National Program Guidance
for the
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2000-01
U S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 320!
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
April 1999
-------
-------
— 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. —
- Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water as stated in the EPA Strategic Plan (September 1997)
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 1: Vision and Priorities for the National Water Program
Outline of the vision and priorities for the National Water Program.
Section 2: GPJKA 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
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: Commitment to Agency- Wide Priorities
Contains descriptions of three Agency-wide priorities that OW is highlighting to
encourage greater Headquarters, Regional, and Great Water Body participation
and integration into day-to-day activities.
Section 5: Management Agreement Instructions and Template
Instructions and template for the FY2000 Management Agreement (MA). The
template includes the FY2000 Annual Performance Goals and Measures and
Office of Water Tribal Strategy Goals.
Section 6: Core Performance Measures
Contains the Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under
NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and Applicability of Core Performance Measures, the
FY2000 Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for Water, and the sources of
information for the CPMs.
-------
Section 7: Timeline
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 8: Midyear and End-of-Year Reporting
Initial guidance for mid-year and end-of-year reporting and draft performance
report for FY99.
Section 9: Key Contacts
Contains lists of the Headquarters and Regional contacts for the Office of Water's
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MA WG) and Clean Water Action
Plan, the Indian Coordinators for various water programs, and the Regional Tribal
Program Managers/Coordinators.
u
-------
Introduction
Overview
This National Program Guidance for the Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2000-01 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 FY2000-01. 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 nine 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 3, 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, all of
the Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for FY2000 are included as part of the annual
performance measures (APMs) that are listed in the template. In Section 6, a list of just the
CPMs is provided for ease in identifying them from the longer list of annual performance goals
(APGs) and APMs contained in the template in Section 4.
Next Steps
Although this guidance is for FY2000-01, an update will be issued in draft by February 3,2000,
and in final by April 1,2000, to reflect changes that have occurred since the Guidance's initial
release. The update will include any anticipated revisions to strategic goals, objectives and
subobjectives resulting from the revision of the Agency Strategic Plan, new program office
guidances or strategies, the FY2001 MA template containing the FY2001 APGs and APMs, any
changes to the CPMs, and updated timelines and key contacts.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
in
-------
-------
Vision and Priorities for the
National Water Program
Section 1
-------
-------
WATER PROGRAM OVERVIEW
by
Assistant Administrator for Water
J. Charles Fox
Since being confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Water in October of last year, I
have had the pleasure of visiting almost every EPA region to meet with EPA, State, and Tribal
water program managers. I have had initial meetings with senior officials in other Federal
agencies and with diverse interest groups. And I have worked with the water program staff here
at Headquarters to move the National Water Program forward.
I am impressed by what the National Water Program has achieved and am looking
forward to continued success. We have solid — in some cases outstanding — accomplishments in
both the clean water and drinking water programs. We have strong, core statutory authorities in
the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act The steadfast advocacy by Administrator Carol Browner for protecting the
health of the American public has been instrumental in the success of our efforts to strengthen
protection of the Nation's water resources and drinking water. With Administrator Browner's
support, we have laid out a clear direction for the future — described in the Clean Water Action
Plan, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, and in our goals and objectives established
under the Government Performance and Results Act. I am confident that the course laid out in
these documents is right.
Accomplishing the ambitious agenda before us will require concentration, commitment,
and cooperation. Some have suggested to me that we have set our sights too high; I might agree
if the National Water Program did not have a long history of success. But, for over 25 years, the
water program managers and staff in EPA, States and Tribes have made steady progress toward
clean and safe water. We are a winning team; we have the know-how and the determination to
deliver steady, even dramatic, improvements in the Nation's water quality to the American
people within the foreseeable future.
In this Overview, I have described some of the key themes laid out in the Clean Water
Action Plan and the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments and the specific actions that we will
all be working on in the coming year to attain our clean water and drinking water goals.
I also have outlined some of my thoughts in three subject areas where I plan to focus a
good deal of my attention over the next year to support your efforts:
improving our ability to describe the condition of the Nation's waters to the
people of this country;
1-3
-------
building a consensus for expanded funding for clean and safe waters at all levels
of government; and
strengthening protection of critical estuarine and coastal waters where the vast
majority of Americans live and work.
CLEAN WATER
The Clean Water Act authorizes an essential set of core programs that are our foundation
for protecting and restoring water quality. Effluent guidelines provide national,
discharge standards for over fifty major industries. Water quality standards provide goals for
water quality restoration and protection. NPDES permits control discharges from over 100,000
pollution sources. State and local pretreatment programs assure that facilities discharging to
sewers provide appropriate levels of waste treatment. Revolving loan fund programs in each
State provide over $2 billion in financing for water pollution control projects each year and have
an overall value of over $27 billion. The national wetlands program under section 404 of the Act
is the primary defense of the nation's critical wetland resources.
In the Fall of 1997, EPA and other Federal agencies undertook to review clean water
efforts and develop a coordinated plan to build on core clean water programs with a new
commitment to action. In February of 1998, President Clinton announced the result of this
cooperative effort - a "Clean Water Action Plan." The Action Plan sets out clear goals for the
National clean water program. But, it also has generated other benefits. It resulted in expanded
State program grants. It provided a basis for new, cooperative relationships among diverse
Federal agencies. It provided a forum for Federal, State, and Tribal governments to work
together on clean water issues. And, it has helped rally public support for clean water programs.
The Action Plan has given the clean water program a big boost — we need to maintain the
momentum in the coming years.
The four key themes articulated in the Clean Water Action Plan almost a year ago still
provide sound guidance for the clean water program today.
Watershed Approach — We are well on our way to building the new,
cooperative effort to restore and sustain the health of rivers, lakes, costal waters
and wetlands on a watershed basis envisioned in the Clean Water Action Plan.
- Strong Federal, State and Tribal Standards - The Action Plan called for
improving State and Tribal standards as a key step toward protecting public
health, preventing polluted runoff and ensuring accountability.
1-4
-------
— Natural Resources Stewardship - Clean water depends on the conservation and
stewardship of the cropland, pasture, rangeland, and forests that are in private and
public hands; Federal natural resource agencies are essential to this effort.
Informed Citizens and Officials - Accurate and timely information about the
health of watersheds, beaches, fish, and drinking water is the foundation of a
sound and accountable clean water program.
Over the past year, Federal, State, Tribal and local governments have made good progress
implementing the ambitious agenda of over 100 action items described in the Clean Water
Action Plan. Some key accomplishments include:
— Unified Watershed Assessments - All States and Territories responded to the
Action Plan call for a unified and integrated assessment of the condition of their
watersheds.
- Draft Animal Feeding Operation Strategy - EPA and USDA jointly developed
a strategy for reducing water pollution from animal feeding operations (AFOs)
and conducted over a dozen listening sessions around the country.
Interim Approval of All Coastal States Non-point Source Programs. EPA
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conditionally approved
all 29 of the State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plans that were submitted.
— Nutrient Standards Strategy: EPA has developed a strategy for developing
nutrient criteria and standards that are tailored to specific needs of different kinds
of water bodies and different natural conditions found around the country.
— Drinking Water Source Protection: Federal agencies developed an agreement
to coordinate efforts to provide assistance to States, Tribes and local governments
hi developing comprehensive assessments and protection plans for sources -
rivers, lakes, and groundwater - that communities use for drinking.
— Beach Water Quality: EPA has completed a Beach Action Plan to help guide
local, State, tribal and federal efforts to improve beach monitoring programs.
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Strategy and Mercury Action Plan:
Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances, including mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin, pose serious dangers to ecosystems and public health. EPA has completed
a draft strategy with the goal of virtually eliminating 12 of the most dangerous
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances and has completed a draft plan
to address the health and ecosystem threats posed by mercury.
1-5
-------
Keeping the Nation's clean water program strong and effective over the next several years
will require that we work together to maintain our momentum in implementing the Clean Water
Action Plan and that we continue the effective implementation of the core programs that are the
foundation of the Action Plan. The specific details of much of this work are provided in the
guidance and policy documents described later in this report. Although all this work is
important, I will be paying special attention over the coming year to work in the following areas.
1) Watershed Restoration Action Strategies and TMDLs - As States complete
workplans for new clean water grant funds, they will use Unified Watershed
Assessments to identify impaired watersheds where they will develop Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies in FY 1999 and 2000. In many cases, Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies will be coordinated with the development of
TMDLs for impaired waters. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund will support
implementation of the Action Strategies. These Action Strategies are also an
opportunity to integrate efforts to protect water quality with our work to protect
sources of drinking water and wetlands. Federal agencies will support State
efforts to restore watershed health in the identified watersheds.
The development of site-specific strategies to restore the health of impaired waters
and watersheds is a bold, new step for the National Water Program. It is essential
that we support States in selecting watersheds for immediate attention and assist
them in following-through with good, practical action strategies for integrating
diverse program resources and authorities to restore watershed health. Having
environmental projects underway in 350 impaired watersheds most in need of
attention is one of our key annual performance goals for FY 2000.
2) AFO Strategy - This spring, EPA and USDA released a final, joint strategy for
reducing water pollution from animal feeding operations. About 5% of these
facilities (i.e. the largest facilities and those causing water pollution problems)
will be subject to Clean Water Act permits. EPA will provide States with
guidance and model permits for these facilities. It is critical that EPA Regions
work with States to develop State-specific strategies for permit issuance with the
goal of issuing CAFO general permits and selected individual permits this year.
3) Stonnwater Phase n - In the Fall of this year, EPA will publish final regulations
for control of stormwater runoff from municipalities and construction sites.
Permits for these facilities will complement the stormwater permits now in effect
for large cities and industrial facilities.
These new permits for stormwater and AFO sources, in combination with ongoing
efforts to reduce pollution from combined sewers (i.e. CSOs) and sanitary sewers
(i.e. SSOs), will result in significant reductions in the conventional pollutants (e.g.
sediment and nutrients) reported by States as the most common cause of today's
1-6
-------
water pollution problems. This work is critical to meeting our annual performance
goal of reducing discharges of conventional pollutants by 388 million pounds per
year from the 1992 baseline.
4) Smart Growth - The adoption of "smart growth" policies and implementation of
measures to preserve green space and other environmentally critical areas (e.g.
riparian areas, wetlands) can have major benefits for water quality. Several
national water program projects (e.g. TMDL regulations and stormwater
regulations) have the potential to encourage "smart growth" policies.
In addition, water programs need to play an active role in the supporting local
efforts to develop plans for use of "Better America Bonds" recently proposed by
President Clinton. This new bond initiative can provide a valuable new element
of financial plans for watershed restoration and protection.
5) Sanitary Sewer Overflows — About 40,000 times each year, sanitary sewers
overflow and release raw sewage to streets and waterbodies. To address this
problem, EPA plans to propose regulations to provide a clearer regulatory
framework, including standard permit conditions. Headquarters will need strong
support from Regions in developing and implementing this new effort.
6) Permit Backlog - The NPDES permit program is the backbone of our efforts to
protect water quality and it is critical that we have appropriate and timely permits
in place. However, permit reissuance backlogs are unacceptably high in many
areas. We need to address this situation this year.
7) Water Quality Standards Program Modernization - Strong water quality
standards that are based on sound science and reflect community involvement are
critical to the clean water program.
The Clean Water Action Plan also calls on EPA to publish guidance documents
describing methods for the development of numeric criteria for nutrients,
including target ranges applicable to different waterbodies and parts of the
country. As numeric nutrient criteria are adopted into water quality standards, we
will be better able to identify and address water pollution problems caused by
nutrients and focus controls for sources of nutrients.
EPA will also assure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, develop
guidance to better prevent degradation of waters that are now clean, support
improvement of water quality standards for Tribal waters, promulgate revised
methods for developing human health water quality criteria, and work with States
to complete formal adoption of State water quality standards.
1-7
-------
8) Upgrade State Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs - The Clean Water
Action Plan calls for State to upgrade statewide programs for controlling nonpoint
pollution to include the nine key elements agreed to by EPA and States by the year
2000, In addition, the Action Plan also calls for final approval of State coastal
nonpoint control programs by 2000. Strong programs for preventing nonpoint
pollution are critical to the success of the clean water program.
9) Protecting Water Resources in Indian Country - This past October, we
developed a new "Strategy for Protecting Public Health and Water Resources in
Indian Country." Near-term priorities identified in the Strategy include
establishing a tribal water program environmental presence and using a watershed
approach assessing water conditions and implement response programs.
10) Reinventing Clean and Safe Water Programs - Water program offices will
continue to support innovative approaches to reducing water pollution and
assuring safe drinking water. For example, proposed regulations for the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program will encourage "effluent trading" as a
way to meet clean water goals in a cost-effective manner.
SAFE DRINKING WATER
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 provide both the impetus for
substantial changes to the national drinking water program for EPA, States, Tribes, and water
utilities and greater protection and information to the 250 million Americans served by public
water systems. These changes set the course for the drinking water community (EPA, states,
Indian tribes, water utilities) to prepare for and address future drinking water safety challenges
and assure the sustainable availability of safe drinking water.
Four themes characterize the areas ot _reatest change. Together, they comprise a
balanced, integrated framework of reform and a major national commitment to protect public
health.
Public Right to Know — The Amendments greatly increase the ability of the
public to participate in drinking water protection decisions. We have worked hard
to include all of the drinking water community in our rulemakings, and with our
partners have produced major tools to keep the public well informed.
Focusing on Contaminants of Greatest Risk - The Amendments emphasize the
need for sound science and accurate data to support our regulatory decisions.
EPA has strengthened its ability to produce quality rulemakings by increasing
research and data collection, and by developing a process to identify the most
harmful contaminants.
1-8
-------
Funding and Tools To States and Water Systems - Funding from loans and
set-asides in the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) have
allowed states and water systems to improve their ability to provide safe drinking
water by upgrading, renovating, and modernizing their infrastructure. EPA has
also developed many tools that increase states' flexibility in implementing health-
based and program-related regulations.
— Pollution Prevention - A major theme of the Amendments is the prevention of
contamination of surface and ground water resources that serve as drinking water
supplies. Through source water protection, we have made prevention the first step
in the multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection.
In the past year, EPA and its partners have developed many tools that will lead to
comprehensive drinking water protection. Some of these accomplishments include:
— Release of the Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rules —
In November 1998, the President announced two major health-based regulations
— the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (IESWD Rule and the
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) rule. These rules are a direct
response to the demonstrated public health effects of such incidents as the
contamination of drinking water in the City of Milwaukee by Cryptosporidium in
1993 and the 1996 Amendments.
. — Release of the Consumer Confidence Report Regulation — In August 1998, the
President announced the Agency's release of the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) regulation, which will require water systems to provide their consumers
with specific information about their drinking water supply. These CCRs are a
centerpiece of the Administration's right-to-know activities and will be included
on a new, geographic-based, Internet information site at www.epa. pov/safewater.
Release of the Contaminant Candidate List — The Contaminant Candidate List
is the strategic blueprint for future drinking-water standard setting. It is a list of
currently unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in
drinking water and will help focus efforts on contaminants of greatest risk.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - All States have Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs in place and have received their initial
(FY 97) capitalization grant and the majority of states have applied for their
FY 98 grant. DWSRF funds support water systems' efforts to build, modernize or
replace the infrastructure necessary to provide safe drinking water.
Capacity Development Guidance — Working with the Small Systems Working
Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, EPA developed a
1-9
-------
capacity development guidance that will assist States as they develop programs to
ensure that all water systems, especially small systems, have the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to provide safe water.
Operator Certification Guidance — EPA developed guidance to assist States as
they develop operator certification programs to assure that all operators of public
water systems, particularly small systems, have the competency to run and
maintain safe, effective, and reliable water treatment plants.
While the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorize EPA, State, and water utilities
requirements through 2005, over the next year we will be emphasizing those activities with a
statutory deadline of FY 2000 and early FY 2001, as well as efforts that will augment and
complement statutory requirements. These areas of emphasis include:
1) The Drinking Water Academy — We will assist states, tribes and territories in
understanding new rule requirements and implementing these rules as well as new
required guidelines. We will use our new Drinking Water Academy as a way to
bring training on these activities to EPA regional staff, the states, Indian tribes and
other interested parties.
