Update to the
National Program Guidance
for the
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2000-01
April 2000
-------
~ All Americans will have drinking water that is
clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of
America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and
coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants,
and wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence,
and economic activities. Watersheds and their
aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected to
improve human health, enhance water quality,
reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife. —
- Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water as stated in the EPA Strategic Plan (September 1997)
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 1: Vision and Priorities for the National Water Program (added new memo from
Chuck Fox 2000)
Outline of the vision and priorities for the National Water Program.
Section 2: GPRA Goals, Objectives, and Subobjectives (expanded to include proposed
revisions)
Contains the strategic goals, objectives, and subobjectives under which the work of
the National Water Program falls and which were developed as part of the
strategic planning process the Agency undertook to meet requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Section 3: Program Offices' Vision, Strategies, and Guidances (revised for 2000)
Provides a brief vision statement and lists key strategies and guidances (including
sources and contacts) for each of the four water program offices within the Office
of Water. (Note: The American Indian Environmental Office (ATEO) will be
issuing its own guidance separately.)
Section 4: Commitment to Agency- Wide Priorities
Contains descriptions of three Agency-wide priorities that OW is highlighting to
encourage greater Headquarters, Regional, and Great Water Body participation
and integration into day-to-day activities.
Section 5: Management Agreement Instructions and Template (revised for 2000)
Instructions and template for the FY2001 Management Agreement (MA). The
template includes the FY2001 Annual Performance Goals and Measures
(APGs/APMs) and Office of Water Tribal Strategy Goals.
Section 6: Core Performance Measures (additional piece for 2000)
Contains the Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under
NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and Applicability of Core Performance Measures, the
FY2000 Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for Water, the sources of
information for the CPMs, and a comparison of the CPMs to related APMs.
-------
Section 7: Timeline (revised for 2000)
Shows key planning and accountability dates including dates for development and
fmalization of the MAs and for the Mid-Year and End-of-Year Reports.
Section 8: Midyear and End-of- Year Reporting (expanded for 2000)
Contains initial guidance for mid-year and end-of-year reporting, the FY99 End-of-
Year Results for the National Water Program, and the Goal 2 (Clean and Safe
Water) Chapter from the Agency's FY99 Performance Report.
Section 9: Key Contacts (revised for 2000)
Contains lists of the Headquarters and Regional contacts for the Office of Water's
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG) and the Clean Water
Action Plan.
n
-------
Introduction
Overview
This Update to the National Program Guidance for the Office of Water U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency FY2000-01 is intended to serve as guidance for the implementation of the
National Water Program. This guidance should assist all of us in providing consistent and fair
implementation of the important programs for which we are responsible. In addition, this
guidance provides the framework for EPA negotiations with our State and Tribal partners who
play a vital role in protecting and restoring the Nation's waters. This guidance should be shared
with these partners and should serve as a primary resource for National Water Program staff and
managers as they plan and implement their programs for FY2000-01. This guidance addresses
key elements of the National Water Program's accountability system — priorities, core program
guidances, Management Agreements (MAs), and mid-year and end-of-year reporting.
Content
This guidance consists of nine sections which are listed and described in the Table of Contents on
page i. Further key points on several of these sections follow. In Section 3, those strategies and
guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the Regional Administrator must
consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a work plan with a State
that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and strategies. In Section 5, identical or
parallel measures for all of the Core Performance Measures (CPMs) for FY2001 are included as
part of the annual performance measures (APMs) that are listed in the template. In Section 6, a
table showing the CPMs and the parallel APMs is provided for ease in identifying them from the
longer list of annual performance goals (APGs) and APMs contained in the template in Section 5.
in
-------
IV
-------
Vision and Priorities for the
National Water Program
Section 1
-------
Contents
J. Charles Fox 2000 Memo page 1-5
Water Program Overview page 1-9
National Water Program Page 1-2
Accomplishements -1999
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 2 2000
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
TO National Water Program
EPA Employees and State and Tribal Program Administrators
FROM: J. Charles
^
Assistant Administrator for Water
/
SUBJECT: National Program Guidance - 2000 Update
Water Program Priorities
In the National Program Guidance published in early 1999,1 reported that the clean water
and drinking water programs were responsible for significant accomplishments throughout the
Nation. I also described some of the themes laid out in the Clean Water Action Plan and the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Amendments and identified some of the key actions we would be
working on in the coming months and years (see attached 1999 Water Program Overview).
Today, I am pleased to report that many of the tasks we committed to last year are now
accomplished and we are making good progress on many others. These accomplishments span
the entire National Water Program ~ ranging from stronger nonpoint pollution programs to new
regulations to protect drinking water quality. A summary of major National Water Program
accomplishments in 1999 is attached.
This outstanding progress would not have been possible without the hard work and
dedication of EPA employees in Regional offices and in Headquarters ~ you all have my sincere
thanks for a job well done. I also want to recognize the hard work of water program
administrators in the State, Territory, and Tribal governments. You are on the front lines in
delivering clean and safe water to all Americans and are doing an outstanding job.
Over the next year, I look forward to working with all of you to maintain the progress we
are making on our existing priority projects and, in many cases, bring these projects to a
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 20% Postconsumer)
-------
successful conclusion. I am confident that, with the completion of the projects now underway,
the National Water Program will be focused on the most pressing environmental problems and
public health threats.
It is clear, however, that successful implementation of these programs will require
increased resources for program implementation and increased flexibility in financing the pollution
control projects that are most critical to meeting clean water goals. Based on this assessment, the
President's budget for FY 2001 proposes dramatic increases in funding for grants to States and
Tribes for water program implementation.
The FY 2001 budget makes several key proposals to assist States and Tribes in
implementing water programs.
