ireland, 202-260-6091. Ireland.Scott@eDa.gov
Copies Available: With title and .document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH., 45242 by phone at 1 -800-490-9198 or on their web
site at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/orderpub.html.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost
&NEW - Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose Of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs and the Appendix. These documents serve as a status and needs
summary of the use of available bioaccumulation testing and interpretation methods and data, and
were compiled by members of the EPA Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup. These documents
provide a comprehensive summary of existing knowledge on bioaccumulation; provide a
compilation of exposure and effects data for persistent, Bioaccumulative chemicals; discusses factors
that affect the bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants; identifies how various programs
use bioaccumulation data for sediment management decisions and identifies issues and research
needs for interpreting bioaccumulation data for the purpose of assessing sediment quality.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Richard Healy 202-260-7812, healy.richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Page 3-28
-------
(NSCEP)(1-800-490-9198)
Web Address:
& New - AQUATOX (EPA-823-C-00-001, EPA-823-R-00-006,-007r008)
AQUATOX is a PC based ecosystem model that simulates the transfer of biomass and chemicals
form one ecosystem compartment to another. It does this by simultaneously computing important
chemical and biological processes over tune. AQUATOX can predict not only the fate of chemical
in aquatic ecosystems, but also their and indirect effect on the ecosystem.
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes and Local Governments .
Contact: Marjorie Wellman, 202-260-9821, Wellman.marjorie@epa.gov
Copies Available: NSCEP (10800-490-9198
Web Address: www.epa.gov/ostymodels/aquatox
jfr New - Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
Draft document published in January 2000 (EPA-823-D-00-001), publication of the final document
is expected in August 2001.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Jennifer Wigal, 202-260-5177,Wigal.Jennifer@epa.gov
*Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Cooperation Under the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, 66 FR 11202-11217, February 22, 2001
Describes procedures for enhancing coordination in the protection of endangered and threatened
species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act's Water Quality
Standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809, thompson.brian@epa.gov
Copies Available: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/esa.html
Page 3-29
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS & WATERSHEDS
/. Vision
The Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, through its Regional and state partners, will
continue to promote adoption and implementation of the watershed approach We expect
significantly new levels of protection to be afforded through implementation of the TMDL program,
and we expect more accurate and consistent water quality assessment to result from the Consolidated
Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM). Regions should be working with states to upgrade
their ambient monitoring programs and better manage their water quality information, to implement
their recently upgraded nonpoint source management and control programs, to complete their coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs, and to ensure the development and implementation of high-
quality TMDLs, including through the funding of TMDL-related implementation projects with half
of their Section 319 grant funds.
We will continue to develop and expand partnerships and technical assistance efforts to
enhance the protection of our Nation's coastal and ocean resources, including continued support for
implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for the 28 estuaries in the
National Estuary Program. In addition, as the program moves entirely into the implementation stage,
greater emphasis will be placed on developing methods to measure environmental results for the
NEP. We will also strengthen the assessment, research and monitoring efforts that underlie our
coastal protection activities through the periodic updates of the Coastal Conditions Report and
implementation of the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy, a blueprint for meeting the key
research and monitoring needs in the area of coastal protection. The dredging program will also
emphasize partnership opportunities through the coordinating functions of the National Dredging
Team, the Regional Dredging Teams, and Local Planning Groups, and through efforts to identify and
implement projects that will refuse dredged materials in an environmentally sound/beneficial way.
Continued emphasis will be placed on efforts to better coordinate actions to control and manage
invasive species, monitor marine debris, protect coral reefs, identify sources and assess and mitigate
the impacts of air deposition of pollutants to coastal waters, and control pollutants from vessels. We
will also continue to coordinate and exchange lessons-learned with the Great Water Body Programs
in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf of Mexico.
The Wetlands program will restore and maintain the nation's waters including wetlands by
effectively implementing EPA's responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by
encouraging and enabling the incorporation of wetlands protection and restoration into watershed
planning efforts undertaken by States, Tribes or local entities. EPA will serve: 1) as a partner
supporting protection efforts to conserve wetlands, shallow waters and free-flowing streams through
our programs and authorities; 2) as a regulator developing and implementing fair, flexible and
effective wetlands standards and policies; 3) as a promoter and developer of tools for assessing
wetlands health and extent; 4) as a developer and distributor of sound scientific information for
wetland and watershed decision-making; 5) as a supporter and proponent of effective State, Tribal
and local wetlands protection and restoration programs; and 6) as a catalyst for cultivating
Page 3-30
-------
community interest in developing wetland and aquatic ecosystem protection strategies on a
watershed basis.
II. Key Strategies
The TMDL Program
EPA proposed changes to the existing TMDL regulations in August, 1999. After a long comment
period including hundreds of meetings and conference calls and the Agency's review and serious
consideration of over 34,000 comments, the final rule was published on July 13, 2000. However,
Congress added a "rider" to one of their appropriations bills that prohibits EPA from spending FY
2000 and FY 2001 money to implement this new rule. Thus, the current rule remains in effect until
30 days after Congress permits EPA to implement the new rule. TMDLs continue to be developed
and completed under the current rule, as required by the 1972 law and many court orders. The
regulations that currently apply are those that were issued hi 1985 and amended in 1992 (40 CFR
Part 130, section 130.7). These regulations mandate that states, territories, and authorized tribes list
impaired and threatened waters and develop TMDLs.
* Implementation of Section 303(d) Until the New TMDL Rule Becomes Effective (December 7,
2000)
Memo from Bob Wayland to Regional Water Division Directors describing: (1) how to deal with
2000 303(d) list submissions; (2) methodology/scenarios for 2002 303(d) list submissions; and (3)
policy on TMDL pace and priorities.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
Web Address: http://intranet.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/docs/303dl2-7.html
* New Policies for Establishing and Implementing TMDLs (August 8, 1997).
Sets forth fundamental EPA policies in two key areas: schedules for establishing TMDLs for all
303(d)-listed waters and implementation of TMDLs for waters impaired solely, or primarily by
nonpoint sources.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Jendayi Oakley-Gordon (202-260-7074)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/ratepace.html
Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy (September 2000)
Assesses national coastal research and monitoring needs and recommends an integrated framework
to protect vital national, state, tribal coastal resources.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060
Copies available: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060; burgan,barry@epa.gov
Web address: http://www.cleanwater.gov/coastalresearch/
——--Page 3-31
-------
— Air-Water Interface Workplan (January 2001)
Joint Office of Water (OW)/Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) workplan outlines a schedule of
specific regulatory and non-regulatory actions OAR and OW will take to reduce air deposition of
toxics and nitrogen. EPA will review and update the work plan every two years.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Debora Martin, 202-260-2729; martin.debora@epa.gov
Copies available: Debora Martin, 202-260-2729
Web address: pdf file located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/combined.pdf
* Upcoming - Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water: What Should EPA's Role Be? (Draft
expected 5/01)
EPA received a petition to regulate ballast water discharges from ships under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, in order to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. In response, EPA is
preparing an assessment of the environmental, technical, and legal issues surrounding ballast water
regulation by EPA. The assessment will be released as a draft report open for public comment. The
report, when finalized, will include recommendations for EPA, and perhaps other regulatory bodies,
on the appropriate role of EPA regulation in control of aquatic nuisance species from ballast water.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dorn Carlson, (202/260-6411); carlson.dorn@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet published
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/petition.html
^ Upcoming ~ Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (Draft expected 5/01)
EPA is preparing an assessment of cruise ship discharges as a first step in response to a petition to
assess and, where necessary, regulate the discharges and waste management practices of cruise ships.
The assessment will cover discharges of sewage, gray water (bath, shower, and galley water), bilge
water, and other wastes generated aboard cruise ships. It will be released as a draft report open for
public comment. The report, when finalized, will include recommendations for EPA and other
regulatory bodies on appropriate regulatoiy and non-regulatory actions to assure the protection of
the environment from cruise ship discharges.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dorn Carlson, (202/260-6411); carlson.dorn@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet published
Web address: http://www/epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/
•fr Upcoming - Coastal Condition Report (summer 2001)
Summarizes Federal agencies' and regional data sets to present broad baseline picture of coastal
waters conditions. The Report, which will be updated periodically, presents national-level coastal
assessment information on water quality, sediment quality, biota, habitat, ecosystem integrity, public
health.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060; burgan.barry@epa.gov
Copies available: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060
-- Page 3-32
-------
Web address: draft Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cwap/index.html
III. Key Grant Guidances
* upcoming: Section 319 2002 Grant Award Guidance [being drafted now]
The objective of this guidance is to strengthen state efforts to cany out pollutant reductions specified
in an approved TMDLs in waters impaired by nonpoint sources. States will be encouraged to use
their 319 funds to both develop TMDLs and related TMDL implementation plans and to implement
needed NFS controls specified in the TMDLs.
Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY2001(65
FR 70899-70905, Nov. 28,2001)
Provides guidance on the use of Section 319 funds in FY 2001 for total maximum daily loads and
watershed restoration action strategies; direction to focus funds on completing states' coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs; and guidance on how Regions should document their findings
of satisfactory progress in State programs.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/fy2001 .html
Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY 2000
(December 21,1999)
Provides guidance on the use of Section 319 funds in FY 2000 for animal feeding operations, lakes,
watershed restoration action strategies, and American Heritage Rivers. Also reiterates that States
need to complete their nonpoint source program upgrades in order to be eligible to receive
incremental funds in FY 2000.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/fy2000.html
Guidelines on Awarding Section 319 Grants to Indian Tribes in FY2001 (December 2000)
Provides guidance for awarding increased amounts of Section 319 dollars to Tribes. Increases the
amount available to Tribes for one year to $6 million. Establishes base funding of $30,000 for most
eligible Tribes (i.e., has an approved nonpoint source assessment and management program) and
$50,000 for the largest Tribes, and establishes a process to distribute the remaining funds on a
competitive basis in amounts ranging up to $ 100,000 each..
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Ed Drabkowski (202-260-7009); drabkowski.ed@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribes/tribes20.html
Page 3-33
-------
Process and Criteria for Funding State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs
in FY1999 (August 18,1998)
Provides additional guidance on the use of increased funds (from $ 105 million in F Y 1998 to $200
million in FY 1999) for the implementation of state, territorial and tribal nonpoint source
management programs in F Y 1999. Discusses the use of incremental funds to support
implementation of actions called for in Watershed Restoration Action Strategies developed in
conjunction with Unified Watershed Assessments carried out by the States, Territories and Tribes
pursuant to the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/section319/fy99guid.html
* Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May
1996)
Sets forth the framework for a stronger and more effective partnership between EPA and state lead
agencies to guide the upgrading and implementation of dynamic, effective state nonpoint source
programs. Provides guidance on developing priorities and ensuring effective use and management
of annual Clean Water Act Section 319 program grants to States, Territories and Tribes.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/guide.html
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (January 1993)
Sets forth the program elements and other requirements which coastal states with Federally approved
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs must include in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs (CNPCP) in order to achieve joint EPA and NOAA approval of their programs and
continue to be fully eligible for annual program grants under Section 319 of the CWA and Section
6217ofCZARA.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788); craddock.stacie@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (EPA) (202-260-710
National Estuary Program Grant Guidance
This guidance provides annual funding levels to the 28 estuary projects in the National.Estuary
Program. Updated and issued annually, the guidance may also clarify any program issues that arise
from year to year.
Applicability: Regions and Estuary Programs
Contact: Nancy Laurson (202-260-1698); laurson.nancy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet
Page 3-34
-------
Wetland Program Development Grants
These grants assist state, tribal and local government (S/T/LG) agencies in wetlands protection,
management and restoration efforts. Grant funds can be used to develop new wetland programs or
refine existing wetland programs. EPA must ensure that the grant funds are directed toward
activities that result in demonstrated progress in achieving the objective of improving S/T/LG
wetland programs. . ' *
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes, local governments, intergovernmental organizations
Contact: Donna An, (202) 260-0335, an.donna@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/2001grant/
Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grants
The Five-Star Restoration Program provides modest financial assistance to support community-based
wetland and riparian restoration projects to build diverse partnerships, and to foster local natural
resource stewardship. The "stars" in "Five-Star" are the partners, funders, and/or participants
necessary to complete the restoration project, including youth organizations, county governments,
corporations, and others. The projects will include strong environmental education and on-the-
ground habitat restoration components, and may also include outreach and community stewardship.
Applicability:, Regions, states, local governments, non-profit organizations
Contact: John Pai, (202) 260-8076, pai.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances
* Upcoming: Section 303(d) 2002 Listing Guidance [being drafted now]
This guidance sets out EPA's expectations for the list of impaired waters, under section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act, that states and other jurisdictions must submit to EPA for approval no later
than April 1, 2002. EPA's goal in issuing this guidance is to ensure that the 2002 lists are
scientifically sound and supported by good monitoring data. The 2002 list will replace previous lists
that a state has submitted, unless legal obligations dictate otherwise. The 2002 lists should also
contain a schedule for developing the TMDLs at a reasonable pace. States should look to the CALM
guidance for more in depth information on monitoring and assessment methods.
Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (January, 1993)
Describes the management measures to be implemented within their coastal watersheds by all coastal
states with Federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs as required by Section 6217 of
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). A brief description of the
effects of nonpoint source pollution upon surface and ground water and the most effective
management measures and strategies for reducing or preventing such pollution is provided for five
major categories of nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, forestry, urban, hydromodification and
Page 3-35
-------
wetlands. Also contains extensive reference lists of additional technical material and limited cost
data.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Goo (202-260-7025); goo.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-71 00)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov
Process for Approval of Upgraded State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs
and Formal Recognition of Enhanced Benefits Status (January 7, 1 999)
Reviews the process EPA is using to approve upgraded State and Territorial Nonpoint Source
Management Programs and to formally recognize Enhanced Benefits Status as originally outlined
in Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Years 1997 and Future Years (May,
1996). This Guidance also emphasizes the provision in the Clean Water Action Plan which limits
award of the incremental funds (new section 319 monies above the $100 million base amount) to
those states with EPA-approved nonpoint source management program upgrades beginning in FY
2000 and provides a checklist for states to use in ensuring that their program upgrades adequately
address the Nine Key Elements which are the principal criteria for the program upgrades.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: will shortly be available at the "Clean Water Act 319" button on the NFS Homepage
at: http//www.epa.gov/owow/nps
Final Administrative Changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Guidance/or
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) (October
16, 1998)
Sets forth final administrative changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Guidance
resulting from a cooperative effort with the states to resolve outstanding issues for the coastal
nonpoint program, including targeting, enforceable policies and mechanisms, time frames and
resources. The changes provide substantial flexibility for coastal states, commonwealths and
territories to complete development of their programs, remove conditions placed on program
approval and successfully implement their coastal nonpoint programs, while maintaining the core
principles of the program.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contacts: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788); craddock.stacie@epa.gov; Marcella Jansen
(NOAA) (301-713-3098, ext. 143
Copies Available: Joseph P. Flanagan (301-713-3121, x201)
Web Address: http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/62 17/admin_changes.html
Upcoming - Elements of an Adequate State Ambient Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program (Draft April 2001)
Provides guidance to better define the elements of an adequate state ambient water monitoring
program for purposes of Section 1 06(e)( 1 ) of the Clean Water Act. Because these elements have not
Page 3-36
-------
been clearly defined in the past, EPA expects most States to employ an iterative process to fully
achieve all elements. States generally will need to: develop a monitoring program strategy addressing
all required elements; identify resource/technology gaps for those portions of the strategy not yet
achieved; and adopt an implementation schedule for those portions of the strategy not yet achieved.
This guidance will be a component of the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology, to be
available in final in July 2001.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html
* Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)
Reports) and Electronic Updates: Report Contents and Supplement (September 1997)
Provides detailed guidance on the contents of a State or Tribal 305(b) Report and the methods for
assessing water quality. This document emphasizes approaches for achieving comprehensive
assessments of States and Tribes' waters, enhancing the data quality for assessing aquatic life and
other designated use support, improving the consistency of decision criteria used in assessments,
reporting assessments electronically, and indexing data geographically. This document provides
guidance for States and Tribes to use in preparing their next 305(b) report due April 1,2002.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
* if upcoming - Consolidated Asssessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) (Draft April 2001)
Provides guidance to states, territories, tribes, and commissions regarding the data used to make
decisions about whether waters are impaired. The CALM is built on, among other things, the work
of the long-standing 305(b) consistency workgroup; findings of the Intergovernmental Task Force
on Monitoring Water Quality; and guidance on the elements of an adequate state watershed
monitoring and assessment program, which was prepared for EPA and the Standards and Monitoring
Task Force of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. The
CALM describes data which a state should cover in a consolidated Section 305(b)/303(d)
assessment. Phased issuance of the CALM will include six major parts, three in the first release of
the guidance. The CALM will include: 1) guidance on attainment/non-attainment of state water
quality standards (covering listing/de-listing decisions), 2) comprehensive state monitoring coverage,
3) presentation of data, 4) elements of an increasingly comprehensive state monitoring program, 5)
causes and sources of impairment, and, 6) additional sections on discrete types of pollutants such as
pathogens, nutrients, sedimentation, and fish advisories. The CALM will provide guidance on the
monitoring and assessment needed to underlie decision making, and on communicating attainment
of water quality standards to the public. Final guidance will be available in July 2001.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202) 260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Page 3-37
-------
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html
jfr upcoming.* Guidance for State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic
Updates for the 2002 Reporting Cycle (being drafted now)
This guidance sets out EPA's expectations for the development and submission of §305(b) water
quality reports from States, territories, and authorized tribes by April 1, 2002. It also includes
necessary data elements for electronic submission of water quality data and information..
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material Management Plans (June 1998)
Provides a suggested framework through which local planning groups can develop implementable
long-term dredged material management plans.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Elizabeth Beiring (202-260-8484); beiring.elizabeth@epa.gov
Copies Available: contact Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/guidance.pdf
Replacement Nationwide Permit
This set of activity-based CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permits were published in March 2000 by
the Corps of Engineers and went into effect in June. The were developed in coordination with EPA
and other federal resource agencies, and replaced Nationwide Permit #26, which was phased out in
response to concerns about its adverse environmental effects. The provisions of the replacement
permit package ensure impacts are minimal, while continuing to provide expedited review for certain
categories of activities.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Lisa Morales, (202) 260-6013, morales.lisa@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/
In-lieu-fee Mitigation Guidance
,EPA, the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service
completed guidance on the use of in-lieu-fee compensatory mitigation to offset impacts from
activities permitted under Clean Water Act Section 404. The guidance was published in the Federal
Register in November 2000.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Lisa Morales, (202) 260-6013, morales.lisa@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/
Page 3-38
-------
* upcoming « Identifying, Planning and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged
Material
Presents a framework for identifying, planning and financing projects to beneficially use dredged
material.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Laura Johnson (202-260-3597); johnson.laura-s@epa.gov
Copies Available: copies not yet available - expected by the end of 2001
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
& upcoming - EPA/Corps Joint Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup for Dredged Material
Management Program
The EPA and Corps have formed this workgroup on bioaccumulation assessment and interpretation
for implementation of the dredged material management program (under both the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103, and the Clean Water Act Section 404). The primary
objective of this workgroup is to provide guidance on using bioaccumulation data to make regulatory
decisions in the dredged material management program.
Applicability: Regions, states, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Dave Redford (202-260-1952); redford.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: First Draft Guidance Document - expected by the end of 2001
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
& EPA/Corps Guidance to the Field on Protecting Coral Reefs under the CWA Section 404 and
MPRSA programs (November 1999)
This guidance was prepared jointly by the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to emphasize
the protection afforded the Nation's valuable coral reef ecosystems under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 regulatory program, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) Sections 102 and 103 provisions, Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Section 10 requirements,
and Federal Projects conducted by the Corps.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Laura Johnson (202-260-3597); johnson.laura-s@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/coralNav.html
Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives—A Technical
Framework (November 1992) j
This document provides a consistent technical framework for identifying environmentally acceptable
alternatives for the management of dredged material. Application of this framework will enhance
consistency and coordination in EPA/Corps of Engineers decision-making, in accordance with
Federal environmental statutes that regulate dredged material management.
Applicability: Regions, States, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484); beiring.elizabeth@epa.gov
Copies available: Contact Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/framework/
Page 3-39
-------
Implementation Review (December 2000)
Provides current guidance on EPA's process for reviewing each National Estuary Program's (NEP)
implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Guidance lists topics
about which NEPs must provide documentation, and includes the review schedule through 2005.
Applicability: Regions, States, National Estuary Programs
Contact: Gregory Colianni (202-260-4025); colianni.gregoiy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Gregory Colianni (202-260-4025)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet.