2) State Capacity Development Programs — States will be developing and
implementing programs to ensure that water systems have the capacity to comply
with existing drinking water rules. Headquarters and the Regions will work with
States as they develop then- programs. Financial assistance for State capacity
development activity is available through the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds. EPA has an annual performance goal that 91% of population served by
community water systems will receive drinking water meeting all health based
standards in place by 1994.
3) Source Water Assessments — High-quality source water assessments will
provide needed data to states, water systems, and the public as they protect their
water supply. EPA will work with Federal agencies and states to help States
conduct these assessments, and to implement programs to protect their source
water (including eliminating Class V high-risk shallow underground injection
wells). Source water protection is the first step in a multiple barrier approach to
drinking water protection.
4) Increased Research and Data Collection — We will strengthen and expand the
science on priority contaminants for future regulation, identified in the
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), for which there is currently inadequate
science and data upon which to base sound risk management decisions. The
research needed includes health effects, exposure, analytical methods, and
treatment. We will also expand data collection and analysis. The Agency must
1-10
-------
make decisions on whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from the
CCL by August 6,2001. In addition, these science and data-oriented activities
will help provide the basis for determining which contaminants to place on the
next CCL (required to be published by February 2003).
5) Data Reliability - We will implement our data reliability action plan to ensure
that data entered into the Safe Drinking Water Information System by public
water systems is consistent, accurate and of the highest quality so that we can
ensure the nationwide safety of our drinking water supplies.
6) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule — We need more data in order to
make determinations on what if any new contaminants should be regulated. In the
late summer EPA will release new requirements on unregulated contaminant
monitoring that will provide us with much of this needed data, while reducing
burden on water systems.
7) National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD) - EPA will complete
and implement the new National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base to give us
occurrence information that we need to determine what contaminants pose the
greatest health risk. This database will also be made available to the public.
8) Class V Underground Injection Control Rule — To reduce the risk of drinking
water contamination from shallow injection wells, EPA will publish a rule on
Class V wells in the summer. This rule will protect sources of drinking water
from wells such as industrial disposal wells, service station wells, and large
capacity cesspools.
9) Public Notification Rule — We will promote public information beyond
consumer confidence reports by publishing revisions to the Public Notification
Rule. This rule will require water systems to more quickly notify their customers
if there is a serious threat to their drinking water supply.
HI) BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
The Clean Water Action Plan and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments provide the
National Water Program with a challenging agenda. I am impressed with the work done over the
past year and I am confident that we have the capacity to maintain our progress.
One of my jobs as Assistant Administrator is to provide National Water Program
managers and staff with the tools and the resources needed to get this important work done.
1-11
-------
Specifically, I will work over the next year in several areas-
improving information about the condition of waters;
— building a consensus for increased funding of water programs; and
— strengthening programs to protect coastal and estuarine waters.
Time and again, when the American people are asked what makes their community
valuable, or "livable" they name water resources — their local beach, lake, or river. Progress in
each of these three areas will take us a big step closer to the broader, long term goal of "livable
communities" in the 21st century.
A) Improving Information About the Condition of Waters
Fulfilling the public's Right-to-Know about environmental conditions and risks is an
integral part of the Agency's mission. The Agency is making a major commitment to redesign
our internal management structure to better meet the information demands of the 21st century. I
am convinced that effective information management is key to successfully carrying out the
Agency's mission and is particularly important for the National Water Program. We need to be
sure that information necessary to improve and protect the nation's water resources and their uses
is readily accessed, formatted for ease of use, supportive of management decisions, and is useful
in measuring progress towards environmental goals.
In 1998, the Office of Water established a steering committee for information
management, whose membership includes members of the Office of Water's senior management
team, to plan for and guide OW's major investments in information and information technology.
Earlier tbis-calendar year, I chartered an Information Reinvention Work Group to develop an
overall vision and action plan for how the Office of Water's information management program
can support indicators to measure progress towards environmental goals, and define monitoring
and other data needs that will: (1) help inform the decision making process, (2) provide the
public with value-added information, and (3) draw on and contribute to the integrated picture of
the environment, including trends over time.
The Work Group developed a set of recommendations in key areas such as Water
Information Systems, data investments, data standards, data element registration, stakeholder
involvement, and appropriate Office of Water staff information resource competencies.
Implementation of these recommendations will be a high priority for FY2000 and beyond.
I have asked senior management to recommend how we can proceed with States, Tribes
and other Federal agencies, and the public to achieve these recommendations. I expect to ask for
significant Regional involvement in meeting these implementation challenges.
1-12
-------
B) Assuring Adequate Funding for Clean and Safe Water
In the over 25 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, Federal, State, Tribal,
and local governments have had a partnership for the financing of water pollution control
projects. The partnership has resulted in dramatic increases in water pollution control and
dramatic improvements in water quality. State clean water revolving loan funds, with a total
value of over $27 billion, form the backbone of this financial partnership.
At the same time, the nature of the water pollution problems is changing and our tools
and approaches to these problems (e.g. watershed protection/TMDLs) are evolving. Many of the
programs were we have invested in comprehensive, site specific plans (e.g. the National Estuary
Program) have generated an impressive list of projects that are ready to go today but lack
funding. There is also a growing recognition that other Federal and State programs (e.g. buffers,
land preservation) contribute to water pollution control and our new watershed approaches create
opportunities to engage these other programs. In addition, new approaches to public financing
(e.g. Better America Bonds) will expand our ability to implement diverse management tools.
We still need an intergovernmental partnership to finance water pollution control, but we
need to review and, perhaps revise, how we as a Nation finance meeting our clean water and safe
drinking water goals. An important related goal is assuring that Federal and State program
managers have the resources they need to make the programs effective. EPA, States, and Tribes
have begun the process of evaluating basic information about program and project costs. I want
to expand this process to include a wider range of interested parties and to evaluate a wider range
of possible options for the design of the clean water financial partnership over the next 25 years.
C) Strengthening Protection of Estuarine and Coastal Waters
Coastal waters are an important ecological, recreational, and economic resource - fifty
percent of the population lives in coastal watersheds and coasts are the most common vacation
destination. But our coasts are under severe pressure from development and related water
pollution problems. Many coastal waters - from the Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" to Long Island
Sound, to Puget Sound — are impaired by water pollution and need prompt attention. In
addition, some of our most treasured and fragile marine resources, such as coral reefs, are at risk.
The Clean Water Action Plan outlines important steps to protect coasts, but I am
convinced that we need to redouble our efforts to protect these fragile natural resources. Over
the next several months, I will meet with marine scientists, Federal and State agency managers,
and public interest organizations to identify actions that EPA and others can take to strengthen
protection of estuarine and coastal waters.
I want to encourage everyone to think creatively about what we can do to both lay a
strong foundation for long-term protection of critical coastal resources and to take specific
1-13
-------
actions to protect this resource in the near-term. For example:
~ could we make better use of existing statutory authorities (e.g. section 403 of the
Clean Water Act)?
could we set up a process to identify and better protect critical habitat in estuarine
and coastal waters?
- could we do more coordinate the efforts of water quality, wetlands, and fisheries
management professionals at the Federal, State and local levels? and
- how can we improve on and expand EPA and other inter agency protection of
estuarine and coastal waters?
IV) Accounting to Congress and the American Public
As we continue to realize improvements in the Nation's waters, we must be accountable
to the Congress and the American public for the environmental progress we are making. It is no
longer enough to report how many rules we have developed, how many permits we have issued,
how many loans we have granted, nor how much training and technical assistance we have
provided. We must make the connection between the work we are doing and the environmental
results that are being achieved. We must be able to report to the Congress and the American
public the improvements in water quality and the protections in public health that result from the
work that we and our partners undertake. Congress and the American public want to be assured
that the dollars they are spending on the environment are producing environmental results in an
efficient manner.
To enable the National Water Program to be accountable to Congress, the American
public, and ourselves, we have worked to establish an efficient, value-added accountability
system that facilitates planning, budgeting, managing, and decision-making based on strategic
planning and environmental results. In designing this system, we have attempted to incorporate
feedback from National Water Program staff and managers. Much of this system is reflected in
the following sections of this guidance including strategic goals and objectives that focus on
environmental results, a Management Agreement process for making commitments against
annual performance goals and measures and against the Office of Water's Tribal Strategy, and
mid-year and end-of-year reporting to evaluate the progress we are making and to help inform us
about necessary adjustments we need to make.
We have made a lot of progress in establishing this system and moving ourselves toward
managing and being accountable for environmental results. However, we still have important
improvements to make in the coming months. We must improve our ability to measure
outcomes on an annual basis, and, in our FY2001 Annual Plan and Budget, increase the number
1-14
-------
of annual performance goals and measures that reflect program and environmental outcomes
while reducing the number that reflect program outputs. We will remain open to feedback from
staff and managers on how to better improve this system and will work to make this system
integral to management and budget decisions in the National Water Program.
1-15
-------
1-16
-------
GPRA Goals, Objectives, and
Subobjectives
Section 2
-------
-------
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 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 community water systems
providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will increase
to 95% from a baseline of 83% in 1994. 95% compliance will be achieved for any
new standards within 5 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.
Subobiective 1.3: By 2005, 50 percent of the population served by community
water systems will receive their water from systems with source water protection
programs in place.
Subobiective 1.4: By 2005, increase protection of ground water resources by
managing all Class I, Class II, and Class HI injection wells and by managing
identified high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g.,
wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).
Subobiective 1.5: By 2005, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will
be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting
the consumption offish and shellfish will increase.
Subobiective 1.6: 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.
Subobiective 1.7: By 2003, 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.)
Subobiective 1.8: By 2005, protect drinking water sources by increasing by 50%
the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean
Water Act.
2-2
-------
Objective 2: By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's (state,
interstate, and tribal) waters and aquatic ecosystems — rivers and streams, lakes,
wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground waters - so that 75% of waters
support healthy aquatic communities.
Subobiective 2.1: By 2005, restore and protect watersheds so that 75% of waters
support healthy watersheds as shown by comprehensive assessment of the nation's
watersheds.
Subobiective 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.
Subobiective 2.3: By 2003, provide means to identify, assess, and manage aquatic
stressors, including contaminated sediments. (Note: This subobjective belongs to
ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Objective 3: By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point sources and nonpoint source
runoff will be reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants
impacting water bodies will be reduced.
Subobiective 3.1: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), and industrial
sources will be reduced by 30% from 1992 levels.
Subobiective 3.2: By 2005, nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to rivers
and streams will be reduced. Erosion from cropland, used as an indicator of
success in controlling sediment delivery to surface waters, will be reduced by 20%
from 1992 levels.
Subobjective 3.4: By 2006, improve water quality by reducing releases of
targeted persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50-75% as
measured by the National Toxics Inventory, reducing deposition of nitrogen by
10-15% from 1980 levels as measured by wet and dry deposition monitoring
networks, and improving our understanding of, and cross-media responses to, the
sources, pathways, and effects of air pollutants deposited on water bodies and
watersheds.
Subobjective 3.3: By 2003, deliver decision support tools and alternative, less
costly 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.)
2-4
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems
Objective 7: By 2003,60% of Indian Country will be assessed for its environmental
condition and Tribes and EPA will be implementing plans to address priority issues.
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 consistent with our bilateral and multilateral treaty
obligations hi these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to Tribes.
Sub-Obiective 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.
Sub-Obiective 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, by protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and
restoring and maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
2-5
-------
Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About Their Environment
Objective 1: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the American public to participate
in the protection of human health and the environment by increasing the quality and
quantity of general environmental education, outreach and data availability programs,
especially in disproportionally impacted and disadvantage^ communities.
Subobiective 1.2: By 2005, via the Internet and improved technology, the Agency
will provide the public with increased access to integrated, comprehensive
environmental data; online access to enforcement and compliance data;
information on the watershed in which they live, including the environmental
condition, stressors, and the environmental health threats by 2003; and
information in an easily accessible and user friendly manner.
Objective 2: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the public to reduce exposure to
specific environmental and human health risks by making current, accurate substance-
specific information widely and easily accessible.
Subobiective 2.1: By 2005, Pesticide, TSCA, Water and other environmental
information and tools will be available to all communities and citizens, through
the Internet, outreach efforts, and consumer confidence reports, to help make
informed choices about their local environment, including where to live and work,
and what potential exposures are acceptable, and to assess the general
environmental health of themselves and their families.
2-6
-------
Program Specific Visions,
Strategies, and Guidances
Section 3
-------
-------
Contents
Clean Water Action Plan page 3-5
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water page 3-9
Office of Science and Technology page 3-17
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds page 3-25
Office ofWastewater Management page 3-33
-------
-------
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN
^ Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters (1998)
The Clean Water Action Plan is a new initiative to achieve clean water by strengthening public
health protections, targeting community-based watershed protection efforts at high priority areas,
and providing communities with new resources to control polluted runoff. Ten federal agencies
have been working together to cany out the 111 key actions in the Action Plan since February
1998.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.Ieonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using the publication number EPA-840-R-98-001 order from the National
Center for Environmental Publications and Information by calling (513) 489-8190 or the Water
Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail center.water-resource@epa.gov.
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Clean Water Action Plan: The First Year. The Future (1999)
This report marks the first anniversary of the Clean Water Action Plan. It highlights the progress
that has been made toward implementing the action plan and outlines the agenda for the coming
year.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
fanners, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using the publication number EPA-800-R-99-001 order from the Water
Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail center. water-resourcefS).epa.gov.
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
'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.
3-5
-------
Clean Water Action Plan: The First Year (1999)
This fact sheet highlights EPA's role in the first year of implementation hi the Clean Water
Action Plan. It also summarizes EPA's Clean Water Action Plan accomplishments during the
first year and EPA's future projects and goals.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
fanners, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260*5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using the publication number EPA-800-F-99-001 order from the Water
Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail center.water-resource@epa.gov.
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Clean Water Action Plan 2000 Budget Request (1999)
This fact sheet gives a summary of the FY 2000 budget request for the Clean Water Action Plan.
Highlights of FY2000 budget requests by each agency and first year accomplishments are also
included.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
fanners, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Len Fleckenstein at 202-260-5332 or by E-mail at
flecker>steitvleonard(q).epa.gov
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Memorandum on Federal Coordination Teams from J. Charles Fox (March 1,1999)
The Clean Water Action Plan calls for a unified federal effort hi support of watershed
management To further this effort, federal agencies are establishing federal coordination teams
in 10 locations around the country. These teams, comprised of senior regional leaders from
various federal agencies, will coordinate their efforts to implement the Clean Water Action Plan
in priority watersheds. Each team is also expected to convene meetings to obtain broad public
input into their coordination work.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions (in coordination with stakeholders)
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckensteut.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Len Fleckenstein at 202-260-5332 or by E-mail at
fieckensteui.leonard@epa.gov
3-6
-------
Unified Watershed Assessments and Watershed Restoration Priorities (1999)
This four-page fact sheet suirnnarizes results from the first national assessment of watershed
health under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
fanners, tribes
Contact: Greg Gwaltney; 202-260-9532; gwaltney.gregory@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Greg Gwaltney at 202-260-9532 or by E-mail at
gwalmey.gregory@epagov
Clean Water Action Plan Intranet Site
This intranet site is password-protected to encourage information sharing among federal agencies
on implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan. The site includes an action item tracking
database, a contacts database, a discussion database, and a document database.
Applicability: Federal agencies, Regions
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: on the Internet at www.cleanwater.gov/lmplement
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov/Implement
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
3-7
-------
3-8
-------
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
I. Vision
The primary role of the drinking water and ground water protection program is to protect
the public health of all Americans by ensuring safe drinking water and preventing contamination
of the water resources (rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs and ground water) that serve as the
nation's drinking water supplies.
The priorities of the drinking water and ground water program have been clearly spelled
out in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): 1) ensuring that EPA sets
drinking water safety standards and develops regulations based on good science and data,
prioritization of effort, sound risk assessment, and effective risk management; 2) establishing
new pollution prevention approaches, including provisions for source water protection, operator
certification, and capacity development; 3) providing better information to consumers, including
consumer confidence/"right-to-know" reports and, 4) expanding funding for states and
communities through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. In addition, the 1996 SDWA .
