United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Program
Operation
Washington, DC 20460
June 1980
Supplemental Water Quality
Management Program
Guidance for FY 81
-------
' ^*Jij I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^•^tOU^r/ WASHINGTON DC 20460
^ t°
JUN S i960
Office of Water
Program Operations
TO: Participants in the Water Quality Management (WQM) Program
Attached is the final Supplemental Water Quality Management Guidance for
FY 81. [The purpose of this supplemental guidance is to consolidate and
clarify the national guidance for the water quality management (WQM)
program, which EPA administers under sections 106, 208 and 303(e) of the
Clean Water Act^y The guidance discusses the goals, objectives, priorities,
and philosophy of the WQM program for FY 81. It also presents an overview
of the problem-solving process for water quality and a management frame-
work for the WQM portion of the process. Although the potential audience
for the guidance is quite broad, it is primarily for the use of State
and areawide participants in the WQM program and the EPA Regional Office
project officers.
The Supplemental Guidance is part of the Water Planning Division's annual
policy development process. The guidance package is published each year
to incorporate and reflect changes, updates and additions. The FY 81
supplemental guidance builds and expands upon the FY 80 guidance package
(September 1979), particularly in the areas of work program guidance and
policy memoranda. To facilitate its use changes are underlined in
Chapter IV and V.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions on the content, for-
mat, and approach of the guidance package. Please address your comments
to David Ziegler, Water Planning Division (WH-554), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20460.
Sincerely yours,
longest',
Deputy/Assistant Administrator for
Water/Program Operations
-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Water Planning Division
June, 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I, INTRODUCTION
II. GOALS, PRIORITIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
III. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
IV. SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS
A. Defining the Problem
B. Developing the Solutions
C. Implementing the Solutions
D. Evaluating Success
V. STATE AND AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT OF THE WQM PROCESS
A. Assessing Problems
B. Developing the Five-Year State Strategy
C. Developing the WQM Portion of the Draft
State/EPA Agreement
D. Developing State and Areawide WQM Work
Programs
E. Developing the WQM Portion of the Final
State/EPA Agreement
F. Implementing the Work Program and the
State/EPA Agreement
G. Evaluating Progress
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA (see list next page)
APPENDICES:
A. Reference List
B. WQM Program Review Criteria
C. WQM Work Program Guidance (reserved; draft
issued May, 1980)
ii
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
Section A — Funding
A-l Interim Guidance, Minimum Standards for Procurement under Section
208 (RESCINDED; originally SAM-14)
A-2 FY 81 and 82 Funding Policy — Section 106 and 208 (Replaces FY 80
version)
Section B — Program Requirements and Criteria
B-l EPA Policy Regarding Interstate Commissions (Originally SAM-24)
B-2 Regulatory Programs for Nonpoint Source Control (Originally SAM-31)
B-3 Developing and Implementing Best Management Practices (Originally
SAM-32)
B-4 NEPA Compliance in the State and Areawide Water Quality Mangement
Program (Originally SAM-34)
B-5 State Role in Responding to Environmental Emergencies (RESERVED;
draft to be issued in May, 1980)
B-6 Pretreatment and the Water Quality Management Program (Originally
SAM-36; applies only to 208 grants awarded before October 1, 1979.
B-7 Using 208 Funds to do Water Quality and Municipal Facilities
Evaluations for Treatment More Stringent than Secondary (Originally
SAM-37; applies only to grants awarded before October 1, 1979)
B-8 Funding of Waste Load Allocations and Water Quality Analyses for
POTW Decisions (Originally SAM-38)
Section C -- Coordination
C-l Interagency Coordination (Originally SAM-11)
C-2 Rural Clean Water Program Relationship to a 208 Plan (TEMPORARILY
RESERVED in light of recently finalized RCWP regulations; draft to
be issued in May, 1980; previous version, originally SAM-33,
RESCINDED)
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this supplemental guidance is to consolidate and
clarify the national guidance for the water quality management (WQM)
program, which EPA administers under sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of
the Clean Water Act. The FY 81 supplemental guidance builds and expands
upon the FY 80 guidance package (September 1979), particularly in the
areas of work program guidance and policy memoranda.
Two current Water Planning Division (WPD) publications relate to
this guidance. The first is the WPD work program [l]t which the
Division uses to program, monitor, and evaluate activities and to
coordinate with other offices. The second is the FY 81 Base-
line WQM Strategy [2], which sets forth long-range WQM program direction.
B. Contents
Sections II and III of this guidance discuss the goals, objectives,
priorities, and philosophy of the WQM program for FY 81. Section IV
presents an overview of the problem-solving process for water quality —
of which the WQM program is a component — and section V presents a
management framework for the WQM portion of the process. Section VI
contains the series of WQM policy memoranda.
C. The Problem-Solving Process
The discussion of the problem-solving process for water quality
problems, section IV, shows how the various aspects of the water
quality program fit together. In the past, persons working in water
pollution control programs have often lost sight of the overall problem-
solving process because of such factors as administrative burden,
fragmented legislation, and professional and organizational speciali-
zation.
* This guidance makes frequent references to legislation, EPA reg-
ulations, guidance documents, and other related documents. For
convenience, a list of references is attached. Where the text
refers to one of these documents, the number of the reference appears
in brackets. Where the reference is to a WQM policy memorandum
in Section VI, the number of the memo is noted, e.g., A-2.
-------
The description of the problem-solving process touches on many
programs for the prevention of water pollution--permits, enforcement,
construction grants, planning, nonpoint source control, monitoring,
evaluation, and others. The description presents an overview and
contains over 40 references to other more-detailed documents.
D. The Management Framework
The discussion of the WQM program in section V places the program
in a management perspective, focusing on State and areawide manage-
ment procedures, and identifying required outputs. The purpose is
to promote active, rather than reactive, management of the program at
all levels. It stresses the importance of a strong inter-governmental
partnership for the success of the WQM program.
The management framework is a streamlined management process
which should minimize paperwork and duplication of effort. Management
of the program is a straight-forward process which, under the WQM
regulations [3], dovetails with other environmental efforts under
the State/EPA Agreements.
-------
II. GOALS, PRIORITIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The WQM program is one of several EPA programs contributing to
the achievement of the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act [4],
including "protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life and provision of recreation in and on the water by 1983 wherever
attainable . . . ." Specifically for the WQM program, the goal is:
To assist State and local agencies and the public
develop and implement a decision-making process
for solving point and nonpoint source pollution
problems to meet the water quality goals of the
Act.
Management Priorities. Ljhe three highest management priorities
for the WQM program in FY 81 and beyond are improved program manage-
ment, completion of the 208 grant program, and building and transferring
an information base for nonpoint source control. i
EPA will continue several management activities initiated in
FY 79 and 80, such as the WQM needs assessment, and pursue new
activities which will also result in improved program management.
Some of the new activities are a review of the 106 program, nation-
wide follow-up on evaluation of EPA Regional Office management,
better integration and coordination through State/EPA Agreements,
and development of a management information system.
In FY 81 and beyond, State and areawide agencies will move
from nonpoint source planning into management of nonpoint source
control programs. At the same time, EPA will shift its emphasis
from individual grant programs (e.g., 208) into a consolidated process
which combines all aspects of the overall problem-solving process.
The WQM program has made much progress in cleaning up the nation's
waters and, in FY 81-83, will continue to fill gaps in 208 plans,
build up the information base, and move to implementation of con-
trols. Given adequate funding, EPA anticipates completion of the
208 grant program in FY 83. But to ensure that WQM activities con-
tinue after FY 83, EPA is already beginning to develop recommendations
for a restructured WQM program, closely coordinated with the upcoming
1990 construction grants strategy [5].
Finally, the WQM program will avoid duplication and save time
and expense for States and local governments by providing reliable
information from one area to another and helping adapt this infor-
mation to local situations. Information transfer will not be limited
to technical information, but will also include institutional and
financial aspects.
-------
Oversight of the information transfer efforts is the responsi-
bility of the Water Planning Division, which will take several
actions during FY 81 to enhance the prospects for successful
transfer: (1) develop and maintain an information system for handling
transferable technical information, (2) prepare summaries of the
results of the problem-solving projects, (3) utilize contract resources
for ground water, agriculture nonpoint source, urban storm runoff,
advanced waste treatment, and financial management to help transfer
information to agencies with specific needs, (4) hold meetings for
WQM participants to discuss transferable results, and (5) conduct
courses throughout the country. EPA anticipates that transfer of
information will increase steadily in FY 81-83.
State Program Priorities. The status of the 106 program grants
is becoming increasingly important. Funding from the Congress is
down from past levels and, in some States, State funding is also
dwindling. Inflation is also causing problems. While funding is
sagging, State program needs are increasing, since they have several
new responsibilities, such as toxic and nonpoint source controls
and spill prevention.
For the most complete information on State program priorities,
readers should see the EPA Operating Year Guidance for FY 81
(February 1980) [6], the FY 81 Baseline WQM Strategy [2], and WQM
policy memorandum A-2.
National 208 Priorities. The national priorities for 208 grants
are nonpoint source problems, with the greatest emphasis on urban
storm runoff, agriculture, and ground water contamination.. In
addition, EPA will use 208 grants to address the lack of financial
and managerial techniques to implement WQM plans. The WQM program
also supports Regional, State, or local nonpoint source priorities
which differ from the national priorities if they will lead to
implementation and have a major impact on water quality. For details,
see the FY 81 Baseline WQM Strategy [2].
Public Participation. Since the start of the WQM program,
public participation has been a high priority. All aspects of the
program are governed by the recently revised public participation
regulations [7] and the WQM regulations [3]. In FY 81, EPA will
gear public participation activities to specific problem-solving
projects and implementation activities that State, areawide, and
local agencies undertake. Thus, public participation efforts will
be project- and problem-specific, and will help to assure that
technical solutions to nonpoint source problems, for example, are
understood and have local support and political acceptance for
implementation.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
As the WQM program has evolved since FY 73, its philosophy
has changed as a result of external events and experience within
the program. Below are three important directions for the WQM
philosophy in FY 81:
A. Emphasis on Implementation and Problem-Solving
From the start of the WQM program, EPA has emphasized the
importance of plan implementation, so that taxpayers would realize
their investment in WQM planning in water quality improvements. In
FY 81, EPA will continue to place more emphasis on problem-solving
through its 106 and 208 grant policies.
EPA urges all the participants in the WQM program to move
beyond planning to the implementation of controls since planning,
per se, does not improve water quality. One way to accomplish this
objective is to use State 106 grants to support administration of
State regulatory programs or cost-sharing programs for nonpoint
source problems, since States may not use 208 funds for such purposes.
At the same time, EPA is directing 208 funds toward problem-
solving projects designed to fill gaps in WQM plans and identify
cost-effective controls for nonpoint source problems. For example,
EPA is funding urban runoff projects in its Nationwide Urban Run-
off Program (NURP). When these projects have tested best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) for urban runoff, States and areawides can
use the results to help solve similar problems in other urban areas.
For agriculture, EPA is cooperating with USDA on funding and
managing several types of pilot projects, including Model Implementation
Projects (MIPs) and Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) special
projects in which States or local agencies test BMPs in different
types and sizes of agricultural watersheds. EPA also participates
in an experimental implementation program for nonpoint sources, the
1980 Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP), administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS/USDA) in coordination
with other USDA agencies and EPA. The RCWP provides cost-sharing
for owners and operators of rural lands to implement BMPs which are
consistent with the WQM planning process.
In the area of ground water, WPD has contracted with a national
team of ground water technical experts to assist in the development
of EPA and WQM ground water strategies. These experts also assist
in the development and management of 208 ground water prototype
projects to develop BMPs, State management programs, and aquifer
protection programs.
-------
In addition, EPA will participate through section 208 grants
in about 20 financial management assistance projects, which will
provide WQM planning efforts specialized assistance, develop from
the projects a set of implementation techniques, and make these
techniques available to a broad spectrum of local government officials.
B. Changing Role of State/EPA Agreements
The requirement that the States and EPA Regions prepare annual
State/EPA Agreements first appeared in the WQM regulations in 1975
[8], Under those regulations, the Agreements covered the detail,
timing, content, and sequence of State WQM planning.
Beginning with the development of FY 81 State/EPA Agreements,
States and Regions will consider all EPA programs for inclusion,
not just those under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
required in FY 80. Areawide agencies, interstate commissions, and
the public participate in the Agreement process. To support the SEA
concept, it is WQM policy that both 106 and 208 priorities for FY 81
grants be covered in the FY 81 State/EPA Agreements.
The Agreements are management tools to maximize the effectiveness
of resources for implementing solutions to environmental problems.
They respond to EPA priorities and the States' problem assessments
and strategies. For more information, see the Handbook for FY 81
State/EPA Agreements [9].
C. Roles of State, Areawide, and Local Agencies
During the first phase of the WQM program (FY 73-75), the States
and designated areawide agencies conducted three separate programs
under sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the Act. With 106 grants,
the States managed their work programs and did basin planning under
section 303(e). Meanwhile, 149 areawide agencies received 208
grants in FY 74-75 for three-year comprehensive areawide planning.
, After a court decision in 1975 [10] opened up 208 funding to the
States, and after two revisions of the WQM regulations, EPA has now
integrated the requirements of 106, 208 and 303(e) into a single
State and areawide process. The new regulations [3] set forth a stream-
lined program, with the State at its focus. Each Federal, State,
or local unit of government performs those activities which it is
best-suited to handle.
-------
Regarding relationships among States and designated areawide
agencies, the regulations call for a strong State management role, but
at the same time they maintain a link between EPA and the areawide
agencies. The States set the policy framework, and have a major
role in the review of areawide priorities and work programs. They
must, however, consider areawide priorities in the policy framework.
EPA approves areawide work programs, with consideration of State
comments, and generally funds the areawides directly. Any conflicts
that arise between States and areawide agencies are resolved by con-
flict resolution procedures which the regulations require.
Local governments play a major role in both planning and imple-
menting controls, since they support the areawide agencies with staff
and resources and since they often are the agencies designated to
manage selected control programs. Therefore, States must ensure
that local governments participate in problem identification,
priority setting, and plan development so that necessary local
support for control is there when needed.
-------
EDITOR'S NOTE
Much of the material in the next two chapters of the
Supplemental WQM Guidance for FY 81 is substantially
the same as the FY 80 Supplemental Guidance (September
21, 1979). To facilitate understanding of the changes,
staff has underlined all other-than-editorial changes
in the text.
8
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF THE WQM PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS
This portion of the guidance is a summary of the overall
problem-solving process of which the WQM program is a part. In
keeping with the Agency's emphasis on program integration, the
summary describes a broad program incorporating many authorities
and sources of funds. Each section makes reference to other more-
detailed documents.
The problem-solving process consists of four elements:
defining problems, developing solutions, implementing solutions, and
evaluating results. Federal, State, and local funds all support
the problem-solving process. Two major sources of Federal funding
are section 106 and 208 grants under the WQM program.
A. Defining Problems
The first step in the problem-solving process, problem
definition, consists of setting water quality goals and standards,
assessing the causes of water quality problems, and setting prior-
ities for action.
1. Water Quality Standards (WQS)
Water quality standards are one major basis for judging the
existence of water quality problems. The States set WQS, based on
EPA guidance, and EPA approves them. The States must review the
standards, and revise them if necessary, at least once every three
years. The WQS consist of use designations, numerical criteria
to support the use, and a Statewide anti-degradation statement.
Some current concerns in the water quality standards area are
(1) application of water quality criteria for toxic pollutants in
water quality standards, (2) evaluation of WQS attainability based on
environmental, technological and economic factors; (3) flow maintenance
and mixing zone policies; and (4) implementation of anti-degradation
provisions in State WQS.
For more guidance on water quality standards and related topics,
see references [11] through [16]. The Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking of July, 1978, [12] discusses many WQS issues in detail.
2. Problem Assessment
Problem assessment is a process of EPA, States, areawide agencies,
and others to identify water quality problems and connect them with
the causes of pollution. The assessment process identifies existing
water quality problems and future problems by anticipating population,
land use, and economic changes.
-------
A major part of the assessment process is water quality
monitoring, which is a cooperative effort of EPA and other Federal,
State, areawide, and local agencies. Monitoring must meet the
specific needs of a State or local area, must be useful, cost-
effective, non-duplicative, and must build on existing infor-
mation.
The first step in the problem assessment process is to define
problems. Are beneficial uses of streams being denied? Are criteria
not being met? Are there other indications of problems, such as
unsightly conditions, fish kills, severe erosion, or strong odors?
The second step is then to identify the pollutant or pollutants
causing the problem, usually through new data collection and review
of existing data.
Identification of the sources of the pollutants is the third
step in the process. Some tools for identifying sources are dis-
charger inventories, self-monitoring reports from NPDES permits,
and on-site surveys or inspections. Then, the final step in the
assessment process is to determine what is controllable. Pollution
from some sources (e.g., benthic deposits) is difficult, if not
impossible, to control.
Another aspect of the assessment process is the determination
whether base-level technology for point sources and feasible controls
on nonpoint sources will allow streams to meet water quality standards
in the present and future. If a stream will meet standards, it is
classified "effluent limited." If it won't meet standards without
additional controls, it is classified "water quality limited."
These classifications later affect the calculations of point source
effluent limits.
For further guidance on monitoring and the problem assessment
process, see references [17] through [24].
3. Identification of Priority Problems
Since resources to solve water quality problems are limited,
the agencies involved must set priorities. The priorities should
flow logically from the problem assessments.
For construction of municipal facilities, each State has a
priority system which governs preparation of a five-year construction
priority list. For other problem areas, such as nonpoint sources,
urban runoff, wetlands protection, toxics hot spots, or ground
water protection, the States, areawide agencies, and EPA negotiate
long-term priorities in the process of developing State strategies,
work programs, and State/EPA Agreements.
10
-------
The States, areawides, and EPA may also address priorities
for institutional, financial, or other problems delaying water
quality improvements. Sources of information for such problems
include institutional assessments in certified/approved WQM plans
and management agency evaluations which the States conduct.
The States should also develop priorities for the development
of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and waste load allocations
(WLAs) for water quality limited segments. These priorities depend
in part on where advanced waste treatment decisions are unresolved.
For further guidance on priority determinations, see references
[25] through [28].
B. Developing Solutions
The second step in the problem-solving process, developing
solutions, is essentially the planning phase. It includes develop-
ment of permit conditions and planning for both point and nonpoint
source controls.
1. Waste Load Allocations (WLAs)
For all water quality limited stream segments, the States must
develop waste load allocations in order of priority. WLAs allocate
the maximum daily load for particular pollutants among the dis-
chargers on the segments. They serve as the basis of point source
permit conditions on these segments.
One aspect of the allocations is point source/nonpoint source
tradeoffs in situations involving nutrient loads and downstream
euthrophication. In some instances, application of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) for nonpoint sources can make possible less-
expensive treatment for point sources, while maintaining in-stream
beneficial uses.
Recently, EPA has scrutinized, at Congressional request,
existing waste load allocations for municipal dischargers and has
found, in many instances, that they lack a firm technical and water
quality basis. All WLAs for municipal and industrial discharges
must accurately represent the maximum loads that the stream can
assimilate without impairment of the designated or proposed bene-
ficial uses. The Agency has issued technical guidance pertaining
to development of WLAs for publicly-owned treatment works [B-8].
For more information on modeling and waste load allocations, see the
list of publications in reference [29].
11
-------
2. Permit Conditions
With the information from preceding steps, the next step in
the problem-solving process is to set permit conditions. NPDES
permits for point sources under section 402 of the Clean Water Act
typically include effluent limits for various pollutants, expressed
in concentrations or total loads; schedules of compliance for
dischargers not already in compliance; and requirements for self-
monitoring and reporting. In the case of publicly-owned treatment
works, the permit also includes requirements for residuals disposal
under section 405 of the Act.
EPA, or the State if it has permit authority, calculates NPDES
permit conditions for industry based on EPA's effluent guidelines
and any applicable waste load allocations. Permits vary depending
on the type of industry, whether it is a new or existing spurge,
and whether it is on a water quality limited segment. Permits for
POTW's are calculated similarly, based on EPA's definition of
"best practicable waste treatment technology" (BPWTT). Point sources
which don't lend themselves to traditional end-of-pipe treatment,
such as discharges from storm sewers, receive general NPDES permits.
The permit conditions may include required management practices,
general guidelines, or monitoring and reporting requirements.
In addition to the NPDES permits which the States or EPA
administer under the CWA, EPA also administers dredge and fill
permits under section 404 and is developing permit programs for
underground injection (SDWA) and hazardous waste disposal (RCRA).
To streamline the permit process, EPA has recently promulgated
regulations [32] for integration of surface, underground, residual,
dredge and fill, and hazardous permits for point sources. For
more information, see references [30] through [33].