& upcoming — Guidance Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Provides guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Regions and Army Corps of Engineers
Districts on preparation of ocean dredged material disposal site designation, management and
monitoring plans; lays out a recommended framework for site designation, management, and
monitoring plan development and content.
Applicability: Regions, States, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Jonathan Amson (202/260-9125); amson.jonathan@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet available
Web address: http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/siteplan.html
Page 3-40
-------
Office of Wastewater Management
/. Vision
The goal of the Office of Wastewater Management is to ensure that every watershed in the
United States, including source water for drinking water, is free from impairments from point source
discharges. States, and local communities are partners with EPA headquarters and regionsjin
achieving this goal. EPA provides its partners with appropriate tools to achieve water quality and
human health goals, focusing on the appropriate use and improvement of wastewater infrastructure,
management and operations techniques, and financial mechanisms. The major mechanisms used by
the Office of Wastewater Management are the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
(CWSRF) (which also provides funding to control nonpoint sources of pollution and to implement
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary
Program) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program.
Over the next several years, our programs will face a number of significant challenges if we
are to effectively address the remaining threats to water quality. First, we are increasingly aware of
the importance of finding new ways to implement our programs on a watershed basis. Second,
implementing TMDLs, addressing wet-weather discharges (storm water, combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as
well as addressing the water infrastructure and nonpoint source funding gap are maj or issues that will
present significant managerial challenges to our programs and to our partners in states and
communities.
Effective management of the base NPDES program will also be a priority, including efforts
to continue to reduce permit backlogs and assess the health of state NPDES programs to ensure
appropriate solutions to water quality problems. Wet-weather discharges are the largest cause of
point source impairments to surface waters. Solutions cannot be considered in isolation and will
need to be tailored to the characteristics of individual watersheds. Creative approaches, including
use of Best Management Practices and techniques like environmental management systems, will be
integral to finding cost-effective solutions. Finally, EPA needs to play a leadership role in the
national dialogue on maintaining and improving wastewater infrastructure around the country. As
the American population continues to grow, the nation will have to have to significantly increase
spending to maintain the existing level of service and maintain (and replace) aging infrastructure.
//. Key Strategies
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) (March 1999)
The Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, developed jointly by the Department
of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, employs a range of flexible,
common-sense tools to reduce potentially harmful runoff from 450,000 animal feeding operations
nationwide. The Strategy: (1) discusses the relationships between AFOs and environmental and
__ Page 3_41
-------
public health; (2) is based on a national performance expectation for all AFO owners and operators;
and (3) presents a series of actions to minimize public health impacts and improve water quality
while complementing the long-term sustaihability of livestock production.
Contact: Louis Eby; (202-564-6599); eby.louis@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web address: www.epa.gov/npdes
Reduce the Backlog in NPDES Permits (May 4,1999)
In a memo dated May 4,1999, the AA for Water established the following quantitative targets for
reducing the backlog:
- The backlog of major permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2001
- The backlog for all permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2004
Over the past year, the Agency worked closely with state and regional partners to formulate state
and regional strategies to reduce the NPDES permit backlog. A broader national strategy, titled the
Interim Framework to Ensure Issuance of Timely and High Quality NPDES Permits (Approaches
for Reducing the NPDES Permit Backlog) was issued by OWM on July 28,1999. The strategy and
the latest backlog trends data are available on the NPDES Backlog Reduction Website.
Contact: David Hair (202-564-0712); hair.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes
The Endangered Species Act MOA Published in the Federal Register (February 22,2001)
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) finalized
and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) explaining how the three agencies will work
together to achieve the complementary goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The MOA's objectives include improving federal coordination to protect at-risk
species while ensuring that states and tribes remain primarily responsible for implementing the
requirements of the CWA. The MOA establishes coordination procedures regarding the issuance
of state or tribal NPDES permits, as well as EPA-issued permits. The Agency believes this national
guidance will assist EPA and Service regional and field offices in working together more efficiently
and effectively.
Contact: Susan Johnson (202-564-8329); johnson.susan@epa.gov or Tom Charltoh (202-564-6960);
charlton.tom@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contacts or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2001/February/Day-22/e2170.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework Strategy
This strategy supports the Office of Water's watershed approach to managing its environmental
programs. The Framework is designed to help states set priorities and demonstrate the relative
importance of both point and nonpoint source projects to meeting their water quality goals. EPA is
encouraging states to develop integrated priority setting systems and linking their CWSRF programs
to watershed planning efforts. EPA has issued an Integrated Priority System Protocol for regional
offices to use when reviewing state priority systems that provides a step by step description of the
-— - -Page 3-42
-------
process states may use to develop Integrated Project Priority Lists that consider wastewater, nonpoint
source and estuary management projects and direct funds to the highest priority water quality
projects. A series of fact sheets is being developed which will further detail how the CWSRF can
be used to implement nonpoint source and estuary management plans. Fact sheets on using the
CWSRF to fund polluted runoff, decentralized wastewater treatment systems, brownfields, MTBE
remediation, source water protection, class V injection wells, mining, wetlands, and estuary projects
have already been issued. EPA has also issued clarification on how states may finance projects using
the 319 and 320 authorities.
Applicability: States and Regions
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-564-0609
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo.group@epa.gov), by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at
(202) 564-0752
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis
The Nation has made a substantial investment in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems.
Today, this water and wastewater infrastructure provides Americans with significant benefits in the
form of reduced water pollution and safe drinking water. In the case of wastewater treatment, the
economy and population have grown by a third, but today, our wastewater treatment infrastructure
has reduced discharges into waterways by 40 percent since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.
This critical infrastructure, however, is aging and deteriorating. In addition, increases in population,
population shifts, and new treatment demands are straining financial resources in many communities.
It is generally agreed that significant investment will need to take place in the water and wastewater
infrastructure industry to replace and enhance aging systems and to maintain improvements that have
been made in human health and environmental quality.
EPA is currently conducting an analysis which will quantify the difference (i.e., the "gap") between
current infrastructure investment and the investment levels that will be necessary to replace and
enhance water and wastewater infrastructure. EPA is also committed to fostering a constructive
dialogue over the best approaches to assuring that critical water and wastewater infrastructure is
maintained and improved so that Americans can enjoy clean and safe water for many years to come.
Applicability: Regions, states, municipalities
Contact: Angela Cracchiolo (202)564-0607 cracchiolo.angela@epa.gov and Steve Allbee (202)564-
0581 allbee.steve@epa.gov
Copies A vailable:
Web address:
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Strategy
EPA will promote the use, where appropriate, of centralized management of decentralized
wastewater systems. This initiative will include financial and technical support of state, tribal, and
decentralized wastewater programs so that they are consistently managed and administered. EPA
will, together with regions, states and other stakeholders, develop voluntary national standards for
onsite management programs that address siting, performance, design, and maintenance of these
Page 3-43
-------
systems. EPA will also fluid projects that demonstrate how to overcome barriers to decentralized
sewage management. In addition, guidance will be published on the appropriate use of state loan
funds to support these systems. This work was identified in the Response to Congress on
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Joyce Hudson, 202-260-1290, hudson.joyce@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm
Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Storm water and Biosolids Treatment
EPA has developed a series of fact sheets on technologies available. The goal is to have
approximately 180 fact sheets completed by the end of FY 2002. Completed fact sheets are posted
on the OWM web site.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, consulting engineers
Contact: Jim Wheeler, (202) 564-0662
Web Address: http://www.epagov/owm/muni.htm
•& Guidance for the year 2002 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence Awards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The guidance, to be issued in January 2002, provides the national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability: Regions, municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact: Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available: EPA regions distribute copies to State water pollution control facilities, or
interested parties may contact Maria Campbell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.
& Guidance on the Biosolids A wards Program
January 2002. EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Copies Available: Contact John Walker, (202) 564-0654
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
* Review Standards for Construction Grants Audits, Management Decisions, and Dispute
Resolution
The purpose of this memorandum is to call attention to Congressional Committee report language
Page 3-44
-------
for the F Y 2001 Appropriations Act regarding the standards of review in the construction grant
program audit and dispute resolution processes, and to provide guidance on the review standards to
be used.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Chau Hoang, 202-564-0689, hoang.chau@epa.gov
Copies Available: TEA
Web Address: TEA
* Construction Grants Close Out Strategy
This strategy, issued in June 1997, is the road map for closing out the remaining projects in the
municipal wastewater treatment construction grants program under Title II of the Clean Water Act.
Each Region has an input to the yearly updates to the strategy, and is responsible for meeting close
out goals in a given fiscal year. MSB provides oversight and direction of the program, reporting
progress on a regular basis to the EPA Administrator, IG, and OW, as well as outside agencies such
asGAO.
The ultimate goal of the strategy is for all regions to have closed out their construction grants
programs by the end of FY 2002. Success is defined by there being no more than 10 projects left to
be closed out in a region, with no more than 5 projects left in any state within the region. Although
the June 1997 strategy generally defined how the construction grants program was to proceed to
closeout and defined success in the process, certain aspects of the project universe needed further
clarification. As District of Columbia and territories are still receiving State Revolving Fund (SRF)
money as grants, the number of grants to be closed needed further clarification. On May 6, 1999,
clarifications to the post-1997 construction grants closeout strategy was issued. This supplemental
guidance clarified that all grants awarded prior to FY 1992 (pre-92) will be targeted for close out by
F Y 2002. The grants made after FY 1991 (post-91), especially those made with post FY 1990 funds
in the territories that receive Title VI funds as Title II grants, will be targeted to be administratively
completed within 5 years of grant award and closed out within 7 years of grant award. According
to Office of Water Management Agreement at the end of F Y 2000,123 pre-92 grants and by the end
of FY 2001 and FY 2002, 45 and 13 pre-92 grants respectively will be left for close out. The
construction grants closeout goal is to achieve success as defined in the 1997 strategy by FY 2002.
Current status of Regionwise break down is given below.
Remaining Pre-92 Construction Grant Projects
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
At the end of FY 2000
11
5.1
30
18
46.
5
At the end of FY 2001
9
23
12
8
9
4
At the end of FY 2002
0
2
6
2
4
0
Page 3-45
-------
7
8
9
10
Country Total
6
1
11
9
188
1
1
1
2
70
0
0
0
0
14
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Gajindar Singh, 202-564-0634, singh.gajindar@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Gajindar Singh, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: Not available.
///. Key Grant Guidance
& FY 2002 STAG Guidelines
Will provide information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for
the special and programs included in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account of the
Agency's FY 2002 Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: Guidelines will be developed and issued approximately 90 days after enactment
of the Agency's FY 2002 Appropriations Act.
Web Address: Not available
2001 Clean Water Act Section 106 Grant Guidance
Document provides guidance to the EPA Regions, States, territories, and interstates agencies on the
procedures and principles for administering and managing the Section 1 06 grant program, including
Clean Water Act, Section 106(e) eligibility requirements, special grant conditions, and optional
funding tools (i.e. In-kind-assistance). Appendix A of the document provides a comprehensive
summary of the water quality programmatic priorities to be considered by the Regions and States in
the negotiations of grant work programs supported with Section 106 funding.
Applicability: Regions, States, territories, D.C., and interstate agencies
Contact: Carol Crow, 202-564-0644, crow.carol@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Regional State Section 106 Coordinators
Web Address: Not available.
& Fiscal Year 2002 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also propose using
Page 3-46
-------
these funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and technical assistance on sewer system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The program will assist
approximately 775 facilities in fiscal year 2002, the table below represents the regional breakdown.
FY 2002
Region
#of
facilities
1
75
2
30
3
105
4
90
5
120
6
100
7
40
8
90
9
40
10
80
TOTAL
' 775
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: Not yet available (grant guidance for FY 01 is at www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm.)
* Guidelines and Requirements for Applying for Grants From the Indian Set-Aside Program
Intended to help Indian Tribes apply for and manage grants for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities that are available from EPA under Section 518© of the Clean Water Act.
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Sylvia Bell, 202-546-0621, bell.sylvia@epa.gov
Copies Available: from Sylvia Bell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
. Web Address: Not available.
^h Final Guidance on the Award of Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act for FY 2000 and Future Years
This guidance provides EPA Regions with a framework of the operating procedures and guidelines
for awarding and administering environmental program grants to federally recognized Indian Tribes
under the authority of Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (C WA), for Fiscal Year 2000 and future
years. This guidance supersedes the previously issued guidance of June 20, 1995. This guidance
provides the basis for negotiations with our tribal partners who play a vital role in protecting and
restoring the Nation's waters. The guidance addresses key elements of the CWA Section 106 Tribal
Grant Program- program priorities, eligibilities, funding allocations, cost-sharing, performance
evaluation, and progress reporting. Section 106 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) authorizes annual
appropriations of funds for federal grants to assist state and interstate agencies in administering water
pollution control programs. Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat a federally
recognized Indian Tribe as a State for the purposes of receiving funding under Section 106. A
portion of the total section 106 appropriation is set-aside to fund Tribal water pollution control
programs. The Section 106 set-aside funds are allocated to the EPA Regions in accordance with the
Section 106 allotment formula adopted in Fiscal Year 1998. Unlike states and interstate agencies,
individual Tribes do not receive allotments directly from EPA. Each Region has the discretion to
make Section 106 grant awards to eligible Tribes, as it believes appropriate, consistent with statutory
limitations, Agency regulations, and this guidance.
Applicability: Eligible Tribes
Contact: Clarence Braddock, (202) 564-0648, braddock.clarence@epa.gov
Page 3-47
-------
Copies Available: Contact regional Section 106 tribal coordinators
jfr IV. New Guidance Issued in the Last Year (FY2001)
Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (June 2000)
The purpose of this final document issued on June 30,2000, is to provide regulatory authorities with
an understanding of whole effluent toxicity (WET) test variability, provide guidance to permitting
authorities on what they can do to account for and minimize WET test variability and its effects on
the regulatory process, and identify areas where EPA can further evaluate ways to minimize WET
test variability.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes
Guidance Manual for Conditional Exclusion from Storm Water Permitting Based on "No
Exposure" of Industrial Activities to Storm Water (July 2000)
This guidance provides industrial facilities, as identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(I) to (ix) and (xi)
(note: not applicable to construction activity, "category (x)"), subject to storm water program
requirements with information to determine if they qualify for a permitting waiver and how to apply
for it. The waiver is based on the lack of exposure of the facility's industrial activities or materials
to precipitation or runoff. This provision was previously available only to light (category (xi))
industries, but is now available to any industrial storm water discharger, as of publication of the
storm water Phase II rule on December 8,1999. The new provision requires all facilities who wish
to take advantage of the permitting exclusion to submit a no exposure certification to EPA.
Contact: Bryan Rittenhouse (202-564-0577); rittenhouse.bryan@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address.
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes
EPA Plan for PCS Data Management (September, 2000)
In September 2000, OW and OECA signed a joint memo re-emphasizing the importance of
maintaining accurate and complete NPDES data in the Permit Compliance System (PCS). The
memo provided a list of key data fields that are essential to the management of the NPDES program
and a plan to populate PCS with the necessary data. States and regions are encouraged to enter and
upload this key data into PCS and, where necessary, OW is providing contract resources to assist in
the process.
Contact: Kelley Volak; 202-564-0307; volak.kelley@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes
Implementation of Clean Water Act Section 316(b) in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permits (December 28,2000)
This guidance memorandum identifies as a priority for the NPDES program the issuance of permits
Page 3-48
-------
to new or existing major point sources subject to the requirements of section 316 of the Clean Water
Act and describes existing guidance applicable to the development of permits for these dischargers.
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity
of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact. While EPA is developing national regulations to implement section 316(b)
of CWA, EPA and state permitting authorities are expected to use existing guidance and information
to inform their best professional judgement in issuing/reissuing major permits to facilities subject
to the requirements of section 316 (b). .
Contact: Ruby Cooper Ford; (202-564-0757); ford.ruby@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes
Clarifications Regarding Toxicity Reduction Evaluations and Toxicity Identification Evaluations
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (May 2001)
This document provides clarification on the terms Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) and
Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE), explains how these tools are used to control whole effluent
toxicity (WET), and reiterates guidance on when and under what circumstances a permittee should
conduct TRE or TIE activities. In addition, the document addresses several technical topics relevant
to the TRE/TIE process.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or web address.
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
Menu ofBMPsfor Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (May 2001)
EPA has developed a menu of best management practices (BMPs) applicable to municipal separate
storm sewer systems. The BMPs address each of the minimum measures for municipal storm water
management programs listed in the December 8,1999 storm water Phase II rule.
Contact: Wendy Bell; (202-564-0746); bell.wendy@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes
Guidance On Implementing The Water Quality-Based Provisions in the Combined Sewer
Over/low (CSO) Control Policy (July 31, 2001)
EPA will publish a Final Guidance On Implementing The Water Quality-based Provisions in the
CSO Control Policy. The guidance will address questions raised since the publication of the CSO
Control Policy in 1994 on integrating the long-term control plan (LTCP) development process with
the water quality standards review. As outlined in the guidance, EPA will continue to implement
the CSO Control Policy through its existing statutory and regulatory authorities. The guidance will
not impose legally binding requirements or substitute for Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements,
EPA's regulations, or the obligations imposed by consent decrees or enforcement orders.
Contact: Timothy Dwyer; (202-564-0717); dwyer.tim@epa.gov
Copies Available: July 31,2001
Page 3-49
-------
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
Report to Congress on the Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy (September 1,2001)
On December 21, 2000, Public Law 106-554 was enacted; it included Section 112, Wet Weather
Water Quality which amended Clean Water Act section 402 to include the requirement:
Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the
progress made by the Environmental Protection Agency, States and municipalities in implementing
and enforcing the CSO Control Policy. (Section 402(q)(3) of the Clean Water Act)
Contact: Timothy Dwyer; (202-564-0717); dwyer.tim@epa.gov
Copies Available: September 1,2001
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
Guidance on Measurable Goals (October 2001)
EPA will prepare and issue a guidance document to assist municipal separate storm sewer systems
in the development of measurable goals to assist in the design, as well as the assessment of
implementation of the minimum measures for Phase II. The scheduled completion date is October
2001.
Contact: Wendy Bell; (202-564-0746); bell.wendy@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm (when issued)
t
Local Limits Guidance Manual (Fall 2001)
This will update the existing pretreatment guidance which is over 10 years old. The manual will
focus on the general approach for development, re-evaluation, and update of local limits based on
the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) method. Further, it will include data that
may facilitate the process, as well as options for resolving challenges commonly encountered. This
manual is not intended to preclude discussions between local and oversight agencies to resolve site-
specific issues where they arise. The manual will provide examples of reasonable approaches for
applying best professional judgement (BPJ), and therefore, may be of benefit when making site-
specific BPJ decisions.
Contact: Jeff Smith; (202-564-0652); smith.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: Fall 2001
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
Guidance for Electronic NPDES Application Forms (Fall 2001)
To modernize the NPDES permit application process, EPA will make available electronic
application software and associated operating guidance by the Fall of 2001. Use of these forms will
facilitate quick and easy completion of permit data.
Contact: David Hair (202-564-0588); hair.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
Page 3-50
-------
CWSRF Guide to Integrated Priority Setting Systems
EPA is issuing a guide to help states develop integrated priority setting systems (IPPSs) that consider
the water quality benefits of wastewater, nonpoint source and estuary management projects. The
Guide elaborates the steps needed to develop IPPSs, sources of water quality information and the
ranking systems used by various state CWSRF programs.
Applicability: States
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-564-0609 or Cleora Scott 202-564-0687
Copies Available: by Internet (srftnfo.group@epa.gov), by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at
(202)564-0752
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
SRF Transfer and Cross-Collateralization Guidance
Provides a description of the requirements for states that transfer funds between the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF programs. It also describes requirements for states that wish to Cross-
Collateralize, or enhance bond security, with the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF program.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Sheila Platt (202) 564-0686
Copies Available: by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 564-0752
Web Address: Not available
Policy on Fees Charged by States to Recipients of Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
Assistance
Establishes EPA policy regarding the use of fees that states charge on clean water state revolving
fund loans and include as principal in loans and the use of fees that states charge on loans but do not
include as principal in loans.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Kit Farber, 202-564-0601, farber.kit@epa.gov
Copies Available: by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 564-0752
Web Address: Not available
* Guidance on the Privatization of Federally Funded Wastewater Treatment Works
The guidance (1) serves as an informational resource for local governments and private companies
interested in the privatization process, (2) discusses the financial and non-financial factors
influencing the privatization decision, and (3) describes the information local governments must
submit for EPA's review and approval of their proposed privatization arrangements.