Increased Funding for Projects to Reduce Polluted Runoff- In FY 1999, the
president proposed and Congress appropriated an additional $100 million in
funding for projects to control polluted runoff from nonpoint sources and restore
watersheds identified by States as most in need of attention. Up to 20% of this
funding may be used to support water program planning and management
activities. This new funding, double previous levels, was maintained in the FY
2000 budget. For FY 2001, the President proposes to increase this funding from
$200 million to $250 million.
Increased Funding for Restoring Impaired Waters - States and the EPA have
increased efforts to identify polluted waters and develop Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) that define how these waters will be restored to health. New
regulations for the TMDL program will be published later this year. The President
is proposing that Federal grants for this critical work be increased by $45 million.
With State matching funds, total funding for this effort would be $75 million.
- Restoring the Great Lakes ~ States and local governments have worked for
many years to identify "Areas of Concern" in the Great Lakes and define actions
needed to restore these waters. The President's FY 2001 budget proposes new
grant funding of $50 million to be used to make grants to implement critical
projects in these "Areas of Concern."
Flexible Infrastructure Financing to Reduce Polluted Runoff - Many States
would like to increase investments in projects that will reduce polluted runoff but
are unable to make these projects financially viable using Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Funds (CWSRFs) alone. The FY 2001 budget proposes to give
State's the discretion to use about 20% of Federal funds that capitalize CWSRFs
to make grants, rather than loans, for projects to reduce polluted runoff and to
protect estuaries.
Tribal Program Funding -- The FY 2001 budget includes several provisions to
enhance water quality and protect public health in Indian country. It would
-------
increase to 1 '/z % the amount of money set-aside from the wastewater SRF to
provide grants to tribes for wastewater treatment, permanently remove the
statutory one-third-of-one percent cap on the amount of the nonpoint source grant
appropriation that may be awarded to tribes, and enable EPA to award cooperative
agreements to Federally recognized tribes to assist EPA in implementing Federal
environmental programs for tribes.
The FY 2001 budget also includes funding for other Federal programs with water quality
benefits including $1.3 billion in increased funding for conservation programs at the US
Department of Agriculture, much of which will benefit water quality. In addition, the President
proposed $2.8 billion to support key actions called for in the Clean Water Action Plan, an
increase of $584 million.
Increased funding to help States and Tribes expand their efforts to implement the National
Water Program is essential to the continued success of the Program and continued improvement
in the health of the Nation's waters. Over the next several months, I will be working with State
officials, the Congress, and other interested parties to describe the proposed funding increases and
answer questions about the need for this increased investment in the State and Tribal programs
that are on the front lines in protecting water quality.
Thanks to the hard work of water program staff at EPA and State and Tribal
governments, as well as local governments, the regulated communities and public interest groups,
the National Water Program is strong and getting stronger. Appropriation of the increased funds
proposed by the President for FY 2001 will assure that we will have the resources we need to
maintain almost thirty years of steady progress toward clean water into the new millennium.
Attachments:
FY 1999/2000 National Program Guidance — Water Program Overview
National Water Program Accomplishments -- 1999
-------
WATER PROGRAM OVERVIEW
by
Assistant Administrator for Water
J. Charles Fox
Since being confirmed as Assistant Administrator for Water in October of last year, I have
had the pleasure of visiting almost every EPA region to meet with EPA, State, and Tribal water
program managers. I have had initial meetings with senior officials in other Federal agencies and
with diverse interest groups. And I have wprked^with the water program staff here at
Headquarters to move the National Water Program forward.
• i • i
I am impressed by what the National Water Program has achieved and am looking forward
to continued success. We have solid — in some cases outstanding -- accomplishments in both the
clean water and drinking water programs. We have strong, core statutory authorities in the Clean
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The
steadfast advocacy by Administrator Carol Browner for protecting the health of the American
public has been instrumental in the success of our efforts to strengthen protection of the Nation's
water resources and drinking water. With Administrator Browner's support, we have laid out a
clear direction for the future ~ described in the Clean Water Action Plan, the Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments, and in our goals and objectives established under the Government Performance
and Results Act. I am confident that the course laid out in these documents is right.
. . i • j - •
t
- Accomplishing the ambitious agenda before us will require concentration, commitment,
and cooperation. Some have suggested to me that we have set our sights too high; I might agree
if the National Water Program did not have a long history of success. But, for over 25 years, the
water program managers and staff in EPA, States and Tribes have made steady progress toward
clean and safe water. We are a winning team; we have the know-how and the determination to
deliver steady, even dramatic, improvements in the Nation's water quality to the American people
within the foreseeable future.
In this Overview, I have described some of the key themes laid out in the Clean Water
Action Plan and the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments and the specific actions that we will all
be working on in the coming year to attain our clean water and drinking water goals.
I also have outlined some of my thoughts in three subject areas where I plan to focus a
good deal of my attention over the next year to support your efforts:
improving our ability to describe the condition of the Nation's waters to the people
of this country;
Page 1-9
-------
building a consensus for expanded funding for clean and safe waters at all levels of
government; and
strengthening protection of critical estuarine and coastal waters where the vast
majority of Americans live and work.
I) CLEAN WATER
The Clean Water Act authorizes an essential set of core programs that are our foundation
for protecting and restoring water quality. Effluent guidelines provide national, minimum
discharge standards for over fifty major industries. Water quality standards provide goals for
water quality restoration and protection. NPDES permits control discharges from over 100,000
pollution sources. State and local pretreatment programs assure that facilities discharging to
sewers provide appropriate levels of waste treatment. Revolving loan fund programs in each
State provide over $2 billion in financing for water pollution control projects each year and have
an overall value of over $27 billion. The national wetlands program under section 404 of the Act
is the primary defense of the nation's critical wetland resources.
In the Fall of 1997, EPA and other Federal agencies undertook to review clean water
efforts and develop a coordinated plan to build on core clean water programs with a new
commitment to action. In February of 1'998, President Clinton announced the result of this
cooperative effort ~ a "Clean Water Action Plan." The Action Plan sets out clear goals for the
National clean water program. But, it also has generated other benefits. It resulted in expanded
State program grants. It provided a basis for new, cooperative relationships among diverse
Federal agencies. It provided a forum for Federal, State, and Tribal governments to work
together on clean water issues. And, it has helped rally public support for clean water programs.