3. Planning for Municipal Systems
At the project level, owners/operators of publicly-owned muni-
cipal treatment works conduct necessary planning with Step 1
construction grants. The Step 1 facility plans — which include
public participation -- investigate the cost-effectiveness of
various engineering alternatives, select the most cost-effective
options, and investigate other technical matters such as preteat-
ment requirements, user chargers, operations and maintenance costs,
industrial cost recovery, and infiltration/inflow. Facility plans
rnay cover large, complex geographic regions or small rural communities
jmd may involve very large flows (e.g., 1 BGD) or small systems~~
covering only a single town or community.
12
-------
State and areawide WQM planning agencies, also with public
participation, look at municipal waste treatment problems from a
broader perspective -- financially, geographically, technologically,
and institutionally. In the initial phases of the 208 grant program,
from FY 74-79, many areawide agencies used 208 grants to study
areawide treatment issues for municipal point sources. Now, in the
continuing planning phase (FY 80 and beyond) 208 grants are directed
toward nonpoint source planning, but the States and designated
areawide agencies still have an interest in planning for treatment
works. Several 208 grants EPA awarded in FY 79 have multi-year
periods of performance, and the States may use other-than-208 funds
to support areawide planning activities.
Fiscal/financial management analysis is an important part of
planning for sewage treatment facilities. Structural controls are
expensive, and must be economically feasible in the communities
they serve. Recent EPA thrusts in planning for municipal systems
-- land treatment, water conservation, innovative/alternative
technology — are partially intended to mitigate the monetary costs
of treatment or to advance technology which will eventually be
more economical. Water Planning Division is also providing financial
management technical assistance to selected State and areawide
agencies through a contract.
For further guidance on planning for municipal systems, see
references [34] through [42].
4. Nonpoint Source Control Requirements
In accordance with their problem assessments and nonpoint
source control priorities, States and areawide agencies develop
best management practices (BMPs) for controlling nonpoint source
pollution. BMPs are defined as the most practical means of con-
trolling or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources, considering
technological, economic, and institutional factors. They may
include structural controls, nonstructural controls, or a combination.
Fiscal/financial and management analysis is also an important
part of BMP development, since BMPs will not be accepted, and may
be counterproductive, if they are too burdensome on the person or
entity required to implement them.
Although cost-effective BMPs exist for some problems, such as
construction runoff and failing septic systems, BMPs for such
problems as urban storm runoff, ground water contamination, and
agricultural runoff are not fully tested.For this reason,
designated State and areawide WQM planning agencies are testing
BMPs in prototype or pilot projects. When complete, these proto-
types will provide a technological basis for control which EPA can
then transfer to States and areawides nationwide.
13
-------
The prototype projects also test the financial, institutional,
and political aspects of controls. State, areawide, and local
planners work with local elected officials and the public on
institutional arrangements, public support, and sources of funding
for selected controls.
For more information on BMPs, see references [43] through [63]
and WQM Policy Memorandum B-3.
C. Implementing Solutions
This part of the problem-solving process involves agreements
on duties, incorporation of problem-solving into budget processes,
administration of regulatory programs, and other related efforts.
1. Agreements on Institutional Responsibility
The first step for State and areawide agencies in implementing
solutions to water quality problems is developing agreements on
institutional responsibility. State and areawide WQM plans identify
agencies with authority and capability to implement all aspects
of the plan, and the Governor designates these agencies as WQM
management agencies. The planning agency and the management agency
develop a long-term agreement detailing the steps each agency will
take to implement the plan, and a schedule for doing so.
Generally, different institutions handle different problems.
Cities, counties, special service districts, or interjurisdictional
compact agencies normally handle municipal waste treatment problems,
while soil conservation districts or county governments are more
likely to handle rural nonpoint source problems.
For more information on management agencies, see references
[64] and [65].
2. State and Local Budget Processes
Incorporating management of water quality in State and local
budgets is another basic implementation activity. State and local
management agencies must develop systematic approaches to financial
management and budgeting. Ad hoc requests for funding, or over-
reliance on Federal funding, are not suitable long-term substitutes
for effective financial planning.
State and areawide planning agencies incorporate fiscal/
financial planning in their WQM plans. They identify cost-effective
solutions to problems, determine the costs to local taxpayers,
develbp sound plans to defray the costs, and attempt to motivate
community action to implement the plan.
14
-------
In response to the need to improve financial planning and
analysis for water quality management at all levels of government,
the Water Planning Division has instituted a Financial Management
Assistance Project (FMAP) to provide State, areawide, and local
agencies with tools and techniques to finance implementation.
For further information on the FMAP and this subject area,
see references [66] through [70].
3. Permit Issuance and Enforcement
As discussed above, EPA issues different types of permits
(surface discharge, residuals disposal, dredge and fill, underground
injection, and hazardous waste disposal) which are being integrated
to steamline the permit process. Some States and local governments
also have permit programs.
Enforcement is generally the responsibility of the permit-issuing
agency, and is a critical part of implementation. As with other
aspects of the process, it is necessary to set enforcement priorities.
As a rule, enforcement aims first at chronic violators, major dis-
charges, and potential dischargers of toxic substances.
For further information on permit issuance and enforcement,
see references [30] through [33].
4. Other Regulatory and Non-regulatory Programs
In addition to permit-based regulatory programs for point
sources, there are other regulatory and non-regulatory approaches
for nonpoint sources. Such programs are generally State or local
initiatives, and many States and local governments are planning
such programs through the WQM planning process.
For EPA to approve a nonpoint source regulatory program in a
WQM plan, such as a permit, license, or bond program, it must
include authority to control the problem, monitor activity, and
enforce the program. Also, the designated management agency must
have adequate expertise, staff, funding, and authority.
In the absence of regulatory programs, voluntary compliance
programs may work (or be already working) to control pollution.
Such programs usually depend on education, citizen involvement, and
self-monitoring. For EPA to approve a non-regulatory program in a
WQM plan, the Regional Administrator must determine that it will
result in implementation of needed controls and achievement of
water quality goals.
For more information on these regulatory and non-regulatory
programs, see WQM Policy Memorandum B-2 and references [71] and [72].
15
-------
5. Structural Solutions
Although there are many non-structural solutions to water
quality problems, in some instances construction is appropriate.
Since 1973, EPA's construction grants program has awarded $32.5
billion in grants for construction of treatment plants, interceptors,
sewers, and appurtenances (including projected FY 80 awards of 4.50
billion). The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act [4] provided
an incentive for innovative and alternative treatment works, by
raising the Federal share of the cost of such projects from 75 to
85 percent. According to section 201(g) of the Act, innovative
and alternative processes are those which provide for reclamation
and reuse of water, otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants,
or utilize recycling, land treatment, new or improved methods of
waste treatment managment, and the confined disposal of pollutants.
For more details on the distinction between innovative and alternative
processes, see reference [75].
There are, in addition to treatment plants and sewers and various
systems for small communities, other structural solutions: detention
basins for urban storm runoff, recharge systems for ground water,
irrigation systems which reclaim wastewater, and erosion control
barriers. In general, States, local agencies, or private concerns
must fund these structures themselves, or obtain funding from out-
side EPA.
If a structural solution involves multiple purposes, one of
which is wastewater treatment, part of its costs may be eligible
for a construction grant. The purposes most often combined with
wastewater treatment are urban drainage, reclamation of effluent,
and disposal of refuse.
For more information on structural solutions to water quality
problems, see references [73] through [75].
6. Cost-Sharing for Agriculture
EPA is currently participating in a new demonstration imple-
mentation program for controlling rural nonpoint source pollution,
the 1980 Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). Congress appropriated
$50 million in FY 80 for an experimental RCWP, similar to the program
called for in section 208(j) of the Act. A RCWP appropriation of $20
million is requested in the President's Budget for
proprii
FY 81.
Under the 1980 RCWP, USDA is cost-sharing the application of
BMPs by owners or operators of rural lands. Some States, such as
Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, also have their own cost-sharing
programs. The RCWP projects are of a three-to-ten year duration
and are administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS), USDA.""
For more information on cost-sharing for agriculture, see
references [76] through [79].
16
-------
7. Sanctions and Incentives
Where other attempts to solve water quality problems have
failed, EPA or a State may apply sanctions. Sanctions may be
against a single discharger, a local or areawide agency, or the
State itself.
If a municipal or industrial discharger violates its NPDES
permit, the resulting sanction is permit enforcement. Dischargers
may be subject to both civil and criminal penalties for polluting.
(Note that EPA or the States will not usually impose sanctions
against municipalities that are too far down the priority list to
receive construction grants to correct their problems.)
If a management agency designated to implement a certified/
approved WQM plan fails to carry out its agreed-upon duties, the
State may withdraw the management agency designation and transfer
the authority to another agency or the State itself. In extreme
cases, EPA could rule any agency not deserving of public trust,
which would exclude it from all Federal funding.
Finally, if a Regional Administrator feels a State is not
implementing its certified and approved WQM plan, he or she may
rule that the State's continuing planning process is inadequate
and withhold State assistance or revoke its NPDES delegation, if
any.
Some incentives exist as possible alternatives to sanctions.
One example is the "payment in lieu of a fine," where a discharger/
operator faced with a fine may contribute to the solution of an
environmental problem in lieu of, or in addition to, a fine. Other
examples are Small Business Asministration (SBA) loans; accelerated
tax write-offs for industrial/commercial pollution control; awards
and honors; and grants from discretionary funds as rewards for
superior performance.
For more information on sanctions and incentives, see references
[80] and [81].
D. Evaluating Progress
Evaluation establishes the feedback loop in the problem-
solving process to keep management, planning, and implementation
moving in the right direction. Results of various evaluations
affect State and areawide budgets, work plans, and detailed problem-
solving activities. Theoretically, evaluation is the comparison
of actual performance or status to an idealized system model. Thus,
evaluation depends on an understanding of what is required and
desirable.
17
-------
Evaluation activities weave through the problem-solving process,
and break down into four general areas: evaluation of outputs,
water quality, trends, and institutional aspects.
1. Evaluating Outputs
The States, EPA, and others must evaluate permits, construction
grants, WQM plans, facility plans, and other plans (such as State
Implementation Plans for air quality) to ensure they are consistent
with each other and with all relevant laws and regulations. EPA,
the States, and areawide agencies should have procedures for
evaluating such outputs, such as formal A-95 review, work groups,
and task forces. Outputs must be consistent not only with the
Clean Water Act, but also with Presidential directives and other
major environmental legislation.* Many laws have build-in con-
sistency requirements, such as the requirements of sections 176(c)
and 316 of the Clean Air Act and sections 208(d) and (e) of the
Clean Water Act.
Evaluation of construction outputs is an important aspect of
the Construction Grants program. EPA has made arrangements with
the Corps of Engineers to conduct inspections at construction
sites and to evaluate plans and specs to ease the burden on EPA and
provide expert evaluation of construction progress,
Also, the EPA Regions meet annually with the States and area-
wide agencies receiving section 208 grants to determine how all
parties have performed against the commitments they made in their
work plans and State/EPA Agreements. These reviews focus on
completion of quantifiable outputs, and lead to mid-course corrections
or adjustments to subsequent years' work plans.
2. Evaluating Water Quality
The ultimate test of any environmental program is whether it
meets its overall objectives of environmental protection. For
water programs, this means protecting or improving water quality
in such a way that problems aren't simply transferred to other
media -- the air and the land.
Through monitoring and other observations, EPA, the States,
areawide agencies, local agencies, and the public continuously
evaluate water quality. Is water quality improving, staying the
*For example: Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
18
-------
same, or going downhill? Are numerical criteria being met? Are
designated uses being met, or are they denied? Are designated stream
uses justified -- or are they too optimistic or pessimistic? Is
stream biology healthy? Is ground water being protected from over-
drafting and contamination? Are residuals properly disposed of, re-
cycled, or reused? And finally, where problems exist, what is causing
them?
3. Evaluating Trends
Because pollution is a dynamic problem, trend analysis is a
key part of evaluation. A key variable in trend analysis is
population and economic growth or decline. It is possible that,
in some instances, population and economic growth could cancel out
improvements in water quality which the problem-solving process
achieved.
Through their planning processes, State, areawide, and local
agencies evaluate the impacts of population/economic growth on
domestic waste generation, industrial waste generation, sediment
production and transer, pollution from nutrients and pesticides,
ground cover, land use, water demand and withdrawals, or other
factors. One trend which they monitor is the build-up of toxic
pollutants in the environment and in aquatic life, particularly
fish and shellfish.
4. Evaluating Institutional Aspects
When assessing the cause of water pollution, it is sometimes
impossible to separate the technical problems from the related
institutional and political problems. Thus, agencies must evaluate
the institutional aspects of their programs. Some mechanisms for
doing this are WQM plans, the mid-year reviews of States and area-
wide agencies, and the management agency evaluations which the
States perform. '(See State and Areawide Management of the WQM
Process, below).
The WQM regulations [3] set up criteria for making institu-
tional evaluations. Some important considerations are:
Do management agencies have adequate authority to control
pollution? Do they have .adequate fiscal/financial expertise? Are
staffing, training, and salary scales adequate? Do the agencies
perform adequate monitoring and enforcement? Are activities
coordinated? Do the responsible agencies understand the laws and
regulations? Is EPA guidance adequate? Is the agency encouraging
and providing for public participation, is the public involvement
broad-based, and does the public support the agency's actions?
19
-------
Questions such as these set the tone for institutional evalua-
tions. Depending on the answers, the agencies involved may take
corrective action in the areas of management, planning, legislation,
and training.
20
-------
V. STATE & AREAWIDE MANAGEMENT OF THE WQM PROCESS
The problem-solving process depends on the coordinated efforts
of many programs and agencies for its success. This section of the
guidance recommends management procedures for the WQM portions of
the process, that is, those activities the States and areawide
agencies conduct under sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the Act
and the WQM regulations.*
This portion of the guidance augments the regulations with
descriptions of management procedures, identification of required
outputs, and references to detailed guidance. The thrust of this
portion of the guidance is to promote active, rather than reactive,
management of the WQM program on the part of all participants.
Many of the activities the States and areawide agencies under-
take each year relate to refinement of the WQM plans, which these
agencies prepared during initial planning in FY 74 and beyond with
section 208 and other funds. Thus, the plans are a key aspect of
the management process, intertwined throughout the process. Data
from the initial WQM plans serve as a base from which to identify
additional needs and collect additional data. Furthermore, the
institutional and financial components of the plans lay the ground-
work for implementation of plan recommendations.
The State/areawide management process for the WQM program
breaks down into seven annual components, discussed in detail
immediately below. The seven components are:
(1) assessing water quality problems
(2) developing the five-year State strategy
(3) developing the WQM portion of the draft State/EPA Agreement
(4) developing detailed State and areawide work programs
(5) developing the WQM portion of the final State/EPA Agreement
(6) implementing the work program and the State/EPA Agreement
(7) evaluating progress
*Although this guidance is geared toward State and areawide agencies
and their management of 106 and 208 grants, it also applies generally
to interstate commissions which receive grants under section 106.
The interstate commissions participate in problem assessment, develop
work programs and implement them, evaluate their progress, and parti-
cipate in the development of State/EPA Agreements for the States in
their basins or areas. For details on the role of the interstate
commissions, see the WQM regulations (35.1540) and WQM Policy Memo-
randum B-l. The affected interstate commissions are NEIWPCC, ISC,
DRBC, INCOPOT, SRBC, and ORSANCO.
21
-------
EPA is making every effort to manage the WQM program on a
rational annual cycle, geared toward obligations of 106 and 208
grants early each fiscal year, with no carry-over of unobligated
funds past the fourth quarter.
To promote the concept of a predictable, annual planning
cycle for the WQM program, the guidance below contains certain
deadlines and recommendations on the timing of various steps. The
relationships of the steps appear in the WQM time-line, Figure 1.
A, Assessing Water Quality Problems
1. Discussion
The first task in State and areawide management of the WQM
program is to establish a process for assessing water quality
problems. Agencies must assess both existing conditions and anti-
cipated conditions resulting from changes in land use, population,
and the economy. The assessment process includes both point and
nonpoint sources.
The WQM regulations [3] require no hard outputs from the
assessment process except for the biennial 305(b) report, but the
process builds a basis for subsequent work on State/EPA Agreements,
State strategies, and work programs. Each State/EPA Agreement
should include a brief problem statement [9].
Assessing water quality problems is generally a State responsi-
bility, although EPA also has a role, especially in the monitoring
and assessment of toxic pollutants. Areawide agencies also may
conduct portions of the assessment with the approval of the Regional
Administrator. State monitoring programs provide most of the data.
Some States have begun to employ environmental indices to assist
with the critical assessment functions of ranking segments and
discerning trends.
In keeping with EPA's emphasis on integration, State and
areawide agencies should attempt to integrate their various
problem assessments and review data from all relevant sources, for
example, approved WQM plans and Clean Lakes Assessments (CWA*),
the Open Dump Inventory (RCRA*), and the Surface Impoundment
Assessment (SDWA*).
*CWA — Clean Water Act
RCRA -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA. -- Safe Drinking Water Act
22
-------
FIGURE I
RECOMMENDED WQM MANAGEMENT TIME-LINE
FY 30
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
•assessing water quality
problems
developing the five-year
State strategy
developing WQM portion of
draft State/EPA Agreement
developing detailed State
and areawide work programs
developing WQM portion of
final State/EPA Agreement
implementing work program
and State/EPA Agreement
evaluating progress
Ql
f
Q2
[
(.. .
Q3
i
L
Q4
FY 81
Ql
* .
Q2
1
Q3
j
^ , ,
Q4
-------
2. Recommended Management Procedures
The States and areawide agencies should manage the problem
assessment process in accordance with the regulations and appropriate
guidance. Each State should review EPA assessment guidance, work
with the Regional Office to agree on review procedures and assist-
ance, analyze the data and develop the State position on where
problems exist, and review the State's position with the Region.
Recommended steps for the process are:
o The States should review EPA Headquarters guidance on
assessments [17-24] and additional guidance the Regional
Offices provide for the particular Region or State.
o The States should work with the Regional Office to agree
on assessment process review procedures, including format,
timing, and annual v. biennial requirements. They should
also agree on necessary technical assistance the Regions
will provide.
o States should analyze available data and develop information
on attainability of beneficial uses; appropriateness of
existing standards and stream classifications; sources of
pollution; projected loads; and current and projected
abatement. Based on these findings, the States may make
recommendations for further assessment work in upcoming
work programs.
o The States should review the results of their assessments
with the Regions and agree upon desired changes in methods,
procedures, or content.
o Areawide agencies should, after negotiations with the
States and EPA, conduct assessment activities crucial to
their area.
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUT — biennial 305(b) report in even-numbered years
B. Developing the Five-Year State Strategy
1. Discussion
According to the WQM regulations [3], each State must pre-
pare and undate annually a strategy for controlling pollution from
point and nonpoint sources. Long-term strategies are an essential
component of the State WQM programs, where they drive subsequent
efforts on work programs and State/EPA Agreements.
24
-------
The strategies include environmental goals for a five-year
period, priority water quality problems, estimated costs of activi-
ties to control the problems, identification of responsible
entities, and a summary of anticipated funding. They should address
the problems and priorities which certified/approved WQM plans
have identified, other problems the State has identified in its
problem assessment process, and any needs related to problems with
management agency performance.
A major emphasis of the strategy should be on solving specific
environmental problems in specific locations, consistent with EPA
guidance and current EPA policy expressed in the WQM FY 81 Baseline
Strategy [2]. The strategies should also discuss long-range
objectives for those areas the States fund with their 106 grants
— such as monitoring, enforcement, permitting, and management —
and explain how these activities contribute to the solutions of
priority problems.
The States must involve areawide agencies and interested
publics in the development of the strategies, and the Regional
Administrators will use the State strategies in their reviews of
areawide work programs. Also, in accordance with EPA's emphasis
on integration, the Regional Administrator has flexibility to allow
a State to develop an integrated water quality/drinking water/solid
waste strategy or more comprehensive integrated strategy.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
The State strategy, like the problem assessment process, is
primarily a State responsibility, although the areawide agencies
and others have important inputs. The recommended process for
developing the State strategies is for the States to review EPA
criteria and guidance with the Regions to agree on expectations,
analyze alternative strategies, select a State strategy, and --
throughout the process -- involve areawide agencies and the
public.
The specific recommended management steps are:
« The States should review the WQM regulations and additional
guidance the Regions provide for the particular Region or
State. The States should work with the Regional Offices
to agree on review procedures, timing, the roles of the
various parties, and what constitutes approval.