Applicability: Regions, Grantees
Contact: Haig Farmer, 202-564-0592, farmer.haig@epa.gov
Copies A vailable: By Internet and from NCEPI (800-490-9198) Ask for Document EPA-832-B-00-
002.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/prigud.htm
Page 3-51
-------
FY2001 STAG Guidelines
Provides information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for the 246
special projects and programs (United States-Mexico Border program and the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages program) included in the in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account
of the Agency's FY 2001 Appropriations Act and the seven special projects added to the STAG
account by the FY 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices, all state agencies and all potentially eligible grant applicants.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm0316.pdf.
Fiscal Year 2001 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also propose using
these funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and technical assistance on sewer system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The program will assist
approximately 713 facilities in fiscal year 2001, the table below represents the regional breakdown.
FY 2001
Region
#of
facilities
1
66
2
27
3
75
4
80
5
135
6
76
7
36
8
67
9
21
10
130
TOTAL
713
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm
Guidance for Infrastructure Grants Under Long Island Sound Restoration Act
EPA is developing guidelines, policies, and procedures for implementing the infrastructure grants
portion of Title IV of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (PL 106-457) which enacts the
Long Island Sound Restoration Act. The goal is to develop the guidelines by 9/30/01. PL 106-457
authorizes $40 million per year for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The Long Island Sound office,
through Regions I and II, has issued non-infrastructure grants using section 119 as authority for
several years, but no infrastructure grants have been issued under this program. Hence, these new
guidelines are required for managing the infrastructure grants likely to be issued in future.
Applicability: Regions I and II, States- NY and CT.
Contact: Gajindar Singh, 202-564-0634, singh.gajindar@epa.gov
Web Address: Not available.
.Page 3-52
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Strategy
EPA will promote the use, where appropriate, of centralized management of decentralized
wastewater systems. This initiative will include financial and technical support of state, tribal, and
decentralized wastewater programs so that they are consistently managed and administered. EPA
will, together with regions, states and other stakeholders, develop voluntary national standards for
onsite management programs that address siting, performance, design, and maintenance of these
systems. EPA will also fund projects that demonstrate how to overcome barriers to decentralized
sewage management. In addition, guidance will be published on the appropriate use of state loan
funds to support these systems.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Joyce Hudson, 202-564-0657, hudson.joyce@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gOv/OWM/decent/decent:htm • .
Development, Selection, and Pilot Demonstration of Preliminary Environmental Indicators for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
Provides information and guidance on how environmental indicators are used in water programs
throughout the country, how environmental indicators should be developed to document
environmental benefits of the CWSRF and what some proposed indicators could be.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Richard Derringer, 202-5 64-0613, derringer.richard@epa.gov or Cliff Yee, 202-564-0598,
yee.clifford@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the CWSRF program.
Web Address: Not Available
Fiscal Fund Management of the State Revolving Fund A Manual
Provides information and guidance on managing the fiscal aspects of Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds. Topics include adjusting loan terms, assessing investment returns,
efficient fund utilization, long term planning, sustainable funding levels, leveraging decisions and
the impact of set-asides and capitalization transfers on the fund. Analytical tools and techniques,
including key financial measures, for assessing the fiscal health of a fund are included as an
appendix.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Cliff Yee, 202-564-0598, yee.clifford@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not available
New SRF Financial Planning Model
EPA issued its new SRF Financial Planning Model (FPM) in January 2001. The model will enable
users to better understand the effect of different program structures and program changes on the
ability of SRFs to provide financial assistance now and in the future. Because the new model uses
Page 3-53
-------
aggregates/averages rather than detailed project-by-project data, users can quickly and easily
determine the amount of financial assistance an SRF can provide, based on current and projected
program parameters, and then modify these parameters/assumptions to determine the impact of
changes on the amount of projected financial assistance an SRF can provide over time.
In March 2001, a Users Guide was issued to provide a detailed explanation and examples on how
to use the new model. In addition, training sessions have been scheduled at all regional offices.
Each year, the model will be updated to incorporate the latest NIMS data (both Clean Water and
Drinking Water), and to make other enhancements to the model based on user feedback. Future
versions of the FPM will be released at the CIFA SRF Conference.
Applicability : Headquarters, Regions, and States
Contact: Kit Farber 202-564-0601; Farber.Kit@EPA.gov
Copies Available: Kit Farber
Web Address: Not available
Guidance for the year 2001 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence Awards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The guidance, issued in January 2001, provides the national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability: Regions, municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact: Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available: EPA regions distribute copies to State water pollution control facilities, or
interested parties may contact Maria Campbell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.
Alternative Water Sources Grant Guidance
Title VII of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 establishes an EPA grant program in Section
220 of the Clean Water Act for alternative water source projects to meet critical water needs.
Eligible projects provide municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supplies by conserving,
managing, reclaiming, or reusing water or wastewater. Guidance scheduled for completion in FY
2001.
Applicability: States, interstate and intrastate water development agencies, local governments,
private utilities, and non-profit agencies.
Contact: John Flowers, 202-564-0624, flowers.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: IB A
Web Address: TB A
Sewer Over/low Grant Guidance
Provides EPA Regional Offices and States with guidance and direction on awarding and managing
Page 3-54
-------
grants established in Section 221 of the Clean Water Act for planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to intercept, transport, control or treat combined sewer overflows (CSO) and
sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) established . Guidance is scheduled for completion by September
30, 2001, and will focus on the awarding, management, and coordination of these grants with the
State Revolving Fund loan program.
Applicability: Regions and States
Contacts: Leonard Fitch, 202-564-0656, Fitch.Leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA will distribute copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not Available
Biosolids Strategy
The goal of the Biosolids Management Strategy is to have an effective national biosolids
management program. This goal is to be achieved through numerous coordinated activities
including: developing sound, scientifically defensible regulations governing the use and disposal of
biosolids; developing a database management system to store and analyze biosolids information;
recognizing outstanding achievements through the annual awards program; conducting surveys of
biosolids quality; and working with the National Biosolids Partnership to develop and implement
environmental management systems (EMS) for biosolids.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: John Walker, 202-564-0654, walker.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact John Walker
Web Address: Not available
Guidance on the Use of Biosolids A wards Program
January 2001. EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Web A ddress: Not available
Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Storm water and Biosolids Treatment
EPA has developed, and will continue to develop, a series of fact sheets on technologies available.
The goal is to have approximately 180 fact sheets completed by the end of FY 2002. The FY 2001
fact sheets focus on conventional and innovative technologies including some wet weather
technologies. Completed fact sheets are posted on the OWM web site.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, consulting engineers
Contact: Jim Wheeler, (202) 564-0662
Web Address: http://www.epagov/owm/mimi.htm
Guidance for POTWs on Radioactivity in Biosolids
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission worked with EPA through a subcommittee of the Interagency
Page 3-55
-------
Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) to develop guidance on radioactivity in
biosolids. Interim guidance was issued in June 1999.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: Robert Bastian, (202) 564-00653
Web Address: Not available
Decentralized Wastewater Management Guidance Manual
This is a manual for management of individual wastewater treatment (Onsite systems) and small
wastewater treatment systems. The goal of the guidance is to stimulate effective management of
these systems in such a manner that it will become a natural and normal state of the art.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Joyce Hudson (202) 564-0657
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm
& V. Guidance Under Development and Planned Through FT'2002/2003
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (FY2002)
This document will provide technical guidance for assessing and regulating the discharge of toxic
pollutants to waters of the United States. It will provide procedures for determining when an effluent
limitation for a toxic pollutant is needed and how to calculate such limits. These procedures are
particularly important where there is no TMDL established for a receiving water. Some updates to
the NPDES permitting procedures described in the guidance and an electronic tool that allows permit
writers to perform these procedures are planned for FY 2002.
Contact: Marcus Zobrist (202-564-8311); zobrist.marcus@epa.gov or Gregory Currey (202-564-
0633); currey.gregory@epa.gov
Copies Available: F Y 2002
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes
Draft Policy on the Determination of Reasonable Potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
(FY 2002/2003)
This draft will provide EPA policy on how to determine whether a point source discharge will
"cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute" to an excursion of numeric whole
effluent toxicity criteria or a narrative "no toxics in toxic amounts" criterion in a receiving water. It
will include a step-by-step discussion of the decisions and technical issues permit writers must
consider when making this WET "reasonable potential" determination, especially when the available
valid WET test data are limited.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: FY 2002/2003
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes
FY2003 STAG Guidelines
Will provide information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for
Page 3-56
-------
the special and programs included in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account of the
Agency's FY 2003 Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: Guidelines will be developed and issued approximately 90 days after
enactment of the Agency's FY 2003 Appropriations Act.
Web Address: Not available
Fiscal Year 2003 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also propose using
these funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and technical assistance on sewer system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The number of facilities
to be assisted in fiscal year 2003 is to be determined, based on program priorities and Regional and
state resources.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: Not available
Guidance for the year 2003 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence A wards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The guidance, to be issued in January 2003, provides the national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability: Regions, municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact: Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available: EPA regions distribute copies to State water pollution control facilities, or
interested parties may contact Maria Campbell, epa, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.
Guidance on the Use of Biosolids Awards Program
January 2003. EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Page 3-57
-------
Copies Available: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
* These strategies and guidances are considered core, and the Regional Administrator must consult
with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a work plan with a State that differs
significantly from these guidances and strategies.
Page 3-58
-------
Management Agreement
Instructions and Template
Section 4
-------
-------
Instructions to Regions, Great Water Body Offices, andHQ
Program Offices for Completing the Management Agreements
The Management Agreements (MA) serve as a key piece in the National Water Program's
accountability process. By September 1,2001, all Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water
Body Offices will complete their portions of the FY 2002 MA Matrix (Lotus 1-2-3 file). The Matrix
includes Presidential, Congressional, Core, Key, Internal and Tribal Performance Goals / Measures.
During October and November, HQ Division Directors are expected to work with Regions on
commitments for the FY 2002 Draft MAs. The Regions are also encouraged to provide a short
narrative to the Management Agreement submission addressing any issues or challenges unique to
their program.
2002 Management Agreement Matrix
- Complete Rows 1 and 2, indicating your Region/Office and name.
- Review the ARM Reporter column, to determine which measures you are responsible for making
commitments against. Measures are listed in the column entitled "Annual Performance Measure
(APM)". For the Tribal Strategy, you will need to look at the Annual Performance Goal column.
- For each relevant measure, provide your commitment for FY 2002 in the column entitled "RT,
GWB, or HQ Commitment for FY01." For some measures, special instructions (e.g., definitions)
have been provided further in the attachment under the title "Additional Instructions for Making
Commitments Against the FY02 Annual Performance Measures." If you have questions regarding
any measure, please contact the office listed in the APG/APM Originator column. Names and phone
numbers for the key contacts for these offices are listed in Section 8 of the National Program
Guidance, a.k.a. "White Book", Key Contacts section.
- Complete the column entitled Narrative with any additional information that you believe is important
to understanding your numeric commitment for a given measure.
- Save Lotus 1-2-3 submission with a new name and a ".wk4" extension. If your Region or program
would like to feature any other key activities that are not captured by your numerative commitments,
your office or program is welcome to submit narrative descriptions of these key activities. Obtain
your Senior Management's approval for this submission, indicate that approval in a cover email
to Mike Weckesser (weckesser.mike@epa.gov) and send your completed chart and any narrative piece
as electronic attachments by September 3rd, 2001.
- HQ Water Immediate aggregates information into a national summary sheet and HQ Program
Page 4-3
-------
Offices and Regions use that as a basis for negotiation to reach final consensus. The Deputy AA will
be involved in resolving any outstanding issues.
- HQ Water Immediate sends out final national summary table to Regions, HQ, and Great Water
Body Offices.
- Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices Senior Managers will review and sign
off on national summary table by November 3 0th, 2001.
NOTE: In order to facilitate aggregation of information, OW Immediate requests that the Lotus
1-2-3 file be kept in tact.
Page 4-4
-------
OFFICE OF WATER FY2002 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2002.
Agreement Between:
Diane Regas
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
and
Date
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Date
Thomas C. Voltaggio Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Date
Rebecca Hanmer
Water Management Division, Region 3
Date
Robert H. Wayland, Director Date
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Stanley L. Laskowsi, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region 3
Date
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Date
Diana Esher, Acting Director Date
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3
Kathy Gorospe, Director
American Indian Environmental Office
Date
A. Stanley Meiburg Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4
Ira Leighton • Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1
Beverly Banister, Director
Water Management Division, Region 4
Date
Linda M. Murphy, Director Date
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1
James D. Giattina, Director Date
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Region 4
William J. Muszynski, P.E. Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2
Gary V. Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5
Date
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director Date
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
Region 2
Jo Lynn Traub, Director
Water Division, Region 5
Date
Gary V. Gulezian, Director Date
Great Lakes National Program Office, Region S
Page 4-5
-------
OFFICE OF WATER FY2002 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2002.
Gregg A. Cooke
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Date
Chuck Findley Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10
Sam Becker, Director Date
Acting Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
Elbert Moore, Director Date
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Region 10
William Rice
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7
Date
Randy Smith, Director
Office of Water, Region 10
Date
U. Gale Mutton, Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
Region 7
Date
JackW. McGraw Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8
Date
Max H. Dodson
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Region 8
Kerrigan Clough Date
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Region 8
Laura Yoshii Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9
Alexis Strauss, Director
Water Division, Region 9
Date
Page 4-6
-------
CD
i
CO
5
•s
m
to
c
o
;; I
r
5!s *
gl! 5
l«
IL---
=i! «
III
*B
!: <0
"o
<0
c
o
o
•§
S
o
CM
I
a>
in
I
I
;•' ->-,-'ji-«i-. V &?#
P?£!;p
itS§-8^
??5*-I»5:yfe
i-"JSg-g|8L
>-:.• «*.•!• fcifi^
^-•II
tei*
pSi8&
MiPSili
'•.^•MiKBiii;*:-^
(00) i
C
O
jw t js
Q.
O
Q.
Q.
S.
CO
o>
1
I
O
O 0>4?
|fs
Q.'C P
OTJ o
-------
IO
m
~3
in
c
o
O
CD
S
Q.
I
.9
<3
z
g
o
CM
U.
•o
1
O
0.
o
C9
?! S
i
ft-V
Zli S «
8>«
CO
CO
w °
!<=>
'"5
i CO
g£
CO
S
. p
'•• 3
' CM
I
CM."
g
•o
c
II
11
I
£*
ft
Q. S
t;
fife £ iBi>s
; j£§.?.g*
.S*
fi 01
i=T3
S 3
c , 2S5.3:
1 *•* a*' ^— *
^
c
>»:
J3
TOEO
•m*
!$s£i
i <5 in
§ ' 5
s
I
o
HJ.21
li
-------
o
o
•s
TJ
I
o
O
ID
f
a.
(0
o
•x:
TO
Z
CM
8
o.
IO
i
[i - I *i
,- I Sc5
I »1»
1 IIP
Mil
I
E:
E
Si
at
S.
a.
if
<0
to
CM
(0
to
ts.
C
•B
§
(
p
§
s
JS
«
O
O)
tion wells containing: 1)
us and non-hazardous
fluid from oil and natural
and 3) super-hot steam,
III) out of compliance wi
d that are returned to
te and timely manner.
S
O i
51 'o
s :?•
JS <"
5i ;-S.
^ i§
wells cl
pria
Percent of underground inje
waste or fluid from hazardo
materials (Class I wells), 2)
production, (Class II wells),
water, or other fluids (Class
permit and/or rule autho
compliance in an appro
motor vehi
Class V}
Numbe
permitt
O
je
10
3
o
OT
I
CM
J2 o>
it
0)
ll
ter as
DWA
gram:
tingen
f shoul
plan is
ill also
:.£
eo
i?
-------
o
o
CM
f
(U
(O
(0
I
TJ
B
o
in •
c
o
O
e
E
O)
o
0)
I
n>
Z
CM
O
O
I
S
| £
,, c
|t /?
[
kj-
*ii
01. .£
^k '' C
|.j 3
£<•
2!
Ii! S
•a.!; S
|i: E o
Oil iw
ii 3'5>
O-'C
f <0
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
n
trix
ual Performance Go
S i
Ej. *
1
Q.:,
Ii
sii^S
|
1 ,2
'*
1 W
[ *O
r._ .. Jf
T3 ' "0
S.J2 !-§
as y, ,2
l? J
r ^ "18^
Z f; ' !9 O
o 1 if
L _,IOS
1 e.e
o ' °i§
S II
O ' g-o
Injection well means all Class 1, II, III, IV and V wells as
defined in the regulations. "Managed" Class i, II, III, or V
well is a well which is in compliance with its permit or is
authorized by rule. "Managed" Class IV wells, which are
banned, means eliminated through immediate action.
"Identified" means known to UIC implementing agency.
High priority protection areas: For the short term will be
defined on a Region-specific basis and may include
SSAs, WHPs, etc. For the long-term, this will be defined
'
, _ „ _ „_ _ ,
»ories will demonstrate a decline in fish tissue contam
designated uses protecting the consumption offish ar
J-, !H
y.s ^~z S ' S§
g£ «ra o i * g
SSP.i ill
"S S^ -Ȥ" ' >^
i§^2 ;sS
ill! iJl
•5~.s>=-.5 !"»§
ilfc iO
SZ-£?;S.S .n-o
CL«,-S._?2a. i s
a>S~feQ.fe ,^«
Ifftl! ii!
•-roS-caJS «>5
Sc E»t % " ' » c
•&>>0 -°- 'F*
o ro^jg? in >£ i OA
L s-iii si jSi
>. '
_ ^ls i
i
. i
i
t ,
! 1 ;
1 p | -_ - f -
1 cn w>
tfl i flJ • (D
i ' 1 ; s ; 5 .3
S- i < i 3; . "f S
1 • 1 ! « : | : "
1 — 1 ! IK 1
: ; i : I
o .£ ' o ' -5 ' o.-i
i " ; ; : 1
i— ' ' •
? ! i- ! i- 1 i- , i—
r~ . in , v> . w
w. , o ; o , o ; o
O : - i i i
Fish tissue samples collected for 1 ) National Fish Tissue
Survey (cumulative) and 2) by states and Regions for
fish advisory decisions iRM)
Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and
compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies (cumulative). (Also a CPM)
.
States/Tribes monitoring and conducting assessments
based on the national guidance to establish nationally
consistent fish advisories.
River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies (cumulative). (Also a CPM)
Number of tribes that have received training on risk-
based fish consumption methodologies.
. ;«|t ,
fs :|i;!c cl
en _^: | "^ .^ c eg g
o £ ' .« c: S ' & er
ii ;|8J ;||
ii= "S °!t O 1C —
fo. ; S-Ss . ', -is
O OJ « :_= O QJ ; O -Q
0 .£ i P -O • i w '£
C(o 'o^-^.S! ' '3°*
S« ;llai : ; |||
8§ , S^sS i , ! 8.0
s| ifl-i-JJ: : si
•"*,"" o r~ sz fl) ^ fc
^_3 ! -^= »•= • ! "§5,0
ce.c ]S>'i"S.= ! 1 K.£
f.. -
°
5
1
0.
c
e
*2
CB
e
s
i
•5
B)
it
1
s.
a
1
(B
3
^
&
1
1
r forms of contamination in watere used for recreation
«
*
m
3
a
g
fi
22
By 2005, exposure
ational uses will inci
Subobjective 1.5
designated recre
in
CM
,_
8
Beaches for which monitoring and closure data is
available at http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/
(cumulative). (CM)
I
.9
m
u
.>.«)
J3TJ
S2E
f I
sl
Q.
-------
§
CM
•5
i
"O
O
i
I
•ij
f
ct
s
on
«
1
S
5
S
*M
»*
5"
"O
«
a.
o
O
1
s
E
1.
g
0.
1
(Q
i
' E
: 1
o
1
!
i X
\ =
i
; -S
i ™
g
1 0
L
i"i¥"
o_ **
^ Is
of
:
£ T± d>
- 5€
w c -n
d> (v c
O C ^ l/J
TO O to "C
TO °2 5
o5s"g
_.£ fl) ^5 ra
t.o § 5 "to
"•- ?
-J=.2'i
O c/) £
° ?(« S
s! 5 3
> g^c c
0
o
CN
tn
1
l__
CM
0
! Tribes with water quality standards adopted and
i approved (cumulative). (CM)
1
h_
0)
5 ">
? -C ,>v
••§i|
"V *O
S 8 S;
= •§1
? ° m
» "^
!fc C c
*ri\ ^
fl_ ja> gc?
ro Q-_= o
£ ° £*-• '
W ^H ^5
0) TO O>«fl
.0 in jj.aj
^ E'g.o
™ °- S £
mPtO o>
gr nj ^ o
£ -2 5"g
||||—
8
•
!