The Action Plan has given the clean water program a big boost — we need to maintain the
momentum in the coming years.
The four key themes articulated in the Clean Water Action Plan almost a year ago still
provide sound guidance for the clean water program today.
Watershed Approach ~ We are well on our way to building the new, cooperative
effort to restore and sustain the health of rivers, lakes, costal waters and wetlands
on a watershed basis envisioned in the Clean Water Action Plan.
Strong Federal, State and Tribal Standards - The Action Plan called for
improving State and Tribal standards as a key step toward protecting public health,
preventing polluted runoff and ensuring accountability.
Page 1-10
-------
Natural Resources Stewardship - Clean water depends on the conservation and
stewardship of the cropland, pasture, rangeland, and forests that are in private and
public hands, Federal natural resource agencies are essential to this effort.
Informed Citizens and Officials - Accurate and timely information about the
health of watersheds, beaches, fish, and drinking water is the foundation of a sound
and accountable clean water program.
Over the past year, Federal, State, Tribal and local governments have made good progress
implementing the ambitious agenda of over 100 action items described in the Clean Water Action
Plan. Some key accomplishments include:
Unified Watershed Assessments - All States and Territories and 80 tribes
responded to the Action Plan call for a unified and integrated assessment of the
condition of their watersheds.
Animal Feeding Operation Strategy — EPA and USD A jointly developed a
strategy for reducing water pollution from animal feeding operations (AFOs) and
conducted over a dozen listening sessions around the country.
Interim Approval of All Coastal States Non-point Source Programs. EPA and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conditionally approved all 29
of the State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plans that were submitted.
Nutrient Standards Strategy: EPA has developed a strategy for developing
nutrient criteria and standards that are tailored to specific needs of different kinds
of water bodies and different natural conditions found around the country.
Drinking Water Source Protection: Federal agencies developed an agreement
to coordinate efforts to provide assistance to States, Tribes and local governments
in developing comprehensive assessments and protection plans for sources - rivers,
lakes, and ground water - that communities use for drinking.
Beach Water Quality: EPA has completed a Beach Action Plan to help guide
local, State, tribal and federal efforts to improve beach monitoring programs.
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Strategy and Mercury Action Plan:
Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances, including mercury, PCBs, and
dioxin, pose serious dangers to ecosystems and public health. EPA has completed
a draft strategy with the goal of virtually eliminating 12 of the most dangerous
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances and has completed a draft plan to
address the health and ecosystem threats posed by mercury.
Page 1-11
-------
Keeping the Nation's clean water program strong and effective over the next several years
will require that we work together to maintain our momentum in implementing the Clean Water
Action Plan and that we continue the effective implementation of the core programs that are the
foundation of the Action Plan. The specific details of much of this work are provided in the
guidance and policy documents described later in this report. Although all this work is
important, I will be paying special attention over the coming year to work in the following areas.
1) Watershed Restoration Action Strategies and TMDLs - As States complete
workplans for new clean water grant funds, they will use Unified Watershed
Assessments to identify impaired watersheds where they will develop Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies in FY 1999 and 2000. In many cases, Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies will be coordinated with the development of TMDLs
for impaired waters. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund will support
implementation of the Action Strategies. These Action Strategies are also an
opportunity to integrate efforts to protect water quality with our work to protect
sources of drinking water and wetlands. Federal agencies will support State
efforts to restore watershed health in the identified watersheds.
The development of site-specific strategies to restore the health of impaired waters
and watersheds is a bold, new step for the National Water Program. It is essential
that we support States in selecting watersheds for immediate attention and assist
them in following-through with good, practical action strategies for integrating
diverse program resources and authorities to restore watershed health. Having
environmental projects underway in 350 impaired watersheds most in need of
attention is one of our key annual performance goals for FY 2000.
2) AFO Strategy - This spring, EPA and USDA released a final, joint strategy for
reducing water pollution from animal feeding operations. About 5% of these
facilities (i.e. the largest facilities and those causing water pollution problems) will
be subject to Clean Water Act permits. EPA will provide States with guidance and
model permits for these facilities. It is critical that EPA Regions work with States
to develop State-specific strategies for permit issuance with the goal of issuing
CAFO general permits and selected individual permits this year.
3) Stormwater Phase II - In the Fall of this year, EPA will publish final regulations
for control of stormwater runoff from municipalities and construction sites.
Permits for these facilities will complement the stormwater permits now in effect
for large cities and industrial facilities.
These new permits for stormwater and AFO sources, in combination with ongoing
efforts to reduce pollution from combined sewers (i.e. CSOs) and sanitary sewers
(i.e. SSOs), will result in significant reductions in the conventional pollutants (e.g.
sediment and nutrients) reported by States as the most common cause of today's
Page 1-12
-------
water pollution problems. This work is critical to meeting our annual performance
goal of reducing discharges of conventional pollutants by 388 million pounds per
year from the 1992 baseline.
4) Smart Growth - The adoption of "smart growth" policies and implementation of
measures to preserve green space and other environmentally critical areas (e.g.
riparian areas, wetlands) can have major benefits for water quality. Several
national water program projects (e.g. TMDL regulations and stormwater
regulations) have the potential to encourage "smart growth" policies.
In addition, water programs need to play an active role in the supporting local
efforts to develop plans for use of "Better America Bonds" recently proposed by
President Clinton. This new bond initiative can provide a valuable new element of
financial plans for watershed restoration and protection.
5) Sanitary Sewer Overflows — About 40,000 times each year, sanitary sewers
overflow and release raw sewage to streets and waterbodies. To address this
problem, EPA plans to propose regulations to provide a clearer regulatory
framework, including standard permit conditions. Headquarters will need strong
support from Regions in developing and implementing this new effort.