Amendments increase the states' flexibility to focus on public health-based priorities and make
better use of resources; recognize the problems facing small systems and establish appropriate
cost-effective approaches for such systems; and emphasize the role of stakeholders and
partnerships as a key aspect of an effective national drinking water program.
In FY 2000, EPA — Headquarters and Regional staff— will be working in close partner-
ship with the states to implement both health-based standards and corresponding treatment/
treatment technologies and drinking water source protective measures to ensure that 91 percent
of the population served by community water systems will receive water for which no violations
of Federally-enforceable health-based standards have occurred.
//. Key Strategies
Data Reliability Action Plan (1998)
This plan presents both the process and the actual activities that EPA, the states, and utilities will
carry out in partnership to improve, strengthen, and ensure that consistent and reliable data are
reported by public water systems in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Jan Auerbach; 202-260-5274; auerbach.jan(5),epa. gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: Not applicable.
3-9
-------
III. 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 giants 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: Using publication number EPA 816R97005 from the Water Resource Center
by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resonrce@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWDW/docs/guidtoc.htinl
Utilization and Distribution of $3,780,500 Tribal Grant (Memorandum from Robert Blanco,
Director, Implementation and Assistance Division/OGWDW to Regional Ground Water and
Drinking Water Branch Chiefs [Regions 1,11, FV-X], dated April 27,1998)
In FY 98, the President's Budget requested and the Congress appropriated additional funds —
$3,780,500 - to the PWSS grant program solely for the purpose of assisting Indian Tribes in the
development of capacity to manage their drinking water systems.
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Staci Gatica; 202-260-3967; eatica.staci(S)epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address:. Not applicable.
*Policyfor Calculation of the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) States Grant Allotments -
FY2000 and Beyond (Memorandum from Robert Blanco, Director, Implementation and
Assistance Division/OGWDW to the Regional Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch Chiefs
[Regions I-XJ, dated November 18, 1998)
The purpose of the memorandum is to explain the changes to the process that EPA uses to
calculate the annual PWSS state grant allotments and to recap the entire PWSS state grant
allocation process.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: George (Ray) Enyeart; 202-260-5551: enveart.george@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: Not applicable.
2Those 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.
3-10
-------
IV. Grant Guidances Issued/to be Issued in 1999
Guidance on Clean Water Act Section 106 Funds for Ground Water Grants to the States (3rd Q)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Kevin McConnack; 202-260-7772; mccormack.kevin@.epa.gov
V. New Guidances Issued in the Last Year (By Major Activity)
State Primary Enforcement Authority (Primacy)
^Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments;
Final Rule (1998 Federal Register Notice)
The 1996 Amendments to SDWA amended existing provisions on state primacy (section 1413)
and gives states two years to adopt regulations plus two additional years if the extension is
necessary and justified.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Jennifer Melch; 202-260-7035; melch.jennifer@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z98002 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resourcefg).epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/OGWDW/sdwa/frprimac.html
Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program
1998 PWSS Water Supply Guidance Manual
This manual is a compilation of guidances that have been issued by EPA on the PWSS program.
Applicability: Regions, states, Tribes, drinking water systems
Contact: Wendy Warren; 202-260-3875; warren.wendy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: Not applicable.
DRAFT Data Verification Protocol (1998)
This document is an update to the guide on how public water systems are to conduct data
verifications.
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact:; George (Ray) Enyeart 202-260-5551; enyeart.george@epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: Not applicable.
3-11
-------
Consumer Confidence Report
*National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule (1998)
Section 1414(c) authorizes EPA to issue regulations to require water systems to report at least
once annually on the level of contaminants purveyed by that system.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleen@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z98005 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWDW/ccr/ccr-frne.html
Consumer Confidence Report Guidance Fact Sheet (1998)
The purpose of this fact sheet is to educate water systems on the requirements of the rule and to
provide technical assistance, in the form of written materials, to help systems meet the new
regulation.
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleen@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816F98007 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resouroef5).epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.eov/QGWDW/ccr/ccrfact.html
Operator Certification
*Final Guidelines for the Certification and Recertificationfor the Operators of Community and
Nontransient and Noncommunity Public Water Systems (1999)
Under sections 1419 and 1420 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments, EPA is required to develop
information on recommended operator certification requirements and issue guidelines specifying
the minimum standards for operator certification. Operator competency is critical for ensuring the
proper operation of increasingly complex water treatment facilities and public health protection.
EPA is required to withhold 20% of a DWSRF funds if a state does not implement an operator
certification program for community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems.
Applicability: Regions, states. Only the section on withholding DWSRF funds is mandatory.
Contact: Jennifer Jacobs; 202-260-2939; jacobs.jennifer@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z99001 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@.epa.eov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/QGWDW/opguide.html
3-12
-------
Public Water Systems, Especially Small Systems
*Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of1996 (1998)
Section 1420 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments contains specific requirements for EPA and the
states on developing or strengthening as well as implementing managerial, technical and financial
capacity to meet drinking water standards. State programs for capacity development are the
cornerstone of EPA's efforts to move toward a more holistic, preventive approach to protecting
drinking water, particularly for small systems. Through the 1996 Amendments, EPA can
withhold a percentage of a state's DWSRF allocation if the state does not meet the requirements
set forth in the statute.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98006 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWDW/cdguid/capfacthtml
Information for States on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98008 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/smallsvs/cdguid/infostate.html
information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98002 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center. water-resource@.epa,gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/afforddh.html
3-13
-------
Safe Drinking Water Information Systems (SDWIS)
*Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Act Information System
Technical Guidance (1998)
This document presents the recommendations of the EPA/State Data Sharing Committee. These
recommendations include: the inclusion of lat/long data and the Unking of source water intakes to
treatment plants in SDWIS.
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Roger Anzollin; 202-260-7282; an7ftllin.roger@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98007 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWPW/sdwisfed/sdwis.html
*Surface Water Treatment Rule (STWR) Data Needs - SDWIS Reporting Requirements (1998)
This document presents the recommendations of the EPA/State Data Sharing Committee on
necessary revisions to the reporting requirements for the (existing) SWTR.
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Tom Poleck; 312-886-2407; Doleck.thomas(g).epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/ogwdw/datab/database.html
Source Water Protection
*State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance (1997)
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance required by the 1996 SDWA Amendments
for state Source Water Protection Assessment Programs (SWAP) [sections 1453 and 1428(b)] and
for the Source Water Petition Programs [section 1454]. It describes the elements of an EPA-
approvable state SWAP submittal as well as EPA's recommendations for what may be included in
a state Source Water Protection Program.
Applicability: Regions, states. Only the guidance pertaining to the assessment program is core.
Contact: Roy Simon; 202-260-7777; simon.rov(2).epa.gov.
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA 816R97009 from the Water Resource Center
by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWPW/8WD/swapDg.fatml
3-14
-------
Underground Injection Control - Class V
Class V Underground Injection Control Regulations Revisions: Proposed Rule (1998)
This draft regulation focuses on shallow industrial underground injection wells that present the
greatest threat to ground water resources that serve as drinking water supplies.
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delahanry.robyn@epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail:
center.water-resource(g).epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/OGWDW/LJIC/c5-fr.html
VI. Guidances to be Issued in FY99
Underground Injection Control - Large Capacity Septic System Interim Guidance (3"1 Q)
Underground Injection Control - Agricultural Drainage Well Interim Guidance (3rd Q)
Applicability: Regions, states, localities for septic systems
Regions, states, localities, fanning community for agricultural drainage wells
Contact: Howard Beard; 202-260-8796:beard.howard(g>.epa.gov
*Consumer Confidence Report Rule Implementation Guidance for Adoption by States (3rd Q)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleen@.epa.gov
Consumer Confidence Report Rule - Guidance for Water Supplies (3rd Q)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Robert Allison; 260-9836; allison.rob@.epa.gov
^Guidances (nine are to be issued) for the Implementation of the Stage I Disinfectant/
Disinfection Byproducts Rule and Interim Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (3rd Q)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Ephraim King; 260-9543: king.ephraiinf£!epa.gov
*Lead and Copper Revised Reporting Requirements for SDWIS (4th Q)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Frances Haertel; 214-665-8090; haertel.frances@epa.gov
3-15
-------
*Revised Reporting Requirements for Phases I-VRule in SDWIS (4th Q)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Jan Auerbach; 202-260-5274; auerbach.ian
-------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
/. Vision
The role of Office of Science and Technology programs is to provide training, guidance
and technical tools to help State, Tribal and local watershed managers protect human health and
maintain and improve the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. The tools and
guidances help environmental managers implement Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act programs and meet commitments under the Clean Water Action Plan.
The Office's priorities focus on strengthening and modernizing the basic structure of the
water quality standards program. We will work with states and tribes to put hi place unproved
processes for developing, adopting, and improving water quality standards as well as strengthen
their scientific basis. 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 criteria and working
with states/Tribes to adopt the appropriate criteria, we will strengthen the program's scientific
base for managing water resources on a 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 be working in
partnership with our stakeholders to select effluent guidelines regulations that will reduce the
discharge of toxic pollutants into our waters and 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
new - The National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, published in the
Federal Register on June 25,1998
When waterbody-type guidance and nutrient criteria are established, the Agency will assist states
and tribes in adopting numerical nutrient criteria into water quality standards by the end of 2003.
Applicability: Regions, States, and Tribes
Contact: Robert Cantilli, 202-260-5546, Cantilli.Robert@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Robert Cantilli
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/! 998/June/Day-25/wl 6941 .htm
3-17
-------
new- 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 program^ 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.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes and local communities
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffinann, 202-260-0642, Hofiinann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies Available: With the title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/BEACH Watch
new — Interim Final Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan; published June 1998
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Bill Swietlik, 202-260-9569, Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Bill Swietlik
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/criplan615.pdf
III. Key Grant Guidance (N/A)
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances (those issued in the last year are noted new)
new —Proposed Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health was published and public comments solicited on August 14,1998. Final revisions
are anticipated for early 2000.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Denis Borum
Web Address: http://www.epa.gOv/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/l 998/August/Day-14/w21517.htm
3-18
-------
*3new — Water Quality Criteria
A draft compilation of recommended water quality criteria for approximately 150 pollutants.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Alan Hais, 202-260-7579, hais.alan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Alan Hais
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/wqaiteria.pdf
new — 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: Rita Schoeny, 202-260-7579, Schoeny.Rita@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Rita Schoeny
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/MtBEaa.pdf
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@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Susan Jackson
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
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact William Swietlik
^Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume I:
Sampling and Analysis. Second Edition EPA 823-R-95-007
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
3Those 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.
3-19
-------
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 Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidancefor Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume II:
Risk Assessments and Consumption Limits. Second Edition EPA 823-B-97-009
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 Center for Environmental •
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
* new — Guidance for 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 Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
3-20
-------
* new — Guidance to States, Tribes and Regions on Priorities for the Water Quality Standards
Program for FY 2000-2002, EPA-823-B-99-005
The F Y 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 organising 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 hi 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 Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (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
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 Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
* new — Draft 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, 63 Fg 2742-2757, January 15,1999
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: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542, leutner.fred@epa.gov
Copies Available: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542
Web Address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/acesl40.html
new — Draft Permit Guidance Document for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Point
Source Category
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
3-21
-------
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 (VAUP).
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Troy Swackhammer, 202-260-7128, swackhammer.j-troy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not yet available; expected Spring 1999
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST's website.
new — 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 Fall 1999
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST's website.
new -- Test Procedures for the Analysis ofCryptosporidiwn and Giardia Under the Safe Drinking
Water and Clean Water Acts (EPA Method 1622)
This analytical test procedure supports EPA's National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and is
expected to increase recovery and provide better precision than the test procedure included in
earlier EPA rulemaking. This method is expected to be proposed in 40 CFR Parts 136 and 141 in
the summer of 1999, with final rulemaking in 2000.
Applicability: Public Water Systems, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Marion Thompson, 202-260-7117, thompson.marion@epa.gov
Copies Available: Marion Thompson, 202-260-7117
Web Address: Hot link to draft method will soon be available though OST's website.
new—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,
3-22
-------
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: Jane Marshall Farris, 202-260-8897, farris.jane@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/
* new—Inland 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: Michael Kravitz 202-260-8085, kravitz.michael@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/pubs/ITM.html
new - BASINS Version 2.0: Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources,
EPA-823-B-98-006 November 1998
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).
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes, and Local Governments
Contact: Russell Kinerson, 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
3-23
-------
* National Coordination of EPA's Water Quality Standards Actions. Tudor Davies,
Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, April 20, 1998
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 Leutoer, 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)
3-24
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS & WATERSHEDS
I Vision
The Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, through its Regional and state partners,
will continue to promote adoption and implementation of the watershed approach, particularly
through continued emphasis on meeting commitments under the Clean Water Action Plan. We
expect significantly new levels of protection to be afforded through upcoming revisions to the
TMDL program and the 305(b) program. Regions should be working with states in support of
monitoring consistency efforts, development of upgraded nonpoint source management and
control programs, and to ensure the development and implementation of high-quality Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies, including through funding of WRAS-related projects with newly-
available §319 grant funds.
We will continue to develop and expand partnerships to enhance the protection of our
Nation's coastal and ocean resources. The Coastal Watershed Protection Strategy will promote
increased and improved coordination among EPA's programs to protect our coastal resources.
The dredging program will also emphasize partnership opportunities through the coordinating
functions of the national Dredging team, the Regional Dredging Teams, the formation of Local
Planning Groups, and through efforts to identify and implement projects that will re-use dredged
materials in an environmentally sound way. Additional emphasis will be placed on efforts to
better coordinate actions to control and manage invasive species.
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 non-regulatory and regulatory 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 community interest in developing wetland and
aquatic ecosystem protection strategies on a watershed basis.
3-25
-------
r
IL Key Strategies
The Administration's Wetlands Plan
The Clinton Administration convened an interagency working group to address concerns with
Federal wetland policy. After hearing from States, developers, fanners, environmental interests,
members of Congress, and scientists, the working group developed a comprehensive, 40-point
plan to enhance wetland protection while making wetland regulations more fair, flexible, and
effective. The plan was issued on August 24,1993. The Plan emphasizes improving Federal
wetland policy by: streamlining wetlands permitting programs; increasing cooperation with
private landowners to protect and restore wetlands; basing wetland protection on good science and
sound judgement; and increasing participation by States, Tribes, local governments, and the public
in wetlands protection.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community, general public
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: hnlp://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetIands/WetPlan/mdex.html
Nonpoint Sources: Picking Up the Pace; A Strategy for Strengthening State Nonpoint Source
Program (October, 1998)
Sets forth a strategy for more effectively linking existing authorities under the Clean Water Act,
other air and water programs at EPA and related programs of other Federal agencies to accelerate
the prevention and control of nonpoint source pollution. Many, but not all, elements of the
strategy have been included in the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112); email: tuller.stu@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/nsfsnsm/index.htail
Coastal Watershed Protection Strategy
Describes the mission, goals, objectives and organization of EPA's coastal Management Branch,
and provides the Branch with a framework for facilitating improved coordination between EPA
offices on coastal management issues.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Betsy Salter (202-260-6466); salter.betsy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (202-260-1952)
Web Address: not available on Internet.
3-26
-------
* 4TMDL Regulations/Guidance
Currently under review are proposed TMDL regulations based on recommendations issued by the
TMDL FACA committee. When the new TMDL regulations are finalized, we will issue new
general TMDL program guidance. This guidance will be prepared by FY 2000.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
* 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
. Key Grant Guidances
* 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: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112); email: tuller.stu@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/guide.html
Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint 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
4Those 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.