S ' S
CO \ U)
1
i
!
o ' o
CM i •«•
1
1 •
CO ' CO
o ; o
1
** 1
!2~, i-n
States with new or revised water quality standards tt
| EPA has reviewed and approved or disapproved am
i promulgated federal replacement standards. (CM)
States and tribes with approved E. coli or enterococt
criteria.
!
j i
!
j
1
1
!
'
|
1 .
,
1
1
|
— ;„.
i
O ' O
OJ i CM
; ;
t
t •
', ',
' : \
*1_8 ; : £ :
f||l ; ? : £ ••
•^ isS i i y i
Z ' i
2 i i - * :
CQ ' (_) ' O !
O
1 , !
I - ! ,
! ' 2T*^ =
tn i i C I
Millions of pounds reduction, from 1985 levels, of
nitrogen and phosphorus loads entering Chesapeaki
Bay. (cumulative)
Impaired Gulf coastal river and estuary segments
implementing WRAS or equivalent.
TMDLs (1) scheduled to be completed; (2) submittec
Gulf States for segments in the coastal watershed; a
(3) established by EPA and Gulf State established
TMDLs approved.
i
:|
;|f ;
i -D ^ •
'-§= ':
'• oT'c-^
If!.
1 c „ flJ ' '
! H °* ^ '
J® 2 h
^3 jS ' i
1 O. *•» ffi !
|.iZ-o ; :
i .E S re . '
:l|l ! i
i _2 -— -• _. i
iS.ffif ' :
;osS i :
1 .C ^"O '
••l-s'l. i
i f
CO O) | O
C4 i «M i CM
O
M
1
in
S,
s.
-------
I
o
U
19
S
o
ID
I
O.
&
I
CO
.1
15
z
CM
CM
u_
^
8
s
0>
s
s
..
-S*
5
n
'a.
0
I
I
I
\ E
: 3
i
: «
H>
£
i 0
1 S
i
f s
* 4 c
f! ,**•*
|
>
! Annual Performance Measure (API
o
0.
c r
i
i
' .1 1
1 i
' !
i 1
i i
! "^ '
, s ;
i
: g ;
1 O f
: 5 '
: ° ;
, . 1
1 a«"5
'Is :
Priority actions or commitments initiated nation
I part of the National Estuary Program since ap[
the first CCMP in 1991 (cumulative).
• •
'
j
]
V) :
d '
CO i
g ;
O '
§ i
0 '.
1
s_ '
5-i
• Facilitate establishment of Local Planning Groi
develop comprehensive plans for dredged mat
management, (incremental)
CO
"S 10
E15
!| ;
ll ;.
g
CO
dZ
, U-
: o
i O
1 <°
: §
' O
§
; o
' s
i "S«
« K
Watersheds that have greater than 80% of > CO
^~ cn .
1 2S.Soo
. Q) ;> " G>
™ « | —
" T
(A
. _J
Q
; s
i
•
1
' §
co
3
i °
; °
; »
la
"s
State-established TMDLs approved (incremeni
of 2,900 in FY 01 ]. (Also a CPM)
(
'•
i
!
i
! Q •
I 5 '
i i
.
, |
i O I
; ° :
1
'• 0 '
' 5 '
: o ;
&
ico
'«
TMDLs established by EPA (incremental). [Ba
inFYOI] (Also a CPM)
to
1
Q
5
o5
m
O
Z
g
Q
g
0
W
j: c
CO
s
= S o> -6
°
£
Q. .
I.
w.
o.
4)
O
e
i
i
i
So
, -3
Q. a
<0
co
f~
to
i O.0>
Initiate 3 projects in priority
the impact of invasive spec
c/3 "> i
i = CN «) a i
l.Jte ;
Irec 2 i
S -c r5 ~! ,
1 ?* o o s2
1 ^" / — i co ro *
•co§=? '
i8-5s ;
x_ ''""' CD ^*
i *^ *J* ,^i I
| CD to a> crO I
1
OJ i
UJ ) i
8 ' •
1 ; : ;
„ i i
Assess, restore and protect
-
i
O ' T- '
-------
o
o
CM
€
i
10
IB
•S
o
E
CL
I
i
o
CM
i
J
l_
O
i
5
i
..
^
?
**
•s
E
o
O
X
1
E
E
Z
I
Q.
1
O
IV.
Z:
1;
|
1 E
o
"5
3
; 3
S>
i2
•
CM
s
w
_ k.
It
1 OB
: a.™
<0
! Annual Performance Measure (APM)
i
1
i
2
J^
8
o
«
CJ
C
, §
§
"£
£
1!
3
e
c
•
E-5
<3
5
Q
o>
o>
CO
^.
o
Z
|
g
0
T3
C
TMDls scheduled to be completed by the end of 2001
i (cumulative). [Base of 4, 100 in FY 01] (Also a CPM a
|RM)
1
CM
5>
§
on
OJ
CO
I-
o
Z
|
g
0
Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
miles that have water quality supporting designated
i beneficial uses, where applicable, for fish and shellfish
i consumption. (Also a CPM)
^
CNJ
1
r
i. i
1 1
! 1
i 1
1 1
i i
1 i
i
' 5> '
; § ;
: § ;
i ;
•• '
: I ;
' CO
! ' h- •
! 0 '
i Z
i i
; | ;
; 5 ;
: ° ;
! t
CO
Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
miles that have water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable, for recreation. (Also
CPM)
1
1 '
'•
i i
'
i
, ,
; [
: t
i E
1 '
1
i :
< 1
> :
,
1
i
1
1 ^ '
I CN
O
"flj
w
0>
0)
CO
l__
o
Z
|
g
O
CO
m O
'Assessed river miles/lake acres/estuary square miles
that have water quality supporting designated benefici;
i uses, where applicable, for drinking water supply. (Alsi
| CPM)
to
CM
CM
'
j
1 i
I '
O [
I
1
I
! 0)
: <5 '
' f~~ '
i O
Z
! • .
'• 0 '
§ '
; • ° :
i r- i
, o
Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
miles that have water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable, for aquatic life suppi
(Also a CPM)
, I
|
1 1
; i
i
i i
i
1
i ..
,
1 i
' '
i ;
i t
* *
i i
i
: i
I
i
i i
t
r-
' CN •
i CM
t
•
O '
O |
•i i
'g) • |
CO
^_-
o
Z i
i
I •
§
0 |
j
Impaired, assessed river miles, lake acres, & estuary
square miles that a) are covered under WRAS and b)
were restored to their designated uses during the
reporting period. (Also a CPM and RM)
!
• |
i
1
CO '
CM '
' CM i
—
E -
1 _
t5 2
* §
T>
S y
_^ Ij
£ ?
t Q
QJ "^
> TO
2?
£ M
' CD
CN
i
i
1
1
i
1 ttJ
! H
', ^
i P
1 O
! u
•5
i c
1 O ."^
i 2: E
1 c
i O
! 0
' O
5
i °
, ef
i O-
Mississip|ji River Sub-basin Committees 1 ) to whom E
has provided financial support and'or has contributed
significant technical assistance, and. 2) which have
developed strategies for nutrient reduction |RM)
1
t
!
O
• u
* 'x
i
"o
3
i O
'• -£
i '~
1 -S,
1 o
( 3
l QJ
| C
O
' Q.
1 0.
j CO
1
1 o
1 CO
1 CN
t
i ,
,
• 1
c
1 CO
1
1 '
! 1
i in '
i ^^ f
; i
! 1
1
; | ;
5 * '
f ' !
1
' • 1
Tribes with monitoring and assessment programs
(cumulative) [19% = 105/556 Tribes].
I
'•o?
' c ca
1 ^ CO Cd
2'g'S
j .^ ^- "Q
i -— ^5 c
, C p Q
JE|'|
i ;5*'O j»
, 3 Q) Q_
^£ LU
1 W^H
5 _ffi .«•
1 §-dS
-= S^^
i ~~ «> ^ —
1 5 §•§
i S w ?
i^f™
i ^: ~'c
| fe E
i^l-f
!? Si 5"
CO
J 1-^
! (O
D)
S.
-------
CM
CD
i
CO
c
1
a
2
I
8
•g
03
CM
O
O
nce Goal
Matrix
.-..-...--.-- -.:-
Annual Pe
tional Prog
p^. -„—--.
£
8
€
o.±
z r
c
o.±±
I
¥
S
9°
I
m
£
S a>
^ >
3
FO
'
-------
£
§
TJ
£
ca
s
o.
c
o
TO
O.
8
ci
8
W
1
u
i
£
S
3k
s
I
D.
O
x
cc
|
o>
I
i
y
I
: I
' i
, c
! 0 '
^^
j
r —
i
i *
1
i
\~i"
i e>
I fe
; £
i ^
1 M
§
! *•
i _ i.
< E o
111
• O o)
„ ^^
|S6
Annual Performance Measure (APM) <
i " 1
5"
; |
! •«
; <§
! «
i S
! |
> ^£
. . t
' £
• a.
E ^
i5
I
!
i
So
•5
0.8
«s
18
S7T
o S
ca $
1*
^1
«?
of annui
id sewer
•8.1
*• rt
d prevention approaches, reduce at least 3 billion poui
is, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and corn!
£§
og
t!
11
1 =
a^
t|
J£
J
?s
il
.E
IIO1 a
OS?
o^
CD «
^1
)
S3
a °
SJE
•
|
s
M ' 10
fl> 3 0)
•3 i 3
o: i QC
i
1
i
£3 ' ^
fT) i T—
i
5. |g
1
Effluent guidelines proposed or promulgated
316(b) regulations proposed or promulgated
t s
s ; l
si •«!,
C O) £ C
1? ^=5 '
^ fl* " 2s O
™1 :iS-
£-p ' o-o
2 S '•*" S
= 8 ® «
1~ ,"5 =
«| ,^8
8 ® ' o 1
sL ;!§
Q-l S ' °-s
•n m Js '*o «
= 05 'eg
"'TO * ' * u
^SS IT!
§§| :s|
.sis :§:
tSfe-5 .T3|
W-SE ,°>o
"Sg.o ,«
558 '5 11
i2ls -i=«£
:
s : o
CO . P>
:
i
\
(
1
1 *
10 I M
8 ' 8
3 3
O ' O
OT • £0
1 : 1
o. ; o.
<
^ ' ^
m , r-
]
i
1
•
; Major point sources are covered by current permits.
i(CM)
Minor point sources are covered by current permits.
(CM)
S«fc '
.E w .-
m C ,
o>S>o
gico-t i
S i
M^l
TJ-O^S" '
«fS.o '
ca?sr^ i
ItiS :
«^»g '
S S iag '
m fTto'-' •
=1=1 :
T5 fS O <0 '
2~,2 w- :
l^Iw
io-so ;
&e^fe
8i||:
CL«>'Bi ,
HP :
IM* •:
3*11 i
i
S 8
CO ; CO
•
in
0)
S
1 •
o>
o
5s-
o
o
T-
1
Permittees (among the approximately 900 CSO
communilies nationwide) that are covered by NPDES
permits or other enforceable mechanisms consistent with
the 1994 CSO policy. (Also a CPM)
_
XT
O
CO
J
1
i
i
1
1
v> 1 «>
n i ^g
CO | (O
i
i
' o
eS ' ^^*
g j g
1
i 1
i
States with current storm water general permits for all
industrial activities operating in me state.
States with current storm water general permits for
construction sites over 5 acres.
«
1
i
i
i
[
<
,
i
t
t
i
•
1
i
i
!
!
t
i
E
- I
1
in co
CO '• CO
•
0>
o
<
'c
0)
e
o.-s
0
0
S
O
CSO acres thai must have a long term CSO control plan
and number of CSO acres for which a long term control
plan is required by permit or other enforceable
mechanism (RM)
'
t
!
'
r~-
8
in
p
0
<
-
5
£
Q.tr
Z =
£
5
O
1
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) acres
thai must have a stormwater permit and number of MS4
acres coveied for which permits have been issued. (RM)
CO
O
o
i
i i
1
I
i :
1 '
U) I "sfi
5 ! £ i
ts
Q.
-------
«
M
J
i
s
s
..
1"
a>
i
j
'
tional Program Matrix
CO
2
O
i
• £
e
o
' E
: E
• o
: O
!
L
!
!
i
i
! 0
] |
1 ~
! *jt
i 8
f m"*- ~
i ?r *5
O'5>
* ^L "C
i * ' ' '
O) ' ^ ' ^ 1 ^
— w c: ! cn c ' tn 12
I i il > i| i li
<1> : ^ / ! Q- ! ^
2 i i i
i ' i 0
" : I ! S ' 8
1 ! tf> i ^
i i I T^
I 1 t
i i
S ' S ' S '5
1 I ; § • j 1
i ; !
' >>OO ' ' »)
, -Q Ko . : iS
i Comprehensive methodology tested for documenting
1 pollutants removed through increased SSO, CSO and
storm water treatment, and increased wastewater
< treatment to secondary or better standards.
i Reduction in loadings for toxic pollutants as predicted
1 model projections, for NPDES permitted facilities subj«
| to effluent guidelines promulgated between 1992 & 20i
i (cumulative) (CM)
I
Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants as
1 predicted by model projections for NPDES permitted
1 facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
, between 1992 & 2000. (cumulative) (CM)
i
| Reduction in loadings for non-conventional pollutants <
i predicted by model projections for NPDES permitted
1 facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
between 1992 and 2000 . (cumulative) (CM)
~o !
1 fl) Q) '
; 1^8 i '
! •— ^. '
• ^^ « '
; 111 ; ;
' £°i3 o> '
' ' i
CO ' f ' 1O
o
o
^
§
o>
! Approved pretreatment programs audited in the reporti
i year. Of those, the number of audits finding signtficar
shortcomings and the number of local programs
| upgraded to achieve compliance. (Also a CPM)
i
i
.<"
C .C ^ Q
1^1 8
Prevent pass through of pollutants to
waters and protect POTW operations
pretreatment programs over a 5-year
1 500 effective pretreatment program!
significant industrial dischargers.
|s^
to
1
1
•
fl> ' CO
I '- s
V ' S
CO ' {/J
U- i
1
1
tn i
i
i
i
\
5 ' S
1 ! 1
1
1 •
r
Wastewater treatment facilities maintaining permitted
1 performance levels through assistance under Section
|l04(g)oftheCWA.
i
i
States which adopt the Voluntary Management
Guidelines for On-site/Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems.
i
1 £
p 2 CD
$ '» «
. ! ? 6
O £
SJ-sJS 'c-ffi^
8go> ,og.2
Protect human health and avoid inert
loadings by helping small U.S. waste
to maintain permitted performance le
Reduce human health risks and noni
septic systems that pollute drinking i
playgrounds and beaches, back up it
shellfish and other aquatic life.
1
CO ' O>
CO i CO
-------
1
c
o
s
ii
3
I
CO
CM
O
in
-------
O
E
S
o>
o
«3
I
03
S
O
CM
O.
O
CJ
CM
o
l :
••«
8
S
§
|
TJ
E
1
"S
"Si ;
x™
>; <"
O
in
CO
CM
in
to
to
m
to
try
ag
nti
10 ra
S
CM
O
til
vi
M
to •
CM
§
O
UJ
ple
orizing program
ribes. (RM)
ental
ns au
b
EPA acti
dian co
81-0
;a>
,0 '• 55
'
''-
tO. J C
CO1" iLU
O
O
O
UJ
e partners with EPA o
ndian country (RM)
s
h
y
t
ibes agreeing to
environment in
n
0)
I1
i
to
1
-------
"5
S1
a.
reat
rogr
ophi
VN f^
: § :p
(O
in
o
-------
o
co
•s
w
co
I
to
§
O
E
co
I
S
CO
N
.9
^}
§
°- I
tf) |:
I i;
CD
D)
CO
a.
-------
Core Performance Measures
Section 5
-------
-------
Contents
Addendum to '1997 Joint Statement on Measuring page 5-5
Progress under NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and
Applicability of Core Performance Measures
FY2000-01 Core Performance Measures for Water page 5-11
Comparison Between Core Performance Measures page 5-14
and FY 2002 Annual Performance Measures
Information Sources and Reporting for Water page 5-18
Core Performance Measures
-------
-------
ADDENDUM TO 1997 JOINT STATEMENT ON MEASURING PROGRESS UNDER NEPPS:
CLARIFYING THE USE AND APPLICABILITY OF CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
When EPA and States initiated the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS),
our goals were to achieve greater environmental protection, better measurement of environmental
progress, and the most efficient use of public resources in achieving these goals. While States vary in the
extent to which they actively participate in specific aspects of NEPPS, the basic concept of performance
partnerships guides State-EPA relationships throughout the country. The development of Core
Performance Measures (CPMs) that has taken place under NEPPS auspices has been successful in
focusing both EPA and State attention on improving how we measure the effectiveness of our
environmental protection efforts.
In August 1997, leaders of ECOS and EPA signed a Joint Statement on Measuring Progress under
NEPPS. The Joint Statement has served as a guidance document for use of CPMs. It also established a
hierarchy of CPMs which was attached to the Joint Statement and is hereby reaffirmed. The purpose of
this addendum is to clarify and update certain principles, guidance and time frames as originally
referenced in the August 1997 Joint Statement. This Addendum accompanies a revised and updated set
of Core Performance Measures. It is in effect during the life of the 1995 NEPPS Agreement unless
otherwise amended.
This addendum addresses and clarifies four key issues. These issues generally relate to the
implementation and use of Core Performance Measures, Associated Reporting Requirements, and
Accountability Measures (hereafter referred to as CPMs). The clarifications presented below constitute
official amendments to the Joint Statement.
Core Performance Measures: What Are They?
CPMs are a limited set of national measures, designed to help gauge progress towards protection of the
environment and public health. They include a mix of three types of measures (as arrayed in the CPM
hierarchy) needed to understand environmental programs and their effectiveness: (.1) environmental
indicators (high level trends describing environmental and public health conditions), (2) program
outcomes (measures of program influence or effect), and (3) program outputs (measures of program
activities). CPMs, based on data collected and reported primarily by States, serve the NEPPS objective
of'managing for environmental results' by:
• driving a system of measurement based on performance (with an emphasis on shifting "up the
hierarchy" described above, to more meaningful reporting of environmental results);
• providing States and the Nation as a whole with the information and tools to increase accountability
and make policy, resource or other changes to support improvements in environmental conditions;
and
• providing a benchmark upon which States and EPA can focus efforts to reduce high cost/low value
reporting for public and private entities.
In addition to using CPMs to help paint a national picture of environmental progress, States may wish to
use additional indicators and measures to reflect progress toward State-specific goals and objectives. The
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) negotiated between EPA and States under NEPPS reflect
Page 5-5
-------
both State and Federal priorities, and, in addition to CPMs, may include State-specific environmental
goals, objectives, indicators, and performance measures.
Together, EPA and ECOS have led, with participation by a number of other state organizations, the
development of enhanced F Y2000 CPMs for water, air, and waste management and remediation; as well
as Accountability Measures for enforcement and compliance. In addition, work continues on developing
CPMs for pollution prevention, pesticides, and lead for use in the future. Most of the current CPMs rely
on data the states already collect and report. Over time, EPA and States will refine and improve the
CPMs to enhance their ability to measure the responses of industry and the public to EPA and State
programs, and the resulting changes in the environment. A few of the existing CPMs represent such an
improvement, and may require new data and reporting.
Continued joint effort will be needed to bring these measures increasingly closer to an accurate and useful
reflection of the most important environmental and program outcomes. EPA and States need to continue
to ask such questions as:
• Are we focusing on the most important outcomes?
• Do we have the data we need to inform the American people on the progress and status of our work?
• Are we measuring cross-program outcomes in a way that encourages more efficient and effective
collaboration among different environmental programs?
• How can we accelerate the pace of the transition to a results-based performance measurement system
which emphasizes use of outcomes versus outputs?
* How can States and EPA continue to advance efforts to minimize high cost/low value reporting?
As this work progresses, EPA and State work groups will continue to consult with the officials who
implement the various programs covered by these measures, a range of experts on data and measurement,
and the many stakeholder groups who constitute an important audience for Core Performance Measures.
Many refinements will undoubtedly be needed as these measures come into use over a period of time. Up
to this point, our initial efforts in improving environmental measurement systems have focused on the
relationships between States and EPA. We now need to expand outreach efforts to include our many
stakeholders as we continue to improve measurement systems over time.