6) Permit Backlog - The NPDES permit program is the backbone of our efforts to
protect water quality and it is critical that we have appropriate and timely permits
in place. However, permit reissuance backlogs are unacceptably high in many
areas. We need to address this situation this year.
7) Water Quality Standards Program Modernization - Strong water quality
standards that are based on sound science and reflect community involvement are
critical to the clean water program.
The Clean Water Action Plan also calls on EPA to publish guidance documents
describing methods for the development of numeric criteria for nutrients, including
target ranges applicable to different waterbodies and parts of the country As
numeric nutrient criteria are adopted into water quality standards, we will be better
able to identify and address water pollution problems caused by nutrients and focus
controls for sources of nutrients.
EPA will also assure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, propose ways
to limit mixing zones, develop guidance to better prevent degradation of waters
that are now clean, support improved coverage of water quality standards in Indian
country, promulgate revised methods for developing human health water quality
criteria, and work with States to complete the process for adoption and approval
of State water quality standards.
Page 1-13
-------
8) Upgrade State Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs -- The Clean Water
Action Plan calls for State to upgrade statewide programs for controlling nonpoint
pollution to include the nine key elements agreed to by EPA and States by the year
2000. In addition, the Action Plan also calls for final approval of State coastal
nonpoint control programs by 2000. Strong programs for preventing nonpoint
pollution are critical to the success of the clean water program.
9) Protecting Water Resources in Indian Country - This past October, we
developed a new "Strategy for Protecting Public Health and Water Resources in
Indian Country." Near-term priorities identified in the Strategy include
establishing a tribal water program environmental presence and using a watershed
approach assessing water conditions and implement response programs.
10) Reinventing Clean and Safe Water Programs - Water program offices will
continue to support innovative approaches to reducing water pollution and
assuring safe drinking water. For example, proposed regulations for the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program will encourage "effluent trading" as a way
to meet clean water goals in a cost-effective manner.
II) SAFE DRINKING WATER
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 provide both the impetus for
substantial changes to the national drinking water program for EPA, States, Tribes, and water
utilities and greater protection and information to the 250 million Americans served by public
water systems. These changes set the course for the drinking water community (EPA, states,
Indian tribes, water utilities) to prepare for and address future drinking water safety challenges
and assure the sustainable availability of safe drinking water.
Four themes characterize the areas of greatest change. Together, they comprise a
balanced, integrated framework of reform and a major national commitment to protect public
health.
Public Right to Know ~ The Amendments greatly increase the ability of the
public to participate in drinking water protection decisions. We have worked hard
to include all of the drinking water community in our rulemakings, and with our
partners have produced major tools to keep the public well informed.
Focusing on Contaminants of Greatest Risk ~ The Amendments emphasize the
need for sound science and accurate data to support our regulatory decisions.
EPA has strengthened its ability to produce quality rulemakings by increasing
research and data collection, and by developing a process to identify the most
harmful contaminants.
Page 1-14
-------
Funding and Tools To States and Water Systems - Funding from loans and set-
asides in the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) have allowed
states and water systems to improve their ability to provide safe drinking water by
upgrading, renovating, and modernizing their infrastructure. EPA has also
developed many tools that increase states' flexibility in implementing health-based
and program-related regulations.
Pollution Prevention - A major theme of the Amendments is the prevention of
contamination of surface and ground water resources that serve as drinking water
supplies. Through source water protection, we have made prevention the first step
in the multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection.
In the past year, EPA and its partners have developed many tools that will lead to
comprehensive drinking water protection. Some of these accomplishments include:
Release of the Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rules —
In November 1998, the President announced two major health-based regulations
~ the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (IESWT) Rule and the
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) rule. These rules are a direct
response to the demonstrated public health effects of such incidents as the
contamination of drinking water in the City of Milwaukee by Cryptosporidium in
1993 and the 1996 Amendments.
Release of the Consumer Confidence Report Regulation — In August 1998, the
President announced the Agency's release of the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) regulation, which will require water systems to provide their consumers
with specific information about their drinking water supply. These CCRs are a
centerpiece of the Administration's right-to-know activities and will be included on
a new, geographic-based, Internet information site at www. epa. gov/safewater.
Release of the Contaminant Candidate List — The Contaminant Candidate List
is the strategic blueprint for future drinking-water standard setting. It is a list of
currently unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in
drinking water and will help focus efforts on contaminants of greatest risk.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -- All States have Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs in place and have received their initial
(FY 97) capitalization grant and the majority of states have applied for their
FY 98 grant. DWSRF funds support water systems' efforts to build, modernize or
replace the infrastructure necessary to provide safe drinking water.
Capacity Development Guidance — Working with the Small Systems Working
Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, EPA developed a
Page 1-15
-------
capacity development guidance that will assist States as they develop programs to
ensure that all water systems, especially small systems, have the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to provide safe water.
Operator Certification Guidance - EPA developed guidance to assist States as
they develop operator certification programs to assure that all operators of public
water systems, particularly small systems, have the competency to run and
maintain safe, effective, and reliable water treatment plants.
While the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorize EPA, State, and water utilities
requirements through 2005, over the next year we will be emphasizing those activities with a
statutory deadline of FY 2000 and early FY 2001, as well as efforts that will augment and
complement statutory requirements. These areas of emphasis include:
1) The Drinking Water Academy - We will assist states, tribes and territories in
understanding new rule requirements and implementing these rules as well as new
required guidelines. We will use our new Drinking Water Academy as a way to
bring training on these activities to EPA regional staff, the states, Indian tribes and
other interested parties.
2) State Capacity Development Programs -- States will be developing and
implementing programs to ensure that water systems have the capacity to comply
with existing drinking water rules. Headquarters and the Regions will work with
States as they develop their programs. Financial assistance for State capacity
development activity is available through the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds. EPA has an annual performance goal that 91% of population served by
community water systems will receive drinking water meeting all health based
standards in place by 1994.