3-27
-------
provided for five major categories of nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, forestry, urban,
hydromodification and wetlands. Also contains extensive reference lists of additional technical
material and limited cost data
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Goo (202-260-7025)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov.owow/nps/mmgi
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 6217 of CZARA.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788)
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: Betsy Salter (202-260-6466); salter.betsy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Available: Contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet
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
Contact: Shanna Draheim, (202) 260-6218, draheim.shanna@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/99grant/
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
3-28
-------
natural resource stewardship. The "stars" in "Five-Star" are the partners, fanciers, and/or
participants necessary to complete the restoration project, including youth organizations, county
governments, corporations, and others. The awards will be between $5000 and $20,000 and the
projects will include a strong on-the-ground habitat restoration component, and may also include
education, 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
new — Final Framework for Unified Watershed Assessments, Restoration Priorities, and
Restoration Action Strategies (June 9,1998)
Provides guidance for preparation of Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) and Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) by states and tribes. These are key elements of the Clean
Water Action Plan that provides a cooperative approach to restoring and protecting water quality.
State, federal, tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and interested citizens
to (1) identify watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resources goals and (2) work
cooperatively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to solve these problems.
Applicability: Federal agencies, Regions, States, Tribes, local governments, watershed
groups, industries, farmers
Contact: Greg Gwaltney; 202-260-9532
Copies Available: Gwaltney at 202-260-9532 or by E-mail at gwaltney.greg@epa.gov
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
new — 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 FY 1998 to
$200 million in FY 1999) for the implementation of state, territorial and tribal nonpoint source
management programs in FY 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: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/section319/fy99guid.html
3-29
-------
* new ~ Funding the Development and Implementation of Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (December 4,1998)
Provides more detailed guidance on the award and use of the incremental amount of Section 319
grants to support implementation of actions called for in Watershed Restoration Action Strategies
developed by the States, Territories and Tribes in response to the Clean Water Action Plan.
Clarifies that incremental funds are to be used to fund activities in watersheds identified as not
meeting clean water and other natural resource goals (Category I watersheds) and should be
focused in those sub-watersheds where nonpoint source control activities are likely to have the
greatest positive effect.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fy 19992.html
* new — Process for Approval of Upgraded State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management
Programs and Formal Recognition of Enhanced Benefits Status (January 7,1999)
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 hi 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: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: will shortly be available at the "Clean Water Act 319" button on the NPS
Homepage at: bttp//www.epa.gov/owow/nps
*new — Final Administrative Changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
Guidance for 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
3-30
-------
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); Marcella Jansen (NOAA) (301-713-3098, ext
143
Copies Available: Joseph P. Flanagan (301-713-3121, x20I)
Web Address: http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/6217/admin_changes.htnil
* Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305 (b)
Reports) and Electronic Updates: Report Contents and Supplement (September 1997; to be
updated May 1999)
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 represents
the consensus of the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and will serve as the guidelines for States
and Tribes to use in preparing their next 305(b) report due April 1,2000. The May 1999 update
will be in the form of a memorandum clarifying some elements and underscoring key priorities
for the FY2000 reporting cycle, including comprehensive assessments, improved consistency, and
linkage to core performance measure reporting.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
new ~ Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria (August, 1998)
Provides managers and field biologists with functional methods and approaches that facilitate the
implementation of viable lake bioassessment and biocriteria programs. This document is
organized in a tiered framework to encourage users to design programs to meet their needs. The
document includes procedures for program design, reference condition determination, field
biosurveys, biocriteria development and data analysis. It also provides information on the
application of bioassessments in existing programs including 305(b) assessments, NPDES
permitting, risk assessment and watershed management.
Applicability: State, Tribal and other natural resource agencies
Contact: Chris Faulkner (202-260-6228)
Copies Available: Chris Faulkner (202-260-6228)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
3-31
-------
new — 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: Craig Vogt (202-260-1952)
Copies Available: contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/ndt
new/upcoming ~ Proposed Nationwide Permit
This set of activity-based CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permits, proposed in July 1998 by the
Corps of Engineers in coordination with EPA and other federal resource agencies, will replace
Nationwide Permit #26, which is being phased out in response to concerns about its adverse
environmental effects. The provisions of the replacement permit package ensure compliance with
the requirements of the Clean Water Act, National Environmental policy Act, and the Endangered
Species Act, while continuing to provide expedited review for certain categories of activities with
only minimal environmental effects. The Corps intends to publish replacement nationwide
permits for purposes of State and tribal CWA §401 certification in March 1999, with a goal of
final, effective permits in September 1999.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/acenwp.html
upcoming — Agricultural Wetlands MOA
This MOA, scheduled to be issued in the second quarter of FY1999, will clarify how EPA, the
Departments of Agriculture (USD A), Army and Interior will cooperate to provide farmers with
clear and reliable determinations of the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands on
their properties for Clean Water Act and Farm Bill purposes. Amendments to the Farm Bill
enacted in 1996 and corresponding USD A regulatory and administrative policy changes make it
necessary to replace the original MOA issued by the agencies in 1994.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs.htmI#Policy
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: Sharon Lin (202-260-1952); lin.sharon@epa.gov
Copies Available: copies not yet available — expected by March 1999
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
3-32
-------
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
I. Vision
The primary role of the wastewater management program will continue to be to control
point source discharges to the Nation's waters through the NPDES permits program. In addition,
we will continue our support for States and communities as they address the Nation's pressing
wastewater treatment needs through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF).
Effective management of these programs is essential if we are to maintain the gains we have made
in water quality and address emerging sources of pollution that threaten the health of our waters.
The priorities of the Office of Wastewater Management, especially in the NPDES program
will be tied closely to achieving the ambitious goals set forth in the President's Clean Water
Action Plan (CWAP). In particular, we will work to address various wet weather sources such as
Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and stonnwater Phase n.
Effective management of the base NPDES program will also be a priority, including efforts to
reduce unacceptably high permit backlogs in many areas. The CWSRF program will continue to
provide funding for wastewater treatment needs in a timely and efficient manner.
All of our efforts are driven by the need to achieve improvements hi water quality through
a substantial reduction of loadings from point sources over the next 5 years. Meeting this goal
will pose many challenges, many of them relating to our ability to obtain reliable and consistent
data. We will work to improve to quality in national data systems and to assess the need for other
sources of data, including modeling where appropriate.
II. Key Strategies
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding & the Clean Water Action Plan
This strategy helps link CWSRF as a financial resource for implementation of many of the key
actions in the CWAP. Several activities are currently underway:
4 "Financing Clean Water Action Plan Activities" is a funding matrix developed to
demonstrate the CWSRF/CWAP connection. The matrix details 18 key actions that
may benefit from CWSRF assistance. It also provides program and contact
information for many other funding sources available for financing these key
actions. (Includes programs from EPA, USDA, HUD, DOC, and DOI.)
• A series of fact sheets is being developed which will further detail how the
CWSRF can be used to implement the key actions described in the aforementioned
funding matrix. Fact sheets on using the CWSRF to fund polluted runoff, AFOs,
wetlands, and estuary projects have already been issued.
4 The Administration has proposed a discretionary 20% nonpoint source and
estuary management grant from the CWSRF in FY 2000. The grant, along with
3-33
-------
low interest loans, will help states implement Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies. The proposed grant will cover up to 60% of a projects costs. States
using the grant option will be required to use an Integrated Project Priority List
(IPPL) that considers wastewater, nonpoint source, and estuary projects together to
direct funds towards the highest priority water quality projects. In 1996, EPA
recommended a framework for states to use when funding nonpoint source and
estuary projects with the CWSRF. Two alternative approaches to IPPLs have
already been negotiated with the states.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Kristin Kenausis, 202-260-2036
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo. group(2>£pa. gov>. by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 260-7360.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
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.
Through a series of regional workshops, EPA is assisting states to develop integrated priority
setting systems and linking their CWSRF programs to watershed planning efforts.
Applicability: States
Contact: Kristin Kenausis, 202-260-2036
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo. vroup(8)£pa. pov). by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 260-7360.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
*5 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. MSD 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 as GAO.
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. An
amendment to the strategy is currently being discussed with the Regions that will more clearly
5Those 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.
3-34
-------
define the universe of projects under consideration in the strategy; and accommodate special
issues, such as grants made to the U.S. territories, which are governed by somewhat different rules
than the states.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bill Hasselkus, 202-260-3707, hajtselkm.wiHiam@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Bill Hasselkus.
Web Address: Not available.
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.
In 1999, 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. This work is a part of the Clean
Water Action Plan and was identified in the Response to Congress on Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Joyce Hudson. 202-260-1290. hudson.iovce@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gOv/OWM/scpub.htm ^response
Reinvestment in Biosolids
The goal of the Biosolids Management Strategy is to have an effective national biosolids
management program. This goal is being accomplished through several objectives: creation of an
Environmental Management System for Biosolids; establishment of the National Biosolids
Partnership; implementation of the Biosolids Database Management System; coordinated, viable
regional and state programs; effective training; continued support for beneficial use; finalization
of the Round 1 and Round 2 regulations; a survey of biosolids quality; a biosolids animal manure
interface; and technical assistance. A significant part of this strategy is to create a better
understanding between those processing biosolids and all those who could become involved with
biosolids either directly or indirectly. This strategy is a result of the Biosolids Reinvestment
Initiative established by the assistant administrator for Water in 1998.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: John Walker, 202-260-7283, walker.iohn@.epa.eov
Copies Available: Contact John Walker.
Web Address: Not available yet.
3-35
-------
* Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy, April 1994
Hie CSO Policy establishes a consistent national approach for controlling CSOs through the
NPDES pennit program. The Policy calls for communities with combined sewer systems to take
immediate and long-term actions to address CSO problems. The immediate actions, called the
"nine minimum controls," include proper operation and maintenance of the sewer system, public
notification of CSO risks, and control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs. Longer-term
actions may require extensive study, design, and capital investment and will provide for
attainment of water quality standards and other Clean Water Act requirements.
Applicability: States, municipalities
Contact: Ross Brennan, (202) 260-6928
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/csopol.htm
* 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, will employ a range of
flexible, common-sense tools to reduce potentially harmful runoff from 450,000 animal feeding
operations nationwide. The Strategy discusses: (1) the relationships between AFOs and
environmental and public health; (2) is based on a national performance expectation for all AFO
owners and operators; and presents a series of actions to n"T"""'?g public health impacts and
improve water quality while complementing the long-term sustainability of livestock production.
Applicability: States, animal feeding facilities
Contact: Will Hall 2601458
Web Address: httD://www.epa.gov/owm/finafosthtm
* Endangered Species Act MOA, published in the Federal Register January 15,1999
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) have
developed a draft 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 Agency believes this national guidance will
assist EPA and Service regional and field offices in working together more efficiently and
effectively. EPA and the Services expect to finalize the MOA later this year.
Applicability: States, other Federal agencies
Contact: Tom Charlton (202) 260-6960
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/! 999/January/Day-15/e 1029.htm
Reduce the Backlog in NPDES Permits
An initial strategy has been developed for reducing the permit backlog and improving permit
quality. It will focus permitting activities towards those facilities that pose the greatest risk to the
environment; providing additional resources to EPA regions (in the FY 2000 budget request) to
increase EPA permit issuance and support state permit issuance; and investigating more expansive
3-36
-------
use of tools such as general permits to permit low risk facilities. Overlaid upon these activities
are efforts to improve permit quality, so that the reissued permits actually accomplish the desired
environmental goals. By the end of FY 2001, EPA should achieve a permit backlog at or below
10% for high risk facilities. By the end of FY 2004, states and EPA should achieve a permit
backlog at or below 10% for high risk facilities.
Applicability: States, municipalities, industry
Contact: Ruby Ford (202) 260-6051
///. Key Grant Guidances
* Fiscal year 1999 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants; from the allocation memorandum of fiscal year 1999 Operator
Training Grant Funds:
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.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-260-5806, baranowski.curt@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski.
Web Address: Not applicable for obtaining the guidance document; 104(g)(l) Program web-page
address is http://www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htni
* Framework Document for Section 106 State Surface Water Grants
Framework of the procedures and principles for administering and managing the Section 106
surface water grants to States and interstate agencies for FY 1997 and future years. NOTE: We
plan to revise this guidance as soon as we complete the 106 formula revision process.
Applicability: Regions, States, interstate agencies
Contact: Carol Crow, 202-260-6742
Copies Available: Regional State 106 Coordinators
* Final Guidance on the Award of Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act for FY 1996 and Future Years, June 20,1995
Describes the program framework including the Treatment as a State simplification rule to guide
regional staff in working with tribes in seeking TAS hi order to be eligible for Section 106 tribal
funding. NOTE: a draft of a revised guidance document is currently in regional review.
Contact: Clarence Braddock, 202-260-5828
Copies Available: Regional State 106 Coordinators
3-37
-------
IV. New Guidances Issued in the Last Year
* Fiscal year 1998 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants', from the allocation memorandum of fiscal year 1998 Operator
Training Grant Funds
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. Mandatory Regional and State specific
semi-annual progress reports are required. 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.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-260-5806, baranowski.curt(5>.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: Not applicable for obtaining the guidance document; 104(g)(l) Program web-page
address is http://www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm
Water Conservation Plan Guidelines
On August 6,1998, EPA issued guidelines for water conservation plans for public water systems.
States may require water systems to submit a water conservation plan consistent with the EPA or
any other guidelines as a condition of receiving a loan under the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF); however, there are no federal requirements. The guidelines contain step-by-step
approaches and conservation measures that can be used by water system planners to develop and
implement plans for water conservation.
Applicability: States, Regions, Tribes, Municipalities
Contact: John E. Flowers, 202-260-7288, flowers.iohnfgtepa. eov
Copies Available: By Internet and from NCEPI (800-490-9198.) Ask for Document
832-D-98-001.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/genwave.htm.
* 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
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: Lucille Liem, 202-260-5844, liem.lucille(a>.epa.gov
Copies Available: By Internet and by mail from Lucille Liem, EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/eligfin.htm
3-38
-------
* 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 waste water
treatment facilities that are available from EPA under Section 518(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Sylvia Bell, 202-260-7255, bell.svlvia@epa.gov
Copies Available: from Sylvia Bell, EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 401 M St. SW
(4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: Not available.
* FY1999 STAG Guidance Memorandum
Provides information and guidance on how the agency will award and administer grants for the
106 projects included in the in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account in the
Agency's FY 1999 Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-260-5825. mcgee.larrv@.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: Hot available.
* Guide to Using EPA's Automated Clearing House for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program
Provides information and guidance on how states draw federal cash into their State Revolving
Funds (SRFs) based upon incurred project costs. The Guide provides the cash draw rules,
methodology and numerical examples for each type of allowable SRF assistance.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Stephanie vonFeck, 202-260-9762, vonfeck.stephanie@.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 financial management of the SRF
programs.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Environmental Indicators for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Feasibility Analysis,
Methodology and Resource Document
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 for the CWSRF could
be.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu.kongfg>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
3-39
-------
Choosing a Contract Laboratory, October 1998.
EPA developed this guidance to assist POTWs that want to use contract laboratories to analyze
discharge samples collected from industrial users.
Applicability: POTWs, laboratories
Contact: Robin Danesi (202) 260-2991
Guidance and Standards for Calculating Point Source Pollutant Loads Using the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), August 1997
PCS is the primary repository of data used to determine reductions in pollutant loads to the waters
of the United States, which is needed to measure NPDES and effluent guideline program
performance under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Since PCS data are
being used for purposes other than compliance monitoring, this guidance explains to permit
writers and PCS coders how data will be used to calculate loads. It also presents instances to be
avoided, such as inconsistencies in permit writing and PCS data coding, which lead to improper
load calculations. Permit writers are advised to use this guidance when developing monitoring
requirements in NPDES permits.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Steve Rubin, OECA, (202)-564-7052
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/pcsguide.htm
* Guidance Manual for the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements of the NPDES Storm Water
Multi-Sector General Permit, January 1999
This publication describes the storm water discharge monitoring requirements (visual, analytic
and compliance) and analytic monitoring reports required of certain industrial sectors covered by
the Multi-Sector General Permit.
Applicability; States, industry
Contact: Bryan Rittenhouse (202) 260-0592
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/dmr-fin.pdf
Combined Sewer Overflows — Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling, February 1999
This guidance document explains the role of monitoring and modeling in the development and
implementation of a CSO control program. It expands discussions of monitoring and modeling
introduced in the CSO Control Policy and presents examples of data collection and sewer system
simulation activities.