25
-------
o Public participation: The States must inform the public
about the proposed goals and scope of the State strategy
early in the process of its development and schedule
opportunities to consult with the public and the State WQM
advisory committee. Consultation with the public could
occur simultaneously with advisory committee consultation,
or it could be accomplished by a separate meeting or other
less-formal means.
o The States should identify possible alternative strategies
and — to the extent time and resources allow — analyze
them for cost-effectiveness, funding needs, consistency
with national strategies, and other factors. The States
should then select strategies and submit them to the Regions.
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUT -- annual five-year State strategy with public
responsiveness summary
— summary of areawide involvement and comments
C. Developing the WQM Portion of the Draft State/EPA Agreement
1. Discussion
With consideration for the problem assessment process, and
based on their five-year strategies, each State should begin to
develop draft State/EPA Agreements and WQM work programs by February
or March for the following fiscal year. Development of draft
State/EPA Agreements and WQM work programs is simultaneous, with
much interaction between the two efforts. The final State/EPA
Agreement includes the State's programs for its 106 and 208 grants.
In keeping with EPA's policy of conducting the 106 and 208
grant programs on a rational annual cycle with grant awards early
in the fiscal year and no carry-over of unobligated funds, State/
EPA Agreements must address the use of funds for the same fiscal
year the Agreements cover. For example, FY 81 Agreements must
include plans and priorities for the use of FY 81 208 grants.
The States must involve the areawide agencies and interested
members of the public in the preparation of the draft Agreements
and submit summaries of their participation with the drafts. The
areawide agencies may also comment directly to EPA. The draft
Agreement usually sets forth high-priority problems, goals, and
objectives for the upcoming year and serves as a basis for
negotiation.
26
-------
According to the Administrator's Guidance for FY 81 State/EPA
ireements. contained in the EPA Operating Year Guidance for FY 81
U. all EPA programs are candidates for coverage by EPA and tFe
s when they negotiate the State/EPA Agreement priorities.
It is important to note that the WQM program is just one of many
programs the Agreements cover. States, areawide agencies, and the
EPA Regional Offices should consider opportunities for integration
involving the WQM program, as well as possibilities for conflicts,
during this stage of their management process.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
Through the State's designated State/EPA Agreement contract,
the State W'QM staff should work with the EPA Region to assure
inclusion of priority WQM problems in the Agreement. State WQM
staff should then help the State SEA contact develop and review the
WQM portion of the draft Agreement. The State WQM staff should
involve the areawide agencies and the public in the process.
Some specific recommended steps follow:
Through the State contact person, the State WQM staff
should agree with the EPA Region on reporting, accounting,
timing, responsibility, commitments, public participation,
and other details for those items in the State/EPA Agree-
ment relating to the WQM program.
The States should develop and implement procedures for
obtaining areawide agency input into the draft Agree-
ments in accordance with the regulations and EPA guidance
[9].
Public Participation: The State must inform the public
of proposed goals and scope of the Agreement early in
the process of its development and schedule opportunities
to consult with the State WQM advisory committee and the
public on the contents of the draft.
Finally, the State should develop a position based on the
State strategy (i.e., a framework of priorities for a one-
year period) and prepare a draft State/EPA Agreement.
27
-------
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUTS — information to assist public participation
in State/EPA Agreement development
— summary of areawide involvement, comments,
and State responses with the draft Agreement
-- public responsiveness summary
— draft State/EPA Agreement
D. Developing Detailed State and Areawide Work Programs
1. Discussion
General. States and areawide agencies develop their detailed
work programs on approximately the same schedule as their State/
EPA Agreements. The WQM regulations [3] call for draft WQM work
programs on June 1, and final work programs September 1. Con-
ceptually, the WQM work program has close ties to both the State/
EPA Agreement and the State Five-Year Strategy. Although these
documents have different purposes and audiences, together they
represent the whole WQM program within a State.
State and areawide work programs should stress quantifiable
objectives and outputs so that EPA, the public, and the grantees
themselves can accurately assess their progress. The work
programs should also reflect the problem-solving emphasis of the
WQM program, especially for section 208 grants. It is EPA policy,
starting in FY 80, that 106 and 208 grants will be based on
actual needs, rather than arbitrary formulas. (For more details
on funding policies, see the WQM Strategy [2] and WQM Policy
Memo A-2.)
With respect to section 208 grants, Water Planning Division
has recently adopted a policy of reviewing each Region's needs for
208 funds prior to allocating funds to the Region. For FY 81 grants,
the Division will review draft 208 grant concepts from the Regions
in about July, 1980, after the States and EPA and others have
developed the draft FY 81 State/EPA Agreements. Headquarters
review will be prompt, so as not to delay final Agreements. The
Headquarters review involves brief project proposals or descriptions,
and focuses more on overall approaches and strategies than the merits
of individual projects. These proposals are the basis for develop-
ing more detailed work programs.
28
-------
The work programs should not be overly long. In the past,
the tendency of many grantees has been to provide too much detail,
obscuring the important objectives and outputs. The revised WQM
regulations [3] represent a significant simplification over the
old regulations [8] in terms of the number of documents they
require each year and the detail they must contain.
Water Planning Division is developing more detailed guidance
for WQM work programs, which will become an appendix to this
Supplemental WQM Guidance. The Division anticipates a draft of
the advisory-nature guidance in May 1980.
Scope. State work programs cover the 16 program elements
found in 40 CFR 1513-5(c), although they need not necessarily be
organized along the same lines. The State work program covers all
activities the State will fund with 106 and 208 grants, as well as
Clean Lakes grants (section 314) and permitting actions they are
funding with 205(g) grants. To give the State and areawide
agencies an idea how much 106 and 208 funds are available, the WQM
FY 81 Baseline Strategy [2] provides funding targets which they
should use to determine the scope of their work program.
Areawide work programs, which are separate from State work
programs, cover only water quality management activities under
section 208, unless the State passes through 106, 205(g), or
other funds to the areawide agency to perform specific tasks.
Contents. According to the regulations [3]} work programs
must contain a summary of the current year's program including the
status of outputs planned for the year, and an identification of
outputs the agency will produce in the upcoming year. For each
output, the work program must show the cost, the sources of funds,
important milestones, the name of the responsible agency or depart-
ment, and certain other information the regulations require.
The Regions and States have flexibility in deciding on work
program formats and on how much detail they need to manage the WQM
program effectively. For example, although the regulations do not
require it, many Regions will continue to require separate work
programs for each problem-solving project they support with 208
grants. However, State and areawide work programs should assume
more of a problem orientation than a program orientation in keeping
with the WQM problem-solving strategy. The upcoming work program
guidance will discuss, among other topics, effective formats for"
work programs.
29
-------
Public participation activities must be integrated into WQM
planning activities and reflected in the work program for each
activity. However, a separate public participation work program
must also be included. This work program must provide for an
advisory committee which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 25.7 and
35.1507 and must contain all of the information required in 40 CFR
25.11 [7]. The public participation work program has four major
objectives:
-- to assure the development of a program for involving the
public in substantive and technical policy decisions
-- to assure that the program is ready to begin at the onset
of the grant-supported activity
-- to assist EPA and the public to determine whether the total
public participation effort is adequate
— to inform the public of their specific opportunities
to be involved in decision-making
The public participation work program should state, in clear
language, the decisions which will be made in the course of the
planning process, with a schedule which indicates, at least
approximately, when the decisions will be made. The schedule
should indicate the types of opportunities the public will have
to contribute their views, e.g., public hearings, opportunities
to make written comments, and public meetings.
In general, public participation programs should not focus
on general education, but should be directed toward informing and
involving the public in specific decisions.
Approval. By regulation, EPA may not award a 106, 208, or
314 grant to any agency without an approved work program including
a public participation work program. Conditional work program
approvals are allowed, however.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
The management procedures for work program development involve
coordination of State and areawide work programs, comparison of
past performance and proposed actions, and involvement of technical
experts in work program formulation. The recommended steps in the
management process are:
o Each State should notify the areawide agencies of the
elements of the State's proposed program early in the process
6f work program development, generally by April 1. Likewise,
30
-------
the areawide agencies should inform the States of the
proposed elements of their work programs to give the States
an opportunity to review and comment.
• The States and areawides should consider Regional Office
comments concerning problems, priorities, activities, and
funding. They should also factor in the results of the
Water Planning Division (HQ) review of 208 funding needs
before finalizing their work programs.
• The States and areawides should develop internal work
program review procedures and work with each other and the
EPA Region to agree on expectations for review, updating,
approval, and timing.
• The States and areawides should consider variation between
the previous year's work program commitments and actual
progress and address these variations during work program
development.
t Public Participation: The States and areawides must
provide the public with information about the proposed
goals and scope of the work program early in the process
of its development, consult with the public and the agency's
advisory group, hold a public meeting on the draft work
program, prepare a responsiveness summary describing the
agency's action with respect to public comments, and
distribute the responsiveness summary to the public.
• The States and areawides should identify alternative
outputs, in keeping with the State strategy and State/EPA
Agreement and -- to the extent that time and resources
allow — analyze the alternatives for cost-effectiveness,
resource commitments, conflict potential, relationship
to national priorities, and other factors. Based on this
analysis, the agencies should select the most appropriate
outputs.
• States and areawides should request the assistance of
national technical assistance contractors for work program
development as appropriate.
• States and areawides should submit their draft work programs
to the Regions by June 1, or another date the Regional
Administrator agrees to. See required outputs, below.
31
-------
Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUTS — policy framework for areawides, approximately
April 1
— comments on draft areawide work programs
to EPA and areawide agencies within 45 days
of receipt
-- draft work program to Regional Administrator
by June 1 (or other date suitable to RA)
with responsiveness summaries
-- modified work programs, as necessary, after
conditional approval
-- conflict resolution procedures for FY 81
work program per 35.1517 (b)
— final work program, September 1
—- distribute public participation work program
to the public
AREAWIDE -- proposed work program elements to State
OUTPUTS early in the process of work program
development
— draft work programs to State and Region
by June 1 (or other date suitable to RA)
with responsiveness summaries
— modified work programs, as necessary, after
conditional approval
-- final work program, September 1
— distribute public participation work
program to the public
Developing the WQM Portions of the Final State/EPA Agreements
1. Discussion
The final State/EPA Agreements represent commitments of the
States and EPA to perform environmental management activities
Including the WQM program and other programs. According to EPA
guidance [9], the final Agreements should include (1) an executive
summary, if the Agreements are longer than 25 pages, (2) a clear
identification of priority problems based on problem assessments
and multi-year strategies, (3) annual grant work plans (work programs
[4) documentation of tasks and resources needed to meet priority
commitments, (5) a description of public involvement, and (6) a
procedure for management tracking.
E.
32
-------
After the final Agreement is signed, the Regions and States
cooperate on preparing grant applications. The Agreements may
constitute the narrative portions of the State's WQM grant appli-
cations (i.e., for 106, 208, and 314 grants) to save paperwork and
repetitious applications.
The areawide agencies generally apply directly to EPA for
grants after the State/EPA Agreements are signed. In some States,
however, the States pass funds through to the areawides, eliminating
the need for them to apply to EPA.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
The management procedures for developing final State/EPA
Agreements are straightforward. The States and areawides review
EPA comments on draft Agreements and work programs, negotiate
changes, finalize the Agreements, and work with the Regions on grant
applications. Recommended management steps are:
• State and areawide agencies should review EPA Regional
Office comments on the draft State/EPA Agreements and work
programs and negotiate changes from the drafts.
• Public Participation: States and areawide agencies should
consult with their advisory groups and the public if changes
envisioned in the final Agreements will depart substantially
from public comments on the draft.
• Based on negotiations and public participation, the States
and EPA should finalize the Agreements and sign them.
• States and areawides then work with the Regional Office
to develop procedures for grant application, administration,
and evaluation to the extent these topics are not covered
in the Agreements themselves.
• States and areawides prepare grant applications in
accordance with the agreed-upon procedures.
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUTS — final State/EPA Agreement
— grant application based on signed Agreements
AREAWIDE — grant applications based on signed Agree-
OUTPUTS ments
33
-------
F. Implementing the Work Programs and State/EPA Agreements
1. Discussion
Once State/EPA Agreements are signed, program participants
implement the Agreements and the work programs they include. EPA,
as well as the States and areawides, is responsible for carrying
out its commitments under the Agreements.
Implementing the work programs and Agreements amounts to
implementing the problem-solving process described in section IV;
above. States, areawide agencies, and local units of government
participate in planning, permitting, and enforcement, construction
grants, water quality standards, waste load allocations, nonpoint
source management, wetlands protection, monitoring, training,
lake restoration, and other efforts.
The specific priorities of the 208-funded portions of the WQM
program are solving the problems identified in the initial WQM
plans, particularly urban runoff, agriculture, and ground
water pollution. The overall program goal is to help States and
local governments manage the decision-making process to meet the
water quality goals of the Act.
To assist State and areawide agencies, the Water Planning
Division has contracted with expert consultant consortia in the
areas of urban runoff, advanced waste treatment, ground water
protection, and fiscal/financial management. These contractors
assist EPA in the areas of work program development, project
management, and evaluation of results.
EPA is placing increasing emphasis on the use of site-specific
nonpoint source prototype projects to develop a data base which
all the States and areawides can use to solve their nonpoint source
problems. (For further discussion of this topic, see the WQM FY 81
Baseline Strategy [2].) Thus, the State and areawide agencies
both manage prototype projects in such areas as urban runoff, ground
water protection, and agricultural nonpoint source control, and
use the results of other prototype projects, which EPA provides,
to solve problems.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
Management of this phase of the WQM program involves managing
the flow of information and resources to and from the State and
areawide agencies and the public. The States and areawides receive
assistance from EPA and tap into EPA information exchange mechanisms.
They also provide information useful to other agencies on control
techniques and institutional aspects. The public participates in
the various activities of the State and areawide agencies, providing
feedback and participating in the decision-making process.
34
-------
The recommended management procedures for implementing the
work programs and State/EPA Agreements are:
t The States and areawides should identify.assistance require-
ments, if they did not already do so in the State/EPA
Agreements; review Regional operations manuals; and
attend technical workshops which EPA organizes -- to the
extent that time and resources allow.
• The States and areawides should tap EPA's information
exchange mechanisms. They should use the information EPA
provides to plan controls in their own areas, and provide
EPA with information on their own projects which may be of
use to others.
• Public participation in carrying out work programs and
Agreements must be in accord with the public participation
work program and any requirements in the Agreement. A
public hearing must be held on draft WQM plans which are
ready to enter the certification/approval process. A
responsiveness summary must be prepared following the
hearing and made available to the public.
• The States and areawides should take advantage of Regional
Office and Headquarters technical assistance, especially
the national experts under contract with Water Planning
Division to provide assistance on urban runoff, ground
water, waste treatment facilities, and fiscal/financial
management.
• The States, with assistance from the Regional Offices,
should manage a cost-effective monitoring program. The
program should serve as a "floor" for all other actions, and
is essential to the execution of State and areawide work
programs.
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUTS — public hearings on draft WQM plan revisions*
— draft plan revisions and public responsiveness
summaries to EPA within 60 days of public
hearings*
-- certification letter to Regional Administrator
within 120 days of receipt of plan*
*NOTE: This is not an annual requirement; this output is required
only as plan revisions occur, as agreed upon in State and areawide
work programs and State/EPA Agreements.
35
-------
-- waste water treatment facility needs
inventory and construction grant priority
list; draft May 1, final July 15, each year
-- water quality standards review and revision,
at least every three years
-- where appropriate, proposed RCWP projects, in
priority order, to USDA
-- management agency letters of commitment, with
WQM plan revisions as appropriate
AREAWIDE —• public hearings on draft WQM plan revisions*
OUTPUTS
-- draft plan revisions and public responsiveness
summaries to EPA within 60 days of public
hearings*
G. Evaluating Process
1. Discussion
Evaluation is a key part of the management of the WQM program.
State and areawide agencies must evaluate the consistency of their
actions with WQM plans, the adequacy of the State Continuing Planning
Process, progress against work programs, performance of designated
management agencies, and their own internal performance.
States and areawides should have a process to evaluate draft
permits, construction grant applications, water quality standards
revisions, and other plans for consistency with WQM plans. Consistency
with State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for air pollution control
is important, since section 316 of the Clean Air Act mandates
consistency.
The State Continuing Planning Process description (CPP) required
of each State is a relatively static document. However, the State
should evaluate the CPP description to determine whether it needs
to be changed to reflect changes in State or Federal laws, State
organization, or State procedures for the WQM program.
State and areawide agencies participate in periodic evaluations
with the Regional Offices of their progress against commitments in
work programs. The regulations [3] call for a mid-year evaluation
meeting to consider the need for mid-course corrections in current
work programs or for adjustments to upcoming work programs. The
mid-year evaluation must include a review of the agency's compliance
with its public participation work program and the requirements of
40 CFR Part 25 [7], especially 25.12(a)(2).
*See footnote, previous page
36
-------
Given the WQM program's emphasis on implementation of controls
for specific problems, evaluation of designated management agencies
is a key component of a State's evaluation system. Management
agency evaluation is a State responsibility, and should be included
in work programs. Management agency evaluation should focus on
certified and approved WQM plans and management agency letters of
commitment. Where the Regional Office feels it necessary, it may
also evaluate the performance of management agencies.
Finally, although the regulations do not require it, each State
and areawide agency should conduct an internal evaluation to
determine where to raise skills, improve efficiency, or change the
distribution of resources. State or areawide advisory committees
should play a key role in such internal evaluations.
To ensure that EPA's management of the WQM program effectively
supports the activities of the State and areawide agencies, the Water
Planning Division has recently initiated a WQM program review. The
review will cover progress toward implementation of WQM plans,
development of operational nonpoint source controls, and improved
management of the 106 grants. It will provide a qualitative
evaluation of Headquarters and Regional Office effectiveness, identify
problems and issues, recommend alternative solutions, and disseminate
information on problems, issues, and solutions to other Regions.
A summary of the program review process and the criteria EPA wiTl
use are attached, in Appendix B.
2. Recommended Management Procedures
The recommended management procedures which the States and
areawides should use in the evaluation area are:
o The State and areawide agencies should establish procedures
in cooperation with the Regional Offices for evaluating
draft permits, construction grant applications, water
quality standards revisions, and other plans which affect
them for consistency with certified/approved WQM plans.
o The States should from time to time assess the need for
CPP revisions, identify the necessary changes, review them
with the Regional Office, modify the CPP description as
required, and obtain EPA approval.
o The States and areawide agencies should prepare for mid-
year reviews by working with the Regions on timing and
procedures for evaluation and by identifying schedule
slippage and the reasons for it prior to the meetings.
During the meetings, they should discuss recommendations
for work plan revisions.
37
-------
t With the EPA Regions, the States should formulate evaluation
plans for designated management agencies and incorporate
the plans into their work programs. The State should
delegate activities as appropriate. When evaluations are
made, the State should provide feedback to the management
agencies and/or make recommendations to the Governor and
the Regional Office to change a management agency
designation, impose sanctions, .or take other corrective
action.
• The States and areawides should review internal performance,
possibly through the use of individual performance con-
tacts and similar management tools. The agencies should
make internal recommendations for improvement through
training, additional resources, or redefinition of duties.
Advisory committees should have a major role in internal
evaluations.
3. Required Outputs
STATE OUTPUTS -- participation in mid-year evaluations with
EPA Regional Office; modifications to work
programs as appropriate
-- CPP revisions, as appropriate
-- management agency evaluations, as appropriate
AREAWIDE -- participation in mid-year evaluations with
OUTPUTS EPA Regional Office; modifications to work
programs as appropriate.
38
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WON PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
/
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION A -- FUNDING
WQM Policy Memorandum A-1
INTERIM GUIDANCE, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR
PROCUREMENT UNDER SECTION 208
[rescinded, see page 1ii]
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION A -- FUNDING
WQM Policy Memorandum A-2
FY 81 and 82 WQM Funding Policy —
Sections 106 and 208
I. Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth FY 81 funding policies
and procedures for grants to State, interstate and areawide agencies
under sections 106 and 208 of the Clean Water Act. Also a preliminary
schedule for FY 82 grant awards is presented.
II. Po1icy--106 Grants
The funding policies of the WQM program are based on several overall
objectives — stewardship of grant funds, direction of funds to problem-
solving efforts whenever possible, and integration and coordination of
programs to the extent feasible. It is the general policy of the WQM
program to allocate 106 and 208 funds on the basis of program needs and
national priorities. For a more complete-discussion of 106 and 208
objectives refer to the WQM FY 81 Baseline Strategy.