3) Source Water Assessments — High-quality source water assessments will provide
needed data to states, water systems, and the public as they protect their water
supply. EPA will work with Federal agencies and states to help States conduct
these assessments, and to implement programs to protect their source water
(including eliminating Class V high-risk shallow underground injection wells).
Source water protection is the first step in a multiple barrier approach to drinking
water protection.
4) Increased Research and Data Collection — We will strengthen and expand the
science on priority contaminants for future regulation, identified in the
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), for which there is currently inadequate science
and data upon which to base sound risk management decisions. The research
needed includes health effects, exposure, analytical methods, and treatment. We
will also expand data collection and analysis. The Agency must make decisions on
Page 1-16
-------
whether or not to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL by August 6,
2001. In addition, these science and data-oriented activities will help provide the
basis for determining which contaminants to place on the next CCL (required to be
published by February 2003).
5) Data Reliability — We will implement our data reliability action plan to ensure
that data entered into the Safe Drinking Water Information System by public water
systems is consistent, accurate and of the highest quality so that we can ensure the
nationwide safety of our drinking water supplies.
6) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule — We need more data in order to
make determinations on what if any new contaminants should be regulated. In the
late summer EPA will release new requirements on unregulated contaminant
monitoring that will provide us with much of this needed data, while reducing
burden on water systems.
7) National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD) - EPA will complete
and implement the new National Contaminant Occurrence Data Base to give us
occurrence information that we need to determine what contaminants pose the
greatest health risk. This database will also be made available to the public.
8) Class V Underground Injection Control Rule — To reduce the risk of drinking
water contamination from shallow injection wells, EPA will publish a rule on Class
V wells in the summer. This rule will protect sources of drinking water from wells
such as industrial disposal wells, service station wells, and large capacity
cesspools.
9) Public Notification Rule — We will promote public information beyond consumer
confidence reports by publishing revisions to the Public Notification Rule. This
rule will require water systems to more quickly notify their customers if there is a
serious threat to their drinking water supply.
Ill) BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
The Clean Water Action Plan and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments provide the
National Water Program with a challenging agenda. I am impressed with the work done over the
past year and I am confident that we have the capacity to maintain our progress.
One of my jobs as Assistant Administrator is to provide National Water Program
managers and staff with the tools and the resources needed to get this important work done.
Page 1-17
-------
Specifically, I will work over the next year in several areas--
improving information about the condition of waters;
building a consensus for increased funding of water programs; and
strengthening programs to protect coastal and estuarine waters.
Time and again, when the American people are asked what makes their community
valuable, or "livable" they name water resources ~ their local beach, lake, or river. Progress in
each of these three areas will take us a big step closer to the broader, long term goal of "livable
communities" in the 21st century.
A) Improving Information About the Condition of Waters
Fulfilling the public's Right-to-Know about environmental conditions and risks is an
integral part of the Agency's mission. The Agency is making a major commitment to redesign our
internal management structure to better meet the information demands of the 21st century. I am
convinced that effective information management is key to successfully carrying out the Agency's
mission and is particularly important for the National Water Program. We need to be sure that
information necessary to improve and protect the nation's water resources and their uses is readily
accessed, formatted for ease of use, supportive of management decisions, and is useful in
measuring progress towards environmental goals.
In 1998, the Office of Water established a steering committee for information
management, whose membership includes members of the Office of Water's senior management
team, to plan for and guide OW's major investments in information and information technology.
Earlier this calendar year, I chartered an Information Reinvention Work Group to develop an
overall vision and action plan for how the Office of Water's information management program
can support indicators to measure progress towards environmental goals, and define monitoring
and other data needs that will: (1) help inform the decision making process, (2) provide the public
with value-added information, and (3) draw on and contribute to the integrated picture of the
environment, including trends over time.
The Work Group developed a set of recommendations in key areas such as Water
Information Systems, data investments, data standards, data element registration, stakeholder
involvement, and appropriate Office of Water staff information resource competencies.
Implementation of these recommendations will be a high priority for FY2000 and beyond.
I have asked senior management to recommend how we can proceed with States, Tribes
and other Federal agencies, and the public to achieve these recommendations. I expect to ask for
significant Regional involvement in meeting these implementation challenges.
Page 1-18
-------
B) Assuring Adequate Funding for Clean and Safe Water
In the over 25 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, Federal, State, Tribal,
and local governments have had a partnership for the financing of water pollution control
projects. The partnership has resulted in dramatic increases in water pollution control and
dramatic improvements in water quality. State clean water revolving loan funds, with a total
value of over $27 billion, form the backbone of this financial partnership.
At. the same time, the nature of the water pollution problems is changing and our tools and
approaches to these problems (e.g. watershed protection/TMDLs) are evolving. Many of the
programs were we have invested in comprehensive, site specific plans (e.g. the National Estuary
Program) have generated an impressive list of projects that are ready to go today but lack
funding. There is also a growing recognition that other Federal and State programs (e.g. buffers,
land preservation) contribute to water pollution control and our new watershed approaches create
opportunities to engage these other programs. In addition, new approaches to public financing
(e.g. Better America Bonds) will expand our ability to implement diverse management tools.
We still need an intergovernmental partnership to finance water pollution control, but we
need to review and, perhaps revise, how we as a Nation finance meeting our clean water and safe
drinking water goals. An important related goal is assuring that Federal and State program
managers have the resources they need to make the programs effective. EPA, States, and Tribes
have begun the process of evaluating basic information about program and project costs. I want
to expand this process to include a wider range of interested parties and to evaluate a wider range
of possible options for the design of the clean water financial partnership over the next 25 years.
C) Strengthening Protection of Estuarine and Coastal Waters
Coastal waters are an important ecological, recreational, and economic resource - fifty
percent of the population lives in coastal watersheds and coasts are the most common vacation
destination. But our coasts are under severe pressure from development and related water
pollution problems. Many coastal waters — from the Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" to Long Island
Sound, to Puget Sound — are impaired by water pollution and need prompt attention. In
addition, some of our most treasured and fragile marine resources, such as coral reefs, are at risk.