Contact: Tim Dwyer, (202) 260-6064
Copies available: Water Resource Center
Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, February 1999
The intent of this guidance manual is to: (1) provide a reference for anyone interested in
understanding the basics of pretreatment program requirements, and (2) provide a road map to
3-40
-------
additional and more detailed guidance materials for those trying to implement specific elements of
the Pretreatment Program.
Contact: Pat Bradley (202) 260-6963
Copies Available: Office of Water Resource Center
K Guidance Under Development and Planned Through 2001
Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluations, 2000
This document will provide guidance to municipalities on how to conduct capacity evaluations for
their sanitary sewer systems.
Contact: Kevin Weiss, (202) 260-9524
Copies Available: Water Resource Center
Management, Operation and Maintenance Requirements for Sanitary Sewers, 2000
This document will provide guidance to municipalities on how to develop and implement
management programs for sanitary sewer collection systems to comply with NPDES
requirements.
Contact: Kevin Weiss, (202) 260-9524
Copies Available: Water Resource Center
Redefinition of NPDES Backlog Options paper/guidance, June 1999
Procedures that will define the NPDES permit backlog based on environmental permitting
priorities.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Ruby Ford (202) 260-6051
Template on Conducting Quality Peer Reviews, will most likely be in guidance form and available
June 1999
Develop draft revised State Peer Review tool/guidance which will be used to assess NPDES
permit quality. The guidance is intended for use by both states and EPA regions.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Kelly Volak (202) 260-0307
Development of EPA and State Strategies to Reissue High Priority Permits, should be available
June 2000
EPA will be asking states and EPA regions to develop strategies for reducing permit backlog. The
strategies will be based on prioritizing permit issuance to facilities with the greatest impact on
water quality.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Ruby Ford (202)260-6051
3-41
-------
Development of National Strategy for Permitting Low Environmental Risk Facilities, should be
available September 2000
After characterizing the permit backlog, EPA will develop general permits for industrial sectors
having the greatest permit backlog, and will suggest states and EPA regions issue these general
permits.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contact: Jan Pickrel (202) 260-7904
CAFO Permitting Guidance and Model Permits, will be issued in 1999
EPA will develop comprehensive guidance on NPDES permitting of CAFOs including
development of Statewide, individual, and watershed general permits. EPA will also develop
model Statewide, individual, and watershed general permits. This guidance will answer a number
of policy questions regarding CAFO permits.
Applicability: States, Regions, animal feeding facilities
Contacts: William Hall (202) 260-1458 and Greg Beatty (202) 260-6929
EPA's NPDES Storm Water Program and TEA-21, should be available in March 1999
Guidance for States, municipalities, environmental and transportation agencies, and transportation
planners to assist them hi understanding the link between EPA's NPDES Storm Water Program
and TEA-21.
Applicability: States, Regions, local governments
Contact: Laura Palmer (202) 260-6961
Draft Whole Effluent Toxicity Variability Guidance, final draft is scheduled to be available in the
Office of Water Docket in July 1999
This draft document will address stakeholder issues on variability with respect to whole effluent
toxicity testing of industrial and municipal effluents.
Applicability: States, municipalities, industry
Contact: Laura Phillips (202) 260-9522
Draft Toxicity Identification Evaluation/Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TIE/TRE) Guidance, the
final document is anticipated to be available in 1999
This draft EPA guidance will address stakeholder requests for EPA clarification on TIEs/TREs as
to "when, why, and how" TIE/TREs should be required and under what conditions a TIE and/or a
TRE is appropriate to conduct. It is currently undergoing EPA management and the Office of
General Counsel review.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contact: Laura Phillips (202) 260 9522
3-42
-------
Draft Policy on the Determination of Reasonable Potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity,
anticipated to be publicly released for public comment as a final draft in 1999
This draft document will look at stakeholder issues concerning determining reasonable potential
for effluents with respect to whole effluent toxicity when there is a small or limited data set of
valid whole effluent data. It goes through the step by step discussion of the decision making and
technical issues when making a whole effluent toxicity reasonable potential determination for the
purposes of NPDES permitting. The document's primary audience will be permitting writers (i.e.,
States, American Indian Tribes, and EPA Regions).
Applicability: States, Regions, Tribes, municipalities, industry
Contact: Laura Phillips (202) 260 9522
Question and Answer Document for the Storm Water Construction General Permit and Industrial
Multi-Sector General Permit, expected later in 1999
Updates and replaces the original 1992 and 1993 Q and A documents for storm water.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contacts: Dan Weese (202) 260-6809 or Bryan Rittenhouse.(202) 260-0592
Guidance Manual for the Control of Waste Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, expect
publication 3rd quarter FY 1999
This guidance is designed to provide information for smaller POTWs, generally those without
pretreatment programs, on how to develop and implement hauled waste controls.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Guidance, expect publication in FY2001
Updates old guidance on generating effective SWPPPs for complying with the Construction
General Permit and industrial Multi-Sector General Permit.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contacts: Dan Weese (202) 260-6809 or Bryan Rittenhouse.(202) 260-0592
Local Limits Guidance Manual, expect publication in FY2000
This will update the existing pretreatment guidance which is over 10 years old.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, industry
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Annual Review Guide
Provides EPA Regional Offices with guidance and direction on performing comprehensive annual
reviews of State DWSRF programs to assess fund performance and financial status.
3-43
-------
The guide includes specific guidance on conducting reviews and a set of checklists that can be
used to assist the review process.
Applicability: Regions
Contacts: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu.kong@epa.gov or Veronica Blette, 202-260-3980
.blette.veronical@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
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: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu.kong@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
Clean Water SRF Integrated Priority List Protocol and Regional Review and Approval Criteria
Provides a step by step description of the process states may use to develop Integrated Project
Priority Lists that consider wastewater, nonpoint source and estuary management projects together
to direct funds to the highest priority water quality projects.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contacts: Stephanie vonFeck (202) 260-9762 and Cleora Scott (202) 260-5817
Drinking Water SRF Sample Biennial Report
Provides a model for states to consider when developing their biennial reports. These reports
document the activities of the DWSRF loan fund and set-asides.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Stephanie vonFeck (202) 260-9762
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 Hoover (202) 260-7376
3-44
-------
Guidance on Conducting the 2000 Clean Water Needs Survey, January 2000
EPA will develop a comprehensive package on the type of information that is allowable to be
included in the 2000 survey and how that information must be documented, and procedures for
data entry and verification.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Sandra Perrin (202) 260-7382
Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Stormwater andBiosolids Treatment, June
1999-June 2001
EPA is developing a series of fact sheets on all technologies available. About 30 will be available
in 1999 which focus on innovative technologies developed in conjunction with the Construction
Grants Program plus some wet weather technologies. Additional fact sheets will continue to be
produced each year.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Joyce Hudson (202) 260-1290
Guidance on the Beneficial Use of Biosolids Awards Program, January 2000, 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) 260-7283
Development of Field Storage Guidance for Biosolids and Other related By-Products, will be
issued September 1999
EPA in conjunction with USDA is developing guidance that can be used by municipalities and
fanners to store biosolids in an environmentally safe manner.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 260-7283
Development of Guidance for POTW's on Radioactivity in Biosolids, interim guidance in June
1999 and final guidance in June 2001
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working with EPA to develop guidance on this issue.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: Robert Bastian (202) 260-7378
Guidance for Using the Biosolids Database Management System, September 1999
EPA has developed a biosolids database as a result of the reinvestment effort. Most Regions and
many states have had training on the use of the database already. As a result, data elements and
modifications have been added to make the database work better for the state and local users. It is
3-45
-------
anticipated that the database will become part of the modernized Permit Compliance System.
This guidance will document the database and its use.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Robert Brobst (303) 313-6129
Decentralized Wastewater Management Guidance Manual, final draft December 1999
EPA is developing a manual for management of individual wastewater treatment (Onsite systems)
and small wastewater treatment systems. The goal of this guidance is to convey effective
management of these systems in such a manner that it will become a natural and normal state of
the art. Information relating to this guidance will be discussed at national stakeholders meetings
in the Spring and Summer of 1999 and is a part of the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Joyce Hudson (202) 260-1290
Guidance on the Management, Operation and Maintenance ofWastewater Collection Systems
(Sewers), September 2000
EPA will develop guidance on the management practices and operation and
techniques that have served municipalities best in the reduction and elimination of wet weather
flows from their systems. This guidance will help municipalities make decisions on the
rehabilitation and repair of their collection systems and ways to better operate those systems.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: Barron Benroth (202) 260-2205
Storm Water Phase II Guidances Proposed for the Next 2 Years:
Model Municipal Permit for Phase 11, available by October 27,2000
EPA will prepare and distribute to States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program, as
well as to EPA Regions, model general permits for the regulation of the categories of point
sources designated for regulation under CWA section 402(p)(6).
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Wendy Bell (260-9534)
MenuofBMPs, available by October 27,2000, with a peer review complete six months later
EPA will prepare and issue a menu of best management practices (BMPs) applicable to municipal
separate storm sewer systems to assist such systems in development and implementation of each
of the minimum measures proposed for municipal storm water management programs in the
January 9,1998, proposed rule.
Applicability: Municipalities
Contact: John Kosco (260-6385)
3-46
-------
Guidance on Measurable Goals, available by 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.
Contact: John Kosco (260-6385)
No Exposure Guidance, available first quarter of FY2000
EPA will develop a guidance document on the industrial no exposure exemption of the Phase II
rule, which will be effective when the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
Contact Dan Weese (260-6809)
Phase IIPermitting Authority Guidance, available by the end of FY2000
EPA will develop a guidance document on the provisions of the rule applicable to permitting
authorities, including developing designation criteria for evaluating municipalities outside of
urbanized areas and construction waivers.
Contact: John Kosco (260-6385)
Phase II Municipal Storm Water Program Guidance, available by the end of FY2000
EPA will develop a guidance document on the six minimum measures municipalities must
implement as part of their storm water phase II program.
Applicability: Municipalities
Contact: John Kosco (260-6385)
3-47
-------
3-48
-------
Commitment to
Agency-Wide Priorities
Section 4
-------
-------
Contents
Protecting Children's Health
page 4-5
Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxics Initiative page 4-8
Reinvention
page 4-11
-------
-------
— Introduction —
There are three Agency-wide priorities that the Office of Water is highlighting in this
Program Guidance - Children's Health, Reinvention, and the Persistent, Bioaccumulative
Toxics Initiative (PBTI). We recognize and support other Agency-wide priorities and guiding
principles, such as placing emphasis on Indian Country and maximizing public participation
and right to know. As we continue to create and refine the idea of an integrated, cross Agency
guidance, we will work to include more specific references to these other efforts in future
Office of Water Program Guidance documents.
Our purpose in highlighting Children's Health, Reinvention, and the Persistent,
Bioaccumulative Toxics Initiative is to encourage greater collaboration between staff of the
water program and Regional staff who work on these priorities. The hope for these Agency-
wide priorities is to eventually have them woven into program implementation, so that their
existence as separate initiatives will no longer be needed. By including these priorities in our
Guidance and in our End of Year Reporting, we are attempting to forge a closer link between
the Agency-wide priorities and the day-to-day operation of the water program.
- Protecting Children's Health -
I. Vision
EPA's National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats,
announced in September, 1996, recognizes that children may be at higher risk from pollution
than adults because: 1) they have proportionally greater exposure than adults, 2) they may be
more susceptible and less able to fight off diseases because their immune systems are not fully
developed, 3) they are not fully grown and exposure to contaminants may retard their physical
and mental development.
Children's exposure to waterborne contaminants can occur when eating contaminated
fish, consuming contaminated drinking water, or swimming in contaminated oceans, lakes, or
streams. Our vision is that drinking water will be safe to consume in unlimited quantity, that
beaches will be safe for play at all times, and that children can safely consume all the fish they
can catch. The Office of Water is working to protect children from risks associated with water
pollution in drinking water, surface water, and fish by issuing national standards and health
advisories; overseeing the monitoring of drinking water supplies; and supporting state programs
that help ensure safe beaches, clean water, and uncontaminated fish.
4-5
-------
—Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
EPA's Fish Contamination Program (FCP) provides technical assistance to states,
Tribes, and others on matters related to persistent bioaccumulative toxics in fish and wildlife
and associated potential health risks to those who eat contaminated fish. The FCP works with
state and Tribal agencies to establish national consistency in the approaches, methods, and
protocols for assessing contaminants hi fish and wildlife for the purpose of developing and
managing fish consumption advisories. Through this program, EPA publishes guidance
documents, develops and manages national databases, holds national forums, conferences and
training workshops, provides grants for advisory development, conducts special studies,
develops outreach materials, and assists in the issuance of advisories.'
The goal of national consistency is an Action Item included in the Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP). A major premise of the Plan is that informed citizens and officials can make
better decisions with clear, accurate, and timely information. The use of the EPA guidance for
establishing fish consumption advisories will result in good scientific, protective advice for all
citizens.
The FCP is also involved with the development and dissemination of outreach
materials, including a new brochure, Should I Eat the Fish I Catch?. The brochure was
developed as part of the CWAP and is available in three languages (English, Spanish, and
Hmong).
Lastly, upon request, the FCP assists States and Tribes in the issuance of advisories to
ensure adequate protection of public health which has been successful. There has only been
one case, hi 1997, where FCP, in collaboration with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, coordinated the development and issuance of the first federal fish
consumption advisory. This federal issuance was done after determining that the State of
Michigan intended to issue an advisory which EPA determined did not provide adequate
protection of public health, particularly for women and children. A total of 1.2 million copies
of the advisory were printed and distributed by EPA to fishing license holders and health care
facilities throughout the State of Michigan. In 1998, Michigan issued a new advisory providing
adequate protection of women and children. The FCP continues to work with other states to
ensure adequate protection of public health.
Development and Issuance of Fish Advisories: Regions should encourage the
remaining states that have not yet adopted a risk-based approach to fish consumption advisories
to do so, hi order to achieve the goal of national consistency in the approach to establishing fish
consumption advisories. Regions should encourage States and Tribes to attend national
conferences on chemicals in the environment, training workshops, and the Annual
State/Tribal/Federal Forum on Contaminants in Fish, The next Forum will be held in October,
1999.
4-6
-------
Regions should encourage States and Tribes to monitor fish flesh, with particular
emphasis on waters where there is heavy recreational or subsistence fishing. Regions should be
alert for situations where there is scientifically valid monitoring data about a waterbody that
indicates an advisory is appropriate, and in such cases should work with the state or Tribe to
develop and issue protective advisories. Regions should notify the FCP of any such instance so
that any technical assistance can be offered.
Regions should encourage states and Tribes to seek creative means to reach out to their
residents regarding how to consume fish safely. Encourage the use of the brochure now
available in three languages (English, Spanish, and Hmong).
-Beach Action Plan for Recreational Waters
Studies in the United States and abroad have consistently found an association between
gastrointestinal illness and exposure to recreation waters. Other illnesses such as eye, ear, and
throat infections in children have been linked to pathogen exposure in recreational waters.
EPA's Beach Plan for Recreational Waters (the "Beach Plan") is intended to reduce the risks of -
infection to children and other recreational water users.
The Beach Plan describes activities to enable consistent management of recreational
water quality programs and improve the science that supports recreational water monitoring
programs. Consistent with the plan, EPA will strengthen water quality standards and provide
guidance and training on recreational water quality monitoring and risk management. The
Agency will also conduct a National Beach Health Safety Survey and maintain a website to
communicate recreational water quality information to beach managers and the public.
As EPA works with states and Tribes to implement point and nonpoint source control
programs, we should pay particular attention to beaches where children may have direct
exposure to contaminants. Specifically, when cleaning up sewage overflows (CSOs and SSOs
in particular), we should give special consideration to minimi ring risks to children.
—Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments of 1996 include a new focus on
risk-based priority setting, meaning that EPA will decide which contaminants to regulate based
on data about the adverse health effects of the contaminant, its occurrence in public water
systems, and the projected risk reduction. Under the amendments, EPA identifies
subpopulations at greater risk than the general public of experiencing adverse health effects
from exposure to drinking water contaminants. These sensitive subpopulations include infants,
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and immunocompromised persons. First, through its
ongoing health risk assessment, EPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking
4-7
-------
water with the goal of protecting those most sensitive to contaminant exposure. This assures
that children's health will be protected by the regulation. Second, the 1996 SDWA
amendments call for better regulatory science, including an analysis of the health effects to
sensitive subpopulations.
EPA is engaged in a number of activities to better characterize occurrence, exposure and
health impacts of drinking water contaminants on a number of particularly vulnerable segments
of the population, or "sensitive subpopulations," including infants and young children. These
activities will result in unproved health assessments and regulatory and non-regulatory
decisions with respect to drinking water.
//. Key Strategy
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories
Provides an approach for developing risk-based, scientifically sound, cost effective fish
consumption advisories.
Contact: Jeffrey Bigler, 202-260-1305, biglerjeff@epamail.epa.gov
Web Address: http.//www.epa.gov/OST/fishadvice
- Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Initiative -
I. Vision
In 1998, EPA made binding commitments to reduce 12 priority PBTs as part of the
Canada/US Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (Binational Strategy), with a long-range
goal of "virtual elimination." These interim goals are national for some of the 12 — mercury
(50% reduction in deliberate use and release from human activity sources by 2006), dioxin
(75% reduction in releases from human activity sources by 2006), and PCBs (90% reduction in
PCBs used in electrical equipments by 2006). The PBT strategy sets forth the approach EPA
will take to meet these commitments, and, indeed, goes further than the Binational Strategy by
establishing a process to identify additional priority PBTs for targeted action. We will begin by
developing and implementing national action plans for the 12 Level 1 pollutants. In the future,
EPA will select additional PBTs of concern for cross-Agency action and future action plan
development.
The Binational and the PBT Strategies have led in part, to the development and
implementation of three innovative and cutting-edge partnership agreements with industry. In
1998, EPA and the American Hospital Association (AHA) signed an historical Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of minimizing and reducing the amount of persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants manufactured and disposed of by hospitals. The AHA
Agreement also contains a provision for a Mercury Virtual Elimination plan to be achieved by
4-8
-------
2005. In September 1998, three Northwest Indiana steel mills signed a voluntary agreement
with EPA to reduce the use of mercury at their facilities. Over the past two years, the EPA has
been working with the Chlorine Institute to help them achieve a 50% reduction in mercury use
and release in their chlor-alkali sector. Since the project's inception, usage has been
significantly reduced each year.
These partnerships are excellent examples of the Agency's new approach to pollution
prevention and toxics reduction, and in FY 2000 we will actively support similar partnership
opportunities, ideas, and activities. Headquarters Program Offices, EPA Regional Offices,
Great Waterbody Offices, States and Tribes should seek to reduce or eliminate priority
persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances in the environment through use of the
full range of regulatory and nonregulatory actions, including pollution prevention strategies and
assistance; permitting and other controls; compliance assistance and enforcement activities;
remediation activities, and voluntary incentives.
Each Regional Office and Great Waterbody Office should identify those PBTs of
concern to the Region and its States and Tribes from among those priority PBTs identified for
the Agency's PBT strategic targeting efforts and should provide support for Regional, Great
Waterbody Office, State, and Tribal activities that will reduce or eliminate these PBTs in the
environment. Whenever possible, Regional and Great Waterbody Office initiatives should be
developed in partnership with States and Tribes. Note: Additional up-dated guidance on an
expanded Agency-wide list of high-priority PBT pollutants of national concern will be provided
to the Regions by the end of FY99. This expanded list will go beyond the initial twelve
chemicals identified as national priorities under the Agency's PBT Initiative.
Sector and Geographic Priorities: National priority PBTs can provide a focus for
specific projects or activities within existing HQ Office, Regional Office or Great Water Body
Office priority sectors and geographic areas, as well as provide a rationale for selecting new
priority sectors. The Agency PBT Initiative, through individual chemical plans, will identity
those sectors primarily responsible for the generation or discharge to the environment of
priority PBT pollutants. Regions and Great Water Body Offices should ensure that all
opportunities for PBT reductions are being addressed as their sector and geographic activities
are implemented. For example, if a Regional Office or a Great Water Body Office identifies
iron and steel facilities as a priority sector for action, it should ensure that reduction of mercury
use, emissions and discharges by iron and steel facilities are addressed.
Specific PBTs: Regions and Great Water Body Offices may also choose to initiate
projects focused on specific PBT substances based on past regional pollution problems or fish
consumption advisories, such as mercury spills, dioxin contamination, or wide-spread pesticide
contamination. Whenever possible, the focus should be on innovative ways to prevent such
contamination in the future.
4-9
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mai! code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
International: HQ Offices, Regional Offices and Great Water Body Offices are
encouraged to look for opportunities to reduce PBTs in the environment as part of any
international or binational work. Because many PBT substances can travel long distances and
cause transboundary problems, we encourage HQ Offices, -Regional Offices, Great Water Body
Offices, States and Tribes to identify and pursue opportunities for PBT reductions through
existing or proposed activities conducted jointly with counterparts hi other countries.
Measurement: If possible, projects and activities should be designed to document
quantifiable results or progress, such as amount of canceled pesticides collected through "clean
sweeps" programs, amount of PBT-containing hazardous wastes discharge from a certain
industry, or increased use by a business or industry of environmentally preferable
products/equipment such as non-mercury-containing equipment
II. Key Strategies
Canada-US Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great
Lakes
A summary of current voluntary PBT reduction efforts undertaken by the Great Lakes National
Program Office and its private and public partners. Excellent source of information and ideas
that can be shared.
Contact: Elizabeth LaPlante, 312-353-2694, laplante.elizabeth@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ghipo/bns
Region 5 Toxic Reduction Team Statement of Purpose and Principles
An organization that brings together key professional staff from throughout the organization "to
weave the best efforts of the Region and other stakeholders on Toxics Reduction into the most
coherent and effective enterprise possible."
Contact: Jon Barney, 312-886-6102, bamey.jonathon@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/toxteam
PBT Frequently Asked Questions
Some basic information about what PBTs are and what EPA is doing about reducing releases
and exposures to PBTs.
Contact: Barbara McLeod, 202-260-5681, mcleod.barbara@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Executive Summary (Draft)
A one-page summary of EPA's draft strategy to overcome the remaining challenges in
addressing priority PBT pollutants.
Contact Barbara McLeod, 202-260-5681, mcleod.barbara@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
4-10
-------
Full PBT Strategy Document (Draft)
The entire PBT draft Strategy document which includes the purpose, goal, guiding principles,
approaches to reduce risk, linkages and stakeholder involvement
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications, 800-489-8695
Order Number EPA 742D98001
Contact Barbara McLeod, 202-260-5681, mcleod.barbara@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Mercury Action Plan (Draft)
This action plan focuses on regulatory and voluntary actions, enforcement and compliance,
research, and outreach to characterize and reduce risks associated with mercury.
Contact Barbara McLeod, 202-260-5681, mcleod.barbara@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opp1mtr/pbt
Mercury Action Plan Fact Sheet
A one-page summary of EPA's review of regulations, initiatives, and programs which manage
and control mercury, and the action plan which identifies a set of cost-effective options to move
toward achieving further reductions.
Contact: Barbara McLeod, 202-260-5681, mcleod.barbara@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
— Reinvention —
L Vision
In our day-to-day activities, we should search for opportunities to improve our core
programs through innovation and streamlining. We should also strive for more integrative and
holistic environmental protection — through sector-based approaches, community-based
environmental protection, working in partnerships with states, and improving management of
environmental information. There are several specific Reinvention Goals, Objectives and
Subobjectives listed at the end of this Section.
- Industry and Sector-Based Environmental Protection
Sectors/Industry
The goal of EPA's Sector Based Action Plan is to incorporate sector strategies into EPA core
functions, where appropriate, to solve environmental problems. Identifying source sectors for
PBT chemicals, animal feeding operations, and dischargers into impaired waters should present
more efficient and cost-effective mechanisms for addressing complex environmental problems.
For example, if a Regional Office identified petroleum refineries as a priority sector, then
4-11
-------
multiple PBT pollutants and Great Waters pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury, dioxin/furans,
and benzo(a)pyrene) could be addressed. Similarly, regional/state efforts in implementing the
National AFO Strategy lend themselves to focus on specific sector activities such as poultry,
hog, beef, and dairy operations that affect water quality and impact other multimedia (e.g, air
and land) issues. The new TMDLs for impaired waters that will be proposed later mis year also
should offer effluent trading possibilities for regions interested in pursuing watershed
restoration action strategies as well as efforts to protect sources of drinking water and wetlands.
Project XL
Project XL is one of the primary tools we can use to conduct experiments and promote change
in the Agency's approach to environmental protection. Project XL provides OW the
opportunity to test innovations that help us meet our goals. For example, the pretreatment
program developed a framework for a series of POTW pilot projects under Project XL.
Programs and Regions should continue to work to ensure the successful development and
implementation of XL projects.
- Community-Based Environmental Protection
The February 1,1999 CBEP Framework which was released under the Deputy Administrator's
signature identified four CBEP goals for the Agency:
• Achieve environmental results consistent with EPA's mission and base program goals,
as stated in EPA's authorizing statutes and Strategic Plan;
• Address environmental concerns and issues that are not addressed under traditional
federal regulatory approaches, such as urban sprawl, urban and agricultural runoff, and
loss of biological diversity;
• Help communities develop the tools and capacity necessary to be stewards of their
human and natural resources;
• Coordinate and integrate EPA's programs and activities to increase the Agency's
effectiveness in supporting community environmental decision making.
The Agency's Strategic Plan calls upon all of the programs to work across their
traditional statutory boundaries to achieve integrated, holistic results. In cooperation with the
Regions, and other National Programs, the National Water Program will work to implement the
CBEP Framework and to support targeting of priority places within each state for EPA and
other federal support. This work should cut across traditional programmatic lines and lend
support to communities holistic environmental protection activities. OW will also continue to
build capacity within communities for better environmental management decision making
through more integrated information; the development of tools that can be used by
communities; and, in some places, direct support.
4-12
-------
- Innovative Approaches
Permitting
EPA's Permit Action Plan calls for cross-Agency efforts to harmonize administrative
procedures, strengthen public participation, move toward more performance-based permitting,
and evaluate the potential value in multimedia permitting. Regional permitting staff should
participate in these efforts to provide perspective from their front-line experience.
Partnership Programs
EPA sponsors national and regional voluntary partnership programs for businesses, industries,
trade associations, communities, universities, and state and local governments. They have
demonstrated success in addressing environmental problems such as conserving and protecting
water resources, reducing greenhouse gases, and encouraging energy efficient product design.
Regional and Program Offices should continue to work collaboratively to efficiently develop
and expand voluntary programs that meet the needs of our partners and result in environmental
improvements.
Innovations with States
The EPA-State partnership provides a natural laboratory for testing new ideas, and developing
successful innovations into system-wide improvements. Regional and Program offices should
pursue opportunities to work collaboratively on innovative projects, and should respond
promptly to State proposals.
Evaluating Reinvention Activities
EPA is committed to learning from experience, so that successful innovations can be expanded
and new approaches can be used more broadly. Regional and Program offices should evaluate
their innovative programs, and document and communicate results.
//. Key Strategies
Reinventing Environmental Protection — EPA's Approach
Statement from EPA's senior management that explains what reinvention means, why EPA
needs to reinvent, how reinvention affects the way EPA does business, and a framework that
describes EPA's reinvention activities.
Contact: Gail Robarge, 202-260-9101, robarge.gail@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/reinvent/strategy
Sector Based Environmental Protection Action Plan
This Plan identifies principles to guide the use of the sector-based approach and outlines what
the Agency will do differently in the future to integrate this approach into our toolbox for
4-13
-------
solving environmental problems.
Contact Greg Ondich, 202-260-4822, ondich.greg@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/sectors
Project XL: Best Practices Guide for Proposal Development
Designed to help project sponsors submit proposals that will go through the review process as
quickly and smoothly as possible. See also: Stakeholder Involvement Guide, and Manual for
EPA XL Project Teams.
Contact: Chris Knopes, 202-260-9298, knopes.christopher@epa.gov
Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection
EPA's policy and planning framework for supporting and implementing community-based
environmental protection (CBEP) over the next three years. The Framework identities specific
goals, strategies, activities, and measures of success for EPA in implementing
community-based environmental protection
Contact; Jerry Filbin, 202-260-8099, filbin.gerald@epa.gov
Web address: yosemite.epa.gov/osec/osechome.nsf
Action Plan for Achieving the Next Generation in Environmental Permitting
Describes strategic, cross-Agency approach to achieve die best possible environmental results
while balancing needs to streamline the permitting process, reduce unnecessary burden, provide
greater flexibility, and enhance public participation.
Contact: Michele Aston, 202-260-8767, aston.michele@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/permits
Joint EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation and Guidance
EPA and senior state environmental officials signed an agreement designed to improve
environmental protection, improve EPA/State environmental management practices, and
provide timely decision-making on state innovation proposals.
Contact: John Glenn, 202-260-5029, glenn.john@epa.gov
Web address', www.epa.gov/reinvent/ecos
Charter for Coordination of EPA's Partnership Programs
Establishes an operating structure for internal coordination and communication related to
EPA's partnership programs.
Contact: Rebecca Nachtrieb, 202-260-7423, nachtrieb.rebecca@epa.gov
Web address: intranet.epa.gov/reinvent/partners.htm
4-14
-------
Management Agreement
Instructions and Template
Section 5
-------
-------
Instructions to Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great
Water Body Offices for Completing the 2000 Management
Agreement Matrix
By September 1,1999, all Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices are
responsible for completing the portions for which they are responsible in the 2000 MA Matrix
(Lotus 1,2,3 file)1. This will serve as the draft MA. The final, signed MA is due November 30,
1999.
STEP ONE: Secure and open Lotus 1,2,3 file.
STEP TWO: Complete Rows 1 and 2, indicating your affiliation and name.
STEP THREE: Analyze Column "O", REPORTER, to assess which measures you are
responsible for making commitments against. Measures are listed in column "K", MEASURE.
For the Tribal Strategy, you will need to look at column "J", GOAL.
STEP FOUR: For each relevant measure, provide your commitment for FY 2000 in column "P",
REGIONAL, GWB, OR HQ COMMITMENT. Please use Columns "M", TARGET, and "N",
UNIT, to inform you. Also, please consult any special instructions (e.g., definitions) that the
owner, listed in column "B", OWNER, may have provided. [NOTE: THIS COLUMN OR PAGE
IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED. FOR SOME TRIBAL GOALS, SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
WERE PROVIDED IN COLUMN "K", MEASURE.] If you have questions regarding any
measure, please contact the measure's owner listed in Column, "B". The phone numbers are:
Tribal
Sylvia Bell
Ed Drabkowski
Shanna Draheim
Ben Picks
Staci Gatica
Karen Gourdine
Hazel Groman
Dianne Baucom, 202-260-8822
202-260-7255
202-260-7009
202-260-6218
202-260-8652
202-260-3967
202-260-1328
202-260-0878
'Lotus is an agency standard, is supported by EPA Contractors, and allows for easy
analysis and aggregation of information.
5-3
-------
GWDW
JudyHecht
Susan Holdsworth
Bob King
OST
OWM
owow
Betty West
Clare Donaher, 202-260-5542
202-260-5682
202-260-4743
202-260-7028
Ted Johnson, 202-260-8142
Jim Home, 202-260-5802
Bob Brown, 202-260-9173
202-260-8486
STEP FIVE: Please complete column, "S", NARRATIVE with any additional information that
you believe is important to understanding your numeric commitment for a given measure.
STEP SIX: Repeat above step 4 and 5 for remaining measures.
STEP SEVEN: Save Lotus 1,2,3 submission with a new name and a ".wk4" extension. Obtain
your Senior Management's approval for this submission, indicate that approval in a cover email
to Ben Picks, ficks.ben@epamail.epa.gov and send your completed chart as an electronic
attachment by September 1st.