EPA will allocate FY 81 106 funds to the Regions using the formula in
40 CFR 35.553 (April 27, 1976). The WQM FY 81 Baseline Strategy provides
target amounts from the formula for each State and interstate basin
commission. These targets are neither entitlements nor commitments, but
guidelines for the Regions and States to use in negotiating programs
based on needs. To receive a 106 grant, each State must provide State
funds at a level not less than the amount the State spent on its water
pollution control program in 1971. Where the State has received a
construction grants management delegation under section 205(g), it must
contribute funds at a level not less than its contribution in 1977,
unless there is an across-the-board cut of all the State's environmental
programs. If a State does not contribute its required share of program
support funds, it may not receive a 106 grant, and the Regional Administrator
will reallocate the funds to other States and interstate agencies within
the Region.
The Regional Administrator is responsible for negotiating with each
State and interstate commission, its needs, priorities, and program
commitments and for allocating funds appropriately among them. In
addition, 106 grants to interstate commissions must be consistent with
the provisions of WQM Policy Memorandum B-l.
Regional Administrators and.program managers should ensure that national
106 priorities are reflected in State/EPA Agreement negotiations and 106
funding decisions. The EPA Operating Year Guidance for FY 81_(February
1980), articulates agencywide priorities which should be considered.
-------
The national 106 priorities for FY 81 are:
o Improve management of the Construction Grants program
EPA stresses improved State management of obligations, outlays,
project completion, priority lists, and facility plans. An ad-
ditional priority is State assumption of pretreatment authority
and 205(g) delegation. States should maximize the use of 205(g)
funds to minimize the burden on 106 funding from construction
management assistance.
o Develop a framework for toxics control
States should place priority on incorporating toxic criteria in
their water quality standards. States with NPDES authority should
control toxic substances by issuing second-round permits to pri-
mary industries, major secondary industries, and major POTWs, by
implementing the pretreatment program and by enforcing pretreatment
regulations.
o Build water quality management capability
States should develop their toxic analytic capability, including
the purchase of laboratory equipment. Quality Assurance procedures
are mandatory in all projects in which the participants gather en-
vironmental data. States should also develop operational control
programs for nonpoint source problems with EPA technical assistance,
especially for ground water, agriculture, and urban runoff, with
special attention to the financial management aspects.
o Conduct effective permit and enforcement programs
In addition to permit and enforcement efforts aimed at strengthening
the framework for toxics control, States should simplify the permit
process through the consolidated permit program; process section
301(h), marine waivers; issue energy-related permits; implement the
National Municipal Policy and Strategy; conduct inspections in sup-
port of enforcement cases 'and emergency situations; and implement
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) quality assurance programs.
o Conduct waste load allocation/AWT reviews
Using EPA guidance (see, for example, INFO 79-98), the States
should establish programs for waste load allocations. States
should prepare priority lists of wasteload allocations necessary
to substantiate inadequate AST/AWT effluent limitations in ac-
cordance with WQM policy memorandum B-8 (PRM 79-11).
o Respond to major environmental emergencies
To receive a section 106 grant, each State must have an emergency re-
sponse program consistent with section 504 of the Act, including a
contingency plan, necessary response capability, authority to estab-
lish a contingency fund and a program to prevent emergencies from
occurring. For further guidance, see upcoming WQM Policy Memorandum
B-5.
-------
o Protect sensitive ecosystems
To protect sensitive wetland areas, States should develop their
section 404 dredge and fill programs as resources allow and
work toward assuming 404 program delegation. In the 404 program,
States should focus on the most environmentally sensitive projects,
emphasizing pre-permit applications, planning, and analysis. States
should also operate a Clean Lakes program to protect or restore
publicly-owned fresh water lakes, in accordance with the section 314
Clean Lakes strategy.
Water Planning Division, with Regional Office assistance, will use
the up-coming WQM Program Review to ensure that the Regions and States
are incorporating the national 106 priorities in their FY 81 programs.
The WQM Program Review (see INFO 80-49) is part of an overall OWWM
priority of improved program management and will assess Headquarters and
Regional Office management of the WQM process. Review teams will begin in
May 1980 to visit the Regional Offices and conduct interviews. Regional
Office management of 106 should include tracking 106 commitments and
using the mid-year review of State programs to assess State management
of 106 funds and observance of national priorities.
III. Po1icy--208 Grants
The highest management priorities for the WQM program under section 106
and 208 of the Clean Water Act are better, more active management of the
WQM program, completion of the 208 portion of the program by the end of
FY 83, and developing implementable nonpoint source programs through the
building and transferring of a NPS information base. The major elements
of EPA's funding policy for managing 208 grant funds and achieving the
management priorities are as follows:
o Needs-Oriented Funding
As in FY 80, each Region must demonstrate, through the process
outlined below, that it has sufficient needs which meet the funding
criteria to receive its funding target. (The 208 Regional targets
appear in the WQM FY 81 Baseline Strategy.) The 208 appropriation
for FY 81 is estimated at $34 million. The Agency may allocate
approximately $2 million of this total to complete the funding for
approved urban storm runoff projects under the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP). Although the targets reflect application of
the allocation formula set forth in the WQM regulations (35.1537-
l(b)) to the remaining $32 million, Headquarters may allocate more
or less than the target following review and discussion with each
Region concerning its proposed FY 81 program. In addition, any
money not obligated by March 1, 1981, reverts back to Headquarters
for distribution among eligible Regions. Overtarget funding will
be handled in the same manner as in FY 80 (see INFO 80-43 for
details).
An important aspect of the needs-oriented policy is attention to
priorities. Nationally, there is a need to fund the highest-
priority problems and to establish a reasonable cause-effect technica'
data base with a minimum of duplication. The needs of the various
-------
State and areawide WQM agencies should stem from completed WQM
plans, the needs assessments, and State strategies. Since EPA
based the selection of national priorities on data from the initial
plans, these needs should generally conform with the national
priorities expressed in the WQM Strategy.
Regions can demonstrate needs in three categories:
Category 1. National priority projects which Headquarters will
track and provide technical assistance to during FY 81. This in-
cludes the continuation of Category 1 projects begun in FY 80
and projects started in FY 81 including: eight to ten new ground
water projects, three new silviculture projects, and approximately
three to five new agriculture projects with intensive monitoring
and evaluation consistent with the EPA national agricultural non-
point source strategy. Water Planning Division is also considering
the possibility of starting additional Category 1 financial
management projects in FY 81.
Category 2. National priority projects which Headquarters will not
track in detail 'in FY 81. For a discussion of the national priorities
see the FY 81 Baseline Strategy. Projects which utilize the results
of WQM prototype projects to deal with nonpoint source control and
financing problems identified in 208 plans are strongly encouraged.
Headquarters will provide technical assistance to these projects as
time and resources allow.
Category 3. Other nonpoint source problem-solving activities
essential to filling a need in the State's WQM strategy.
o Annualized Work Planning Process
Regions, States, and areawide agencies will begin to develop work
programs well in advance of the start of each fiscal year, so that
soon after appropriations are available, the Regions can make
awards based on approved, or conditionally approved, work programs.
Development of 208 programs should follow the management framework
presented in Chapter V of the WQM Supplemental Guidance (see INFO
79-114 and INFO 80-57), which ties the 208 program to the State/EPA
Agreement. There should be an orderly project development process
including a problem assessment and a State five-year strategy, and
the 208 project concepts or proposals should stem from the State
strategy. Headquarters will promptly review concepts/proposals
following completion of the draft State/EPA Agreements, after which
the Regions, States and areawides will generally proceed with
detailed work program development. (For more details, see Process,
below.) Any 208 funds which the Region does not obligate by March
1, 1981 will automatically revert to Headquarters for redistribution.
In no case will a Regional Office carry-over an unobligated balance
into FY 82. This timing will also allow for redirection of funds
if initial grant agreements cannot be finalized.
o Emphasis on Implementation
The WQM regulations limit 208 funds to agencies which are imple-
menting significant portions of their WQM plans. Projects must
-------
result in specific outputs which are part of an overall implementa-
tion plan. (Note, however, that 208 grants are for planning purposes
only and may not be used to pay for management agency functions which
carry out specific implementation activities.)
Restriction to Nonpoint Source Problems
In accordance with Administration Policy, the Annual Agency Guidance,
and the WQM FY 81 Baseline Strategy, EPA will limit 208 funds in FY
81 to nonpoint source problem-solving efforts. Facility-related
planning activities, such as waste load allocations, should be funded
with Section 201 or 205(g) funds where necessary (see PRM 79-11 and
WQM Policy Memo B-8). The Water Planning Division and the Office of
Water Program Operations are dedicated to aggressively assist in the
implementation of this policy.
In rare cases 208 funds may be used (subject to OMB approval) for
waste load allocation work in non-201 and/or 205(g) eligible instances
EPA will provide such funding only if both of the following conditions
are met:
(1) EPA, the State and the areawide or local agencies involved
have positively and conclusively found that no 106, State,
local, or private funding is available to pay for the waste
load allocation, and
(2) the projects meet these criteria and obtain Headquarters
review and approval according to procedures in upcoming WQM
guidance.
In FY 81 208 funds may not be used to update the facility portions
of WQM plans.
Limitations on Awards
The Regional Offices will assure that 208 grantees meet the condi-
tions of the WQM regulations and EPA policy with respect to work
plan approvals, State/EPA Agreement completion, and other limita-
tions. These limitations are listed and explained in Criteria,
below.
IV. Process for Awarding 208 Grants in FY 81
The following process guides the award of section 208 grantsjn FY 81.
The process is designed to ensure compliance with funding criteria,
below, and to promote grant awards early in the fiscal year, ihe process
eliminates the possibility of carry-over of FY 81 funds into FY 82.
-------
JULY
AUGUST 1980
AUGUST
1980
AUGUST -
1980 -
FEBRUARY
1981
Based upon Draft FY 81 SEAs, State Five-Year Strategies,
needs assessments, and approved WQM plans, the Regional
Offices submit lists of potential 208 projects to the
Water Planning Division (WPD) for review. (If a Region
wants an earlier review of its program, it may submit a
pre-proposal package to Headquarters for comment. Based
on our experience in FY 80, Regions should not over-
commit themselves or their agencies until Headquarters
has commented on their approach or strategy.)
WPD reviews each proposed list for consistency with
national priorities and funding criteria and provides
comments to the Regions within two weeks to assist with
negotiation of final project proposals with States. WPD
with the Regions, also identifies potential high priority
projects WPD will track and provide assistance to.
After the Headquarters review, Water Planning Division staff
follows-up with the Regional Offices, working with each Region
to ensure that acceptable projects are developed. Regions
revise their funding recommendations and work with potential
grantees to further develop project concepts.
The Regions develop work programs with their proposed 208
grantees, conduct public participation, and award grants.
It is WQM program policy that 208 grant awards should be
made as early as possible in the fiscal year, preferably
before January 30. Therefore, to accelerate the rate of
grant awards, Regions must award at least half of their
208 funds within 30 days of
receipt of their Advice of
submit
Allowance. Upon grant award, the Regions submit copies
of the approved (or conditionally approved) work program
to Water Planning Division for review, summarization, and
information transfer.
MARCH -- Advices of Allowance have an automatic reversion date
1981 (March 2). Funds are returned to Headquarters for re-
distribution if not obligated.
V. Preliminary Process for Awarding 208 Grants in FY 82
The process for awarding FY 82 section 208 grants will be similar to the
FY 81 process; however, the FY 82 schedule will be acclerated. As in FY
81, EPA will continue to stress the early award of 208 grants, pre-
ferably by January 1, 1982.
Upon receipt of their FY 82 Advices of Allowance from Headquarters, the
Regions must award half their 208 funds within 30 days. Any portions of
the Advice which the Region does not obligate by February 1, 1982 will
automatically revert to Headquarters for redistribution. In no case
will a Regional Office carry-over an unobligated balance into FY 83.
-------
VI. Criteria for Developing 208 Projects
The following is a list of criteria that the Regions should use to
develop and approve 208 projects. More specific criteria for the various
problem areas appear in INFO 80-69_. Headquarters requests a copy of
each Region's criteria/approach for funding projects. Headquarters will
use this material for information transfer and will disseminate complete
sets to all Regions.
o Project priorities should stem from national guidance and needs
identified in certified and approved WQM plans. EPA, the States,
and areawide agencies should negotiate appropriate priorities within
the context of annual State/EPA Agreement negotiations.
o Project priorities, within a Region, should follow the national
priorities expressed in the WQM FY 81 Baseline Strategy, so the
limited 208 funds will have a major impact on such important
problems as agriculture, urban storm runoff, and ground water by
1983. If any agency does not have an identified problem in these
areas, projects should not be developed merely to ensure funding.
o Projects must lead to implementation. The intent of this criterion
is to assure that projects lead to decisions regarding the establish-
ment of operational nonpoint source control programs as opposed to
studies which involve no commitment to implement. Projects must
have hard outputs, and must be part of an overall approach for
solving a problem.
o Selected projects will produce important cause-effect and cost-
effectiveness data. The Regions should avoid duplication of effort
in this regard. Headquarters will help to ensure that cause-effect
and cost-effectiveness data is shared among all participants in the
WQM program. Regions should not fund intensive montitoring and
evaluation except on selected projects identified in cooperation
with Headquarters staff.
o The Regional Offices may provide States with minimal 208 funding to
produce 208-related portions of the required State/EPA Agreement,
State problem assessment, five-year strategy, and WQM management
agency evaluation.
o Integrated approaches to solving multiple nonpoint source problems
are encouraged. For example, an agricultural project might include
coordinated BMPs for on-lot disposal systems in the project area,
UUU1UII1ULC.U uriro I u i uuiuu uijp^jui ^j^^^tn^j ••• ^ •. — r . — 0 ~ . .
Conservation of petroleum and natural gas must be considered, where
appropriate, during the development of BMPs, consistent with Executr
Order 12185.
The Regions shall ensure that all proposed projects meet (or will
meet by the time of grant award) the following limitations:
No Region shall award 208 grants within a State for which
there is not a signed FY 81 State/EPA Agreement. In addition,
each work program must be included in the FY 81 State/EPA
Agreements, either directly or by reference.
7
-------
Prior to grant award, each State or areawide agency must have
an approved, or conditionally approved, work program which
identifies specific outputs the 208 funds will produce, including
public participation elements and the fiscal and institutional
elements identified in the Attachment to INFO 80-20.
Grantees, other than new designations, must have certified and
approved plans to be eligible for 208 funds. Partial or
conditional approvals meet this criteria.
No section 208 funds will be available to any agency with a
certified and approved WQM plan unless a significant portion
of the plan is being implemented. (See 35.1533-3(b).)
Regions should have reached a written agreement with each
grantee as to what implementation outputs were to be achieved
prior to the FY 81 grant award. An evaluation of implementation
must be undertaken for each grantee and the implementation
agreement updated to reflect those implementation activities
to be accomplished during FY 81 before an award of FY 82
grants can be made.
Grantees must be likely to be successful in their efforts, and
meet the other eligibility criteria in 35.1537-3(b).
The Region shall not award a 208 grant where the Regional
Administrator determines that (1) funding is to compensate for
administrative mismanagement, (2) data collection is proposed
which is not essential to problem solution and implementation,
(3) the proposed work would be duplicative of another grant
agreement, or (4) other funds are available and more appropriate
to the task.
Regions will not fund projects by agencies that do not have
sufficient management, technical, and grant-matching ability
to perform the projects. In making such decisions, the Regions
must consider an agency's past performance, its present staffing
and funding, and the amount of work—possibly large—the
agency must complete under the terms of previous FY 78, 79,
and 80 grant awards.
Regions shall not fund projects if the start-up will not occur
until the first quarter of FY 82, i.e., FY 81 funds should be
limited to projects which will get results in a timely fashion.
Regions should fund projects sufficiently. It is better to
fund a few projects completely than fund many projects in-
sufficiently.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B — PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-l
EPA POLICY REGARDING INTERSTATE COMMISSIONS*
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth EPA's policy regarding existing and
prospective interstate water pollution control commissisons, including
EPA policy for funding these commissions under Section 106 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This statement of policy is
accompanied by a discussion of the background and rationale upon which
the policy is based.
Background
The traditional issue of whether water pollution control programs are
to be administered primarily on the basis of watershed or political
boundaries has been resolved by the passage of P.L. 92-500 and by
the subsequent issuance of EPA regulations governing the national water
pollution control effort. The net effect of this Act and set of reg-
ulations is to establish a joint Federal-State program, which relies
on the State as the basic administrative unit. With regard to the
specific role of the interstate commissions, the Act is silent, but it
does state that: "The Administrator shall encourage compacts between
the States for the prevention of pollution." Thus some future role for
interstate compacts is envisioned by the Act, although the specific
role is not defined.
Because EPA has the responsibility to provide the direction for the
national water pollution control program, and because EPA partially funds
six interstate commissions from monies provided by Section 106 of the
Act, the Agency has recognized the necessity of reassessing its policy
toward the interstate commissions, particularly with regard to those func-
tions of the commission for which EPA provides funds. A study entitled
"Roles of llnterstate Water Pollution Control Commissions Pursuant to
P.L. 92-500" was conducted for EPA by a private contractor during the
winter of 1974-75. This study, plus the experience of EPA in working with
*0riginally issued as SAM-24 (December 23, 1976) under the signature of
the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards.
-------
-2-
the interstate commissions, provides the information base for the
policy review and decisions contained in this paper.
There are two major questions which EPA must address with regard to
the interstate commissions. These are:
(1) Which activities of interstate commissions should
EPA encourage by providing funding?
C2) What should be the division of Section 106 funds
between the States as a group and the interstates
as a group?
To determine the answers to these questions, several criteria were
used. The first of these was the desirability of defining and
establishing coordinated functions -- for EPA, the interstate and
the States — which do not conflict and which are not unnecessarily
redundant. Related to this concern is the desire to establish the
most cost-effective relationships. Another consideration was the
need to allocate Section 106 funds in a manner that was fair to all
States and interstates.
An important additional factor which was considered was the timing
of implementation of the policy. Since this policy sets forth a
definitive role for interstate agencies, which may be a significant
departure from existing practice, a transitional period, not to
extend beyond fiscal year 1979, is provided if a regional administrator
determines that such a transitional period is necessary. During this
interim period, the regional administrators will encourage each inter-
state to gradually shift its performed functions to those which EPA
will fund in fiscal year 1979 and beyond or to those which the compact
States are willing to fund.
POLICY
Prior to examining the related questions of (1) division of Section
106 funds between the States and the interstates or (2) division of
these funds between the individual interstate commissions, EPA first
had to determine its attitude toward the future role of all interstates
receiving EPA funds. Both the provisions of P.L. 92-500 and the policy
of EPA since October 1972 stress the primary role of the States in
administering the water pollution control program. Although EPA continues
to issue and enforce permits and to process grant applications for
municipal wastewater treatment facilities, the Agency is firmly committed
-------
-3-
to a goal of delegating virtually all functions to the States. Within
the foreseeable future, EPA's role will be one of setting national
objectives and policy, funding State agencies to perform the operational
role and monitoring State performance. Given the prospect of this set
of relationships between EPA and the States, what role will the inter-
state commissions play?
EPA can provide only a partial answer to this question. From the EPA
perspective, it is the State agency, working with interstate and local
agencies, which should plan and manage the spectrum of activities which
constitute an integrated water pollution control program. The inter-
state commissions can play a valuable role in coordinating the programs
of several States as they relate to a specific river basin or other
body of water. This coordination is particularly valuable in the areas
of standard setting, monitoring and water quality management planning -
but may extend to other program areas as the need arises. Included in
the coordination function is the facilitating of information exchange
between States, for example, by arranging meetings focused on functional
areas of concern to all States in a river basin.
In addition to the coordination role, there are several functions which
are particularly suited to interstate agencies. One of these is the
determination of waste!oad allocations between States on a stream but not
within those portions of a stream inside one State's boundaries. Another
is the preparation or supervision of preparation of mathematical models
of a stream. Additionally, an interstate agency is in the position to
review monitoring data on a river, to point out major problem areas and
to assist in holding an individual compact State accountable to the other
States regarding a particular problem. Also, interstate agencies are
able to fund and supervise contracts for special studies or projects which
affect an entire stream or an interstate portion thereof which are of
benefit to compact States.
These are the functions which appear particularly appropriate for
interstates and which complement the EPA and State roles defined in
P.L. 92-500 and in EPA's national water strategy and annual operating
guidance. Additional functions may be assigned to the interstate agencies
by EPA and the States according to changing needs and priorities consistent
with EPA's national strategy. If a regional administrator wishes to provide
funding in FY 79 and beyond for activities, which appear to be contrary to
this guidance, he should refer the matter to Headquarters for an exception to
the policy stated below. Beginning in FY 77. EPA will encourage a shift
of function to those discussed above. Starting with FY 79, EPA will
Provide grant funding to interstates to carry out only these functions.