The Clean Water Action Plan outlines important steps to protect coasts, but I am
convinced that we need to redouble our efforts to protect these fragile natural resources. Over
the next several months, I will meet with marine scientists, Federal and State agency managers,
and public interest organizations to identify actions that EPA and others can take to strengthen
protection of estuarine and coastal waters.
I want to encourage everyone to think creatively about what we can do to both lay a
strong foundation for long-term protection of critical coastal resources and to take specific
Page 1-19
-------
actions to protect this resource in the near-term. For example:
could we make better use of existing statutory authorities (e.g. section 403 of the
Clean Water Act)?
could we set up a process to identify and better protect critical habitat in estuarine
and coastal waters?
could we do more coordinate the efforts of water quality, wetlands, and fisheries
management professionals at the Federal, State and local levels? and
- how can we improve on and expand EPA and other inter agency protection of
estuarine and coastal waters?
IV) Accounting to Congress and the American Public
As we continue to realize improvements in the Nation's waters, we must be accountable
to the Congress and the American public for the environmental progress we are making. It is no
longer enough to report how many rules we have developed, how many permits we have issued,
how many loans we have granted, nor how much training and technical assistance we have
provided. We must make the connection between the work we are doing and the environmental
results that are being achieved. We must be able to report to the Congress and the American
public the improvements in water quality and the protections in public health that result from the
work that we and our partners undertake. Congress and the American public want to be assured
that the dollars they are spending on the environment are producing environmental results in an
efficient manner.
To enable the National Water Program to be accountable to Congress, the American
public, and ourselves, we have worked to establish an efficient, value-added accountability system
that facilitates planning, budgeting, managing, and decision-making based on strategic planning
and environmental results. In designing this system, we have attempted to incorporate feedback
from National Water Program staff and managers. Much of this system is reflected in the
following sections of this guidance including strategic goals and objectives that focus on
environmental results, a Management Agreement process for making commitments against annual
performance goals and measures and against the Office of Water's Tribal Strategy, and mid-year
and end-of-year reporting to evaluate the progress we are making and to help inform us about
necessary adjustments we need to make.
We have made a lot of progress in establishing this system and moving ourselves toward
managing and being accountable for environmental results. However, we still have important
improvements to make in the coming months. We must improve our ability to measure outcomes
on an annual basis, and, in our FY2001 Annual Plan and Budget, increase the number of annual
Page 1-20
-------
performance goals and measures that reflect program and environmental outcomes while reducing
the number that reflect program outputs. We will remain open to feedback from staff and
managers on how to better improve this system and will work to make this system integral to
management and budget decisions in the National Water Program.
Page 1-21
-------
Page 1-22
-------
FY 1999 WATER PROGRAM KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
• Developing Drinking Water Standards EPA promulgated two new health-based regulations.
The disinfection byproducts (DBF) rule, which addresses potentially harmful contaminants formed
by the reaction of disinfectants with naturally occurring organic matter in water, will provide
increased protection for as many as 140 million people. The microbial rule, which establishes controls
for cryptosporidium and other waterborne pathogens, will reduce the number of cryptosporidiosis
cases by 110,000 - 463,000 per year. EPA also proposed a multimedia approach to protecting public
health from the highest levels of radon in drinking water and reducing radon risks in indoor air.
• Monitoring Drinking Water The data generated by promulgation of the Drinking Water
monitoring rule will be used to evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Drinking Water
Contaminant Candidate List and will help to ensure that future decisions on drinking water standards
are based on sound science.
Protecting Source Water 51 States and territories submitted source water assessment plans, of
which ten were approved. Additionally, approximately 11,000 community water systems are
implementing programs to protect their source water. Combined, these community water systems
serve almost 49 million people.
Capacity Assurance for New Public Water Systems: All States and territories required to submit
Capacity Development Programs for New Systems did so. These programs assure that new public
water systems will be viable and can meet drinking water requirements.
Consumer Confidence Reports: Many community water systems issued their first water quality
reports to consumers, with detailed information on the quality of their water.
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION
Adopting Water Quality Standards. EPA approved new standards for one tribe and standards
revisions in 17 States, helped 17 States correct deficiencies in their standards, and initiated rules to
establish replacement federal standards for three States.
Attaining Water Quality Standards. EPA proposed revisions to the NPDES and water quality
standards programs to promote further progress toward attainment of water quality standards in
impaired waterbodies after listing and pending TMDL establishment, and to provide reasonable
assurance that TMDLs, once completed, will be adequately implemented.
Reducing Pollution from Animal Feeding Operations. The final unified national strategy for
animal feeding operation strategy sets forth a frame work of regulatory and voluntary actions that
Page 1-23
-------
USDA and EPA plan to take to reduce water quality and public health impacts from improperly
managed animal wastes.
• Reducing Pollution from Wet Weather Flows: The final storm water rule will protect the
Nation's waterways by curbing pollution from small construction sites (between 1-5 acres) and from
small urban municipal storm sewer systems. As a result of EPA-State efforts, approximately 800 total
communities have permits or other enforceable mechanisms that will minimize the impact of sewage
discharges from CSOs.
Protecting Our Beaches: The Beach Action Plan provides a multi-year strategy to help States
and localities protect public health at beaches and recreational areas through monitoring, data
collection, enhancing water quality standards, and providing to the public through the Internet
information from States on the quality of their beaches.
Protecting Specific Waterbodies: The Gulf of Mexico Program, in partnership with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, launched the Gulf of Mexico Challenge Fund which will leverage
voluntary private contributions in support of projects to restore Gulf habitats for recreational and
commercial fishing. The Chesapeake Bay Program continued work to restore Bay grass areas. The
National Estuary Program approved four additional Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMP) that will serve as blueprints to improve, restore and protect estuaries, bringing to 21
the cumulative total of these CCMPs. EPA also proposed to significantly reduce direct discharges
of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) into the Great Lakes, including mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxin, chlordane, DDT and mirex, by phasing out mixing zones.