Issue 1: Uses and Audiences for Core Performance Measures
One of the primary purposes of CPMs is to help "paint a national picture" of the nation's progress in
protecting public health and the environment This picture reflects the progress and accomplishments
achieved by EPA, the States, and others working together. This national picture is intended to inform
Congress, the public, stakeholders and environmental managers of trends and environmental progress
across the nation and in individual states; and to give them the tools to increase accountability and make
(or influence) policy, resource and other decisions. In addition to informing a national audience, many
states plan to use the measures to communicate environmental and program progress to state legislatures
and residents.
CPMs are also intended to help shape EPA and State management decisions by providing environmental
program managers with information on environmental conditions and trends, important program
outcomes, and key program activities. EPA and States will strive to reduce the number of core program
Page 5-6
-------
output measures in favor of outcome measures and environmental indicators. CPMs do not attempt to
capture the full range of information needed to manage environmental programs at the national, regional
or state level; environmental managers at all levels will, in most cases, need additional information to
guide program management decisions. As stated in the Joint Statement, "...information about activities
(e.g., permitting) is routinely reported each year and maintained hi national data bases which we
recognize must be maintained through existing comprehensive data systems." CPMs are not intended to
be used to rank states against each other. They will be used to analyze and describe important
environmental and programmatic trends among states. CPMs should be carefully used in a way that
recognizes the context and quality of the information upon which they are based.
Any reports that use CPMs should emphasize that the results reflect the achievements of States and EPA
working together. Performance results for CPMs may provide Congress and others with a gauge of the
success of important components of the Nation's environmental programs in which the states and EPA
play a major role. States are not directly responsible for fulfilling EPA's Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) reporting requirements to Congress, but CPMs may represent a subset of the
Agency's performance measures under GPRA. EPA intends that the information needed to report CPMs
and other key reporting requirements described herein will satisfy any reporting EPA needs from States
to meet EPA's GPRA reporting responsibilities.
Issue 2: Applicability of Core Performance Measures
States and EPA have identified CPMs as part of the overall NEPPS process for reinventing the
State/EPA partnership. As a result of the NEPPS Agreement, States are active participants in the
development of the CPMs and of the "national picture" that CPMs paint. CPMs as such only apply to
States participating in NEPPS; States not participating in NEPPS will continue to provide key
information needed by EPA through State/EPA Agreements, grant work plans, or other operating
agreements. States participating in NEPPS are presumed to incorporate all CPMs in their Performance
Partnership Agreements with EPA, subject to the conditions described in Issue #3 below. Non-NEPPS
states may voluntarily choose to utilize CPMs to track environmental progress. The great majority of
data points needed for the CPMs jointly approved in April 1999 are already being reported by all states
through national data systems (such as RGRIS and SDWIS) or other established mechanisms. This
reporting should continue by NEPPS and non-NEPPS states alike unless otherwise agreed by States and
EPA.
Where CPMs involve data States are already reporting to EPA, EPA's expectation is that such data will
suffice to report the CPM, i.e., no duplicate reporting is expected. We recognize that CPMs that require
new data may take a year or more to implement. If a CPM requires new data, EPA will work with
States (individually or collectively) to develop a plan to obtain the necessary data. This plan should
articulate ways to manage, schedule, and finance any new data collection and reporting requirements. All
States and Regions are encouraged to be flexible and creative in finding means to collect the needed data
and report on these measures.
Issue 3: Flexibility in Using Core Performance Measures
One of the most challenging aspects of implementing CPMs is balancing the need for consistent
information with the heed to accommodate the circumstances of individual States. As per the August
p c 7 U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
8 Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
1997 Joint Statement, it is presumed that states participating in NEPPS will use the CPMs. If a particular
CPM does not fit a State's or Region's situation, that measure may be modified, substituted, or
eliminated in any given year, as agreed to by both the State and EPA. Good judgment and common sense
should guide the determination to modify or eliminate a CPM under the circumstances described below.
The State and EPA may jointly agree to deviate from particular CPMs where:
1. The CPM does not apply to a State's or Region's physical setting or environmental condition (e.g.
ocean beach closures hi a land-locked state).
2. The state does not have authority for the program to which the CPM applies (e.g., EPA still has
primacy for the program).
3. Data for the CPM are not available or alternative data are more relevant hi painting a picture of
environmental progress (e.g., a state-based environmental data and/or performance management system
provides a better description of environmental performance than the CPM). If data are unavailable, EPA and
the State may agree upon a plan to develop the necessary data.
4. The State and EPA agree that the CPM or the work associated with it are not a high priority in the state
(e.g. use of available resources to work on other activities is a higher priority in that state). In this case, the
level of effort devoted to reporting that CPM should be negotiated as part of the NEPPS process.
The States and EPA also affirm joint efforts to continue pursuing innovative environmental projects and
measurement systems that may improve the effectiveness of current and future CPMs.
Issue 4: The Role of CPMs in Improving the Value/Reducing the Cost of Environmental Information
(Burden Reduction)
While the primary purpose of CPMs is better environmental information to support improved environmental
management, the August, 1997 Joint Statement also contains a clear commitment to reducing the reporting
of those outputs that are lower priority. It states: "We are committed to working together to reduce the
overall reporting burden placed on states, especially that created by reporting on outputs... Over time, we
hope to reduce unnecessary reporting and activity counting and streamline necessary reporting so that our
time is spent sharing information on the nation's environmental and pollution problems."
Burden reduction is critical to maintaining and hopefully increasing the resources available for environmental
protection. Both EPA and ECOS remain firmly committed to reducing high cost/low value reporting
requirements on states and others and wish to accelerate progress toward this end. The Joint State/EPA
Information Management Work Group has begun work on this charge. The Work Group has proposed an
approach for assessing environmental information, including data reporting requirements, through an
examination of the value of information (in understanding and making decisions to protect human health and
the environment), as compared to its cost (including the work involved by all parties in data collection,
management and reporting). The following direction is hereby provided to help guide and accelerate this
process:
• Application of the cost/value approach to examining burden reduction opportunities is hereby endorsed,
and the Joint Work Group should continue to develop proposals to implement this approach. EPA and
.':*••>!.'-up'./ >.
Page 5-8
-------
States need to work together to ensure that the reporting of CPM data is efficient and improvements in
data collection and reporting are made where possible.
CPMs serve to frame discussions of what reporting meets the value/cost test, by spelling out what
information EPA and States jointly believe to be highest priority. Information not necessary to support
CPMs then becomes subject to review according to value/cost criteria, and is a candidate for burden
reduction. Together, EPA and States (as well as other suppliers and users of environmental information)
will work to ensure that they collect and share information that has "specific and demonstrable uses," as
outlined in the State/EPA Vision and Operating Principles for Environmental Information Management.
The Joint Work Group should, in coordination with EPA and ECOS CPM Work Groups, expeditiously
design a process for accomplishing this review and identifying opportunities for burden reduction.
A State/Regional dialogue provides the best entry point for, investigating what information — especially
information beyond that required to report on CPMs — is needed for States and EPA to do their
respective jobs. EPA and States need to create an atmosphere that promotes working together to
explore possibilities for reducing high cost/low value reporting, and that encourages States and EPA
Regions to test and apply specific initiatives to reduce high cost/low value reporting through their PPAs
at the earliest possible time. EPA Regions should consult EPA national program offices prior to
implementing any initiatives that change national reporting requirements.- EPA and ECOS support the
establishment of a clearinghouse of successful initiatives and pilot proj ects in specific States and Regions
to improve the value and reduce the cost of information.
Page 5-9
-------
Extension of Joint Statement
The Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under NEPPS, signed in August 1997, applied to FY98 and
FY99. It is hereby extended to apply for FY 2000 and beyond, during the life of the 1995 NEPPS
Agreement, subject to the amendments and clarifications contained in this Joint Statement Addendum.
Specific references in the original Joint Statement to CPMs for FY 98 or FY 99 are also amended to apply
for FY 2000, and beyond, as applicable.
This Addendum is effective as of the date of signature.
Robert Varney,
New Hampshire DBS,
EGOS President
Date
Carol Browner,
EPA Administrator
Date
Lewis Shaw,
South Carolina DHEC,
EGOS Vice-President
Linda Rimer,
EPA Deputy Associate Administrator
Langdon Marsh,
Oregon DEQ,
Chair, ECOS Strategic Planning Committee
J. Charles Fox,
EPA Assistant Administrator
Page 5-10
-------
1
a
i
a>
es
I
2
o
o
u
O
O
U
e
^o
«*
u
a>
I
PH
U
.*
S
CA
2
a
«u
S
e
£
1
w
a
§1
o ...
•- .9
«> S
•^ •;-! .b .^
i tt *-• C
TJ O. _ Q
Si
O ">
II
3 I
Si
jE3 3
"> 52
"ob 2
II
c <
O ~
Q. >
sS
8 o 2 £ .=
jg « ^5 .o M
««ft-i
w
a'S
u e
€-2
u. en
o o
w ,o rs e
*- CM 'S C
a.
"g E
en Q
(» O
K-o'
tn C '
Rj 03
CO
§
JJ
I '-
"H. e
W en
'2^ |
^ i^
rt ^H Ctf
? *J -Y « >,
tsfi £ D S "
r* 4i Q O ^C
J M e t« g
.S § S1 M* w
C »
o -o
•o S "§
^ 3 CO
• — CL .-
U
"S-S -
Illiifl
E ° 1,1 g!| J8
II s'-SI si'
ts h -S ?*» 3 o t>
^"^1111
u
X)
E
3
"Z.
^ ">.•"*
g i» £
« •= g
P fa
lie«
^ .2 u
o > ^
o r=
_ = 2
p JC "C aj
— co O C D. S eS
o
js .E
V
X
A
O,
2
OH
3
S
1
ED
o
1
U
u
CU
2
OH
a- cu »
ui ta-B
— (N
-
«
c«
•O JS o M •
9 «*•'<'•'« o
Mls*
£S U
03 ^
5^3
s^s g
•a » >»
S - o
slijfi
j= j« C .jj n .2
2 I S 2 S -g
. Z C -P en SJ
•r» E e3 tVJ 3 Q,
11 If i ill
•I II If III
'S11 &•- -=».If
SM|5 2
•2 E S
8 2-§
§s|
g •- O
5 a •*•
2 p S
OB «- S
O . S
§»§3
t&- — tm *^
«* S *
III I"
M^l
il II
.fc ^ 2
i •= .5
I S, -5 9.
** rti £.»
o M
k
-------
.2
O
e
CA
I
•o
B
e
e
^o
w
I
't
"S
Core Program Output Measure
8. Number and percent of facilities that have a discharge
requiring an individual permit: a) that are covered by a
current individual NPDES permit; b) that have expired
individual permits; c) that have applied for but not been
issued an individual permit, and d) that have individual
permits under administrative or judicial appeal.
15 -g
.S 2f 13
3 -SI
*> H S ^3
GA £ZZ* Kt f\
A CQ "O
£ 'o w £
fill
2 ai "C? T3
•C S e o
S3 KS W "B
O 3 .3 fe
S-c -3 c
*•' ^o 4>
g en § 60
£ ° '5 1
o *o C £
U £ o'S
gS«,j
S o. S U
ft. ca 2 g
r^ S S.1
o
1
•o
h-H
"3
i
e
o
a
o
U
9. Number of storm water sources associated with
industrial activity, number of construction sites over five
acres, and number of designated storm water sources
(including Municipal Phase I) that are covered by a
current individual or general NPDES permit.
10. Number of permittees (among the approximately 900
CSO communities nationwide) that are covered by
NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanisms
consistent with the 1994 CSO policy.
fli
1 1 . Number and percent of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting year. Of those, the
number of audits finding significant shortcomings and th<
number of local programs upgraded to achieve
compliance.
12. EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF) Program. (EPA
and States are working to develop an outcome measure
for the CW SRF.)
13. Number of EPA approvals of State submitted
upgraded Nonpoint Source Programs (incorporating the
nine key elements outlined in the national Nonpoint
Source Program and Grants Guidance for FY 1997 and
Future Years jointly transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA). (This CPM is discontinued in 2001.)
CD
&
CU
-------
Comparison Between Core Performance Measures as Agreed to with ECOS April 1999
and Core Performance Measure Language included in FY 02 President's Budget
as Annual Performance Measures
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY 02
OMB Submission
Comments
1. Number of: a) community
drinking water systems and
percent of population served by
community water systems, and
b) non-transient, non-
community drinking water
systems, and percent of
population served by such
systems, with no violations
during the year of any federally
enforceable health-based
standard.
% of population served by
community drinking water systems
with no violations during the year
of any federally enforceable
health-based standards that were in
place by 1994.
% of population served by
non-community, non-transient
drinking water systems with no
violations during the year of any
federally enforceable health-based
standards that were in place by
1994.
Split into two measures to allow
2 different targets to be entered
into EPA's HAS database.
APMs are missing number of
systems.
APMs add clause "that were in
place by 1994" at the end of the
measure.
2. Estimated number of community
water systems (and estimated
percent of population served)
implementing a multiple barrier
approach to prevent drinking
water contamination.
Work overtaken by Source Water
Contamination Prevention
Strategy in 2000-01.
Percent of river miles and lake
acres that have been assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories; and compilation of
State-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies, as
reported through the National
Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories.
Percent of river miles assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.
Percent of lake acres assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.
Two APMs allows for separate
targets for river miles and lake
acres.
Neither APM contains last clause
in CPM due to space constraints
inBAS.
Page 5-13
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY 02
OMB Submission
Comments
4. Number and percent of assessed
river miles, lake acres, and
estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses,
including, where applicable, for:
a) fish and shellfish
consumption; b) recreation; c)
aquatic life support; d) drinking
water supply. (The reporting
period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for fish and shellfish consumption.
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for recreation.
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have,
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for aquatic life support.
Assessed river miles/lake
acres/estuary square miles that
have water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses, where
applicable, for drinking water
supply.
Split CPM into 4 separate APMs
in order to array the APMs under
the most applicable
subobjectives.
5. Number and percent of
impaired, assessed river miles,
lake acres, and estuary square
miles that a) are covered under
Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies, and b) were restored
to their designated uses during
the reporting period. (The
reporting period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres, &
estuary square miles that a) are
covered under WRAS and b) were
restored to their designated uses
during the reporting period.
APM doesn't contain the word
"impaired".
6. The TMDL status for each state;
including:
a. The number of TMDLs
identified on the 1998 303(d)
list that the State and EPA have
committed to produce during the
current two-year cycle.
b. The number of these TMDLs
submitted by the State to EPA.
c. The number of
states-established TMDLs
approved by EPA.
d. The number of
EPA-established TMDLs.
(This cumulative measure can
be reported jointly by EPA and
the States.)
Number of TMDLs established by
EPA (cumulative).
Number of TMDLs scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2001
(cumulative).
Number of TMDLs submitted by
the state (cumulative).
Number of state-established
TMDLs approved (cumulative).
Page 5-14
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY 02
OMB Submission
Comments
7. Percent of POTWs that are
beneficially reusing all or a part
of their biosolids and, where
data exists, the percent of
biosolids generated that are
beneficially reused.
POTWs that are beneficially
reusing all or a part of their
biosolids and, where data exists,
the percent of biosolids generated
that are beneficially reused.
8. Number and percent of facilities
that have a discharge requiring
an individual permit: a) that are
covered by a current individual
NPDES permit; b) that have
expired individual permits; c)
that have applied for but not
been issued an individual
permit, and d) that have
individual permits under
administrative or judicial
appeal.
% of major point sources covered
by current permits.
% of minor point sources covered
by current permits.
APM significantly shorter than
CPM. APMs focus only on
sources with current permits.
9. Number of storm water sources
associated with industrial
activity, number of construction
sites over five acres, and number
of designated storm water
sources (including Municipal
Phase I) that are covered by a
current individual or general
NPDES permit.
% of states with current storm
water general permits for all
industrial activities operating in the
state.
% of states with current storm
water general permits for
construction sites over 5 acres.
APMs in terms of states rather
than sources.
No parallel APM to the
municipal storm water portion of
the CPM.
Clarification by adding "storm
water general" to measures
10. Number of permittees (among
the approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that
are covered by NPDES permits
or other enforceable
mechanisms consistent with the
1994 CSO policy.
% of permittees (among the
approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms consistent
with the 1994 CSO policy.
APM is in terms of percent while
CPM is in terms of number.
11. Number and percent of
approved pretreatment
programs audited in the
reporting year. Of those, the
number of audits finding
significant shortcomings and
the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve
compliance.
% of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting
year. Of those, the number of
audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of
local programs upgraded to achieve
compliance.
APM in terms of percent only
while CPM is in terms of number
and percent.
Page 5-15
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY 02
OMB Submission
Comments
12. EPA will report to Congress on
the pace of the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CW
SRF) Program. (EPA and
States are working to develop
an outcome measure for the
CW SRF.)
EPA will report to Congress on the
pace of the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program.
No differences.
13. Number of EPA approvals of
State submitted upgraded
Nonpoint Source Programs
(incorporating the nine key
elements outlined in the national
Nonpoint Source Program and
Grants Guidance for FY 1997
and Future Years jointly
transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA).
This measure is not being
continued in 2001.
Page 5-16
-------
Information Sources and Reporting
for
FY 2001-02 Water Core Performance Measures
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
1. Number of: a) community drinking water systems
and percent of population served by community
water systems, and b) non-transient, non-
community drinking water systems, and percent of
population served by such systems, with no
violations during the year of any federally
enforceable health-based standard.
Source: SDWIS. Every drinking water system —
community as welt as nontransient, noncommunity —
(and, in some cases, State approved laboratories)
report to the State such data elements as: sources of
drinking water supply, population served by the
system, violation(s) of MCL for drinking water
contaminants (both chemical and microbial) and
treatment techniques along with the failure to monitor
for these types of violations. States enter this data into
SDWIS. SDWIS provides data that while system
specific can also be aggregated to show state-wide
information, Regional information (States within
EPA's Regional structure), and national information.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
2. Estimated number of community water systems
(and estimated percent of population served)
implementing a multiple barrier approach to
prevent drinking water contamination.
Work overtaken by Source Water Contamination
Prevention Strategy in 2000-01.
3. Percent of river miles and lake acres that have
been assessed for the need for fish consumption
advisories; and compilation of State-issued fish
consumption advisory methodologies, as reported
through the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories.
Source: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories. In calendar year (CY)
1998, States submitted information to EPA on paper
and EPA entered the data into the database; starting in
CY 1999, States may enter data directly into the
database.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
4. Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake
acres, and estuary square miles that have water
quality supporting designated beneficial uses,
including, where applicable, for: a) fish and
shellfish consumption; b) recreation; c) aquatic
life support; d) drinking water supply. (The
reporting period is two years.)
Source: State Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
5. Number and percent of impaired, assessed river
miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles that a)
are covered under Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies, and b) were restored to their designated
uses during the reporting period. (The reporting
period is two years.)
Source: For part (a), as part of Watershed Restoration
Action Strategies submission, report which watersheds
(8-digit HUC or finer detail) are covered by strategies
(EPA will deduce stream miles, etc.). For part (b),
States are encouraged to use Clean Water Act Section
305(b) reports.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
Page 5-17
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
6. The TMDL status for each state; including:
a. The number of TMDLs identified on the 1998
303(d) list that the State and EPA have committed
to produce during the current two-year cycle.
b. The number of these TMDLs submitted by the
State to EPA.
c. The number of states-established TMDLs
approved by EPA:
d. The number of EPA-established TMDLs.
(This cumulative measure can be reported jointly
by EPA and the States.)
Source: (1) Biennially-required Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) Lists which include TMDL schedule
and (2) TMDL Submittals
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
7. Percent of POTWs that are beneficially reusing all
or a part of their biosolids and, where data exists,
the percent of biosolids generated mat are
beneficially reused.
Source: Biosolids Data Management System. Key
information for this measure are A) dry weight tons
generated by Class I (40 CFR Part 503) facilities; B)
use and disposal methods for the above in dry weight
tons by categories: land application, surface disposal,
incineration, other named; C) percentages for the
above dry weight tons meeting Table III (40 CFR Part
503) land application requirements.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
8. Number and percent of facilities that have a
discharge requiring an individual permit: a) that
are covered by a current individual NPDES
permit; b) that have expired individual permits; c)
that have applied for but not been issued an
individual permit, and d) that have individual
permits under administrative or judicial appeal.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS). Key
information for this measure are permit application
date, permit issuance date, and permit expiration date.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
9. Number of storm water sources associated with
industrial activity, number of construction sites
over five acres, and number of designated storm
water sources (including Municipal Phase I) that
are covered by a current individual or general
NPDES permit.