At that time, EPA will pay the actual cost of these activities (up to the
total funding allocation for each interstate), together with a proportional
share of overhead costs.
-------
In stating this policy, EPA is in no way precluding other activities by
interstates. States are now funding and presumably will continue to
fund interstate activities. State funding may include a pass through of
a portion of a State's 106 funds to an interstate.
With regard to the question of the division of Section 106 funds between
the State and interstate agencies, EPA's policy will be to determine in
the annual operating guidance the level for interstate funding. Except
in extraordinary situations, the funding level will be no less than the
allocation in the previous fiscal year. The only exception to this policy
will be in instances beginning in FY 79 where interstates propose to
perform functions (to be funded by EPA) which are contrary to the functions
specified in this memorandum and are not recommended by the Regional Admin-
istrator. In such cases, the Regional Administrators shall deny funds
for these proposed functions and shall distribute the funds to other States
in the region as they see fit.
With regard to the application of the foregoing policy to future interstate
commissions or to current commissions, which have not yet applied for EPA
funding, the policy is in effect upon issuance of this guidance.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B — PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-2
REGULATORY PROGRAMS FOR NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL*
Statement of Policy
Regulatory programs are required for nonpoint source control where they
are determined to be the most practicable method of assuring that an
effective nonpoint source control program is implemented. Determinations
of practicability shall be based on economic, technical, social and
environmental factors. Non-regulatory programs may be approved only where
such programs will result in implementation of"a'nonpoint source program
which will result in the achievement of desired water quality goals. If,
after a period of implementation, a non-regulatory program is determined
by EPA not be effective, the appropriate planning agency will be
responsible for developing a regulatory program to assure program implemen-
tation.
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth the requirements, under section 203 of the
Clean Water Act, for the development of regulatory and other programs at
the State and local level to control nonpoint sources of water pollution.
It complements WQM Policy Memorandum B-3 "Developing and Implementing
Best Management Practices". It defines the regulatory and other program
requirements; establishes criteria for approval of the nonpoint source
elements of a water quality management plan; and addresses the role of
the State and EPA in ensuring development and implementation of effective
nonpoint source control programs. It should be forwarded to Water Quality
Management (208) agencies, to the Office of Regional Counsel, to the
Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinator and to the Regional 208 Coordinator.
Background
Section 201 (c) of the Clean Water Act requires that, to the extent
practicable waste treatment management shall provide control or treatment
*0riginally issued as SAM-31 (November 14, 1978) under signature of_the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards; minor
editorial changes have been made by the Water Planning Division.
-------
of all point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 2Q8(b)(2)(C)
requires that regulatory programs be established to implement the waste
treatment management requirements of section 201(c). Section 208(b)(2)
(F) - (K) requires that plans developed pursuant to that section set forth
procedures and methods to control identified nonpoint sources of pollution.
These sections of the Act provide the legal basis for requiring that
regulatory and other programs be established to control water pollution
problems from nonpoint sources.
Further authority is found in EPA's general authority to require that plans
developed pursuant to section 208 be effective. Requirements are set forth
in 40 CFR Part 35.1521. This guidance memorandum further defines those
requirements.
The following materials are available to assist the States and EPA in
implementing the policy established in this memorandum: "Compilation of
Federal, State and Local Laws Controlling Nonpoint Pollutaruts" (EPA-440/9-
75-011), SCAMP (Sediment Control and Manpower Project) issued under TECH
MEMO No. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15, and "Legal and Institutional Approaches
to Water Quality Management Planning and Implementation" (E-PA Contract No.
68-01-3564, March 1977).
Policy Guidance
(1) General
A regulatory program is required and shall be submitted for approval as
part of a 208 plan in those cases where the 208 agency, in consultation
with the affected State agencies and the Governor, has determined that
such a program is the most practicable method of assuring that an effective
nonpoint source control program is implemented. Such a determination shall
be based on economic, technical, social, and environmental factors.
Regulatory programs should be designed to attain the 1983 water quality
goals set forth in section 101 (a) of the Act. The programs must be
enforceable and administered by agencies with adequate legal authority and
resources to ensure their implementation.
Regulatory programs are not required where the plan prepared under section
208 certifies that substantial water quality problems resulting from
nonpoint sources do not exist or are not likely to develop in the fore-
seeable future.
There is a great deal of flexibility as to the particular regulatory
program which is most appropriate to control a particular nonpoint source.
The program may address a particular category of activity, such as
construction or mining; a particular pollutant, such as sediment; or
particular geographical areas which are determined to be sensitive or
-------
critical. Choice of a regulatory program and the appropriate level of
government (State, local or regional) to administer the program will
depend on the type and extent of the nonpoint source problem, legal
authorities, existing programs and existing intergovernmental relationships.
However, where necessary to ensure an effective program, new relationships
should be developed.
The type of control tools to be utilized, such as permits, licenses,
contracts, notification, bonding, leases, plans, and various management
techniques, will depend upon the intensity, scope and type of nonpoint
source problem to be controlled, land ownership patterns, and such physical
factors as rainfall, soil characteristics, geological conditions and
topography.
(2) Regulatory Program -- EPA Approval
EPA will approve a regulatory program which includes the following:
(a) Authority to control the problem which the program addresses
(i.e., an activity, pollutant, or geographical area).
(b) Authority to require the application of Best Management
Practices* and their periodic revision.
(c) Monitoring and/or inspection authority.
(d) Authority to implement the chosen control tool(s) (i.e., permits,
licenses, contracts, etc.)
(e) Enforcement authority.
(f) A designated management agency or agencies responsible for
implementing the regulatory program with:
0 expertise-in the subject matter area to be controlled
0 adequate staff
0 adequate funding
0 the relevant authorities pursuant to section 208(c)(2) and 40 CFR
35.1521-3(c)(l) and (3).
0 a letter of commitment pursuant to 40 CFR 35.1521-3(c)(l) and (2).
To be approved by EPA, a regulatory program must have the necessary
implementing requlations in effect and sufficient resources available to
carry out the required activities.
*Best Management Practices are defined in 40 CFR 35.1521-4(c)(l).
See also WQM Policy Memorandum B-3.
-------
The adequacy of a particular program to achieve compliance with water
quality goals should be evaluated in light of the stage of development
of the program. Where a program is fully established and has been in
place for a period of time, it should be possible to determine its effective-
ness and evaluate where changes need to be made. Approval shall be with-
drawn if the program is not being adequately implemented or does not-prove
to be effective. (See section (7) Evaluation of Implementation)
(3) Regulatory Program -- Approval with Conditions
EPA will attach conditions to approval under the following circumstances:
(a) Where the legislative authority exists but means of
implementation are not available or are not satisfactory, such
as insufficient resources, lack of regulations, questions
regarding designated agency capability-, etc.; or
(b) Where the authorizing legislation has been introduced, but
not enacted; or
(c) Where a specific legislative proposal has been developed and
the plan contains a reasonable schedule for introduction to
the legislative body.
In any of the above situations, EPA approval comments must specify the
conditions for full approval. The planning agency and the State, in
consultation with EPA, must agree on a schedule for meeting such conditions.
Periodic (at least annual) reporting to the Regional Administrator on
progress being made in meeting the schedule shall be required. This
reporting may be submitted under the States responsibility for monitoring
implementation. Approval with conditions shall be withdrawn if the
Regional Administrator finds the agreed to progress is not being made.
(4) Regulatory Program -- Disapproval
The Regional Administrator shall disapprove any regulatory program which
does not meet the conditions set forth in this memorandum for approval
with or without conditions.
(5) Other Program Approval (Non-Regulatory Programs)
Other approaches to nonpoint source control may be approved by the Regional-
Administrator as fulfilling the nonpoint source control requirements in
section 208(b)(2)(F-K) only where, in his judgment, the program will result
in implementation of nonpoint source controls which will result in achieve-
ment of the desired water quality goals. EPA will give full approval of
-------
non-regulatory programs only when implementation efforts, such as hiring
of personnel or budget allocations, have commenced. If implementation
will occur in stages (i.e. only a portion of the total additional personnel
or funding required will be in place in year one), and stage one has been
implemented, and a definite schedule for implementing future stages has
been agreed upon, full approval may be granted.
Approval with conditions may be granted where the conditions noted below
have been met, and a schedule for implementation has been agreed upon;
but actual implementation has not commenced. Approval with or without
conditions shall be given only when the following requirements are met:
0 Identification of Best Management Practices.
0 Agreement on schedule of milestones for implementation.
0 Provision of an effective educational program to inform and
involve the affected public.
0 Provision of adequate technical assistance and financial
assistance, if needed.
0 Agreement to reporting system (at least annual) to the Regional
Administrator on progress made in implementation.
The Regional Administrator can require such information in these reports
as is necessary to evaluate milestone progress. Milestone progress can
be shown in terms of implementation measures, resource commitment, and
water quality improvement.
Approval of non-regulatory approaches shall be withdrawn if the Regional
Administrator determines that implementation milestones are not being met.
Non-regulatory programs will retain approval only when continuing and
substantial progress, including the application of Best Management
Practices, is being made toward attaining water quality goals. Where such
progress is not being made, approval of these approaches shall be revoked,.
the appropriate agency will be responsible for developing a regulatory
program to ensure attainment of water quality goals.
(6) Other Programs -- Disapproval
The Regional Administrator shall disapprove a proposed non-regulatory
program as being inadequate when he has reason to believe it will not be
effective and will not lead to the application of Best Management Practices,
Factors to consider in making that determination include: the severity of
the nonpoint source problem; past experience of the involved governmental
unit with the proposed approach; and the type of program that is proposed.
-------
Specific and realistic funding sources must be identified to implement at
least a significant portion of the proposed non-regulatory program, or the
program win be disapproved. When a feasible funding source is only
identified for a portion of the program, the WQM agency must include
milestones for securing adequate funding to implement the entire program.
Progress in meeting milestones will be reviewed through evaluation of
implementation.
Where substantial water quality problems continue to exist, those programs
which are merely a continuation of an existing program which has not
proven to be effective, will not qualify as acceptable.
Where regulatory programs already exist (e.g., construction, mining),
proposed new programs will be expected to be at least as stringent as
existing regulatory programs, and more stringent if necessary, to achieve
water quality goals.
(7) Evaluation of Implementation
The State has primary responsibility for evaluating implementation of
point and nonpoint source control programs. The State may delegate some
evaluation tasks to areawide agencies. Monitoring progress in actually
carrying out a control program or in meeting an implementation schedule
may be carried out through this evaluation responsibility.
Development and refinement of BMPs and control programs for nonpoint sources
is an iterative process, which is based in part on the findings of the
periodic evaluation of implementation. When the findings indicate that
specific management practices or control programs are not effective or
adequate, the appropriate WQM planning agency must modify the BMPs and/or
control program. Such refinements will be developed during continuing WQM
planning.
(8) Assistance in Development and Implementation of Nonpoint Source Control
Programs
EPA Regional Offices have the responsibility for providing necessary tech-
nical assistance to State and local planning agencies to assure that
effective programs are developed and implemented.
It is especially important that the planning agency work closely with both
legislative and executive decision-makers at the State and local level in
development of regulatory programs. Development of regulatory programs
shall be addressed in the water quality management plan by writing mile-
stones into the 208 grant agreements and work programs. EPA recognizes
that it will ordinarily only be possible to identify regulatory needs
after nonpoint source assessment and problem identification have been
completed.
-------
The milestones which will actually be included in the grant agreements
and work programs must obviously reflect the knowledge existing at the
time the schedule is agreed upon. Where it seems to be a strong possi-
bility that regulatory programs will be required, that possibility can be
identified in the schedule as such. Specific program milestones might
include the following, as appropriate:
(a) completion of phases in water quality assessment of nonpoint
source pollution impacts.
(b) identification of nonpoint source problems.
(c) identification of legislative needs.
(d) development and implementation of public participation
programs.
(e) certification from State Attorney-General or local legal
office that adequate legal authority exists.
(f) proposal of legislation.
(g) enactment of legislation.
(h) proposal of new or upgraded rules and regulations including BMPs.
(i) promulgation of rules and regulations including BMPs.
(j) establishment or identification of institutions necessary to
administer the program.
(k) establishment of interagency and intergovernmental coordination
mechanisms.
(1) establishment of monitoring, inspection antd enforcement procedures.
(m) provisions of funds, personnel, facilities and equipment for
regulatory objectives.
(n) development and implementation of educational programs in
support of regulatory objectives.
(o) evaluation of adequacy of Best Management Practices and management
agency performance.
The actual milestones should be agreed upon by EPA and the planning agency.
Such an agreement will lead to an orderly development of nonpoint source
controls, early resolution of any EPA objections to the proposed program and
will expedite approval of that portion of the plan. While it is hoped that
such actions will be unnecessary, the Regional Administrator will have
authority under such an agreement to withhold 208 planning funds if mile-
stones are not being met.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B -- PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-3
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES*
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Feasibile Best Management Practices (BMPs) which reduce nonpoint source
pollution and achieve the water quality goals must be developed and
implemented for all categories of nonpoint sources. The BKPs will be
developed in a continuing process of identifying problems, devising
control measures, assessing BMP adequacy, and modifying BMPs when neces-
sary to attain water quality goals. State priorities for developing non-
point source control programs will be established in accordance with
general EPA guidance and will be contained in the State/EPA Agreement.
Water quality goals are broadly defined to include: Water Quality
Standards; the 1983 goal as set forth in Si01(a)(2) of the Clean Water
Act; the reduction of pollutants from all sources, to the extent feasi-
ble; the prohibition of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; protection
of public health and welfare; and other goals and objectives of the Act.
To attain the goals of the Act, it is the policy of EPA to minimize if
not eliminate toxic pollution in recognition of the uncertainties in-
herent in establishing "safe levels" for toxic pollutants.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the Agency's policy on
developing BMPs to meet water quality goals under existing time, resource,
and information constraints. It discusses the relationship between BMPs
and Water Quality Standards (WQS), and complements WQM Policy Memorandum
B-2.
Originally issued as SAM-32 (November 14, 1978) under the signature
of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards.
Minor editorial changes have been made by Water Planning Division.
-------
Discussion
(1) Program Overview
The attainment of national and State water quality goals serves as
the basis of the planning process described in 40 CFR Part 35,
SS35.1500 to 35.1542 (see Problem Assessment for further discussion).
Under that process, WQM agencies must establish nonpoint source
control programs to achieve the water quality goals including water
quality standards (35.1521-4(c)). The programs will be concerned
with prevention of future problems and mitigation of existing problems.
WQM agencies will identify priorities for addressing particular source
control and water quality problems and will develop the necessary
programs in a long-term iterative process.
(2) Problem Assessment
A water quality assessment is necessary under the Clean Water Act
and the regulations to identify nonpoint water quality and source
control problems. Precise quantification of these problems is not
expected or required to define priorities and develop BMPs.
Numerical WQS criteria will be used to assess nonpoint source water
quality problems whenever the criteria are reasonably applicable to
the particular nonpoint sources and pollutants under study. As water
quality standards criteria are revised to reflect nonpoint source
needs, they will be applied in the assessment. The remaining elements
of WQS (i.e., narrative criteria, antidegradation policy, and
designated uses) will be generally applicable in the assessment and
will be particularly useful where appropriate numerical criteria are
not available.
The use of State WQS must be supplemented by additional water
quality goal considerations in assessing water quality because WQS
do not.fully reflect the water quality goals and objectives of the
Clean Water Act at this time. Safe levels and transport paths for
many toxic pollutants are unknown; effects of future growth must be
considered; impacts from wet weather and natural background conditions
are not fully understood; and downstream impacts are difficult to
determine and take into account.
-------
(3) BMP Development
Feasible BMPs which reduce nonpoint source pollution must be
developed in accordance v/ith priorities for developing control
programs for all nonpoint sources identified in areawide and
State planning areas. Site specific conditions should be taken
into account during BMP design and implementation. BMPs must
be designed to make maximum feasible contributions toward attain-
ment of water quality goals including minimization of toxic
pollutants. BMPs identified in the planning process will be
implemented through regulatory programs where those programs are
determined to be the most practicable method of assuring effective
implementation (WQM Policy Memorandum B-2).
BMPs may not completely achieve water quality goals in the first
stages of the planning process and an iterative process may be
necessary to achieve this objective. BMP development with regard
to water quality goals may be hampered by: water quality goals
which have not been fully quantified; water quality standards
criteria which, in some cases, have not yet been developed
sufficiently to identify nonpoint source pollution problems and
to develop control programs; difficulties in identifying cause-
effect relationships; and resource constraints.
WQS, particularly designated uses, will be used primarily as a
bench mark of progress in BMP development. In those instances
where WQS numerical criteria have reasonable application to
nonpoint sources, the criteria may serve as an interim goal in
the continuing effort to achieve water quality goals. Once BMPs
have been applied, WQS and other water quality goals will be used
to assess BMP effectiveness in the same manner as these goals
are used to assess the water quality.
(4) BMP Modification
Once BMPs are being applied to control a particular nonpoint
source, the State has primary responsibility for evaluating their
effectiveness (40 CFR 35.1521). Where nonpoint sources continue
to impede the achievement of the water quality goals after
application of BMPs, the appropriate water quality management
agency must modify the BMPs or the strategy for applying BMPs as
necessary to improve BMP effectiveness. Existing BMPs will
continue to apply to nonpoint sources while those practices are
assessed and modified in the planning process. As the modifications
are implemented, water quality goals must again be used to assess
BMP effectiveness. Where appropriate, further refinements in BMPs
and revisions of criteria in water quality standards may be needed
in this iterative process of developing, implementing, and evaluating
BMPs.
-------
(.5) Plan Outputs
BflPs identified in the planning process must make maximum feasible
progress towards the achievement of the water quality goals and
minimization of toxic pollutant loads. The rationale for the BMPs
selected must be included in the plan output. A schedule for
assessing BMP effectiveness and identifying all appropriate BMPs must
be established in the State/EPA Agreement.
BMPs are not required for nonpoint sources in planning areas where
the State certifies that:
- existing management practices are regarded as sufficient to meet
water quality goals for that particular source activity and
location; and
- BMPs to achieve water quality goals will not be necessary to
accommodate anticipated impacts of future activities including
new sources.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B -- PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-4
NEPA COMPLIANCE IN THE STATE AMD AREAWIDE
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM*
Purpose
This memorandum explains EPA's amendment of 40 CFR Part 6, which exempts
the Water Quality Management (WQM) program from the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) as provided by Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act.
Background
Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act affords an exemption from the
NEPA requirement for most water programs, including the WQM program under
Sections 106, 208, and 303. However, except for the EIS requirement of
Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA, it is EPA policy that the spirit and intent
of NEPA will continue to be served by the WQM program. The environmental
implications and impacts of alternative WQM planning programs and actions
shall be considered and evaluated in a manner which is consistent with the
spirit and intent of NEPA.
Supporting our decision not to require an EIS are the WQM program
requirements for procedures which are at least equivalent to those
required for the NEPA process:
o The WQM public participation process requires that sufficient
information and opportunities for involvement in the decision-
making process be provided the public. These must be early and
continue through the WQM process so that the public can both come
to understand and have an impact on the WQM plan and its implement-
ation. This includes full public disclosure of potential adverse
impacts throughout the plan development, continuing planning, and
implementation phases.
* Originally issued as SAM-34 (August 21, 1978) under the signatures of
the Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials and the
Acting Director of the Office of Federal Activities. Minor editorial
changes have been made by the Water Planning Division.
-------
o The WQM process requires assessment and presentation of the
social, economic, and environmental impacts of alternative WQM
programs and actions. This assessment includes an analysis of
primary and secondary impacts of alternative WQM programs and
actions. It also requires consideration of the environmental
tradeoffs among these alternative WQM actions. Further, this
assessment must comply with Executive Orders 11988 for floodplain
management and 11990 for wetlands protection and EPA's Statement
of Procedures* implementing these two orders, and satisfy the
spirit and intent of NEPA.
These requirements for active public as well as interagency involvement
and environmental assessment in the WQM process are necessary for approval
of a WQM plan by the Regional Administrator. They are also consistent
with the spirit and intent of NEPA.
Policy
1. An EIS will not be required as part of EPA approval of a WQM plan.
2. Regional Administrators are responsible for assuring that the public
participation procedures and environmental assessments required in
the WQM planning process are conducted in a manner consistent with
the spirit and intent of NEPA as well as the Clean Water Act. In
addition, Regional Administrators are responsible for ensuring that
other appropriate agencies participate in WQM plan review.
3. Regions which are developing detailed environmental impact statements
on specific WQM plans in compliance with previous policy are encour-
aged to complete them. EPA will continue to support and assist such
programs.