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN
Collaborating with other Agencies. Under the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) 9 federal
agencies, including EPA, have joined together to develop partnerships in improving water quality.
In FY 1999, these agencies formed twelve federal coordination teams around the country to foster
collaboration on and discuss work in common watersheds, created a Water Information Network site
on the Internet which provides the public with coordinated information from the different agencies,
sponsored regional watershed roundtables to enhance public-private communication and
coordination, developed an inter-Agency handbook on stream corridor restoration, trained tribes in
water quality assessment methodology, created a Five Star Restoration Project which funded 50
community-based wetlands and community restoration projects, and integrated activities to protect
water quality
Assessing Watersheds: A total of 56 States and territories and approximately 85 tribes worked
with EPA, USDA, and other federal agencies to develop Unified Watershed Assessments that
identified watersheds in greatest need of protection and restoration. The State assessments became
the basis for EPA awarding an additional FY 1999 appropriation of $ 100 million to address problems
caused by nonpoint source pollution. As a result,, watershed restoration action strategies are being
Page 1-24
-------
developed in approximately 300 priority watersheds with numerous projects being implemented on
the ground.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
• Enhance the Nation's Infrastructure: With SRF funds made available in F Y '99,738 community
drinking water systems are receiving drinking water SRF funds and 5,200 wastewater treatment
projects initiated operations. Additionally, with funding from tribal set-asides and/or earmarks, 2,500
homes in Indian country were connected to new or upgraded sanitation systems and over 40 Alaskan
Native Villages will be able to construct drinking water and/or sewage systems.
Page 1-25
-------
Page 1-26
-------
GPRA Goals, Objectives, and
Subobjectives
Section 2
-------
Contents
Current Goals, Objectives, and page 2-5
Subobjectives
Proposed Revisions to Objectives page 2-9
and Subobjectives Under Goal 2
-------
Current Strategic Goals, Objectives and Subobjectives
(Objectives andsubobjectivesfor which changes have been proposed are marked with
a &. The revised language can be found in the next section beginning on page 2-9.)
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 1: By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by
community water systems will receive water that meets drinking water standards,
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to microbial
and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
Subobjective 1.1: By 2005, the population served by community water systems
providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will increase
to 95% from a baseline of 83% in 1994. 95% compliance will be achieved for any
new standards within 5 years after the effective date of each rule.
Subobjective 1.2: By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an
additional 10 high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon)
will be issued.
& Subobjective L3: By 2005, 50 percent of the population served by community
water systems will receive their water from systems with source water protection
programs in place.
& Subobjective 1.4: By 2005, increase protection of ground water resources by
managing all Class I, Class II, and Class III injection wells and by managing
identified high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g.,
wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).
& Subobjective 1.5: By 2005, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will
be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting
the consumption offish and shellfish will increase.
Subobjective 1.6: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of
contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of
waters attaining the designated recreational uses will increase.
Subobjective 1.7: By 2003, provide a stronger scientific basis for future
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Note: This Subobjective belongs
to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Page 2-5
-------
& Subobjective 1.8: By 2005, protect drinking water sources by increasing by 50%
the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean
Water Act.
& Objective 2: By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's
(state, interstate, and tribal) waters and aquatic ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes,
wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground waters — so that 75% of waters
support healthy aquatic communities.
^Subobjective 2.1: By 2005, restore and protect watersheds so that 75% of
waters support healthy watersheds as shown by comprehensive assessment of the
nation's watersheds.
Subobjective 2.2: By 2005, and in each year thereafter, the work of federal, state,
tribal, and local agencies; the private sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and
citizen groups will result in a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands.
Subobjective 2.3: By 2003, provide means to identify, assess, and manage aquatic
stressors, including contaminated sediments. (Note: This Subobjective belongs to
ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
^ Objective 3: By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point sources and nonpoint
source runoff will be reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key
pollutants impacting water bodies will be reduced.
&Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), and industrial
sources will be reduced by 30% from 1992 levels.
& Subobjective 3.2: By 2005, nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to
rivers and streams will be reduced. Erosion from cropland, used as an indicator of
success in controlling sediment delivery to surface waters, will be reduced by 20%
from 1992 levels.
Subobiective 3.3: By 2003, deliver decision support tools and alternative, less
costly wet weather flow control technologies for use by local decision makers
involved in community-based watershed management. (Note: This Subobjective
belongs to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Page 2-6
-------
Subobjective 3.4: By 2006, improve water quality by reducing releases of
targeted persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50-75% as
measured by the National Toxics Inventory, reducing deposition of nitrogen by
10-15% from 1980 levels as measured by wet and dry deposition monitoring
networks, and improving our understanding of, and cross-media responses to, the
sources, pathways, and effects of air pollutants deposited on water bodies and
watersheds.
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems
& Objective 7: By 2003, 60% of Indian Country will be assessed for its environmental
condition and Tribes and EPA will be implementing plans to address priority issues.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks
^Objective 1; By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to human health and shared
ecosystems in North America consistent with our bilateral and multilateral treaty
obligations in these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to Tribes.
Sub-Objective 1.2: By 2005, the population in the U.S./Mexico Border Area
(including Tribes) that is served by adequate drinking water, wastewater collection
and treatment systems will increase by 1.5 million through the design and
construction of water infrastructure.
Sub-Objective 1.4: Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of
toxic substances, by protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and restoring
and maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
Page 2-7
-------
Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About Their Environment
•&Objective 1: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the American public to
• i 1 * 4>
participate in the protection of human health and the environment by increasing the quality
and quantity of general environmental education, outreach and data availability programs,
especially in disproportionally impacted and disadvantaged communities.