STEP EIGHT: HQ Water Immediate aggregates information into a national summary sheet and
HQ Program 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. Final decisions will be
forwarded to HQ Water Immediate and entered into individual regional sheets.
STEP NINE: HQ Water Immediate sends out final national summary table to Regions, HQ, and
Great Water Body Offices.
STEP TEN: Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices Senior Managers will
review and sign off on national summary table by November 30th, 1999.
STEP ELEVEN: HQ Immediate will send out a mid-year template for Regions, HQ Program
Offices, and Great Water Body Offices to complete by April 1st, 2000.
STEP TWELVE: HQ Immediate will send out an end of year template for Regions, HQ
Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices to complete by November 2,2000.
NOTE: In order to facilitate aggregation of information, OW Immediate requests that the Lotus
1,2,3 file be kept in tact. For this reason, certain columns will be \vrite-protected.
5-4
-------
.E3-0
O O 0)
CL co o:
TJ
CD «_> ^
C 0) ~
|||
Z co i_
.g
"co
o
Q.
.^ (D
-2
ID
-i
(5§ 8
*^ ^
-D 8
Co
CO •§,
*w O)
r- ^
^^^ Cu
CD *=
0VW CO
^
p.
LU
\ 1
i
R&lil&sbtk!
I
^
SoS
1 °l
1 w 5
flQ-I
-:-:^y:T~*'~'
People
Public Health Objective
£
75
I
£>
CO
CO
1—
3
O>
•c
Q
'E
3
E
o
O
c
<
c
I
n
)
•
)
5
•
CO
"E
CO
c
CQ
-4->
CO
Risk Contaminant
^
D)
X
CO
T3
CQ
ll
CO
2
O)
o
2
Q.
e Water Protection
o
CO
+
)
CO
CQ
a>
o
.g
id water resource |
1
0
CO
ing water standard
_c
Q
CO
0)
.c
CO
TJ
CQ
CO
L.
1
1
"c
o
O
S2
Io
i
To
g
£
o
seAijoafqoqns
-------
c
o
CO
UJ <
CO
o
O
O ^
-
D)
0
_J
liii ill!
££
.0 =,
o
:cs
CO
0
CO
CD
JD
b£
c c
o
15 g
c fX
<5
CD
8
"S
CO
-------
Between
Office of Water FY 2000 Management Agreement
Date:
J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water
and
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
James D. Giattina, Director
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Region 4
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Sally Swanson, Acting Director
Water Division, Region 5
Robert H. Wayland, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Gary V. Gulezian, Director
Great Lakes National Program Office, Region 5
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
William B. Hathaway, Director
Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
Kathy Gorospe, Director
American Indian Office
U. Gale Hutton, Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division, Region 7
Linda M. Murphy, Director
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1
Max H. Dodson, Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation, Region 8
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region 2
Kerrigan Clough, Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Region 8
Thomas J. Maslany, Director
Water Protection Division, Region 3
Alexis Strauss, Acting Director
Water Division, Region 9
William Matuszeski, Director
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3
Elbert Moore, Director
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Region 10
Robert F. McGhee, Director
Water Management Division, Region 4
Randy Smith, Director
Office of Water, Region 10
-------
5-8
-------
I
}f
i
-------
jf
U
ll
Be
^-o if
II
1
fill
i
Hi
I
llSil
iti
r?"o
I
c
Jf 1
5H5
iifi
fis
-------
j
tip
*< 8g
I
Illi
!
If
r |S *
lilil
iii
IM
sr i
ii io|
!*°i-tfif
:||-*M
lllsls
idUiii
!!!
o
•S
1
o O
O
u
E
5
I!
rf
fill
oco
-------
s
o
-------
< «-
-------
-------
I
•5
-------
IIs
I
I1
il
8
•5
#•»
1 ** )
ifli
ill
2*bQ*»4S*i»,J
l
HI
O Ul'
112
8-58
-------
•3
I
O
>»
- -a
%
Is
E.S
M
flf
rlli
(M
|H|
«
A
u>
1
s
pm
I*
II
I
i]
&
•5
I§
Pi
llf:
1,
I!
S-o«J
£ £j a 4
-------
|
V
u.
O
8
I
£
Ilifei
if
I
i
*!'
i = 0 SI
:«rDs_4
illitl
Lilfl^
i
f
i
Sg
f
ll
•xS
in
C 'D
111
I
II
tf.|ffl|
I S.'E
1]
ll
Jills
'Mi
!!i!!|{
Ii
-------
II
II
il
114
Sis]
fill
II
11
ill
»»••>»?
8
Ii
!« Hi
liliiii]
Illllll
5
o
!l
Ii!
O c<5«
3 ujZ-
Lil!
iiili
Sg
<§>!
(to
< •-
-------
11
Hi
lltfl
J«J
-isls
ffill
f?hi
If!
ii
11
ifi
if!
III!
(Jill
II!
«!*
iii
o o
ffi
I1!
°5
a e'
-------
I
I
I!
*Zs~""
I
§
i
I
*
•So
II
I&&
ii
I
I
o
I
Ii
ill
iii
i
I]
s°
-------
2
UJ
*I
Us
-------
Itl
«*f?i
ii
*^«
lt
ill)
-------
-------
•5
S
§
-------
-------
S
iii
niR
E< 85-
II!
ȣ
III
I!
goa
fil
I
i;
i-m
o=s%0
iflK?
S W c « JD ^
ll
ill
pi
•ifew
IP
111
II]
12^
EfJ
-------
•5
8
S
-------
I
0>
X
-------
•5
s
i
>
u.
,
-------
-------
i
i
! -
sis'S &.
!*«
In!
>c
sfg
litlll
5llfj
iiii
1!
-------
o
-------
ss
i!
n
u
£
ill
IS]
II
:«
IS
111
0*000
It!
ililii
!jp«J
PI1!!
-------
-------
-------
Core Performance Measures
Section 6
-------
-------
Contents
Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring page 6-5
Progress under NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and
Applicability of Core Performance Measures
FY2000 Core Performance Measures for Water
page 6-11
Information Sources and Reporting for FY 2000 page 6-13
Water 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.
to 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
6-5
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
reflect 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 FY2000 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 mat 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
6-6
-------
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 in national data bases which we
recognize must be maintained through existing comprehensive data systems." CPMs are not intended !<
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 EP/
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 RCRJS 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 wih
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 need to accommodate the circumstances of individual States. As per the August
6-7
-------
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 in 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 in 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
6-8
-------
States need to work together to ensure that the reporting of CPM data is efficient and improvements i
data collection and reporting are made where possible.
CPMs serve to frame discussions of what reporting meets the value/cost test, by spelling out wh?>
information EPA and States jointly believe to be highest priority. Information not necessary to suppov
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 tune. 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 projects in specific States and Regions to improve
the value and reduce the cost of information.
6-9
-------
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,
ECOS President
Date
Carol Browner,
EPA Administrator
Date
Lewis Shaw,
South Carolina DHEC,
ECOS Vice-President
Linda Rimer,
EPA Deputy Associate Administrator
Langdon Marsh,
Oregon DEQ,
Chair, ECOS Strategic Planning Committee
J. Charles Fox,
EPA Assistant Administrator
6-10
-------
2
CM
i
i
Core Program Output Mes
i
i
i
8
a
O
E
2
BJD
S
£
o
U
h.
S
J
•5
«
Core Environmental Ii
45
£
)f river miles and lake acres '
^^
^
1
rn
1
I
^p>
'E
i
C
O
^^
o
u
JO
3
C
I
ts
CO
4
«N
1
_C
*mm
umber of: a) community dr
Z
•
»**
•o
i
^
V
i
|O
"3
i
CL
*0
9)
1
H
,£
S
"c
2
"-'
1
u
c
o
1
O.
8.
o
1
•o
C8
VI
£
"55
^.
OS
e
-p
a.
3
•M
ation of State-issued fish cot
J33
Q.
I
•o
g
a
1
o.
ca
"E
a
"»
"
5
3
E
OS
00
"c
i
CL
!
1
«>o
ra
of
i
en
'to
X
'c
i
E
o
o
a>
eo
§
Vi
(D
o
•«
ethodologies, as reported thr
isting of Fish and Wildlife A
.1
"«
I
^3
c
CO
^£
s
h
w
00
12
•o
V
>
u
£:
Q.
1
5
BO
• ^
sient, non-community drink
c
2
+*»
•^
^^
1
.2
2
1
o
ts
I
8.
<*>
o
1
a
S.
•o
in
E
V7
X
f
00
.£
T3
en
!§
*>
o
I
en
•§
j3
cn
•8
en
1
•*-»
03
U
tad
of any federally enforceab
dard.
J"
ii>-> >
JO
o
~ ?
ci .0
0 .&
•E E
.5 T3
edi
E
— o
Health
A
S
cu
-c
e
o" s ~ j; ^ sr |
-*• °- 8 -8 -° S s-
•o c c *o 52 >*
£ g g 3 c •£ o
SbJl^S'B
•^ £ « ij « *c »>
CO 3 CL.
CA
u
I*
lll|-=
g w u-, ep ,0 . a -o „
11 |i| Hi
ure
tin
th
III!
- 2. i
-------
I
i
o
ce
_e
"5
Q.
B
z,
o
09
«rf
1
O
1
*w
Core Program Output Measure
8. Number and percent of facilities that have a discharge
requiring an individual permit: a) mat 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.
CO
.£ S
« A
if? _2s 4) ^^
l|f §
ijifl
S^^ (8 «5
0 B) •§
s « !2 ^
® to o «
— J2 W O
S ~ .2 3
|||1|
£ «*_, O « "-
o ° -C ^-^
u 1 «fi
• ~ ">< D
r- cs «> -o
o
1
•u
a
S
a
i
e
2
*>
e
W
21
e
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.
i
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.
1 1 . 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.
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 Fears jointly transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA).
-------
Information Sources and Reporting
for
FY 2000 Water Core Performance Measures
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be
Reported for Measure
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 well 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,
violations) 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.
Estimated number of community
water systems (and estimated percent
of population served) implementing a
multiple barrier approach to prevent
drinking water contamination.
Source: Existing reporting will be used. Still
determining what reporting to use. A small
workgroup that includes EPA and ASDWA is
working to define multiple barrier approach;
the final definition will determine what data
from existing reporting is needed for this
measure.
What to Report: No additional reporting
beyond the existing reporting that will be
identified as described above will be needed.
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.
6-13
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be
Reported for Measure
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.
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.
6-14
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be
Reported for Measure
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.
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.
18. 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.
What to Report: No separate reporting
required.
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 rinding 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.
6-15
-------
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.
6-16
-------
Timeline
Section 7
-------
-------
Contents
Calendar by Date
Calendar by Topic
page 7-5
page 7-9
-------
-------
Water Accountability Key Dates for FY 1999/2000
FY1999
January
15 Comments on Water's FY1999 Performance Report Outline for Goal 2 due to OW
Immediate
29 Outline of F Y99 Performance Report Chapter for Goal 2: Clean and Safe Waters due to
the Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability (OPAA)
February
2 Draft FY2000/1 OW National Program Guidance to Regions (post issuance of President's
Budget to Congress)
March
1 OPAA Guidance on Mid-Year Reporting for FYl999
10 FY1999 Mid-Year Reporting Guidance to Regions
31 Integrated Guidance for Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability Activities,
April - June 1999 issued by Sallyanne Harper (includes guidance for FY2001 Budget
and Annual Plan and Strategic Plan revision)
April
6 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate
9 Final FY2000/1 OW National Program Guidance to Regions
16 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA on all F Y99 Annual Performance Measures for
which Data is Available— Will Be Used to Brief Peter Robertson, Deputy Administrator
23 Detailed Outline of Water's F Yl 999 Annual Performance Report due to OPAA - see Jan.
29
7-5
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
I9nno a"COde3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
May
25 Goal 2 Briefing for Peter Robertson on FY99 Mid-Year Results and FY01 Budget Plans
June
2 Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
July
7 Investment Proposals submitted
28 Final passback
September
1 Draft 2000 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use as
basis for negotiation)
FY01 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to OMB
30 OPAA Guidance for End of Year Reporting for FY1999 to Water Immediate
FY2000
i
October
7 EndofYearFY1999 Reporting Guidance to Regions
November
2 End of Year Data for FY1999 due to OW Immediate
19 End of Year Data for FYl 999 due to OPAA
30 Signed FY2000 Management Agreements between HQ and Regions
7-6
-------
December
Draft #1 of revised Strategic Plan released
January
Water End of FY1999 Summary (under consideration)
February
FYOl Annual Plan and Budget submitted to Congress
2 Draft Update to FY 2000/1 Program Guidance to Regions (post issuance of President's
Budget to Congress)
Draft #2 of revised Strategic Plan released
March
31 EPA FY1999 Performance Report to Congress
April
1 Final Updated FY2000/1 Program Guidance to Regions
1 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate
16 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA on all 2000 Annual Performance Measures for
which Data is Available— Will Be Used to Brief Peter Robertson, Deputy Administrator
May
Draft #3 of revised Strategic Plan released
August
15 Revised Strategic Plan submitted to OMB
7-7
-------
September '
1 Draft 2001 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use as
basis for negotiation)
30 Revised Strategic Plan submitted to Congress
November
2 End of Year Data for F Y2000 due to OW Immediate
i
19 End of Year Data for FY2000 due to OPAA
30 Signed FY2001 Management Agreements between HQ and Regions
7-8
-------
Key Accountability and Budget Dates by Topic Area
(All dates are 1999 unless otherwise stated.)
National Program Guidance
- 4/9 issue final program guidance
- 2/2/00 issue draft update to program guidance
- 4/1/00 issue final update to program guidance
FY2000 Budget and Annual Plan
- Oct/Nov. final revisions to reflect operating plan
FY2001 Budget and Annual Plan
- 3/31 OCFO issues guidance and Administrator's priorities
- 5/25 Goal 2 Team Meeting with Peter Robertson on FY2001 budget
- Spring/ APGs/APMs development
Summer
- 6/2 Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
- mid-June OCFO issues budget guidance
- 7/7 Investment Proposals submitted
- July: Budget Forum
- 7/28 final passback
- Sept. submit to OMB
- Feb. 00 submit to Congress
FY99 Mid-Year Report
- 4/6 responses from Regions and HQ program offices due to Ben Picks
- 4/16 mid-year data due in Agency system
- 5/25 Goal 2 Team Meeting with Peter Robertson to report mid-year results
FY99 End-of-Year Report for the National Water Program
-10/7 issue guidance to Regions
- 11/2 data due to HQ
-11/19 data due to OPAA
7-9
-------
FY99 Annual Performance Report
- 4/23 detailed outline due to OPAA
- 3/31/00 submit report to Congress
FY2000 Management Agreement
- 9/1 draft MA's due to HQ
-11/30 all MA's signed
Strategic Plan Revision
- Spring
- Summer/
Fall
- December:
- Feb. 00
- May 00
guidance issued
begin revision; consult with stakeholders
draft #1 released
draft #2 released
draft #3 released containing full text of revised plan
- Summer 00 final revisions, layout and production of plan
- 8/15/00 submit plan to OMB
- 9/30/00 submit plan to Congress
7-10
-------
Mid-Year and End-of-Year
Reporting
Section 8
-------
-------
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 measures for which they are responsible (as indicated hi column "O" of the matrix). The
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability is requiring the mid-year information to be
provided for all annual performance measures for which such information is available. April 1st,
2000 is the date for mid-year reporting. The mid-year data will be used by OPAA to brief Peter
Robertson, the Deputy Administrator. November 2nd, 2000 is the date for end of year reporting.
To facilitate mid-year and end of year reporting, HQ Water Immediate has included, at the
suggestion of a staff contact, two extra columns in the FY 2000 OW Management Agreement
template/matrix. These are labeled "Q", MID-YEAR ACHIEVED and "R", END OF YEAR
ACHIEVED. The intention is that any given Region, HQ Program Office, or Great Water Body
would be able to use the same Lotus 1,2,3 spreadsheet for mid-year and end of year reporting that
it used in making its original commitments. HQ Water Immediate will issue guidance detailing
this process 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 performance report to Congress. The early draft of the 1999 report is included
in this section.