4. Regional Administrators' actions on the provision of Federal construc-
tion grants and the issuance of new source permits are not exempt from
the EIS requirement of NEPA.
* 44 Federal Register 1445 (January 5, 1979)
-------
DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81 21 "AY IP H
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-5*
STATE ROLE IN RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES --
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECTION 106 GRANTS AND THE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 504
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth policy on the
relationship between Section 106 State program grants and the emer-
gency response provisions of Section 504 of the Clean Water Act.
Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 ("the Act"), gave
EPA the authority in Section 504 to bring suit in the appropriate
district court to stop the discharge of pollutants causing an "imminent
and substantial endangerment" to the public health. This provision came
under the heading, "Emergency Powers".
The Act also said, in Section 106(e), that EPA could not award a
Section 106 grant after FY 74 to any State which did not have authority
comparable to that in Section 504 and an adequate contingency plan to
implement such authority.
The 1977 Amendments to the Act expanded Section 504 by authorizing
a Federal contingency fund to carry out its emergency powers. Thus,
because of Section 106(e), States must have "comparable" funding
authority to qualify for assistance under Section 106.
Although "comparable" authority will vary from Region to Region and
State to State, States should undertake certain basic activities. In
general, to determine "comparable" authority, the State and EPA should
conduct a joint assessment of the probability of severe environmental
incidents in the State and the emergency measures they would require.
At a minimum, the State's authority must provide for immediate on-
scene action upon the arrival of qualified State or local authorities,
whatever the source of funds.
* Adapted and updated from SAM 35, issued September 14, 1978, under the
signatures of the Deputy Assistant Administrators for Water Planning
and Standards and Water Program Operations and a joint memorandum
issued January 23, 1980 under the signatures of the Directors of the
Water Planning Division and the Oil and Special Materials Control
Division.
-------
DRAFT
21 MAY 1980
To provide the EPA Regions and States with guidance on the provisions
of Sections 106 and 504, EPA issued policy memorandum SAM-35 in September
1978. SAM 35 set forth certain requirements for the States to receive
106 grants in FY 79 and 80 as follows:
FY 79 Each State was to submit a description of its emergency
authority under Section 504(a) and, where the Regional
Administrator determined it necessary, a legislative
proposal to obtain additional authority. Each State was
also to develop a study of emergency problems peculiar to
the State and funding necessary to implement the plan and
provide a contingency fund.
FY 80 Each State was to make progress, to the satisfaction
of the EPA Regional Administrator, in development of the
necessary legislation and contingency plan. If the plan
and legislation were not in place prior to the start of
FY 80, the Region was to condition the 106 grant award
requiring the State to implement the plan and legislation
during FY 80, unless the State was unable to accomplish
these requirements because it had biennial legislative
sessions.
In September 1979, the Water Planning Division issued the Supplemental
Water Quality Management Program Guidance for FY 80, which provided a
water quality management framework and replaced the previous SAM series.
Since there was a possibility that pending Federal Superfund legislation
would set up or require emergency response funds that would duplicate or
otherwise impact State funds established under Sections 106(e) and 504(b)
of the Act, EPA did not reissue SAM 35 in the FY 80 guidance package. As
WPD prepares the FY 81 Supplemental Guidance package, Superfund is still
pending. Therefore, for FY 81 EPA adopts the policy below:
Policy
EPA policy for FY 81 regarding the conditioning of Section 106
grants based on the requirements in Section 504 of the Act is as
follows:
(1) The FY 81 targets as originally outlined in SAM 35 are
reaffirmed. EPA shall not award a FY 81 106 grant or
sign a FY 81 State/EPA Agreement for any State which has
not provided or is not carrying out as part of its pro-
gram adequate emergency legal authority and contingency
plans for handling environmental emergencies.
(2) Due to the uncertainty over pending Superfund legislation,
the Regional Administrator should exercise discretion as
to what entails "comparable" funding authority to EPA's
authority under 504(b), so that State efforts are not
negated or duplicated by subsequent Superfund legislation.
-------
DRAFT
? 1 HAY ?
(3) If Superfund legislation passes which does n_o_^ preempt the
need for States to develop emergency funding authority, or
if Superfund legislation does not seem likely to pass, the
Regional Adminstrators must then allow the States less
discretion and ensure that they promptly obtain the nec-
essary funding authority.
(4) Regional OHM Coordinators must participate in the review of
FY 81 Section 106 qrant applications and evaluations of State
programs under 106.
(5) Water Planning Division, through its on-going program evaluation
functions, will track the compliance of the Regional Offices
with these policies.
Additional Information
For more details on the Federal program dealing with national,
regional, State, and local contingency plans, refer to 40 CFR 1510,
Council on Environmental Quality, "National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Revision," March 19, 1980 (Federal
Register, Vol. 45, No. 55, pp. 17832-17860).
For further information on criteria for the adequacy of State
contingency plans and emergency response capabilities, see the May 6, 1980
"Draft Guidelines for Determining Adequacy of State Contingency Planning
and Emergency Response Capabilities" or contact Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian,
or Henry Van Cleave, Oil and Special Materials Control Division, (202)
245-3045.
For further information on Section 106 grants policy, contact
David Ziegler, Water Planning Division, (202) 426-2474.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B -- PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-6
PRETREATMENT AND THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT (WQM) PROGRAM*
Purpose
This memorandum presents policy on using 208 grant funds to assist State
and local agencies in complying with 40 CFR 403, "Pretreatment Standards
for Existing and New Sources of Pollution," promulgated in the June 26,
1978 Federal Register, which became effective August 25, 1978. References
are made to 106, 201, and 205(g) funding where necessary to explain the
use of 208 funds for pretreatment. Note: This policy applies only to 208
grants awarded before October 1, 1979.
Background
40 CFR 403 establishes Federal, State and local pretreatment program
responsibilities. EPA remains responsible if State and local authorities
do not implement 40 CFR 403 requirements. Regions must effectively
utilize all available incentives, including 201 and 208 funding to
encourage State and local pretreatment program development. Administration
of approved State programs is eligible for assistance under 106 and by
those 205(g) funds transferred to the 106 grant for 402 activities.
States with an approved NPDES permit program must submit a request for
pretreatment program approval by March 27, 1979. Where legislation is
required an additional year is allowable. If a POTW has a design flow
of greater than 5 mgd or otherwise qualifies as discussed in S403.8, an
approved local pretreatment program is required in the shortest possible
time, not to exceed July 1, 1983. Compliance schedules and general
requirements or a permit modification clause must be added to NPDES
permits during the regular permit revision cycle. Compliance schedules
may allow up to three years from the date of revision for the needed
program.
201 grants will provide most of the incentives to develop approvable
municipal pretreatment programs. 201 regulations authorize amendments
of existing or pending 201 step 1, step 2 or step 3 grants to provide
for funding assistance for municipal pretreatment program development.
201 regulations do not allow grants for the sole purpose of developing a
pretreatment program. 201 grant eligible pretreatment development costs
are detailed in 40 CFR 35.907.
* Originally issued as SAM-36 (October 10, 1978) under the signature of
the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards.
Minor editorial changes have been made by the Water Planning Division.
-------
Policy
1. General
208 monies from the FY 1979 appropriations may be used
to provide 75-percent funding for the development of State or local pre-
treatraent programs in accordance with the conditions detailed below. -As
208 grant funds are limited when compared to total WQM program needs,
Regional Administrators must determine pretreatment program development
funding priorities in the context of total State and local WQM requirements.
2. Development of NPDES State Pretreatment Programs
All NPDES States must submit to EPA by October 9, 1978, a statement
indicating whether the State has adequate authority, procedures, and funding
to carry out a State Pretreatment Program.' After this statement is submitted
by an NPDES State and reviewed by EPA, the Regional Administrator may
provide 208 funds to assist this State in developing any additional
legal authorities, procedures, or funding/personnel descriptions which
the Regional Administrator determines are required to obtain EPA approval.2
(Note: as non-NPDES States are not required to develop a State Pretreatment
Program, non-NPDES States are not eligible for 208 funds for pretreatment.)
After an NPDES State Pretreatment Program is approved, this State is no
longer eligible for 208 funding for pretreatment. After approval, State
pretreatment program costs are for administration; such costs are eligible for
106 and those 205(g) funds transferred to the 106 grant for 402 activities.3
3. Development of Local Pretreatment Programs
To the maximum extent possible, 201 funds will be used to assist the
development of local pretreatment programs. 208 funds may only be used to
assist in development of pretreatment programs for those POTW's greater
than 5 mgd that are not eligible for 201 funding for pretreatment
program development.
The following local pretreatment program development costs are eligible
for 208 funding assistance from FY 79 funds:
0 Development of an inventory of industrial and commercial
wastes being introduced into the treatment works;;
0 Evaluation of legal authority, including the adequacy of enabling
legislation and the selection of mechanisms to be used for
control and enforcement;
1. See 40 CFR 403.10(b)(l).
2. See 40 CFR 403.10(f) and (g).
3. Actual 106 and 205(g) funding arrangements to assist States in
administering their Pretreatment Program should be delineated in
State/EPA 205(g) Delegation Agreements (see 40 CFR 35, Subpart F
section 35.1030) and in State/EPA Agreements (see 40 CFR Subpart G
section 35.1515).
-------
0 Evaluation of financial programs and revenue sources to ensure
adequate funding to carry out the pretreatment program;
0 Determination of technical Information necessary to develop
an Industrial waste ordinance or other means of enforcing pretreat-
ment standards; and,
0 Design of a monitoring enforcement program, Including determining
both the required monitoring equipment for the municipal treatment
works and the municipal facilities to be constructed for monitoring
or analysis of Industrial waste.
The following Items are 208 grant eligible 1f necessary for the proper
design or operation of the municipal treatment works but are not 208 grant
eligible when performed solely for the purpose of seeking an allowance for
removal of pollutants under 40 CFR 403.7:
0 Determination of pollutant removals 1n existing treatment works; and,
0 Determination of the treatment works tolerance to pollutants which
Interfere with Its operation, sludge use, or disposal.
No 208 funds will be used for actual operation of a local pretreatment
program. 208 grants for performing the eligible tasks listed above may be
used to fund through subagreements designated POTW management agencies.
Regional Administrators may amend an existing or pending 208 grant to provide
for development of an approvable local pretreatment program.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B — PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-7
USING 208 FUNDS TO DO WATER QUALITY AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
EVALUATIONS FOR TREATMENT MORE STRINGENT THAN SECONDARY*
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth eligibility criteria for selecting the
particular situations and grantees to meet the national WQM priority
on 208-funded water quality/municipal facilities analyses and provides
guidance on developing their work programs which become part of their
grant agreements. Note: This policy applies only to 208 grants awarded
before October 1, 1979.
Background
Starting with FY 78 funds, Regional allocation of 208 funds to State and
areawide agencies must be based on priority of needs, not on a funding
formula. WQM programs developed must ensure that national priorities and
objectives are met. The national WQM priority on facility planning
requires that each Region, working with the States, select a limited
number of agencies to perform analyses related to critical municipal
facilities decisions, including:
o evaluating water quality analyses that have been used as the
basis for justifying treatment beyond secondary
o evaluating the costs and effectiveness of proposed municipal
facilities relative to alternative methods for achieving water
quality goals, and
o establishing appropriate water quality related effluent
limitations for proposed facilities being considered for treatment
beyond secondary and developing either a sound and well-documented
justification for such treatment levels, or a sound and well-
documented plan for meeting water quality goals without municipal
treatment beyond secondary.
* Originally issued as SAM-37 (November 2, 1978) under the signature of
the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards.
Minor editorial changes have been made by the Water Planning Division.
-------
EPA is requiring a rigorous review for all municipal projects designed
for treatment more stringent than secondary. Regions must evaluate all
such projects using the checklist procedure contained in the June 8, 1978,
joint Rhett/Davis memo. If a project is identified as having to meet
AWT treatment standards (BOD less than 10 mg/1 and/or nitrogen removal,
defined as TKN plus nitrite/nitrate removal greater than 50 percent); an
independent justification is required.2 If the Regional evaluation of a
project does not demonstrate that the treatment levels proposed are
necessary, or that other alternatives were sufficiently evaluated, the
Region can elect to negotiate to have all or part of the project postponed
until additional analyses are completed and other solutions are proposed.
The Region could require that the State, working with the 201 grantee,
perform these analyses by evaluating water quality and cost-effectiveness
data that was not adequately considered in the original justification.
In selected situations where new extensive data collection and technical
analyses are required and the WQM process is the most appropriate way to
accomplish these analyses, the Region should consider initiating a 208-
funded evaluation of treatment more stringent than secondary.
POLICY
1. Genera]
Each Region must determine those selected situations for which FY 79 208 funds
will be allocated to perform water quality-municipal facilities analyses
consistent with the national WQM priority on facility planning. In making
their selections, the Regions will use the criteria presented below.
WQM arrangements in a State and the analyses required in any particular
situation must be considered in determining the specific WQM agency,
State or areawide, that will have the lead role in accomplishing the needed
evaluation. Some of the tasks required, particularly water quality monitor-
ing and waste load allocations, have traditionally been performed by States
using 106 funds. 106 funds may continue to be used, supplemented as
necessary for any particular evaluation with FY 79 208 funds. If an areawide
WQM agency is given the lead role on developing waste load allocations,
this responsibility must have been or be delegated by the State to the
areawide agency.
The State/EPA Agreement should generally discuss how each State will use
the WQM process to make AWT decisions. In FY 79 tfte States
and EPA should use the Agreement process to determine specific responsibili-
ties, tasks, and funding sources for each water quality-municipal facility"
evaluation assisted with FY 79 208 funding.
See WQM Policy Memorandum B-8, PRM 79-11, "Funding of Waste Load
Allocations and Water Quality Analyses for POTW Decisions." This
policy discusses the use of 201 and 205(g) funds on a case-by-case
basis for the development of POTW-related waste load allocations
and supporting water quality analyses.
-------
2. Selection Process
In.preparing for the Ouly 1978 Congressional Oversight Hearings, each
Region completed Project Review Checklists for projects proposing treatment
beyond secondary identified in the 1976 Needs Survey. Since that time,
Regions should have completed additional checklists in accordance with
the June 8 policy. The data in these checklists and any other questionable
municipal facilities situations known to the Region together with the
selection criteria below should be used to identify those likely situations
where the WQM process should provide new technical analyses in order to
confidently make decisions on what treatment levels are needed to meet
water quality goals. Selecting final candidates should be a closely coordi-
nated effort between the Regions, the States, areawide WQM agencies, and
201 agencies.
FY.79 208 funds for water quality-municipal facilities evaluations can
be used where:
1. the proposed project involves stringent effluent limitations.
As a starting point, Regions should use EPA's definition of
AWT (BOD less than 10 mg/1 or nitrogen removal, defined as TKN
plus nitrite/nitrate removal greater than 50 percent) as a
screening criteria. Other projects more stringent than secondary
may be considered if the Region and States cannot identify
qualified candidates satisfying this AWT definition which involve
greater potential cost savings and/or environmental impacts;
2. EPA and the States believe that the. existing technical justification
for treatment more stringent than secondary is questionable and that
the decision on whether to design and build a facility with treatment
more stringent than secondary will be dependent primarily on
additional technical analyses;
3. the proposed project has not already proceeded to construction;
4. the WQM agency to receive funding has demonstrated a high level of
technical and management competence during the initial planning
process;
5. the water quality standards designate beneficial uses and define
water quality criteria to protect these uses, in accordance with
the Clean Water Act, and both the State and EPA have approved
these WQS.
As FY 79 208 funds are limited, Regions must carefully select a small number
of situations for evaluation which offer the greatest potential for cost
savings and/or significant environmental impacts when compared to other
candidates. Thus, for those candidates which meet the above criteria,
the Region should consider the following when selecting the actual situations
which will be evaluated through the WQM process using FY 79 208 funds:
-------
0 several municipal facilities serving a large number of
people and operated by several municipalities are involved.
In some cases, this may involve evaluating a blanket effluent
requirement or policy being applied to all municipal
dischargers in an area or basin,
0 there is reason to believe that tradeoffs between constructing
stringent municipal treatment and other abatement alternatives
have not received adequate consideration. (For example,
alternatives to constructing stringent municipal treatment
could include implementable best management practices for non-
point sources, land treatment, staged construction of
facilities, or seasonal treatment requirements.)
3. Work Program
The grantee, whether a State or areawide WQM agency, is responsible for
developing a work program, which will become part of their grant agreement
The grantee should re-examine the steps in the water quality planning
process that led to the treatment level justification and develop a work
program for completing any of the following tasks that have not already
been satisfactorily completed:
1. identify the water quality standards, uses and criteria, for the
affected segments. The affected segments include the segment which
receives the treatment plant's discharge as well as the segment(s)
immediately downstream (the receiving waters);
2. evaluate existing water quality data and problem assessments.
Determine the specific water quality problems and constituents
which require additional analyses. Determine additional water
quality data collection needs;
3. for the constituents identified in Task No. 2, estimate the
natural background, nonpoint source, combined sewer, and point
source loadings to the affected segments (receiving waters), over
the twenty-year planning period;
4. establish the load reductions which can be realized by implementing
point sources control and, where appropriate to the water quality
issues and specific water bodies involved, readily implementable
BMPs for nonpoint sources;
5. estimate the total maximum daily loads for the flow conditions and
discharge locations in question that these segments can assimilate
without violating their water quality standards. This task should
include examining the establishment of seasonal effluent limits;
-------
6. develop alternative sets of load allocations for the constituents
identified in Task No. 2, which would not violate the water quality
standards in the affected segments. Each set of load allocations
should correspond to a set of point source control technologies
and, where appropriate, readily implementable BMPs for controlling
nonpoint sources. Several levels of municipal waste treatment
technology should be considered, as well as alternative or innovative
technologies. Phasing AWT construction in concert with implementing
BMPs should also be considered;
7- estimate the cost of the point source control facilities and, where
appropriate, BMPs, and the effectiveness of each set of load alloca-
tions, including to the extent feasible, their impact on the benefi-
cial uses in the Federally approved water quality standards;
8. assess the economic, technical, and administrative feasibility of
implementing each set of load allocations;
9. identify the "best" set of load allocations, based on cost-effectiveness
and feasibility of implementation;
10. revise the existing WQM plan, with the full process of public partici-
pation, to incorporate the "best" set of load allocations and their
corresponding point and nonpoint source controls.
The above steps should provide the water quality related effluent limitations
for the segments affected by the proposed municipal facility. This planning
process will either show that treatment beyond secondary is not necessary
and document how water quality standards can be met with secondary treatment,
or it will provide a documented justification of what treatment levels are
necessary to meet the water quality standards.
In performing these tasks, the WQM agency should carefully review existing
data and analyses, undertaking new data collection and analyses only as
required. Data collection and water quality analysis should be restricted
to that which is required to provide the necessary water quality management
information. Where technically sound and defensible WQM information can
only be obtained by new data collection or water quality modeling, this
should be done and the models should be calibrated and verified.
Specific outputs that the grantee will provide from WQM^analyses already
completed or analyses done under this grant are listed in Appendix A.
If the justification for AWT is based on a need to meet State-imposed
effluent limitations for specific physical conditions [e.g., intermittent
streams, critical dilution ratios, public drinking water supply, etc.)
and these effluent limitations are part of the State's water quality
standards or a State policy or regulation, the State with assistance from
-------
the Region should develop a work program for justifying these effluent
limitations in addition to the above tasks. Particular attention should
be given to effluent requirements imposed by a State under Section 510 of
the Clean Water Act.
The work program schedule should be coordinated with the establishment
of NPDES compliance schedules and construction grants schedules. The
work program should include specific output commitments at key points
throughout the grant period.
Enclosure
Appendix A
-------
APPENDIX A
REQUIRED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT OUTPUTS
1. Identification of the affected segments and their water quality
standards (uses and criteria) and a discussion of how these WQS
were applied in the municipal facility evaluation. If appropriate,
recommendations concerning revisions to WQS.
2. List of water quality problems and constituents analyzed, including
the rationale for selecting these problems and constituents.
3. Natural background, nonpoint source, and point source loading
estimates to the affected segments, over the twenty -year planning
period.
4. Total maximum daily load estimates for the affected segments.
5. Alternative sets of load allocations for the affected segments
and corresponding water quality related effluent limitations.
6. Description and cost estimates of the point and nonpoint source
controls for meeting these load allocations.
7. Effectiveness of each set of load allocations.
8. Assessment of the feasibility of implementing each set of load
allocations.
9. Identification of the "best" set of load allocations for the
affected segments.
10. Revised WQM plan, incorporating the "best" set of load allocations.
11. Documentation on water quality modeling and analysis and on
pollution control tradeoffs that would render them reproducible.