Source: State issued permits. Key information for
this measure are permit application date, permit
issuance date, and permit expiration date. We do not
have this information for most storm water sources.
What to Report: No separate reporting required. The
reason our measure is "States" instead of "Sources" is
because most sources are covered by general permits
and we have no access to information on the sources
that submit notices of intent to be covered by state
general permits.
10. Number of permittees (among the approximately
900 CSO communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or other enforceable
mechanisms consistent with the 1994 CSO
policy.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS).
Informal dialogue between EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regions and States.
What to Report: status of NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms for CSOs
11. Number and percent of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting year. Of
those, the number of audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve compliance.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS). Key
information for this measure are audit dates. State
reporting.
What to Report: States would need to report to EPA
the number of audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve compliance as this
information is not tracked in PCS. .
Page 5-18
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
12. EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF)
Program. (EPA and States are working to
develop an outcome measure for the CW SRF.)
Source: State Revolving Fund Information System
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
13. Number of EPA approvals of State submitted
upgraded Nonpoint Source Programs
(incorporating the nine key elements outlined in
the national Nonpoint Source Program and
Grants Guidance for FY1997 and Future Years
jointly transmitted by EPA and ASWIPCA).
Source: Upgraded state nonpoint source programs
submitted by states to EPA
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
This measure is discontinued in FY01.
L
Page 5-19
-------
-------
Timeline
Section 6
-------
-------
Contents
Calendar by Date
Calendar by Topic
page 6-5
page 6-9
-------
-------
Water Accountability Key Dates for FY 2001/2002
FY2001
April
27
May
08
11
11
During
End
June
Beginning
Beginning
Mid
End
OPAA issued Mid-Year Guidance for FY 2002 Congressional Measures (CMs) for
which data is available
(Original plan was to issue final FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance early in
Feb with final National Program Guidance issued at the end of April)
FY 01 Mid-Year Reports due to OW Immediate Office
Draft F Y 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance to Regions
FY 01 Mid-Year Reporting due to OPAA
Feedback to OW on draft FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance to Regions
Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FY01 Mid-Year Results
Begin FY03 APG/APM Development
Investment Proposals for FY 03 submitted
Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
Final FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance issued
July
Beginning
18
End
OMB issues Circular A-l 1 to all Federal Agencies
OW issues Guidance for the FY 02 Management Agreements
FY 03 Planning and Budget Guidance
Page 6-5
-------
August
03 FY 03 draft APGs/APMs to OW Immediate Office
17
20
End
FY 03 OW Annual Plan & Budget Submitted to OCFO
OPAA Guidance on FY 01 Annual Performance Report
FY 03 OMB Annual Plan and Budget Submission to OCFO
September
Beginning Draft FY02 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use
as basis for negotiation)
Mid month F Y 03 Annual Plan & Budget Submission to OMB
During Negotiations begin on FY 02 Management Agreements
End FY 01 End-of-Year Performance Data Reporting Guidance on all APMs
FY2002
October
Mid month First draft of F Y 01 Annual Performance Report due to OCFO
During
Negotiations on FY 02 Management Agreements
November
02 End of Year Data for F Y 01 due to O W Immediate
09
30
End
End of Year Data for FY 01 due to OPAA; entered in BAS
Signed FY 02 Management Agreements between HQ and Regions
OMB informs EPA about their decisions on FY 03 budget request-'Tassback"
December
Beginning Option of appeal to OMB and the President / for reversal or modifications on
certain decisions-OMB and Administrator work to resole issues
Page 6-6
-------
End
Revisions to F Y 02 Annual Performance Goals and Measures to reflect any budget
changes.
Finale negotiations with OMB, if any, on FY 03 APGs/APMs
January
Review First Draft of FY 01 Annual Performance Report
FY 03 Presidential Budget due-EPA prepares and OMB reviews Congressional
Budget justification materials
Mid-month Revising FY 02/03 National Program Guidance
February
04 FY03 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to Congress
Beginning
March
01
29
April
05
19
19
26
May
June
Draft Update FY 2002/03 Program Guidance to Regions (post issuance of
President's Budget to Congress)
EPA FY2000 Performance Report to Congress
OPAA Guidance on Mid-Year Reporting for FY2003- Congressional
House and Senate Appropriations Committees indicate their preferences regarding
budget matters for which they are. responsible
FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting Guidance to Regions
FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate
Final Update FY2002/03 National Program Guidance to Regions
FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA; enter data into BAS
Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FY 02 Mid-Year Results
Page 6-7
-------
July
Beginning
Beginning
Beginning
Mid
End
Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
Investment Proposals for 2004 submitted
OMB issues Circular A-l 1 to all Federal Agencies
OW issues Guidance for the FY 2003 Management Agreements
Final Passback from OMB on FY 04
FY 03 Planning and Budget Guidance
August
03 FY 04 draft APGs/APMs to OW Immediate Office
17
20
31
FY 04 OW Annual Plan & Budget Submitted to OCFO
OPAA Guidance on FY 02 Annual Performance Report
FY 04 OMB Plan and Budget Submission to OCFO
Negotiated and Consolidated FY 03 MA commitments to OW Immediate Office
September
Beginning Draft FY 03 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will
use as basis for negotiation)
Mid month F Y04 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to OMB
During Negotiations begin on FY 03 Management Agreements
End . FY 02 End-of-Year Performance Data Reporting Guidance on all APMs
Page 6-8
-------
Key Accountability and Budget Dates by Topic Area
(All dates are 2001 unless otherwise stated)
National Program Guidance
- 04/27 OPAA issue guidance on FY02/03 program guidance
- 05/08 issue draft to FY02/03 program guidance
- 06/09 issue final to FY02/03 program guidance
- 02/08/02 issue draft update FY02/03 program guidance
- 04/19/02 issue final update FY02/03 program guidance
FY2002 Management Agreement
- 07/06 OW guidance
- 09/04 draft MAs due to HQ
-11/30 all MAs signed
FY2003 Management Agreement
- early June OW guidance
- early Sept draft MAs due to HQ
- end Nov all MAs signed
FY01 Mid-Year Report
04/27 issue mid-year reporting guidance
05/08 responses from Regions and HQ program offices due to Mike Weckesser
05/11 . mid-year data due in Agency system
End May Goal 2 Team Meeting with Deputy Administrator to report mid-year results
FY01 End-of-Year Report for the National Water Program
- End Sept issue guidance to Regions
-11/02 data due to HQ
- 11 /09 data due to OPAA
FYOJ Annual Performance Report
- 08/20 OPAA guidance
-mid/end Nov first draft to OPAA
- Jan. '01 review final draft
- 03/0/02 submit report to Congress
Page 6-9
-------
FY2003 Budget and Annual Plan
- Spring/ APGs/APMs development
Summer
- June Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
- July Investment Proposals submitted
- July: Budget Forum
- early July OMB issues budget guidance
- mid/end-July OCFO issues budget guidance
- 08/03 draft APGs / APMs to OW
- early/mid Sept Submit tO OMB
-Dec. finalize APGs/APMs
- 2/4/02 submit to Congress
FY2004 Budget and Annual Plan (Dates for FY 04 are in 2002)
- Spring/ APGs/APMs development
Summer
- June Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
- July Investment Proposals submitted
- July Budget Forum
- early July OMB issues budget guidance
- mid/end July OCFO issues budget guidance
- early Aug draft APGs / APMs to OW
- early/mid Sept Submit to OMB
Page 6-10
-------
Mid-Year and End-of-Year
Reporting
Section 7
-------
-------
Contents
Mid-Year and End-of-Year Reporting
FY2001 Management Matrix
page 7-05
page 7-07
-------
-------
Mid-Year and End of Year Reporting
As indicated in the calendar of key dates in this national program guidance, mid-year and end of year
reporting will be required by Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices for the
annual performance measures for which they made commitments against in the F Y2001 Management
Agreement. The Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability is requiring mid-year information
for all Congressional performance measures for which such information is available. End of April
/ beginning of May, 2000 is the projected due date for mid-year reporting. Early November, 2001,
is the projected due date for end of year reporting for ALL performance measures.
Templates and guidance for reporting mid-year and end of year results will be provided several weeks
before each due date. Ultimately, the information provided by HQ Program Offices, Regions, and
Great Water Body Offices will be very important to the preparation of the FY 2001 Annual
Performance Report to Congress.
In addition, in recognition of the highlighted Agency-wide priorities of Children's Health,
Reinvention, and the Persistent, Bioaccumulative Pollutant Initiative, Regions, HQ Program Offices,
and Great Water Body Offices should include with their End of Year Report a brief narrative that
describes with specificity how these four cross-agency priorities were reflected in their work.
The Goal 2 Chapter for the Agency's FYOO Annual Performance Report and the final
accomplishments for all FYOO annual performance measures for the National Water Program are
provided on the following pages.
Page7-5
-------
-------
>
-------
I
-I'
s
-------
-------
i
IV
I 1
H
I
. „ _
_ _ _
= s
ii
» ' ' l ! a ! .
i ' ! ' S ' i
fa
$3
is
, o ,
O
i :l
(0
; s
* '§ ''S ^ 2 !
" I » I _' ! " I
I • I'
. _r i.
•I
J
ii:
II
!"s5
fill
!«!!
,~ a-i 'I'l
S3' |1 'II 'Mi
ailS:i'*:|«
8'If - I* <€i£
El:*i; l| ;ii|-
l!:SiiS| iflla
II: S Ilii
. j 1 1
ill i
n-
iofS i
•ill '
1-
I
1 8
il
i 1__ i_.
1 1_ _ L .
O'g
m >
i!
fM
i—.
a
I? !;
i i
~i~ ~l"
's'§
t * t V
; .
I1
il;
p
i
a
I- —
j|
1
P
•» ci
if
il|s
ill
111!
i ;
s ,
II
ii
1 ; 1
Jl ;J1
Hi ill!
m in
HI !|
lit 'I
P :{
!!;l
ill !l
lg-s
.5
iiiii
is ;=i
8
1
-------
I
•s
-------
1
Iff."
F-
J!
iff
L8.
i
f!
il
l
13
IP
1
fill
i
H
l
i---
c
,__8l
III
11351
plfl
111
fi
II
1
if
L-
"g c
Si-
fi
lit
I s
£
i- -.
Ill
f -
i
» :-
8 -
ii
If
• 8
1
I
ill
T
* :
-I"!
|*«.l
Ss&£«[
Id
H !
1 :
il |
s
1
j?S '
i|S i
8;
ill:
s
i
-------
i
i
li
ill
i
CD
P
±C&
sss
tig"
&S2
1!
£c?s
S
g
Is
#iss|.
sfej-
*IP
SHU
Sts-is£
SMU
SS?.|E.
°S5*"
!il-E
•I'^lt
#ISS£
sgs*-
f^|£
£E"-lfe
III!
nil
AL
it?
ii
£i
;{
III
11!
1
OB •
^
I1!
in
im
ii
ii
B i'
si
f
I
it
I*.-
-i
i*
n
4
-&
i
4
3
is
a
ife. i:t
< 1
i|= (.3
!!2 Irl.
giili
^.f|£?
s si s s
fill0
IP
•s
-t*-'
^
hn
-------
-------
1s.
3 i
!!
ii
i
H
8"
--t
I 4
1
it
ill
---J
g-
~--J
ill
,
Ih
il
If
I*- »
SI
P!
Ill
L
II
.1
&
•f
: *
c •
II
]l~i':'^l:''
'ty-.'-- ."
tfy i
; :: i
$y I
s
t
5
!
|
I
•8
i
I
!i
II
ii
11
!l
11
ii
s.I
ii
' -m . : «^s
&, If
-:|^ ll
§
S"
I
Is
i
i^f
Isi
o
u.
-------
-------
FY2000 Annual Performance
Report and Final FY 2000
Management Matrix
Section 8
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
-------
Contents
FY 2000 Annual Performance Report
Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water
Final FY2000 Management Matrix
page 8-05
page 8-22
-------
-------
Goal 2 FY 2000 Obligations
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Note: EPA FY2000 Obligations
were $8,974 million
All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to
drink. Effective protection of America's rivers, lakes, wetlands,
aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants, and
wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities.
Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and
protected to improve human health, enhance water quality, reduce
flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
OVERVIEW
Safe drinking water is the first line of defense in
protecting human health. The American public enjoys
one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world,
but illnesses due to contaminants continue to occur. In
FY 2000 there were no reported major disease
outbreaks caused . by microbial or chemical
contaminants in drinking water, but during the past
decade drinking water contamination caused illness and
even death in places such as Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Alpine, Wyoming; and rural upstate New York. As
drinking water infrastructure ages and new
contaminants are identified, maintaining the nation's
safe drinking water supply remains a critical challenge.
EPA's human health protection concerns also extend
to threats posed by swimming at contaminated beaches
or eating contaminated fish.
Clean water and healthy aquatic ecosystems support
all life, are vital to many sectors of the U.S. economy,
and play an important role in Native American culture.
Fish, shellfish, and many bird species depend on healthy
aquatic ecosystems for food and shelter. Aquatic plants,
which provide food and cover to many aquatic species,
need clean water to thrive. U.S. manufacturers and the
agricultural industry use vast quantities of dean water
every year to produce products, irrigate crops, and raise
animals. The nation's waters are the number one
vacation choice for Americans. For example, in Long
Island Sound, New York, beachgoers contribute more
than $800 million annually to the local economy. Many
Native American tribes value clean water and some
tribes invoke the spirit of water in cultural ceremonies
for medicinal and purification purposes.
FY 2000 PERFORMANCE
Protecting People From Contamination in Drinking
Water, Fish, and Recreational Waters
Improving Drinking Water Quality
For the second consecutive year at least 91 percent
of the American public served by community water
systems received water meeting all health-based drinking
water standards in effect since 1994, even as EPA, states
and tribes worked collaboratively to develop new
national standards and regulations. In addition the
population served by non-transient, non-community
(NTNC) drinking water systems with no violations in
FY 2000 was 93 percent, just below the target of 96
percent EPA missed the target because the Agency
estimated FY 2000 performance based on the data
reported by non-transient water systems several years
Population Served by Community Water
Systems Meeting Drinking Water Standards
196
linn
iiiini
IIIIIii
niiiii
• II
III
111
DTI
III
111
111
1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2005
94
92
90 J
186 •§
lee £
84 1
82 Jj
80
78
76
f-
FY 2000 GP1U Performance
n-13
-------
£
I
|
1
6
~a
1
o
ago. The actual information reported for FY 2000
includes data from many more of these systems, which
are now subject to more rigorous reporting
requirements. The FY 2000 data reflects a more
complete and accurate picture of human health
protection for persons who drink water supplied by
these NTNC drinking water systems. The Agency has
worked diligently with states and water systems over
the past few years to implement its drinking water data
reliability plan.
In FY 2000 EPA headquarters and regions, tribes
and states took significant actions in four key areas:
focusing regulations on high-risk contaminants,
improving consumer right-to-know about drinking
water quality, protecting source waters, and financing
improvements to drinking water systems. To address
microbial contaminants such as Cryptosporidium, E. coK,
and Gianlia, which are the most widespread threat to
drinking water, in the spring of 2000 EPA proposed
the Ground Water Rule and the Long-Tetm Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. These two rules will
protect consumers served by groundwater and small
surface water systems by preventing up to 198,000 cases
of waterborne disease per year. They build on the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
promulgated in 1998, which required surface water
systems serving over 10,000 persons to protect against
microbial contamination. Together these rules will
complete the first series of measures for microbial
protection, and cover all consumers of water provided
by public water systems, whether from surface water
or groundwater, in small towns and large cities.
In addition EPA and a Federal Advisory Committee
composed of states, water systems, medical
professionals, and other public officials, reached
agreement on the second phase of standards mandated
by the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments involving microbial contaminants,
disinfectants used to treat such contaminants, and
disinfection byproducts resulting from treatment. These
standards will increase controls for source waters at high
risk of contamination by Ciyptosporidium, et.al. Also they
are examples of the Agency's first endeavor to address
acute health effects that may be caused by disinfection
byproducts and thereby will assure equal protection
from exposure to these byproducts throughout the
drinking water distribution system.
Radon and arsenic were the high-risk chemical
contaminants addressed by the drinking water program
in FY 2000. In November 1999 the Agency proposed
a multimedia mitigation approach for radon that will
have a significant effect on reducing the human health
risk from radon in drinking water as well as in indoor
air. EPA also proposed new protective standards to
address arsenic in drinking water in June 2000. Arsenic
is a known carcinogen and is also linked to many
noncancer health effects. EPA, states, tribes, and water
systems agree that the current, 50-year old arsenic
standard of 50 parts per billion (ppb) does not provide
adequate human health protection. In March 1999 the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that the
current 50 ppb standard does not protect human health
and recommended that it be revised downward as
quickly as possible. Consequently the revised rule not
only proposed a lower level but also requested comment
from both the drinking water community and the
general public on alternative regulatory levels that would
be reviewed thoroughly and carefully during the final
rulemaking process.
The human health protection afforded by these new
standards can be realized only if there is effective
implementation at the state, tribal and local levels. In
this regard EPA conducted more than 20 training and
technical assistance sessions with regional, state, and
drinking water utility staff during FY 2000 on rules
addressing microbial contaminants and disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts, lead and copper, consumer
confidence, and unregulated contaminant monitoring,
as well as on guidelines for operator certification. Ten
workshops on small systems' concerns were also held
nationwide. States, associations, and environmental
groups have undertaken an unprecedented effort at
training and technical assistance for water systems,
particularly small systems, local governments, and the
general public. In addition EPA has worked with
partners to lead many nationwide endeavors to increase
public drinking water protection and awareness. All
states are overseeing capacity development and operator
certification programs to ensure that owners and
operators of public water systems are fully
implementing existing and new SDWA requirements.
The Agency is approaching and promoting
prevention of drinking water contamination through
both voluntary and mandatory activities. Fifty states
and territories have an EPA-approved Source Water
Assessment and Prevention Program and conduct
11-14
EPAs FY 2000 Annual Report
-------
CONSUMERS GET BETTER AND FASTER
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
'_. DRINKING WATER
As a result of !the new Consumer Confidence Report
Rule, fpr.the first time ever approximately 253 million
Americans have access to annual consumer
confidence reports on the quality and safety of their
drinking water. These reports give customers of
drinking water systems the information they heed to •
make their own health decisions. More than 100
million Americans are able to read their water quality
reports online. Water systems, states, and EPA
worked hard to assure compliance with this rule in its
first year, providing reports for 99 percent of the
population covered by the rule. In May 2000 the
Agency also revised the Public Notification Rule to
require public water systems to alert consumers within
24 hours if there is a serious problem with their
drinking water that might pose a health risk.
assessments of their public water supplies. Data from
these assessments will help determine the susceptibility
to contamination of each state's sources of public
drinking water and set the stage for community water
systems to target their efforts to actual or potential high-
risk contaminants. Forty-nine states are voluntarily
going beyond the requirement of the SDWA, which is
only to complete the assessments, by beginning to act
to prevent source water contamination, based on
information gathered during the assessments. These
next steps are critical to the future of the drinking water
program, and are the primary responsibilities of states,
tribes, and water systems to implement. In December
1999 EPA issued new final regulations on two types of
shallow disposal wells into which a variety of ha2ardous
and nonhazardous fluids (e.g., chemicals, mining, oil,
and gas) is injected below the land's surface. There are
an estimated one million underground injection wells
nationwide, of which about 700,000 are shallow disposal
wells. The new regulations, targeted to motor vehicle
disposal and cesspools, are a vital tool in ensuring that
fluid wastes are contained in these disposal wells safely,
and do not pose a health risk to the majority of U.S.
public water systems that get their drinking water from
groundwater.
Over the past four years of the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), EPA has made
available approximately $3.6 billion in assistance to all
50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and
the territories to establish their revolving loan programs,
and states have moved quickly to make these funds
available to water systems. Since 1997 more than
1,400 loans totaling over $2.8 billion support projects
to modernize or replace outdated plants and pipes as
well as to construct new systems. Small water systems
have been a focus of these loans, with over three-fourths
awarded to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
These loans enable water systems to address critical
human health needs, even as the cost of providing safe
drinking water—finding a water supply, treating the
water, delivering the water, and maintaining the
system—continues to be a challenge. EPA's 1997
Drinking Water Needs Survey Report to Congress identified
more than $138 billion in industry needs, the vast
majority of which are targeted for delivery of water,
rather than for meeting SDWA requirements.