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.
8-3
-------
February 5,1999
DRAFT OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 2
1999 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
TO CONGRESS
Reflects comments from Goal 2 Team Members
Working Principles:
• Focus on Congressional Measures
Limit Region-specific Information to That Which Enhances National Story
• Involve States/Tribes in Review As Appropriate Via Anne Treash's
Established Mechanisms
• Further Flesh Out Outline Via Meeting of Team in March
• Target Length 6-10 Pages (not including Tabular Summary)
8-4
-------
99 Performance Report Outline -
Clean and Safe Water
I. L-T Goal Strategic Goal
[1 Paragraph: Straight Statement of Goal from Strategic Plan]
II. Goal Overview
[3 Paragraphs]
A. Statement of Why Water Pollution is A Problem
B. Statement of Improvement
C. Statement of Challenge
HI. Public Health Objective Performance Review
A. Statement of Objective and Plain Language Interpretation [2 Paragraphs]
B. List Key Measures for this Objective [ 3 Paragraphs]
- Population Served by Community Water Systems Meeting All Health-Based
Standards [Clare Donaher, GWDW - Contact]
- Community Water Systems implementing Source Water Programs [Clare
Donaher, GWDW = Contact]
- Critical Dose-Response Data for Disinfectant By-Products, Waterbome
Pathogens, and Arsenic [Jennifer Robbins, ORD = Contact]
C. Explain 99 Progress in Achieving Objective [3 Paragraphs]
- Chart Depicting Increases in Population Served over Time [Clare Donaher,
GWDW - Contact]
- Chart Depicting Increases in Community Systems Implementing Source Water
Programs [Clare Donaher, GWDW = Contact]
IV. Watershed Health Objective Performance Review
A. Statement of Objective and Plain Language Interpretation [2 Paragraphs]
B. List Key Measures for this Objective [ 3 Paragraphs]
- Number of States/Tribes Who Have Completed Unified Watershed Assessments
[Bob Brown, OWOW «= Contact]
- Number of Watershed Restoration Projects Financially Supported by EPA [Bob
Brown, OWOW = Contact]
- Data/information for Use by States/regions in Assessing and Managing Aquatic
Stressors, Reducing Toxic Loadings, and Improving Ecological Risk Assessment
[Jennifer Robbins, ORD = Contact]
C. Explain 99 Progress in Achieving Objective [3 Paragraphs]
- Chart Depicting Number of Watershed Restoration Projects Supported by EPA
Since 1998 [Bob Brown, OWOW = Contact]
8-5
-------
SPECIAL INSERT
Chesapeake Bay: Increase in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Aquatic Reef Habitat
[Nita Sylvester, Chesapeake Bay Program Office = Contact]
i
V. Pollutant Reduction Objective Performance Review
A. Statement of Objective and Plain Language Interpretation [2 Paragraphs]
B. List Key1 Measures for this Objective [ 3 Paragraphs]
• Number of People Receiving Benefits of Secondary Treatment of Waste water
[Jim Home, OWM = Contact]
- Number of Communities with Watershed Improved by CSO and Stonnwater
Controls [Jim Home, OWM = Contact]
- Number of States with Upgraded NFS programs [Bob Brown, OWOW -
Contact]
• Support Tools Enabling Resource Planners to Select Consistent, Appropriate
Watershed Management Solutions [Jennifer Robbins, ORD - Contact]
C. Explain 99 Progress in Achieving Objective [2 Paragraphs]
- Chart Depicting Number of People Receiving Benefits of Secondary Treatment
of Wastewater Over Time [Jim Home, OWM = Contact]
- Chart Depicting Increase in Number of States with Upgraded NPS programs
[Bob Brown, OWOW = Contact]
VI. Tabular Summary (Goal, Accomplishment, and Discussion) [2 pages]
[Contacts for these are the same as listed above.]
A. Public Health Objective
1. Community Water Systems
2. High Risk Contaminants [Clare Donaher, GWDW = Contact]
3. Communities Implementing Programs to Protect Source Water
4. Critical Dose-Response Data
B. Watershed Health Objective
1. Unified Watershed Assessments
2. Community-Based Restoration Projects
3. Data/Information to Assess/Manage Aquatic Stressors in Watershed
C. Pollution Reduction Objective
1. Secondary Treatment of Wastewater
2. CSO Communities
3. Non-point Source Upgrades
4. Tools to Help Watershed Management
8-6
-------
Key Contacts
Section 9
-------
-------
Contents
Management Agreement Workgroup Contacts page 9-3
Indian Coordinators page 9-5
Clean Water Action Plan Contacts page 9-9
-------
-------
Regional Contacts
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG)
Region 1: Paul Wintrob/Ron Manfredonia
Region 2: Paul Molinari
Region 3: Francis Mulhern
Region 4: Wayne Aronson
Region 5: Kettey Moore
Region 6: Dina Grinado
Region 7: Jody Hudson/Jennifer Morris
Region 8: Cynthia Gonzalez/Leslie ZawacM
Region 9: MikeSchulz
Region 10: Bevin Horn
HQ Management and Accountability Workgroup Contacts
IO: Anne Treash, 202-260-5034 /Ben Picks, 202-260-8652
OST: Ted Johnson/Danna McDonald
OWM: James Home
OGWDW: Clare Donaher
OWOW: Bob Brown
Tribal: Dianne Baucom
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.
9-3
-------
9-4
-------
CO
o
<
o
£L
IT
I
o>
31 9 Grants
en
i
o
i
Water Quality
Standards
rfi
Environmenta
Presence & TI
Water Program
(Overall)
5
•col
If
|§
.1
o>
OL
O
Sandy Fancieull
617-918-1566
O
z
m
Bill Beckwith
617-918-1544
o 5»
09 CO
Bill Nuzzo
617-918-1682
Sappier
218-1672
is
o
co
Donna Somboor
212-637-3700
ID
os
CO
s •
|3
Wayne Jackson
212-637-3807
Christine Yost
Paul Molinari
212-637-3886
i£
•D«?
£2
OCM
H
O CM
CM
Doug Lankford
404-562-9757
"D
"j
» *Q et^
0?CM ,g5g
O § O °
Eve Zimmerman
404-562-9224
c
Wayne Arons<
Wayne Aronson
404-562-9444
k Robertson
•562-9639
ii
Karen Bell
312-353-8640
C*5
o u>
Q. T—
| CD
•g CM
CQ CO
David Pfeifer
312-353-9024
'at
UJ
K
Tim Roach
312-886-0214
Bob Newport i
312-886-1513
Mary Pat Tyson
312-886-3006
ey Ambutas
-353-1394
O co
in
I
CD
Steffanie Crossi
?
«
CO
CO
U
*
£
1
Diane Evans
214-665-6677
1
c
UJ
•o
Steffanie Crosslar
214-665-6684
n Greeney
665-6778
UJ CM
CO
Dwayne Knott
913-551-7431
CD
E«- CO
jr a
CO r» >.
7
•3 5 1-
B
co 5
35
Talva Hayes
Talva Hayes
913-551-7416
Joe Cothem
913-551-7416
o>
CO
in
5§
ii
t-
Kris Jensen
303-312-6237
1
o
(£.
8
Bill Wuerthele
303-312-6943
Lee Roberts
Lee Roberts
303-312-6324
ie Hoskie
•312-6343
"88
CO (0
CO
Wendell Smith
J? BO
CO 5
Phil Woods
415-744-1997
_^
sr
3.
Kristin Gullatt
415-744-1937
Clancy Tenley
Joel Jones
415-744-1947
icy Tenley
•744-1607
S «
O -«•
o>
^^
Teena Reichgot
206-553-1601
3 co
JCO
w
Ii
Lisa Macchio
206-553-1834
Diane Boquist
206-553-4011
Ken Kenknight
206-553-0226
Jill Nogi
206-553-1900
tt Sufficool
•553-6220
58
CO CM
O
Ed Drabkowski
202-260-7009
•g
XJ
"O o
"§>
o o
ii
Karen Gourdine
202-260-1328
u
|
CM
— °°
O "?
CO O
tS
-J CM
s
^
-------
^^
w
0
fe
2
Q
£C
O
O
1
WATER PROGRAM INC
Source Water
o
3
Drinking Water
Infrastructure
Clean Water
Infrastructure
NPDES
o
~O)
a>
tr
1
CO
i
£•?
i?
S*
IS
O co
£•
Q3
1
*
(0
o>
>.m
r»
CU £—
u oo
WE
*s
55
to
Si
»«
.£ n
•2T
co «2
CO 09
j£
CO CD
^
Christine Yost
212-637-3564
Bruce Kiselica
212-637-3879
IB
John Kushwar
212-637-4232
CO
i
5
S
TJ
1
»
O
Gerald McKenna
212-637-3838
c
Muhammad M
212-637-3855
CM
'
Chris Thomas
404-562-9459
Jackye Bonds
404-562-9448
Lois Hill
404-562-9472
t
o>
^ '
•o
£
u.
£ i
X |
•o
S '
Lu
I
Is.
15
= S '
(p ^f
£* .
O)
CD
§S
CO CM
W- tO
O in
CO O
X ¥
•+
Rita Balr
312-886-2406
Jan Bartlett
312-886-2406
John Taylor
312-886-4299
c i—
s>°
S &
«5!
Sco
1!
CD ^
to i«-
•£ CM
1-
O CD
^
'co
.^_s
o « o CM
§.•«- O. O
I; CD c CD
^g^s
^cji f CM
CD CO CO CO
John Colletti
312-886-6106
m
n |
co 5
Blake Atkins-
Ken Williams -
214-665-7219
m
RonVanWyk
214-665-6459
Tyrone Hoskin
214-665-7375
CO
1
CD
JL
S
CO
Blake Atkins
214-665-2297
f
Gene Wossun
214-665-7173
William Black
214-665-7168
CD
s>
5
£
Stephanie Line
913-551-7423
fl
Kurt Hillenbrar
913-551-7413
Ted Fritz
913-551-7412
CD
S?
%^
IE
coin
*5
H o>
Elizabeth Murtagh-
Yaw
913-551-7440
5?
£ +
5B
1-
O o>
i!
Is
"S2
H 0)
r*.
Marcella Hutd
303-312-6753
c
Douglas Minte
303-312-6079
Barbara Conkl
303-312-6407
i s
il
If
Terry Griffith
Gary Carlson
303-312-6269
Terry Griffith
303-312-6153
S
o
c o
i$
IS
o>*ft
(0 *L^ '
OCM
Geoff Keeler
206-553-1089
Judy Fey
206-553-1302
Carla Fisher
206-553-1756
Bub Loiselle
206-553-6901
o
-------
ISIS
8
CQ O
eo CM
§
a
on
o
o
o
o
i
o
o
a:
a.
a:
UJ
I
1
o
§
•&
0)
K
10
ti
SOT
CO CD
-
Paul Molinari
212-637-3886
INT
Connie Alexander
404-562-9382
TT
,g
6 CD
§*
O ro
10
Diane Evans
214-665-6677
CO
.r-
5s
^s
ro ^
1- O>
r-
Lee Roberts
303-312-6324
eo
Catherine Kuhlman
415-744-2001
o>
Diane Boquist
206-553-4011
Teena Reichgott
206-553-1601
o
Richard Regan
202-260-1008
0
CPs
m
CO
UJ
CO
<
Uj
-------
REG10NALTRIBAL PROGRAM MANGERS/COORDINATORS
EPA REGION 1 !
JIM SAPPIER
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION I (PAG 2300)
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MA 02203
617-565-3935 (
FAX 617-565-4940 ,
EPA REGION 4
MARK ROBERTSON
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION IV (AMB)
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30303-3104
404-562-9639
FAX 404-562-9598
EPA REGION 6
ELLEN GREENEY
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION VI (6XA)
1445 ROSS AVENUE
12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TX 75202-2733
214-665-6778 / FAX 214-665-2118
EPA REGION 8
SADIE HOSKIE
TRIBAL MANAGER
EPA REGION VIII (80EA)
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2405 i
303-312-6343 / FAX 303-312-6741
EPA REGION 10
SCOTT SUFFICOOL
TRIBAL OFFICE DIRECTOR
EPA REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
206-553-6220/FAX 206-553-6647
EPA REGION 2
CHRISTINE YOST
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION II (2PM-E1)
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3564
FAX 212-637-3772
EPA REGION 5
CASEY AMBUTAS
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION V (5ME-19J)
77 W. JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3507
312-353-1394
FAX 312-353-1120
EPA REGION 7
KIM OLSON
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
913-551-7539 / FAX 913-551-7863
EPA REGION 9
CLANCY TENLEY
TRIBAL PROGRAM MANAGER
EPA REGION IX (E-4)
75 HAWTHORNE STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105
415-744-1607 / FAX 415-744-1604
9-8
-------
Clean Water Action Plan Contacts
Animal Feeding Operations Action Team
Joe DelVecchio, USDA Co-chair; joe.delvecchio@usda.gov
phone:(202) 690-2632; fax:(202) 720-8520
Jeff Lape, EPA Co-chair; lape.jefl@epaniail.epa.gov
phone:(202) 260-6057; fax: (202) 260-1460
Coastal Protection and Polluted Runoff Action Team
Marcella Jansen, NOAA Co-chair; mjansen@coasts.nos.noaa.gov
phone: (301) 713-3098; fax: (301) 713-4367
Dov Weitman, EPA Co-chair; weitman.dov@epamail.epa.gov
phone: (202) 260-7088; fax: (301) 260-7024
Communications Action Team
Jane Dodds, USDA Co-chair; jane.dodds@usda.gov
phone: (202) 401-4044; fax: (202) 401-1706
Amy Gambrill, EPA Co-chair; gambrill.amy@epa.gov
phone: (202) 260-7105; fax: (202) 260-5711
Federal Lands and Resources Action Team
Cindy Dyballa, DOI Co-chair; cdyballa@usbr.gov
phone: (202) 208-7589; fax: (202) 208-3887
Warren Harper, USDA Co-chair; wharper/wo@fs.fed.us
phone: (202) 205-1671; fax: (202) 205-1096
Inter-Agency Tribal Coordination Team
Kathy Gorospe, EPA Co-Chair
phone: (202) 260-7939; fax: (202) 260-7509
Kate Vandemoer, DOI Co-chair
phone: (202) 260-2603
Monitoring, Research and Information Action Team
Tim Miller, DOI Co-chair; tlmiller@usgs.gov
phone: (703) 648-5012; fax: (703) 648-6693
Andrew Robertson, NOAA Co-chair; andrew.robertson@noaa.gov
phone: (301) 713-3032 x 162 ; fax: (301)713-4388
9-9
-------
Standards Action Team
Marjorie Pitts, EPA Chair; pitts.marjorie@epamail.epa.gov
phone: (202) 260-1304; fax: (202) 260-9830
Stewardship Incentives Action Team
Doug Christensen, USDA Co-chair;dchristensen@np.nrcs.usda,gov
phone: (402) 437^094; fax: (402)437-5165
Robin Heard, USDA Co-chair; rheard@pa.nrcs.usda.gov
phone: (717) 237-2203; fax: (717)237-2238
Unified Watershed Assessment Action Team
Geoff Grubbs, EPA Co-chair, grubbs.geoffrey@epamail.epa.gov
phone: (202) 260-7040; fax: (202) 260-7024
Ron Williams, USDA Co-chair; rwilliams@mw.nrcs.usda.gov
phone: (608) 224-3012; fax: (608) 224-3010
Watershed Framework Action Team
David Cottingham, DOI Co-chair; david_cottingham@ios.doi.gov
phone: (202)208^4811 fax: (202)371-2815
Louise Wise, EPA Co-chair; wise.Iouise@epamail.epa.gov
phone: (202)260-2007 fax:(202)260-2529
Wetlands Action Team
Mike Davis, DOD Chair; davisml@hqda.anny.mil
phone: (703) 695-1370; fax: (703) 697-3366
9-10
------- |