In addition to these required outputs, the final reports will answer the
following questions:
1. What effluent limits are necessary to meet the applicable water
quality standards
Can the WQS be met, if (a) the treatment facility under consideration
has AWT and (b) one or more of the other point sources and/or the
nonpoint sources implement some combination of water quality related
effluent limitations and best management practices and (c) the
remaining point sources comply with their effluent limitations?
Is AWT necessary to meet effluent limitations for protecting the
public health and welfare and/or for specific physical conditions
(e.g., intermittent streams, critical dilution ratios, public drinking
water supply, etc.) which are incorporated into the State's WQS or a
State policy or regulation? And if so, what is the justification for
these special effluent limitations?
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION B -- PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
WQM Policy Memorandum B-8
FUNDING OF WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR POTW DECISIONS*
Purpose
This memorandum establishes policy and procedures for the funding of
waste load allocations and water quality analyses required for publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) decisions.
Background
EPA, recognizing the costs and energy requirements of ptiblicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) providing treatment greater than secondary
(AST/AWT), has taken several steps to insure that such facilities are only
Federally funded when based upon technically adequate effluent limitations.
In June 1978 a joint OWPS/OWPO guidance memorandum was issued which con-
tained a checklist to be completed before a project providing AST/AWT
could receive construction grant funding. On November 2, 1978, SAM 37
was issued by OWPS which established policy and procedures for the use of
Section 208 funds to review and revise waste load allocations for POTWs
subject to permit limitations requiring AST/AWT. On March 9. 1979, PRM
79-7 was issued by OWPO which established policy and procedures for the
review and funding of proposed AST/AWT projects.
Reduced Section 106 and 208 FY 80 appropriations coupled with increasing
demands on Section 106 funds to support the issuance of second round NPDES
permits and expanded monitoring programs may result in some States being
unable to provide adequate funding for the timely review and revision of
waste load allocations. It is therefore necessary to provide additional
* Originally issued as SAM 38/PRM 79-11 (September 5, 1979) under the
signatures of the Deputy Assistant Administrators for Water Planning
and Standards and Water Program Operations.
-------
- 2 -
policy and procedures for FY'80 on the use of Section 201 and 205(g) .
funding to augment Section 106 funds to support these tasks.
Pol icy
Nothing in this memorandum is to affect the responsibility and right
established by Sections 303 and 510 of the Cl ean Water-Act for each State
to develop water quality standards and waste load allocations. The State
water quality management program will continue to exercise overall manage-
ment, responsibility for assuring that water quality analyses and waste
load allocations are conducted in a satisfactory manner. The primary
sources of funding for these activities are program grants and State funds.
The amount of Section 106 and State funds currently expended for POTW-related
waste load allocations should not be reduced because Section 201 and
2Q5(g) funds may be used, on a case-by-case basis and subject to require-
ments in this memorandum, to augment State and Section 106 funds to provide
for the development of POTW-related waste load allocations and supporting
water quality analyses. Except where EPA and the State have determined
that existing limitations should be revised, Section 201 and 2C5(g) funds
may not be used to review effluent limitations or to develop alternative
effluent limitations; e.g., costs associated with the development of data
in support of Section 301(h) permit modification request are solely the
responsibility of the requesting municipality and are not grant eligible.
Where Section 201 or 2Q5(g) funds are used, the area! extent of waste
load allocation and water quality data collection activities nust relate
directly to needed waste load allocations for projects that are on the
State 5-year construction grant priority list.
The priority for use of Section 201 and 205(g) funds to conduct
waste load allocations and water quality analyses is:
1. POTHs which have been determined by EPA and -the State, as a
result of a PRM 79-7 review, to require a revised waste load allocation.
2. POTWs on the State 5-year construction grant priority list for
which the State and Regional Administrator have determined, through the
State/EPA agreement process, that existing waste load allocations are
probably insufficient to support AST/AWT requirements.
SAM 37 continues to apply to the use of FY'78 and 79"Section 208
funds for waste load allocations and water quality analyses. FY'80
Section 208 funds may not be used to initiate POTW-related waste load
allocations.
-------
- 3 -
Procedures
U FY 80 State/EPA Agreement: If Section 201 or 205(g) funds are
to be used for waste load allocations, the FY 80 State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) must contain or provide for the development of a detailed State
review of the Syear construction grant priority list. Specific provision
for the review may be contained in the SEA itself or in the Section 106
program plan or the 205(g) delegation agreement. Wherever a POTW has
effluent limitations potentially requiring AST/AWT and Section 201 and
205(g) funds may be used, the SEA, Section 106 program plan or 205(g)
delegation agreement shall provide for:
0 air informal review of applicable water quality standards to
determine whether they contain unsupported requirements or
criteria; e.g., blanket discharge prohibitions or criteria
substantially more stringent than contained in Quality Criteria
for Water or any subsequent criteria documents published by EPA.
0 the review of existing waste load allocations, if any, to
determine whether they are technically valid and sufficient to
support AST/AWT effluent limitations.
0 the review of any other water-quality based permit limitations
not derived from water quality standards or waste load
allocations to determine whether they are valid.
Wherever the State and EPA determine that an effluent limitation is not
valid or supportable, the State shall provide a program to rectify the
inadequacy. One component of this program shall be a list o-f projects
for which it is necessary to substantiate inadequate AST/AWT e-ffluent
limitations. This list should subdivide these projects into tSiose
requiring new. or revised waste load allocations and those requiring
other work. Projects requiring new or revised waste load allocations
' should be subdivided into the two priority classes described aibove.
Until this listing is complete, Section 201 and 205(g) funds may not be
used to fund waste load allocations.
For all cases where the State has determined tha~t effluerrt limitations
are unsupported for reasons unrelated to waste load allocations, the
priority of resolution shall be determined by the State and Regional
Administrator.
2. Funding; The SEA shall allocate costs to produce valid effluent
limitations as follows:
0 Section 106 funds may .be used in any situation.
0 where tasks relate to the basin-wide revision of waste load
allocations, or to waste load allocations/water quality analyses
not directly related to a POTW on the SEA needs list, only
Section 106 or State funds may be used.
-------
- 4 -
Section 201 and 205(g) funds may be used to augment Section 105
funds for priority one projects upon issuance of this memorandum.
'Section 201 and 205(g) funds may be used to augment Section 106 funds
for priority two projects upon EPA approval of the State waste" load
allocation program.
3. Headquarters Assistance: PRM 79-7 provides -for OWPO and OWPS
review of the adequacy of effluent limitations and -facility planning for
certain proposed AWT facilities. Upon request, OWPS will provide technical
assistance and advice on the review of existing water quality standards
and waste Toad allocations, the-development of work programs, and on
draft work products.
4. Relationships: The use of Section 201 a-nd 205(g) funds for
waste load allocations and the involvement of 201 grantees is new so
that additional guidance is necessary:
0 responsibility for the validity of waste loa,d allocations "lies
with each State in accordance with Section 3O3(d)(l)(C) and
303(e)(3) of the Clean Water Act.
0 accountability for Section 201 funds used for- waste Toad
allocations and supporting water quality analyses will rest
with the Section 201 grantee even though the grantee may
execute a contract or intergovernmental agreanent with the
State or the State and an areawide 208 agency to~ perform the
work.
0 inrorder to prevent a conflict of interest, ft is recommended
that waste load allocations and supporting water quality analyses
not be conducted directly by the Section 201 -grantee. It is
recommended that the Section 201 grantee insrtead execute a
contract or intergovernmental agreement with either the State
or the State and an areawide 208 agency, which may subcontract
the work, if necessary.
0 wherever Section 201 funds are to be used for* waste Toad allocations/
and water quality analyses, the scope and schedule of work and
the consultant contract shall be approved by the State and EPA.
The terms of-this approval shall be made a condition of the
grant and shall be contained in a memorandum of understanding
entered into by EPA, the State, the 201 grantee, and, when
appropriate, the areawide 208 agency. EPA and the State should
be intimately involved in all phases of the work as discussed in
the attached management guidance.
0 the conduct of joint waste load allocations Is encouraged.
Some previous waste load allocations funded by EPA ultimately failed
to be valid because of inadequate data, inexperienced personnel and improper
use of mathematical models. Consultant contracts should include specific
—performance standards and a quality assurance program covering, where
-------
- 5 -
applicable, model calibration and verification, sampling and analytical
methodologies, statistical adequacy of data, and personnel requirements
(see the .attached management and technical 'guidance).
5. Municipal Enforcement Strategy: The "Final National Municipal
Policy and Strategy for Construct!on~£rants, NPDES Permits, and Enforce-
ment Under the Clean Water Act" (August 1979} provides that for projects
undergoing an AWT review, NPDES permits should not generally be reissued
until this review 1s completed. Procedures for modifying or reissuing
permits for these projects are detailed 1n this document*
Attachments:
PRM 79-7
Management Guidance
Technical Guidance
Municipal Enforcement Strategy, AWT Section
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 80
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION C -- COORDINATION
WQM Policy Memorandum C-1
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION*
Purpose
This memorandum provides the interagency coordination policy and guidance
for State and areawide Water Quality Management planning. All interagency
agreements already in existence and sent to the Regions are referenced. As
new agreements are finalized, they will be forwarded to the Regions.
Background
Successful implementation of the Water Quality Management program will
require the continuing involvement and support of other Federal agencies,
particularly at the planning agency level. Many of these agencies have
significant responsibilities in matters relating to water quality manage-
ment, considerable technical expertise and a great deal of useful data and
information. At the Headquarters level, coordination is being established
on a continuing basis with a number of selected Federal agencies and
programs which have nationwide applicability to water quality management.
Policy
Regional Offices should take action necessary to implement the provisions
of interagency agreements and/or policy statements at the State and local
levels.
The Regions should also encourage and assist State and local planning
agencies to establish working relationships with other Federal agencies
operating within their areas of jurisdiction which have responsibilities,
activities or information which are related or potentially useful to
effective water quality planning or management.
Following 1s a list of interagency agreements which EPA has signed.
Copies can be obtained by contacting Patti Morris, Water Planning Division,
Operations Branch (202-755-6026).
* Originally issued as SAM-11 (January 23, 1976) under the signature of
the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and Standards.
Certain editorial changes have been made by the Water Planning Division.
-------
-2-
1. Hud 701 Planning, May 2, 1975
Attachment A, Performance Criteria, March 1976
Attachment B, Memorandum to HUD Regional Offices, March 1976
2. CZM, September 29, 1975
Attachment A, Memo, Guidance on Coordination Between the CZM
Program and the EPA State and Areawide WQM Program, Aug 1976
3. NACO, December 8, 1975
4. BLM, January 5, 1976
5. Corps of Engineers, March 25, 1976
6. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 12, 1976
7. ASCS, March 31, 1976
8. U.S. Forest Service/EPA Joint Policy Statement, May 3, 1976
9. U.S. Dept. of the Interior Geological Survey, May 7, 1976
10. Coordination Memorandum Between the Appalachian Regional
Commission and EPA, June 21, 1976 (Regs.. 2, 3, 4, & 5)
11. Joint Memo of Planning and Program Coordination between DOT
and EPA. July 12, 1976
12. Relationship Between the WQM Program and the National Flood
Insurance Program. February 17, 1977
13. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Small Business
Administration and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Farmer's
Home Administration. September 20, 1976
14. Interagency Agreements with the Departments of Agriculture, Army,
and the Interior, Required Under Section 304(j) of
P.L. 92.500. March !., 1977
15. Memorandum of Understanding with Department of the Interior.
December 8, 1978.
16. EPA-FS Forestry WQM Statement of Intent. March 2, 1979.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81 DRAFT
VI. WQM POLICY MEMORANDA
SECTION C -- COORDINATION
WQM Policy Memorandum C-2
RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM RELATIONSHIP TO A 208 PLAN*
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth the relationship between State or areawide agricultural
portions of 208 plans and potential Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project
areas. RCWP projects represent only one of the implementation funding sources to
abate agricultural nonpoint source pollution identified by the 208 planning process.
For example, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP) and the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program, as well as State-
supported cost share programs, are other implementation options.
Background
Section 208(b)(2)(f) of the Clean Water Act provides for the development of water
quality management plans to include (1) identification, if approporiate, of
agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint sources of pollution and (2) procedures and
methods to control, to the extent feasible, such sources. The regulations defining
the requirements of such plans are included in 40 CFR 35.1521.
Section 208(j) of the Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture, with the
concurrence of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to establish and
administer a program for the purpose of implementing best management practices to
control agricultural nonpoint source pollution. No appropriations have been
provided for this portion of the Act to date. However, the Assistant Administrator
for Water and Waste Management at a recent Congressional hearing supported re-autho-
rization of Section 208(j) through 1984 at the $400 million per year level
authorized for FY 80.
The current Experimental Rural Clean Water Program, separate and distinct from Section
208(j), receives funds under the FY 80 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural
Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L. 96-108. The final
regulations, developed jointly between USDA and EPA, appear in 7 CFR Part 700
(March 4, 1980).
The 1980 Experimental Rural Clean Water Program projects are in high priority
agricultural nonpoint source problem areas, as reflected through certified and
approved 208 plans.. The regulations for the experimental RCWP State the following:
*Adapted and update from the FY 80 WQM Policy Memo C-2 to reflect recent change
in the RCWP program.
-------
DRAFT
2 1 MAY 1980
700.12 Eligible Project Areas
(a) Only those project areas which reflect the water quality priority concerns
developed through the water quality management planning process and have
identified agricultural nonpoint source water quality problems are eligible
for authorization under RCWP.
Therefore, proposed RCWP projects must be consistent with a certified and approved
agricultural portion of a WQM plan which includes, at a minimum:
o Identification and assessment of agricultural nonpoint source problems
(Identification of impaired water uses must be a part of the RCWP
application)
o Identification of priority agricultural nonpoint source problem areas or
sources
o Identification of the best management practices (BMPs) to control the
problems
For future RCWP project eligibility, an area must have significant water quality
problems resulting from agricultural activities. A probability that a problem
exists is not sufficient.
A State or areawide agency may choose to concentrate on specific areas or sources of
pollution and apply for RCWP project assistance before completing all planning require-
ments set forth in 40 CFR 35.1521. However, each grantee must, as a minimum, identify
and assess the agricultural nonpoint source problems of the entire State or area,
develop priorities for controlling the agricultural nonpoint source water quality
problems, and identify BMP's for the entire planning area. The BMPs specified in the
RCWP project application may vary from the 208 plan, due to the specific water use
impairment identified in the application.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL WQM PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR FY 81
APPENDIX A
WQM REFERENCE LIST
I. GENERAL REFERENCES
1. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "FY 80 Work Programs",
December 1979.
2. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Water Quality Management
Five Year Strategy, FY 81 Baseline", January 1980.
3. 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart G, "Grants for Water Quality
Planning, Management, & Implementation". Final Regulations
May 23, 1979.
4. Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §1215 et seq.
5. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "1990
Construction Grants Strategy", under preparation, May 1980.
6. US-EPA, Office of Planning and Management, "EPA Operating
Year Guidance for FY 81", February 16, 1979.
7. 40 CFR, Part 25, "Public Participation in Programs Under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act", February
16, 1979.
8. 40 CFR, Subchapter D, Part 130, "Policies and Procedures
for the State Continuing Planning Process", November 1975.
40 CFR, Subchapter D, Part 131, "Preparation of Water
Quality Management Plans", November 1975.
40 CFR, Subchapter B, Part 35, "State and Local Assistance",
November 1975.
9. US-EPA, Office of the Administrator, "Handbook for FY 81
State/EPA Agreements", March 1980.
10. NRDC v. Train 396 F Supp 1386 (D.D.C. 1975), aff'd subnom
NRDC v. CostTe 564 F2 573 (D.C. circ 1977).
-------
II. PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS REFERENCES
Water Quality Standards
11. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Quality Criteria for
Water", November 3, 1976.
12. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Statement
of Current Policy and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking",
43 FR 29588, July 10, 1978.
13. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Water
Quality Criteria, Request for Comments", March 15, 1979.
14. Settlement Agreement, NRDC v. Train, 8 ERC 2120, 2122-2129
(D.D.C. 1976), Modified March 9, 1979.
15. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, Guidelines for State and
Areawide WQM Program Development, Chapter V, Water Quality
Standards", November 1976 (Note: Reference rescinded except
for Chapter V).
16. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Water Quality
Criteria, Request for Comments", 15 926 FR 44 (March 15, 1979);
43660 FR 44 (July 25, 1979); 56628 FR 44 (October 1, 1979).
Assessment and Monitoring
17. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Final
Guidance for State 305(b) Report Preparation", March 8, 1979.
18. US-EPA, "Basic Water Monitoring Program", January 28, 1977.
19. 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart G, Appendix A, "Water Quality
and Pollutant Source Monitoring", May 23, 1979.
20. National Water Monitoring Panel, "Model State Water
Monitoring Program", June 1975.
21. US-EPA, "Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Vols. I
II, and III", July 1976.
22. Everett, L., Schmidt, K., Tinlin, R., and Todd, D.,
"Monitoring Ground Water Quality: Methods and Costs",
May 1976.
23. US-EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, "Water Quality
Assessment -- A Screening Method for Nondesignated 208
Areas", EPA-600/9-77-23, August 1977.
-------
24. US-EPA, MDQRAL, NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio, "Handbook for
Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories", June 1972.
Identification of Priority Problems and Sources
25. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Total
Maximum Daily Loads Under Clean Water Act", 43 FR 60662,
December 28, 1978.
26. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Priority
List Guidance for the Development and Management of FY
1981 State Project Priority Lists" (POM 80-1),
January 18, 1980.
27. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Integrating Financial
Analysis into the Wasteload Allocation Process", Final
draft May 1980.
28. 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E, "Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works -- Clean Water Act", September 27, 1978.
Waste Load Allocations
29. US-EPA, Water Planning and Monitoring and Data Support
Divisions, "Existing Policy and Technical Guidance on
Wasteload Allocations for Advanced Treatment Planning"
(INFO 79-98), August 14, 1979.
See also WQM Policy Memo B-8: "Funding of Waste Load
Allocations and Water Quality Analyses for POTW Decisions",
Point Source Permit Conditions
30. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "Effluent
Guidelines and Development Documents", (various dates).
31. 40 CDR, Parts 6, 115, 121, 122, 123, 124, 402, and 403,
"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Revision
of Regulations", Final rule, June 7, 1979.
32. 40 CFR, Parts 122, 123, 124, "Consolidated Permit
Regulations: RCRA Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground
Injection Control; CAA Prevention of Significant Deter-
ioration; CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System; and Section 404 Dredge or Fill Programs", Final
rule, May 2, 1980.
-------
33. US-EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards, "A Guide
to the Dredge or Fill Permit Program", July 1979.
Planning for Municipal Systems
34. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Guidance for
Preparing a Facility Plan", May 1975.
35. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Model Plan
of Study,, Supplement to: Guidance for Preparing a Facility
Plan", March 1976.
36. 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A, "Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines", September 27, 1978.
37o 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix E, "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Guidelines", September 27, 1978.
38. US-EPA, Office of Federal Activities, "Floodplain Manage-
ment and Wetlands Protection — Statement of Procedures",
44 FR 1455, January 5, 1979.
39. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Small Community Waste-
water Systems: Financial Guidelines for Planning and
Management", Final draft May 1980.
40. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "The Wastewater
Construction Grants Program: Financial Issues for
Small Communities," Final draft May 1980.
41. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Wastewater Treatment
Systems: A User's Guide to Feasibility Analysis of
Small and Alternative Systems", Final draft May 1980.
42. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Sewer Extensions as
Septic System Relief Projects: Principles to Encourage
Cost-Effective Solutions", Final draft May 1980.
Nonpoint Source Controls
43. 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart H, "Cooperative Agreements for
Protecting and Restoring Publicly Owned Freshwater Lakes",
Final rule, February 5, 1980.
44. National Association of Conservation Districts, "Con-
servation Districts and 208 Water Quality Mangement
June 1977.
-------
45. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Agriculture Nonpoint
Source Strategy", September 1979.
46. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, Water Quality Management
Buletin, "Farmers and Clean Water: Working Together",
March 1980.
47. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "Institutional
Bases for Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution",
November 1979.
48. US-EPA, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, "A Manual
of Laws, Regulations, and Institutions for Control of
Ground Water Pollution", June 1976.
49. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Ground Water Strategy
for the Water Quality Management Program", June 1980.
50. US-EPA, Office of Water Supply, "The Report to Congress,
Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground
Water", January 1977.
51. US-EPA, Office of Research and Development, "Proceedings
of the Fourth National Ground Water Quality Symposium",
April 1979.
52. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Planning for Urban
Stormwater Management: Financial Issues and Options",
Final draft May 1980.