Reducing Exposure to Contaminated Fish
States and tribes have primary responsibility for
informing the public about the risks of eating
contaminated fish, and EPA plays a leadership and
support role. In 1999 approximately seven percent of
river miles and 16 percent of lake acres were assessed
to determine if they contain fish or shellfish that should
not be eaten or should be eaten only in limited quantities,
particularly by sensitive populations such as pregnant
women and young children. The target of ten percent
of river miles assessed was not met. This was primarily
because states focused their resources on lakes, where
most recreational fishing occurs. The total number of
fish advisories in the United States rose by 145 or six
percent (see page 11-41 in Goal 4). Advisories increased
for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin,
and dichlorodiphenytrichloroethane (DDT), but
decreased for chlordane again in FY 2000. The increase
in advisories generally reflects more assessments being
performed and improved monitoring and data
collection methods. Currently, 40 states follow EPA's
guidance for developing fish consumption advisories
based on risk assessments, up from 25 states in 1998.
To support the fish advisory program, EPA in
FY 2000 updated its technical guidance documents to
include new toxicity information for several persistent
bioaccumulative toxics, new fish consumption limits
for recreational and subsistence fishers, and^
recommendations for simplified advisory approaches.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), EPA
FY 2000 GPRA Performance
11-15
-------
and the American Fisheries Society published a joint
report on the national consistency of fish consumption
advisor}' programs.
Improving Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
In FY 2000 EPA and state officials worked to
strengthen the voluntary beach protection program to
help states and local communities protect their residents
from exposure to contaminated waters at their beaches.
NEW JERSEY LEADS THE WAY IN BEACH WATCH
The State of New Jersey is working with 94 of its
coastal municipalities to eliminate beach pollution.
The municipalities are mapping their storm water and
sewage lines and monitoring storm water discharges
to coastal waters. Beach closings are usually associated
with specific storm events or sewage collection system
disruptions. Over die past several years, contamination
incidents and subsequent beach closings have been
more localized and short-lived. The State expects that
continuing to improve storm water management
will further decrease the need for beach
closings.
EPA's internet site posted information provided by state
and local officials on 1,981 beaches—35 percent more
beaches than last year, and approximately 50 percent
more beaches than when the program began in 1997.
This information included 150 digitized maps available
to the public, meeting EPA's goal for FY 2000.
Approximately 459 beaches (24 percent of the reported
beaches) had at least one advisory or closing during the
year. Although the number of beaches reported has
increased significandy during the past three years, the
percentage of beaches with a closing or advisory has
remained consistent at approximately 25 percent.
Leading causes of impairment included rain leading to
storm water runoff which caused elevated bacterial
levels.
EPA also provided technical assistance materials to
help state and local officials improve their monitoring and
advisory programs. EPA published proceedings of two
major conferences which addressed needs and procedures
designed to improve beach monitoring and public
notification across the country. The Agency also produced
and distributed a training video and manual on using EPA
recommended recreational water quality indicators •
(enterococci and B. coS) to assess beach water quality. EPA
will continue to work with state and local officials, and
health professionals to improve the quality and consistency
of monitoring and reporting beach water conditions and
to improve and increase communications with the public.
Conserving and Enhancing the Nation's Waters
In die latest national inventory of water quality
summarized below, states, tribes, territories, and
interstate commissions report that about 40 percent
of the US. streams, lakes, and estuaries assessed (about
32 percent of all U.S. waters) were not clean enough to
support uses like fishing and swimming. The leading
pollutants in impaired waters are sediment, bacteria,
nutrients, and metals. Runoff from agricultural lands
and urban areas is the primary source of these
pollutants.
SUMMARY PROFILE: 1998 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY REPORT TO CONGRESS
Waterbody Type
River (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (sq. miles)
Total Size
3,662,225
41,593,748
90,465
Amount Assessed
(% of Total)
842,426 (23%)
17,390,370 (42%)
28,687 (32%)
Good*
(% of Assessed)
463,441 (55%)
7,927,486 (46%)
13,439 (47%)
Good but
Threatened*
{% of Assessed) I
85,544 (10%)
1,565,175 (9%)
2,766 (10%)
Polluted*
% of Assessed)
291,264 (35%)
7,897,110(45%)
12,482 (44%)
* Includes waterbodies assessed is not attainable for one or more uses. Note: percentages may not add up 10 100% due to rounding.
I
11-16
EPAs FY 2000 Annual Report
-------
The CWAP calls for states to identify, from among
the 2,262 watersheds nationwide, those high priority
watersheds for which restoration plans will be
developed and actions taken to restore water quality.
For FY 2000 EPA established an ambitious goal of
having improvement projects underway in 350, or about
40 percent, of the 889 high-priority watersheds
identified by states through last year's unified watershed
assessments. Funded largely through increased grants
to states for implementation of nonpoint source
controls, projects are underway in 324 high priority
watersheds. This is slightly short of EPA's goal, but
indicates a significant promise of real water quality
improvements in impaired watersheds.
State and tribal water quality standards represent
water quality goals for each water body and establish
the regulatory groundwork for the water quality-based
controls (such as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits) necessary to
protect human and ecological health. In FY 2000 the
Agency issued guidance to assist states and tribes in
assessing the biological health of their waters and
recommended new criteria that could be incorporated
into existing standards to control nutrients and disease-
causing microorganisms. During FY 2000 EPA
completed new methods for sediment toxicity testing
and compiled information on the food chain effects
of contaminated sediments. EPA also issued a revised
methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria
to protect human health. The methodology provides
guidance to states and tribes to develop criteria and
describes the Agency's process for developing national
criteria. In FY 2000 EPA acted on new water quality
standard submissions for 35 states and 16 tribes. This
total did not meet the FY 2000 goal of 22 tribes because
tribes have not yet been approved as expected for
"treatment as a state" which is a pre-condition of being
approved to run a tribal water quality standards
program. In addition some extended consultations
delayed the submission of tribal water quality standards.
During FY 2000 states and EPA made significant
progress toward commitments on core performance
measures for determining the sources of pollution and
designing clean-up plans, known as Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs). This program is the framework
for working in partnership cooperatively with the states
to clean up America's polluted waterways under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Under existing authorities of
the 2,674 water segments previously identified by states
as being polluted and needing TMDLs in FY 2000,
states submitted TMDLs for 2,167. EPA approved
1,276 TMDLs submitted by states, and EPA established
166 TMDLs. The number of TMDLs submitted is
greater than the number of TMDLs approved, primarily
due to the large number of TMDLs submitted for non-
impaired waters under CWA Section 303(d)(3), which
does not require either approval or disapproval by EPA.
In July 2000 EPA issued a final rule addressing the
national TMDL program.
EPA continued work to support focused coastal
watershed protection activities through efforts in the
28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. In
addition the Agency completed two ocean dumping site
designation actions, including a proposed rule to
designate an ocean disposal site off Coos Bay, Oregon,
and the final designation of the Atchafalaya River,
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black disposal sites off the
Louisiana coast.
Understanding the scope and quality of our nation's
wedands continues to be a top program priority for
EPA. Wedands play a pivotal role in ensuring watershed
health by filtering contaminants, controlling flooding,
and serving as a critical habitat for many species of
plantsand animals. In FY 2000 EPA met its goal of
four more states that made significant progress toward
establishing a wedands monitoring program. EPA also
continued working with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to make the wedands permitting program
more environmentally protective, including funding the
National Academy of Sciences to study the effectiveness
of compensatory mitigation in the wetlands permitting
program.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Partners have been
working to restore water quality and key habitats for
the Bay's living resources. Underwater grass beds are a
vital habitat for fish, crabs, and other bay creatures. The
grasses also serve as a nursery habitat for many fish
species. The table displays the trend in Bay grass acreage.
From 1985 to 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Partners restored over 31,000 acres of Bay grass beds,
contributing significantly to the current total level of
68, 125 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Although the Agency's FY 2000 target of 71,500 was
not achieved, increases are expected to continue as
overall water quality improves.
a
s
FY 2000 GPRA Performance
ii-i?
-------
600
Chesapeake Bay Grass Restoration
Potential Habitat (600,000 acres)
Interim Goal (114,000 acres) *
I
78 79 60 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 B9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
The effects of population increases and settlement
shifts to coastal areas represent a particular challenge
in the Gulf of Mexico region. In FY 2000 EPA's Gulf
of Mexico Program, through the leadership of the five
gulf states, teamed with numerous coastal communities,
environmental organizations, and business and industry
leaders to assist in the restoration of 31 impaired coastal
water bodies.
In addition, in FY 2000 the Gulf Program's
innovative public and private partnerships resulted in a
threefold increase in assistance to the states and coastal
communities for projects.to restore their coastal
watersheds. New projects included protection and
restoration of more than 800 acres of important
seagrass and coastal wetland habitats, and significant
results have been achieved through Gulf Five Star
Restoration Partnership projects.
Reducing Pollutant Loadings
Reducing Point Source Pollution
A key element of the Agency's efforts to achieve
its overarching goal of clean and safe water is the
reduction of pollutant discharges from point sources
and nonpoint sources. Under the NPDES program,
specific limits are set for pollutants discharged from
point sources into waters of the United States. These
limits are designed to ensure that national technology-
based standards (effluent limitations and guidelines) and
water quality-based requirements are adequate to meet
water quality standards throughout the country. In
support of this effort, a number of activities took place
in FY 2000, including the following:
• Rulemakings to address wet weather pollution
include: (1) promulgation of a final regulation
addressing storm water discharges (the Storm Water
Phase II Final Rule) which are a leading cause of
impairment for the nation's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries; and (2) development of draft proposed
rules for sanitary sewer overflows, after an extensive
stakeholder process.
• Implementation of an aggressive strategy to reduce
the backlog of NPDES permits in regions and
states (see below). Nationwide, at the end of
FY 2000 approximately 70 percent of NPDES
permits were current. This represents a 16 percent
increase over the 54 percent that were current as
of November 1998. Eleven states are already below
the ten percent backlog target, and a total of 18'
states are on track to meet the target by December
31,2001. At the end of FY 2000,44.3 percent (285)
of the 644 total EPA issued permits for major point
sources were expired; 78.2 percent (1,603) of the
2,140 EPA issued permits for minor point sources
were expired. Of 6,115 state-issued permits for
major point sources, 26.2 percent (1,603) were
expired, and of 49,672 state-issued permits for
minor point sources, 15,563 or 31.3 percent were
expired. The Agency will continue to work with
regions and states to ensure that they take more
aggressive steps to meet the 2005 corrective action
date.
• Continued work on new guidance and standards
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs) to mitigate actual and potential water
quality impacts from thousands of CAFOs. The
largest may have as many as a million animals at
one facility. Manure from stockpiles, lagoons, or
excessive land application can reach waterways
through runoff, erosion, spills, or via ground water.
These discharges can result in excessive nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), oxygen-
depleting substances, and other pollutants in the
water. This pollution can kill fish and shellfish, cause
excess algae growth, harm marine mammals, and
contaminate drinking water.
Providing vital financial support for each of these
activities is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
11-18
ERVs FY 2000 Annual Report
-------
program (CWSRF). For FY 2000 the CWSRF made
nearly $4.1 billion available for nationwide construction
of wastewater treatment facilities. The repayments of
these project loans keeps the funds "revolving" and
continually working for American taxpayers. For
FY 2000 the CWSRF program continued to encourage
use of state Integrated Priority Planning Systems to
target new projects at each state's most pressing
pollution control needs. Since CWSRF financing began
in 1988, more than $30 billion in pollution control
financing has been provided to help achieve water
quality standards.
In FY 2000 EPA promulgated four new effluent
limitation guidelines for the landfill, commercial
hazardous waste combustor, transportation equipment
cleaning, and centralized waste treatment industries,
which should result in combined pollution reduction
benefits of more than 65 million pounds of pollutants
per year. The Agency also proposed a rule to prevent
large fish kills at cooling water intakes at new facilities
and issued the 2000 Effluent Guidelines Plan, which
outlined a new strategy for future regulation. EPA
published a final test procedure for cyanide that will
help NPDES permit writers set limits and help regulated
facilities demonstrate compliance with those limits.
Strengthening State Nonpoint Source Programs
For the last several years, EPA has been working
with states to upgrade and strengthen their nonpoint
source control programs. In FY 2000 EPA completed
draft guidelines for management of on-site wastewater
treatment ("septic") systems and began a major outreach
effort to help states support these guidelines. By the
end of FY 2000, 49 states had upgraded statewide
nonpoint source management programs approved by
EPA, exceeding the goal of 45 states. The states'
upgraded 319 nonpoint source grant programs have
each established specific goals and objectives that are
related in large part to long-term goals to restore the
quality of impaired waters over a given time period
(usually about 15 years). They emphasize partnerships,
operating in both watershed and statewide contexts, as
appropriate, to accomplish their program goals. States
focused one-half of their nonpoint source grants ($100
million) for implementation of watershed restoration
strategies that are designed to address their most critical
water quality problems. In FY 2000 EPA encouraged
states to use the CWSRF for nonpoint source pollution
control, including watershed restoration projects. As
of June 30,2000,28 states had provided a total of $1.2
billion for some 2,100 nonpoint source pollution
control projects since the beginning of the program.
SUMMARY OF FY 2000 PERFORMANCE
During FY 2000, EPA, states, and tribes made
significant strides in addressing core challenges in the
water program. Public participation increased in many
parts of the water program. These engaged citizens
are vital to achieving our shared watershed goals. EPA
will continue to support states and tribes as they
encourage more community engagement in decisions
about environmental resources and other actions which
affect human health and the environment. EPA will
continue to develop and improve the program tools
such as standards, permits, public information, and
resources which help communities to achieve their goals.
STRENGTHENING PROGRAM INTEGRITY
THROUGH IMPROVED MANAGEMENT
EPA is continuing to implement an aggressive
strategy to reduce the backlog of NPDES permits. The
success of this strategy is critical to the Agency's ability
to maintain the integrity of the NPDES program and,
ultimately, to make progress toward achieving the overall
loadings reduction goal. As of October 2000 about
70 percent of NPDES permits are current. This
represents an improvement of 16 percent from the
backlog measured in November 1998 (54 percent). Over
the past year, the Agency has taken steps to ensure that
regions and states take more aggressive steps to meet
the 2005 corrective action date;
The Agency completed a comprehensive evaluation
of the water quality standards program and took several
actions to help eliminate the backlog in EPA approvals/
disapprovals of state water quality standards
submissions. As of October 2000 EPA was overdue in
approving or disapproving 45 new or revised standards
from 21 states and six tribes, and had yet to promulgate
19 sets of federal replacement standards for 15 states
that have not corrected the portions of their standards §[
previously disapproved. Backlogs in EPA water quality ^
standards actions delay timely decisions to control =
environmental problems, increase uncertainty, and £
reduce credibility. EPA placed the highest priority on ^
resolving the outstanding disapprovals and unreviewed 5
FY 2000 GPRA Performance
11-19
-------
§
I
standards and made considerable progress in FY 2000.
The Agency is also working to identify and eliminate
the problems that generated the backlogs and other
problems. These efforts include conducting an
evaluation of the water quality standards program;
working with states to develop a joint strategy to
improve the water quality standards development,
review, and approval process; and continuing work
toward finalizing a Memorandum of Agreement on
coordinating implementation of the CWA and the
Endangered Species ACL
EPA is in the process of implementing a multi-
step action plan to enhance and improve the
completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data in the
Agency's Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS). Human health protection is at risk when the
Agency does not have reliable and comprehensive data
to ensure that safe drinking water is being provided by
all public drinking water systems. During FY 2000 the
Agency developed and implemented state-specific
training for data entry into SDWIS, conducted data
verification audits in 12 states, and developed a new
transaction processing and tracking report In addition,
the Agency initiated efforts to develop a long-term
Information Strategy Plan that addresses drinking water
data collection and data management issues over the
next 5 to 10 years.
Please see Section III - Management'Atcomplishments and
Challenges for a further discussion of the above issues.
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
Goal 2-related research conducted in FY 2000
continued to strengthen the scientific basis for drinking
water standards by providing improved methods and
new data to better evaluate and control the risks
associated with exposure to chemical and microbial
contaminants in drinking water. To support the SDWA
and its 1996 amendments, EPA's drinking water research
program focused on the development of health effects
data, analytical tools, and risk assessment methods for
disinfectant by-products (DBPs), waterborne
pathogens, and arsenic. The Agency also continued to
develop and evaluate cost-effective treatment
technologies for removing pathogens from water
supplies while minimizing DBF formation, and for
maintaining the quality of treated water in the
distribution system. Increased emphasis was placed on
filling key data gaps and developing methods for
chemicals and microbial pathogens on the Contaminant
Candidate List.
Research in FY 2000 evaluated exposures to
stressors and their effects on aquatic systems and will
improve the Agency's understanding of the structure,
function, and characteristics of those systems. This
research will be used to improve risk assessment
methods to develop aquatic life, habitat, and wildlife
criteria. The Agency is also developing assessment
methods and cost-effective management technologies
for contaminated sediments, with an emphasis on
identifying innovative in situ solutions. In FY 2000 EPA
continued to develop diagnostic tools to evaluate the
exposures to toxic constituents of wet weather flows.
The Agency also continued to develop and validate
effective watershed management strategies for
controlling wet weather flows, especially high-volume,
toxic flows. Research was also conducted to develop
the effective beach evaluation tools necessary to make
timely and informed decisions on beach advisories and
closures.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The General Accounting Office conducted a study
on the states' ability to implement increasing drinking
water program requirements. The final report of the
study was released at a congressional hearing held on
September 19, 2000, by the Subcommittee on Health
and the Environment of the House Committee on
Commerce (www.gao.gov, Report T-RCED-00-298).
Prior to the release of GAO's report, EPA and the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA) agreed on actions to take in FY 2001 to
address this issued EPA will work with ASDWA and
states to determine each state's program status,
particularly to identify barriers and common problems.
EPA's regions will then work with individual states to
address barriers that are hindering each state's ability to
fully meet SDWA goals. EPA headquarters is working
with regions to share lessons learned about how to
simplify and improve implementation of drinking water
regulations. EPA plans to continue its effort to reduce
monitoring and data collection burdens while still
collecting adequate high quality data to meet essential
program needs.
11-20
EP.Vs FY 2000 Annual Report
-------
In addition to external studies, in FY 2000 EPA
conducted several internal reviews which expanded its
ability to use evaluation to strengthen program
management to achieve the goals of clean and safe
water. EPA assessed the process of developing,
reviewing and approving state water quality standards.
These state-adopted standards describe how water
bodies will be used and contain the water quality criteria
that must be met to protect those designated uses.
Developing standards is primarily a state function. EPA's
role is to review, in appropriate consultation with the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (the Services), and affirm that the state
standards meet the requirements of the CWA. The
standards review and approval process has been
criticized for being too slow and inefficient. EPA
conducted a thorough nationwide evaluation of the
program to identify the causes and recommend
solutions that will improve EPA's approval process and
assure that standards are based on sound science and
that states have determined appropriate designated uses
and criteria for monitoring. The evaluation found that
statutory and programmatic differences, lack of
sufficient resources and technical expertise, inefficient
coordination and communication, and lack of clear and
consistent national guidance all contributed to the
problem. EPA is implementing several of .the
recommendations. In early FY 2001 the Agency will
enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Services to streamline the now complex and time-
consuming review procedures related to the-
Endangered Species Act. The Agency also expects to
complete a strategy for implementing other study
recommendations during the latter part of FY 2001.
EPA completed an internal evaluation of the
National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, to
determine whether this voluntary program is statistically
effective and whether the program design remains valid.
Preliminary results suggest that the program will meet
its original goals of measuring the amount of marine
debris on U.S. coasts and identifying the sources of the
debris. EPA is partnering with the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC) on this project. Summarized data
sets are available on CMC's web site at http://
www.crnc-ocean.org/nrndrnp and are user friendly
for local, state, regional, and nationwide stakeholders.
EPA conducted an internal evaluation of regional
oversight of state NPDES programs in Regions 3 and
4. These internal reports recommended that the regions
build consistency in resolving issues by using tools such
as central tenets listing conditions for permit
disapproval, time lines for comment and response, staff
training and support, and tracking/management
systems.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2000
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2001 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
FY 2001 performance goals and measures will
continue to evolve, reflecting EPA's increasing ability
to measure and/or represent water quality and its
contributions to human health and healthy aquatic
ecosystems, as well as its value as a natural resource.