53. US-EPA, Office of Great Lakes National Programs,
"Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control", Conference Proceedings May 22-23, 1978.
54. US-EPA, Office of Research and Development, "Effectiveness
of Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Pollution
Control", October 1979.
55. US-EPA, Office of Research and Development, "Impacts of
Sediments and Nutrients on Biota in Surface Waters of the
United States", October 1979.
56. US-EPA, Office of Research and Development, "Costs and
Water Quality Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution", August 1979.
57. USDA, Ecomonics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service,
"Operator and Landlord Participation in Soil Erosion
Control in the Maple Creek Watershed in Northeast Nebraska",
March 1980.
-------
58. National Association of Conservation Districts, "Nonpoint
Source Notes on 208 Implementation", periodic printings
beginning October 1977.
59. US-EPA, Ofice of Air, Land, and Water Use, "Loading
Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint
Sources", May 1976.
60. US-EPA, "Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature
and Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants", September 1973.
61. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Nonpoint Source Pollution
Fact Sheets" (INFO 79-32), January 1979.
62. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Agriculture/Silviculture
Nonpoint Source BMP Guidance" (INFO 79-6), October 1978.
63. US-EPA, "Storm Water Management Model: Level 1 —
Comparative Evaluation of Storage-Treatment and Other
Management Practices", Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1977.
Agreements on Institutional Responsibility
64. US-EPA, "Management Agencies Handbook for Section 208
Areawide Waste Treatment Mangement", November 1975.
65. US-EPA, "Legal and Institutional Approaches to Water
Quality Management Planning and Implementation", March 1977.
State/Local Budget Processes
66. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Section 208 Financial
Management Assistance Project" (INFO 79-31), December 1978.
67. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Improving Financial
Elements in FY 80 Section 208 Work Plans" (INFO 80-20),
November 21, 1979.
68. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Environmental Planning:
The Role of Financial Analysis", Final draft May 1980.
69. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Financial and Institutional
Considerations in Water Quality Planning: An Annotated
Bibliography", Final draft May 1980.
70. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Financial and Institutional
Considerations in Water Quality Planning: Case Studies
1979-1980", Final draft May 1980.
-------
Permit Issuance and Enforcement
See References 30 through 33 .
Other Regulatory/Non-Regulatory Programs
71. CONSAD Research Corporation, "Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness
of Nonstructural Pollution Controls: A Manual for Water
Quality Management Planning", April 30, 1976.
72. US-EPA, "Legal and Institutional Approaches to Water Quality
Management Planning and Implementation", March 1977.
Structural Solutions
73. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Program
Requirements Memoranda, Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works Construction Grants Program".
74. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Regional Wastewater
Treatment Systems: The Role of Cost-Sharing", Final
draft May 1980.
75. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual", Draft 1978.
Cost-Sharing for Agriculture
76. USDA, "Assistance Available from USDA Agencies in Section
208 (PL 92-500) Planning".
77. USDA, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
7 CFR, Part 700, "1980 Rural Clean Water Program", March 4, 1980.
78. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Rural Clean Water Program
Handbook" (INFO 80-63), April 15, 1980.
79. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "EPA-Forest Service
Agreement, State WQM Plan Ties to State Forest Resources
Program" (INFO 79-59), March 28, 1979.
See also WQM Policy Memo C-2, "Rural Clean Water Program
Relationship to a'.208 Plan".
Sanctions and Incentives
QQ Bower, B., Ehier, C., and Kneese, A., "Incentives for
Managing the Environment", March 1977.
81. Anderson, F., Kneese, A., Taylor, S., Reed, P., and
Stevenson, R., "Environmental Improvement Through Economic
Incentives", 1978
-------
APPENDIX B
WQM PROGRAM REVIEW
-------
DATf
TO
' 5 1!
NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT WQM Program Review
FROM Eckardt C. Beck, Assistant Administrat
for Water and Waste Management
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
A priority of Doug Costle's and mine is to improve the management of our
grant programs. The Water Planning Division with the support of the
Program Evaluation Division and Bill Drayton have spent a great deal of
your staff's time and mine developing a framework (strategy) to improve
the management of the Water Quality Management Program. The WQM Program
Review is a continuation of that effort.
The WQM Program Review emphasizes the quality of management in the
Regional Office. It is structured around a framework basic to the water
quality problem-solving process. The components of the framework are:
identification and pripritization of the problems; development of strategies
to deal with the problems;' agreements with States on how the various
program elements will be integrated to solve the problems; technical and
managerial assistance to States to find, develop and implement solutions
to the problems; and periodic evaluations to determine the progress made
and to keep planning, management, and operational programs moving in the
right direction.
The management framework allows for and recognizes the diversity of
problems, issues, institutions and political climate in each Region. It
forces an aggressive management style to ensure cost-effective programs
are developed and implemented to solve priority problems and operational
programs effectively and efficiently administered. The WQM Program
Review should be as useful to you as it will be to me.
I have promised to develop an integrated management evaluation system
for OWWM's programs this fiscal year. The Office of Drinking Water and
OWPO have program review and/or evaluation systems in place. Though
quite different, they meet the needs of the program offices. The WQM
Program Review appears to provide the type of qualitative assessment
that I need to meet my commitment to improve the management of OWWM's
grant programs. I have asked Merna Hurd to work with the other program
offices and build upon the existing systems to assure that OWWM's program
reviews are integrated into an overall program management framework.
Your ideas, comments and assistance will be most appreciated.
«- 11 on.A fR««_ 1-7A1
-------
WQM PROGRAM REVIEW
Purpose:
The WQM'Program Review is to assess the Regions' and Headquarters' management of
the water quality management (WQM) process including progress in developing
cost-effective solutions to water quality problems; in developing operational
NPS control programs; in implementing certified and approved WQM plans; in
•improving the management of the 106 program; and in meeting the goals of the
Clean Water Act. Headquarters management and support of the WQM Program will be
evaluated by the Regional Offices.
Objective
The objective of the WQM Program Review is to make a qualitative evaluation of
the effectiveness of Regional Offices' and Headquarters' management of the WQM
Program and to make improvements where appropriate. The Review will focus on:
o Ability of the Regional Office to ensure a decision-making process is
developed to solve point and nonpoint source pollution to meet the
water quality goals of the Act.
o Ability of the Regional Offices and Headquarters to make the-water
quality management process work—the development and implementation of
water quality management plans, effective and efficient administration
of operational control programs and the improvement in water quality.
o Ability of Regional Offices to demonstrate that they have developed a
systematic approach or framework to manage the WQM Program and its
component parts (including the 106 and 208 grant programs).
Guidelines for the WQM Program Review
The Guidelines (see attached) cover in detail broad areas which may depending on
the response define problems, issues, and solutions to be pursued by the Review
Team. They are a series of questions to gather information on the activities
of the Regional Office that ensure solutions to water quality plans are deve-
loped, WQM plans are implemented and work programs are executed. The Guidelines
will also be used to evaluate the strategic documents of the WQM process. The
Guidelines are comprehensive, therefore, a negative response does not neces-
sarily constitute a program deficiency or weakness.
The information gathered will be used to make the qualitative assessment of the
Regional Offices' management and Headquarters' support of the WQM program. As
such the Guidelines are designed to provide insight into Regional Offices'
strategies, methodologies and approaches.
-------
WQM Program Review Report
The objective of the Report 1s to assist us 1n Improving the management of the
WQM program and achieving the goals and objectives of the WQM program. The Report
will not compare one Region to another. The Report will stress the "successes"
of the Region but will also recommend improvements to enhance the Region's
management and Headquarters support of the WQM program. Conclusions of the
Report will be written in such a way as to identify the issue, identify the
affect or impact of the issue (e.g., problem created); and identify potential
solutions to the problem or issue.
A Report will be prepared based on Regional comments. It will be approved by
the Assisitant Administrator for Water and Waste Management and forwarded to the
Regional Administrator. The Report, the conclusions and recommendations con-
tained therein, will be discussed with the Regional Administrator during the
Regional Administrator's next RA-in-Residence visit.
Review Team
The Review Team will consist of:
o Director/Deputy Director, Water Planning Division
o WPD support staff.
o Regional Water Division Director and/or Branch Chief, if the Region's
travel funds permit.
WQM Program Review Process
On-site review is essential to achieve the objectives of the WQM Program Review.
All participants must understand the purpose, objectives and scope of the Review.
Dialogue is to be conducted 1n an open professional manner to maximize the
information exchange between the Regional staff and the Review Team. Regional
and Headquarters preparatlpn for the Review 1s critical to facilitate the informa-
tion exchange.
The topics to be covered in the WQM Program Review will be agreed to by Regional
and Headquarters personnel and set forth in an Agenda prepared at least one week
prior to the Review visit.
The WQM Program Review Process will include the following steps:
1. Schedule Review visits (there will always be at least a year between subse-
quent review visits).
2. Agreement on the two States whose documents and processes will be
examined as a basis of reviewing the Region's framework for managing
the WQM process.
-------
3. Documents identified in Section I.A.1-12 of the "Guidelines for the WQM
Program Review" sent to Headquarters and reviewed by the Review Team
(orginals will be returned to the Region).
4. Conference call to the Regional Office to:
discuss the documents reviewed
set the Agenda (topics) for the Review visit
5. Review Team visits the Regional Office (2 days).
6. Report drafted.
7. Draft report reviewed by Region and comments on the report forwarded to
Headquarters including the Region's review of Headquarters support.
8. Based on Regional comments, final report prepared, approved by the Assistant
Administrator for Water and Waste Management and forwarded to the Regional
Administrator.
9. During the Regional Administrator's next RA-in-Residence visit, time will
be scheduled to discuss the report, the conclusions and recommendations
contained therein.
Schedule for Visits (Initiation of Program Review Visits Will Begin in May 1980):
October - Region X, Seattle
November - Region IV, Atlanta
December - Region III, Philadelphia
January - Region IX, San Francisco
February - Region VIII, Denver
flay - Region I, Boston
June - Region VI, Dallas
July - Region II, New York
August - Region VII, Kansas City
September - Region V, Chicago
-------
GUIDELINES
^
the
WQM PROGRAM REVIEW
I. WQM DOCUMENT REVIEW
A. Documents (Reviewed to gather information prior to Program Review visit;
documents will be returned to the Region)
1. Two State water quality problem assessments (any assessment that is
used as a basis of WQM activities whether the 305(b) Report or the
problem assessment included in WQM plan, Five-Year strategy. SEA,
etc. 40 CFR 35.1511-1)*
2. Regional overview of the water quality problems (may be the Region's
Environmental Profile or other appropriate analyses the Region has
completed).
3. Two State Five-Year Strategies (40 CFR 35.1511-2).
4. Regional NPS control and/or funding strategies (agriculture, urban
runoff, ground water, financial management, etc.).
5. Significant Implementation Agreements (part of FY 1980 and subsequent
year's 208 work programs (40 CFR 35.1533-3(b) (c)).
6. List of the conditions to the approval of two States' WQM plan(s)
and those conditions which have been removed.*
7. WQM portions of two State EPA Agreements (40 CFR 35.1513-3).*
8. Two States' 106 and 208 work programs (40 CFR 35.1513).*
9. Regional Implementation Assistance Plan (Region's work program/
priorities to assist agencies execute 106 and 208 work programs
and implement WQM plans).
10. Latest mid-year reviews of two State agencies (40 CFR 1513-8).*
11. If available, time line or schedule showing the development of
the above documents for two States.
12. Organizational chart of the Regional Office in sufficient detail to
determine which organizational entities the WQM Program elements
are a part of.
*Selection of the two States whose documents are to be reviewed will be
negotiated at the time that the Program Review visit is scheduled.
-------
Criteria to be Used In the Review of the MQM Documents
1. Do the documents reflect national program guidance?
2. Is there a consistent flow of information and activities from one
document to another (from problem assessments to what is included
in the five-year strategy, SEA and the work programs)? Is there
a logical degree of detail?
3. Does the format of the documents facilitate tracking priorities
through the documents?
4. Do
the documents include the following where appropriate:
• Problem definition—does it include:
Identification of specific point and nonpoint source
problems?
.Geographic location of the problem or stream segment?
Cause of the problems?
Potential sources of the problems?
Beneficial uses impacted?
» Problem solutions—do they include:
Alternative solutions identified where appropriate?
Reasons given for rejecting alternative solutions
credible?
Projected water quality impacts of the control programs
estimated?
t Do funding and assistance requirements include:
Funding for program development consistent with guidance?
Funding source(s) for management/administration of control
programs identified?
A logical allocation of limited resources?
Identification of technical and management assistance requirements?
• Are roles of agencies responsible for outputs identified?
• Is there coordination of specific activities among EPA programs to
solve water quality problems (RCRA, SDWA, NPDES, Enforcement
S&A, etc.)?
• Is there sufficient detail to monitor progress with quantifiable
objectives/goals and milestones?
5. Are the documents adequate to address or resolve the water
qua!ity problems?
6. Do the work plans focus on priority water quality problems
and programs (urban runoff, agriculture, ground water, toxic
monitoring, pretreatment).
7. If priority water quality problems are not addressed, is there
a rationale provided?
-------
8. Do the documents reflect reasonable priorities based on:
Extent and magnitude of the critical water quality problems?
Environmental indices?
Resources available, including Regional and Headquarters
assistance?
Goals and objectives of the States and Region?
Certified and approved WQM plans?
9. Do the documents reflect participation of the public?
10. Do the documents reflect the previous year's evaluation of
implementation progress and State and areawide agencies'
performance?
Process(es) Used to Develop the WQM Documents (reviewed where
questions arise as to the availability and/or quality of the
documents).
1. Which documents are not available and why?
2. What is the process(es) for developing each of the documents?
• Are the processes similar?
t Who is primarily responsible for the development of each
of the documents?
• Are there organizational impediments (within the RO or
the State)?
• Are there resource limitations (within the RO or the State)?
• Are there philosophical differences as to the need for the
documents (within RO or the State)?
• How is input obtained or review coordinated for each of the
documents?
3. Is guidance provided to States and/or areawide agencies by the
Region or does the Region transmit Headquarters' guidance? Or
both? Does the Regional guidance differ from that of Headquarters?
4. Are the Region's expectations, suggestions, strategies communicated
to the States?
• When are they communicated?
• How are they developed?
• What input is used to develop the Region's expectations,
suggestions, strategies?
t Do the Region's expectations, suggestions, strategies
include input from previous year's e-val uations?
• Does it include suggestions on Regional or Headquarters'
provision of technical or management assistance?
-------
II. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE TO ASSURE IMPLEMENTATION
OF WQM PLANS AND EXECUTION OF WORK PROGRAMS
A. Overview
1. What are the Regional objectives, goals, priorities for providing
assistance?
• What control programs are available?
• What control programs were recommended as part of the
208 WQM plans?
0 What other programs need to be developed to solve priority
water quality problems (toxics monitoring, pretreatment
programs, ground water, etc.)*
2. How were the priorities determined?
• conditions to approval WQM plans?
0 State EPA Agreements?
• Court decrees?
• Other?
3. What percentage of staff time is devoted to assistance in the
• implementation of WQM plans
• execution of work programs (106, 208)
4. If assistance is provided by other than the Water Division,
how is it coordinated?
5. How does Headquarters technical assistance projects fit into
Regional priorities? Are there problems?
6. Are tasks agreed to as part of a Regional Implementation
Assistance Plan or work program being completed on a timely
basis? If not, why not?
7. Are the tasks identified in the Regional Implementation Assistance
Plan or work program included in the employees' performance
agreements?
Outputs: Based on the Region's priorities identified in II.A.2.,
above are the Region's activities focused on:
1. Management of operational programs for the control of point
and nonpoint source problems (regulatory and nonregulatory
programs)?
2. Enforcement of regulatory and nonregulatory nonpoint source
programs of certified/approved WQM plans, NPDES, pretreatment
programs, etc.
3. Administration of NPDES (402, 404), Pretreatment and Emergency
Response Programs?
-------
4. Development, review and revision of water quality standards?
5. Development, review and revision of Wasteload allocations?
6. Identification of solutions to be implemented for:
• Point source: Structural solutions (waste water treatment
facilities)?
• Nonpoint source:
Structural-e.g. detention basins for urban runoff,
recharge systems for ground water, erosion control
barriers, sprinkler irrigation systems, etc.?
Nonstructural-e.g. Integrated Pest Management programs,
divided slope plantings, stubble mulch, street sweeping,
etc.?
7. Is there agreement on institutional responsibilities?
8. Are there.State/1 oca! financial management and budgeting for
implementation of controls?
user charges?
permit fees?
State/local cost share funds?
State grant funds?
Financial Management Assistance Projects?
9. Is Federal Assistance factored into the program?
0 construction grants, 106, 314, RCRA, SDWA, etc?
• USDA cost share programs (ACP, MIP, ACP Special projects,
RCWP, etc.)?
10. Is protection of wetlands, lake restoration?
C. Activities/Process: How does the Region assist in the implementation
of WQM plans and in the execution of 106, 208 work programs?
1. Conduct workshops?
2. Attend Federal, State and local agency meetings to assist
in the development of special implementation projects, resolve
institutional/financing problems, coordinate multi-program
water quality solutions, etc.?
3. Direct and coordinate information exchange? If so, what is it and
how i s it done?
4. Direct Regional efforts related to Headquarters
technical assistance projects?
5. Coordinate/guide water monitoring activities?
6. Provide technical assistance in the development of State
legislation/administrative procedures to manage operational
-------
programs, resolve institutional responsibilities, locate
solutions to technical problems, obtain NPS funding?
7. Review revisions to water quality standards, antidegradation
policy, NPDES permits, CPP, 201 projects for consistency with
208 plans, management agency letters of commitment, certified
WQM plans, proposed special implementation projects, delegation
Agreements?
8. Closely follow national technical assistance/implementation
projects (MIPs, RCWP, groundwater, etc.)?
-------
III. MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
A. Management of the Implementation of Certified/Approved WQM Plans
1. What are the Region's goals/objectives for the implementation
of WQM plans? Are they being met?
2. What implementation is occurring under
106?
314?
ACP Special Projects?
MIPs?
RCWP?
Other Federal agencies (TVA, BLM, FS)?
State/local financed programs?
Other?
3. What are the major road blocks to implementation?
4. What "implementation" has occurrred since certification and
approval?
5. How are the Significant Implementation Agreements (part of FY 80
and beyond 208 work programs) monitored and tracked?
6. Is there a review of implementation? When does it occur? Does
the review result in
• Identification of problems?
• Suggestions for improvement?
t Are agreement on improvements included in SEAs?
7- How are the State designated management agencies evaluated? Is
the Region involved in the evaluation? Does the State and/or
Regional evaluation address:
Management effectiveness?
Program coordination?
Responsiveness to public input?
Use of other program resources?
Effectiveness of the program in solving the problems?
Identification of problems?
Suggestions for improvements?
8. How effective is the Regional Office in affecting State
performance (ROs to provide examples).
Management of Work Programs
1.
2.
What are Region's goals/objectives for the 106, 208 grant
programs?'
Does the Region evaluate the progress of State and areawide
agencies against the work program(s)? When does this occur?
-------
3. What is the process? Are the processes the same for 208 and 106
work program review? What are the roles and responsibilities
of different organizational elements in the review (permits,
S&A, enforcements etc).
4. Does the evaluation include:
9 Meeting the goals/objectives of the 208, 106 program?
* Progress against the State's overall strategy?
e An analysis of the States' quarterly reports or other
tracking mechanisms and a comparison of commitments with
the outputs?
• Identification of variances?
® A determination of the reasons/causes of the variances?
• The development of solutions to the reasons or causes
of the variances where necessary?
® Comments on the timeliness and effectiveness of Regional or
Headquarters assistance by the States, areawides or the
Region?
5. Does the evaluation result in a management report on problems
and accomplishments?
6. Does the evaluation result in changes in the management of
the work programs, or substantive changes to the work programs
and grants?
-------
IV. EVALUATION OF HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT
A. What is the process/criteria that will be used to evaluate EPA
Headquarters support? What program areas and/or agencies are
involved?
B. The Region's evaluation of Headquarters might include the following:
1. The consistency, timeliness and quality of Headquarters'
guidance.
2. The existence, comprehensiveness, ease of use and accessability
of management information systems.
3, Headquarters' coordination of Federal agencies.
4. Headquarters' review of the work programs.
5. The quality and timing of feedback of Headquarters from Regional
suggestions and comments on policies, guidance, programs, etc.
6. The technical assistance provided by Headquarters staff
including quality, timing and responsiveness to emergency
requests.
7. The ability of Headquarters to affect changes in EPA policy and
priorities to support the program.
-------
APPENDIX C
WORK PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FOR WQM
[reserved]
«J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 311-132/44 1-3
------- |