For example, in FY 2001 EPA will report for the first
time on the increased number of whole watersheds
whose assessed waters largely meet designated uses.
FY 2001 measures will display the continuing progress
being made in maintaining the population served by
water systems receiving safe drinking water (even as
systems incorporate new health-based standards). The
Agency has met its FY 2000 performance goal of
another two million people receiving the benefits of
secondary treatment (see Annual Performance Goal
(APG) # 16), so that nearly all of the population served
by publicly owned treatment works receive the benefits
of secondary treatment or better. Beginning in 2001,
EPA will report the number of CWSRF projects funded
as a performance measure. In addition EPA expects in
2001 to increase the number of waters for which
TMDLs have been developed and to increase the
number of updated water quality standards.
EPA's 2001 goals also reflect the fact that a complete
baseline of information for many programs is not yet
available, and that a number of our most important
programs depend on significant voluntary efforts on
the parts of states and other partners. Targets for 2001
include increasing the percentage of waters assessed
for meeting water quality standards for designated uses,
waters assessed for the need for fish advisories, and
beaches where monitoring and notification of the public
takes place. Resource constraints as well as overlapping
or conflicting program requirements mean that
meaningful monitoring and reporting remain challenges.
States and tribes increased their efforts in these areas
in FY 2000, and EPA expects them to continue to
FY 2000 GPRA Performance
11-21
-------
improve in 2001. EPA will continue to work with
partners to support better standards and testing,
monitoring and reporting, and provision of the resulting
information to the public quickly, clearly, and accurately.
TABLES OF RESULTS
The following tables of results includes
performance results for the FY 2000 APGs that appear
in Goal 2. In cases where the FY 2000 APG is associated
with an FY 1999 APG, the table includes the FY 1999
APG below the FY 2000 APG for ease in comparing
performance. Where applicable, the tables note cases
where FY 2000 APGs are supported by National
Environmental Performance Partnership System Core
Performance Measures (CPMs). As described in more
detail in Section I of the report (the Overview and
Analysis), states use CPMs to evaluate their progress
toward mutual program goals. Additionally, EPA is
providing information on FY 1999 APGs for which
data •was not available when the FY 1999 report was
published as well as those FY 1999 APGs that are not
associated with any APGs in FY 2000.
11-22 EPA's FY 2000 Annual Report
-------
. FY 2000 Annual Report
Annual Performance Goals and Measures - Table of Results
Summary FY 2000 Performance
LrJiyiet L£JrtotM*t [OJo
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
•^^•M^B^
FY2000
Planned
Actual
•MMM
FY1999
Actual
BY 2005; PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH SO THAT 95% OFTHE POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY WATER .
'"" - SYSTEMS WILL RECEIVE WATER THAT MEETS DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, CONSUMPTION OF * -
CONTAMINATED FISH AND SHELLFISH WILL BE REDUCED, AND EXPOSURE TO MICROBIAL AND OTHER ;
•• , FORMS OF CONTAMINATION IN WATERS USED FOR RECREATION WILL BE REDUCED.
FY 2000 APG 9: 91% of the population served by community drinking water systems
In effect as of 1994, up from 83% In 1994. •» Corresponds with FY 2000
NEPPS Core Performance Measure.
(FY 1999) 89% (increase of 1% over 1998) of the population served by community
water systems will receive drinking water meeting all health-based standards .
in effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994.
Explanation: Goal met.
Date Source: The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) serves as the central
repository for data on both the states' implementation of and compliance with
existing and new drinking water regulations. States and EPA regions {for
"direct implementation" jurisdictions) enter data representing public water
systems characteristics and drinking water monitoring into the SDWIS
database.
Data Quality: SDWIS has a full suite of software-based edit checks and quality assurance
procedures to aid accurate data entry. However, there are recurrent reports
of discrepancies between national and state data bases, as well as specific
mis-identifications reported by individual utilities. Given the particular need
for confidence in the completeness and accuracy of data about drinking water
quality, ERA designated SDWIS content as an Agency material weakness in •
1999, under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
FY 2000 APG 10: Reduce exposure to contaminated recreational waters by increasing
the Information available to the public and decision-makers.
Performance Measures
- Cumulative number of beaches for which monitoring and closure data is available at
"beaches" web-page.
- Number of digitized maps on the web-page.
Explanation: Goal met. The additional electronic information enables the public to
precisely locate beach closings, reducing exposure to contaminated
recreational waters.
Data Source: The National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Information Management
System database.
Data Quality: Sett-reported data for public use; participation is voluntary and presently
incomplete. Therefore no rigorous quality assurance requirements are in
place. Inconsistencies between different reporting jurisdictions are possible.
91%
1,800
150
91%
1,981
150
91%
.No
FY1999
APG '
FY 2000 GPRA Pcrfomancc
11-23
-------
1
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
FY 2000 APQ 1 1 : Reduce uncertainties and improve methods associated with the
evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to disinfection
by-products (DBPs) In drinking water.
(FY 1999) ERA will develop critical dose-response data tor disinfection by-products
(DBPs), water-home pathogens, and arsenic tor addressing key uncertainties
in the risk assessment of municipal water supplies.
Performance Measures
- Report regarding feasibility of refined DBF exposure data for previous epidemiological studies.
- Report on new DBPs from alternative disinfectants.
- Final peer-reviewed report on selected DBF mixtures' lexicological endpoints.
Explanation: Goal met. EPA completed methods for improving the interpretation of data
from published DBF epidemiology studies, and reports that provide important
information about new DBPs in drinking water, and the risks that may be
posed by exposures to mixtures of these contaminants.
Data Source: Agency generated material.
Data Quality: As required by the Agency-wide formal peer review policy issued in 1993,
and reaffirmed in 1994 and 1998, all major scientific and technical work
products used in Agency decision making are independently peer reviewed
before their use. EPA has implemented a rigorous process of peer review for
both its in-house and extramural research programs. Peer review panels
include scientists and engineers from academia, industry, and other federal
agencies.
FY 2000 APG 12: Reduce uncertainties and improve methods associated with the
evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to microblal
contaminants in drinking water.
(FY 1999) ERA will develop critical dose-response data for disinfection by-products
(DBPs), water-borne pathogens, and arsenic tor addressing key uncertainties
in the risk assessment of municipal water supplies.
Performance Measures
- Describe different technologies of cost/effective control of Cryptosporidium and DBPs.
- Report on U. S. waterborne disease outbreaks.
- Evaluation of Method 1622 for Cryptosporidium.
Explanation: Goal met. EPA completed reports on the nature and magnitude of waterborne
disease outbreaks in trie United States during 1997-1998 and on an
evaluation of a key method for the identification of Cryptosporidium in
drinking water, directly helping to reduce uncertainties and improve methods
associated with the evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to
microbial contaminants in drinking water. A project to evaluate cost-effective
treatment methods for Cryptosporidium and DBPs was not completed due to
insufficient time being allotted for the completion of this research. However,
EPA completed complementary projects, such as a research progress report
on biofilm (microbial communities growing on the confining surfaces of a
distribution system) formation and control which will provide useful
information on protecting distribution systems. In this way EPA appreciably
met the performance goal.
Data Source: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
Data Quality: Same as FY 2000 APG 11.
FY2000
Planned
1
1
1
9/30/00
1
1
Actual
1
1
1
1
1
FY1999
Actual
9/30/99
9/30/99
11-24
EPfe FY2000 Annual Report
-------
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
FY2000
Planned
Actual
FY1999
Actual
, CONSERVE AND ENHANCE THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OFTHE NATION'S (STATE, INTERSTATE,
- ANDTRIBAL) WATERS AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS-RIVERS AND STREAMS, LAKES, WETLANDS; ESTUARIES,
- COASTAL AREAS, OCEANS, AND GROUNDWATER-SO THAT 75% OF WATERS WILL SUPPORT HEALTHY v-'
-•'"•, > - * ' AQUATOCOMMUNmESBYSSOgS. ; V;-* ^:y^^^:->:^~.^-^i\-
FY 2000 APG 13: -Environmental improvement projects will be underway In 350 high
priority watersheds as a result of Implementing activities under Clean
Water Action Plan (CWAP).
(FY 1999) As part of the CWAP. all states will be conducting or have completed unified
watershed assessments, with support from EPA, to identify aquatic resources
In greatest need of restoration or prevention activities.
Explanation: Goal not met. Environmental improvement projects underway in 324 high
priority watersheds, which is slightly short of EPA's ambitious goal. The goal
is for FY 2000 only, to be superseded in FY 2001 by a direct measure of the
number ol large-scale watersheds showing improvements in water quality.
Data Source: Internal Agency count.
Data Quality: There are no data quality issues.
FY 2000 APG 14: Assure that states and tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality •
standards programs adopted In accordance with the Water Quality
Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards (WQSs) program
priorities.
Performance Measures
- Number of states .with new or revised WQSs that EPA either approved, or disapproved .and
promulgated replacements.
.- Cumulative number of tribes with approved WQSs in place.
Explanation: Goal not met. State WQS reviews are under a 3-year cycle, as mandated by
the Clean Water Act, under which all states maintain updated water quality
programs; therefore, the Agency will review approximately one-third of all
state/tribal programs each year. Fewer tribes than expected have achieved
treatment as a state" status, which is a pre-condition for being approved to
run a WQS program. EPA is committed to improving the Agency's review and
approval process for "treatment as a state" to address this barrier. In FY 2001
ERA expects to implement a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to greatly
improve the timeliness and effectiveness of cross-agency coordination in the
WQS review and approval process. EPA will also provide additional technical
assistance to tribes to help them develop better WQSs.
Data Source: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 3.
Data Quality: Same as FY 2000 APG 13.
FY 2000 APG 15: Identify the primary life support functions of surface waters that
contribute to the management of sustainablllty of watersheds.
(FY 1999) EPA will provide data and information for use by states and Regions in
assessing and managing aquatic stressors in trra watershed, to reduce toxic
loadings and improve ecological risk assessment.
Performance Measure
- Research strategy document to determine the impact of landscape changes on wetland
structure and function.
Explanation: Goal met. The completed work evaluated specific habitats such as wetlands,
riparian areas, headwaters, and estuaries to determine their basic function
and role in the landscape. This information will allow EPA to determine what
makes these habitats critical and will provide a basis for prioritizing protection
and restoration decisions.
350
15
22
1
324
35
16
1
56
No
FY1999
APG
9/30/99
Q
a
CPRA Performance
II-25
-------
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
FY2000
Planned Actual
FY1999
Actual
Data Source:
Data Quality:
Same as FY 2000 APG 11.
Same as FY 2000 APG 11.
BY 2005, POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM KEY POINT SOURCES AND NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF WILL BE
REDUCED BY AT LEAST 20% FROM 1992 LEVELS. AIR DEPOSITION OF KEY POLLUTANTS IMPACTING WATER
"- "- BODIES WILL BE REDUCED. V
FY 2000 APG 16: Another two million people will receive the benefits of secondary
treatment of wastewater, for a total of 181 million people.
(FY 1999) Another 3.4 million people will receive the benefits of secondary treatment of
wastewater, tor a total of 179 million.
Explanation: Goal met. Currently nearly all of the nation's population is served by publicly
owned treatment works with secondary treatment or better.
Data Source: Manual system. Extracted from EPA databases including the Clean Water
Needs Survey Database and the Permits Compliance System.
Data Quality: Data are manually verified.
2M
2M
3.4 M
FY 2000 APG 17: Industrial discharges of pollutants to the nation's waters will be
significantly reduced through implementation of effluent guidelines.
Performance Measures
- Cumulative reduction in toxic-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
- Cumulative reduction in conventional-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
- Cumulative reduction in non-conventional-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
Explanation: Goal met. EPA substantially met the goal of reducing industrial discharges of
the three classes of pollutants. Targets were based on model projections of
effluent guidelines, having to estimate both the facility universe and the
number of permits developed. The actual number of issued permits in
different industry sectors resulted in greater than expected reductions in
conventional pollutants, and less than expected reductions in
non-conventional pollutants.
Data Source: The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is the principle compliance tracking
system governing EPA's supervision of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. It contains data from EPA and
states on Wastewater facility NPDES permits.
Data Quality: Ongoing quality action/quality control safeguards include EPA review of state
databases that serve as key data sources. However, there are known
inconsistencies between state/federal records, particularly for minor facilities,
and previous EPA Office of Inspector General audits have discussed the
need for fresher data. EPA is engaged in a major modernization of the PCS
system and databases.
No
FY1999
APG
4Mlbs
385 M Ibs
260 M Ibs
4Mlbs
473 M Ibs
136 MIbs
1
FY 2000 APG 18: Develop modeling, monitoring, and risk management methods that
enable planners and regulatory officials to more accurately characterize
receiving and recreational water quality and to select appropriate
control technologies.
(FY 1999) By 2003: Deliver support tools, such as watershed models, enabling resource
planners to select consistent, appropriate watershed management solutions
and alternative, less costly wet-weather flow control technologies.
Performance Measure
- Link urban storm water management models to a Geographic Information System (G1S).
Target
year is
FY2003
11-26
EPAs FY2000 Annual Report
-------
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Explanation: Goal met. EPA met this goal by completing research (inking urban storm
water management models to a geographic information system, which will
assist in the development of improved safety guidelines and pollution
indicators that states, local municipalities, and tribes can use to monitor
recreational waters in a cost-effective way. Improving the characterization of
recreational water quality will provide important input to the development of
guidance in state, tribal, and local implementation of beach monitoring and
notification programs designed to reduce human exposure to waterborne
microbiais and protect the public health.
Data Source: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
Data Quality: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
FY2000
Planned
Actual
FY1999
Actual
FY 1999 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
(NO LONGER REPORTED FOR FY 2000)
EPA will issue and begin implementing two protective drinking water standards for high-risk contaminants, including
disease-causing micro-organisms (Stage I Disinfection/Disinfection By-products and Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rules).
4,400 community water systems will be implementing programs to protect their source water (an increase of 1,650
systems over 1998).
EPA will provide funding to restore wetlands and river corridors in 30 watersheds that meet specific "Five Star Project"
criteria relating to diverse community partnerships (for a cumulative total of 44 watersheds).
More than 220 communities will have local watersheds improved by controls on combined sewer overflows (CSO) and
storm water.
In support of the Clean Water Action Plan, ten additional states will upgrade their nonpoint source programs, to ensure
that they are implementing dynamic and effective nonpoint source programs that are designed to achieve and maintain
beneficial uses of wafer.
GFRA Performance 11-27
-------
-------
•5
3
I
8
i
I
I
i
|E5
^feS
;g;
1?
Sill
if!!
|I ^l §
"cSS?
ma aj ou.
|
9
11=
i
s S.2S.J
iiiii*
SS»*t!
JDi
0;
—a i
!K]1 *
is.
HI
is .
!
[_ _ _ _ ^ _ _
!
ifl
«fi
sii
II
gg.e
HI
.9
*fc
r
•5
S
ill
I
IT
I}!
•81
M
•5
J6
S
-------
•5
3
I
IE
I 1
__)___
I
t
if
ll
II
ill
~
o3
S
»g
ll
sl
ll
II
§o
I
oi
it
—
a."
if
!!
s
I
ll
il
is
8
111!
iifl
*-o
s
•5
«fr|
Hi
-£ = **.
*5«l
s||l
II
llfl
-JO Eu.
IT
i
-------
i
^
id
_______ _____ —
I
I
Pill
I
1
•8
«t
I
i
1
13
II
.11
ifl
'?!
teg
o1
i
JSf
I!
§
o
.E
.6
I
£
•5
I
S
•s
I
I]
1
H
"si
II
HI
iil'J
i
.
f
si
ILIJ I
i
II*
Pis
HIS
iiii
5-c'SB
• 6
i
I ill
iSf-8
1
ol
tsfii-
iilffi
S°.?lt?
Ir-'^ll
S5
m
.i
c
-------
I
-
II I
A
I
I
i
i
i
55*
SI
si
i**
5a*
up!
BS"!
1*3
°.ss
Ill
' ^2°* c
SScl?
IsiS-li
sis
I'll
t-88
i
IJ
!i fe
III
fit
Pi
is
-------
i!
1
P
it
iff!
hi
5#" !*•
ill!
III!
2L£ o j-
l|l|
lllll
I
'E
i
8"^
Is
am
lfi
.
I
III
III
* E "5
-
il
!i
1
,£
.0
1
-------
i
UJ
1
I
I
Si
I
i
-II
i
II
a
a?
ii
ii
-a*
II
• 4 - - *• •
i
i!
si
S
e
^;
°TjSi
lit
111
2
I
•5
i
i
I
i
i
14
ii
ill
lit
BiMl
i
il|
III
i
I
C o
11
I!
11
"
-------
B
S.
•:
i
H
I!
Jj
\l\
K
I
2
S
»
I
c
H
I
II
s
8
ill
ti
s £
s .9 5
f
i
-------
B
3.
I
I
I
i
i
I
III"
11.
1
I
I
i
I
h-- —
/
—
I
I
8.
•si-
's
i
B
5
I
.1
I
«
i
i
I"
S
o
-------
is
9
I
I
I*. I
I
i
If.
$
9
I
8
CJ
Jl
ife!
«-§
«t
|
i
f
II
I
ill
JPri
81]
IfS
fD __ C
»S§
ff
llllli
. •• =>.--«•
_ -— V,
III
1_O1 n
Scftf-.
hit!
£ E
Illl
Hit
CSS!
-------
I
!i
f!
is il
Z'iss
•00) ,
•S-i
Ml!
r
i
I
s
i
.5
|
|o
h
it
28
1*
*s
li!
Ifi
-
•il
8
o
_#
£
*
€
II
£•8
I"
H|
Il
l£
>i
I
51
i 1
! 1
II
& -5
i !
1!
UJ _.
S 1
;,i
Ill
o . °
f
b
i
I
"*
if!!!
1s
-------
•8
5
#1"
Si I
m
*!S
H*
Is!
'S>£
i
II
I
_^.3_.
*sa
lilt
53 ^ oc
!!§!
B ra A TJ
§M 5
-£?
^5i
i
u
1]
si!
g«
§11
ill
H*
*ll-
flii
i
I
I
I
3
.1 S
IPS
Hi
II!
SgE
§8
i
i
1
II!
il
lll
llfL
t
i
i_ _ _
111! i
ilit1
i
.ii:
i!
•B!
§8
Sa
-------
I
in
t
•B
3
&
.1
i
i
Illll
IliP
Iftli
'"-1 "S "D
m ?£ c S
Hi II
g*£^J^QS 0-2^
g
2
i
O
8(
Is;
i
i
fliii
2 8
5~5
O C3
I1
If
'&.E
if
£ S
l!i
ft
ll.
ll
-------
•5
s.
•3
1
lit
sl
ii
Iff
III
||
ft
I!
•B.S
« P
fl
«^
||
1*
S S
5-5
o u
o
5
l
ii
ii
ll
3s-.
i^
§i
o
i
I
0.
-------
-------
Key Contacts
Section 9
-------
-------
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MA WG)
Regional Contacts
Region 1:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 7:
Region 8:
Region 9:
Region 10:
Paul Wintrob
Paul Molinari
Virginia Thompson
Wayne Aronson
Jennifer Conner
Dina Grinado
Reggie Kidwell
Cynthia Gonzales
Andrea Stone
Mike Schulz
Bevin Reid
(617) 918-1514
(212) 637-3886
(215)814-5755
(404) 562-9444
(312) 886-0201
(214) 665-6522
(913) 551-7332
(303) 312-6569
(303) 312-6254
f
(415) 744-1817
(206) 553-1566
Great Water Body Contacts
CBPO:
GLNPO:
GMPO:
Nita Sylvester
Mike Russ
Gloria Car
(410) 267-5711
(312) 886-4013
(228) 688-2421
Page9-3
-------
HQ Contacts
IO:
OGWDW:
OST:
OWM:
OWOW:
Tribal:
Marjorie Jones
Mike Weckesser
Clare Donaher
Will Bowman
Ted Johnson
Tim Gonzales
James Home
Elaine Brenner
Ben Lesser
Bob Brown
Dianne Briggs
Judy Hecht
(202) 260-4152
(202) 260-7949
(202) 260-5542
(202) 260-2798
(202) 260-8142
(202) 260-4586
(202) 564-0571
(202) 546-0649
(202) 564-0528
(202)260-9173
(202) 260-8852
(202) 260-5682
Note: Where two names are listed, lead contact is the first listed. All phone numbers are listed
in the Agency's LAN or Email directories.
Page 9-4
------- |