& Subobiective 1.2: Bv 2005, via the Internet and improved technology, the
Agency will provide the public with increased access to integrated, comprehensive
environmental data; online access to enforcement and compliance data; information
on the watershed in which they live, including the environmental condition,
stressors, and the environmental health threats by 2003; and information in an
easily accessible and user friendly manner.
& Objective 2: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the public to reduce exposure to
specific environmental and human health risks by making current, accurate substance-
specific information widely and easily accessible.
^Subobiective 2.1: By 2005, Pesticide, TSCA, Water and other environmental
information and tools will be available to all communities and citizens, through the
Internet, outreach efforts, and consumer confidence reports, to help make
informed choices about their local environment, including where to live and work,
and what potential exposures are acceptable, and to assess the general
environmental health of themselves and their families.
Page 2-8
-------
Proposed Revisions to Objectives and Subobjectives that Encompass the Water Program
(Proposed revisions are as of March 8, 2000. Revisions are still undergoing review and further
changes may occur prior to finalization and submission of the Agency's revised strategic plan in
September 2000. Approved revisions, -will become effective with submission of Agency's
Revised Strategic Plan to Congress in September 2000.)
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 1:
Subobjective 1.1.
Subobjective 1.2:
Subobjective 1.3:
(revised language -
combines 1.3 and
1.4)
Subobjective 1.5:
(revised)
Subobjective 1.6:
By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by
community water systems will receive water that meets health-based
drinking water standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish
will be reduced, and exposure to microbial and other forms of
contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
By 2005, the population served by community water systems providing
drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will increase to
95% from a baseline of 83% in 1994. 95% compliance will be achieved for
any new standards within 5 years after the effective date of each rule.
By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional 10
high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon) will
be issued.
By 2005, demonstrate the effectiveness of both voluntary and regulatory
activities to protect sources of drinking water by: 1) ensuring that 50% of
the population served by community water systems will receive their
water from systems with source water protection programs in place; and,
2) managing (a) identified, high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high
priority protection areas (e.g., wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer,
etc.) and (b) all Class I, II, and III injection wells.
By 2005, 5% of the waters with fish advisories will demonstrate a
decline in fish tissue contamination, consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish will be reduced, and the percentage of waters attaining the
designated uses protecting the consumption offish and shellfish will
increase.
By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination in waters
used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining
the designated recreational uses will increase.
Page 2-9
-------
Subobjective 1 7-
Subobjective 1.8:
By 2003, provide a stronger scientific basis for future implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Subsume under Subobjective 2.1.
Objective 2:
(revised)
Subobjective 2.1:
(revised)
Subobjective 2.2:
Subobjective 2.3:
By 2005, increase by 175 the number of watersheds meeting water quality
standards in 80% of assessed waters (from 501 in 1998).
Note: Measurement of Objective 2 is based on 305(b) data provided by the
states and displayed nationally by watershed as a status of the percentage
of waters meeting designated uses. The total number of 8 digit watersheds
stands at 2,262. In 1998, 501/2262 (22%) had over 80% of assessed
waters meeting water quality standards, in 2005 the target is 678 of 2262
(30%).
By 2005, 5,000 additional miles of water attain water quality standards
and specific interim milestones are achieved in 50,000 impaired river miles,
lake acres and estuary square miles.
Note: Subobjective 2.1 will be assessed through a count of the number of
impaired water miles and acres that attain designated uses or where specific
interim milestones have been met to improve environmental conditions
(e.g., implementation of TMDLs, restoration activities). The current
universe of impaired waters is approximately 300,000 miles and acres. The
miles and acres number will be broken out between the actual attainment of
designated uses and the achievement of specific interim milestones. It will
also be allocated amongst the different waterbodies (rivers, lakes, and
estuaries) to the extent possible.
By 2005, and in each year thereafter, the work of federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies; the private sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and
citizen groups will result in a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands.
By 2003, provide means to identify, assess, and manage aquatic stressors,
including contaminated sediments.
Page 2-10
-------
Objective 3:
(revised)
Subobjective 3.1:
(revised)
Subobjective 3.2:
(revised)
Subobjective 3.3:
Subobjective 3.4:
By 2005, pollutant loadings from key point and nonpoint sources will be
reduced by at least 11% from 1992 levels using both pollution control and
prevention approaches. Air deposition of key pollutants will be reduced by
30% from 1992 levels.
By 2005, using both pollution control and prevention approaches, reduce
at least 3 billion pounds of point source loadings from key sources,
including a combined 11% reduction from industrial sources, POTWs, and
CSOs.
By 2005, through the work of federal, state, tribal, and local
agencies and the private sector, nonpoint source loadings (especially
sediment and nutrient loads) will be reduced and/or prevented, including a
20% reduction from 1992 levels of erosion from cropland (i.e., reduction
of 235 million tons of soil eroded)
By 2003, deliver decision support tools and alternative, cost-effective wet
weather flow control technologies for use by local decision makers
involved in community-based watershed management.
By 2006, improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted persistent
toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50-75% as measured by
the National Toxics Inventory, reducing deposition of nitrogen by 10-15%
from 1980 levels as measured by wet and dry deposition monitoring
networks, and improving our understanding of, and cross-media responses
to, the sources, pathways, and effects of air pollutants deposited on water
bodies and watersheds.
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems
Objective 6:
(revised)
By 2005, EPA will assist all federally recognized Tribes in assessing the
condition of their environment, will help in building the Tribes' capacity to
implement environmental management programs, and will ensure that EPA
is implementing programs in Indian Country where needed to address
environmental issues.
Page 2-11
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks
Objective 1.
(revised)
Sub-Objective 1.2:
Sub-Objective 1.4:
By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to human health and shared
ecosystems in North America, including Marine and Arctic environments,
consistent with our bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations in these
areas, as well as our trust responsibility to Tribes.
By 2005, the population in the U.S./Mexico Border Area (including Tribes)
that is served by adequate drinking water, wastewater collection and
treatment systems will increase by 1.5 million through the design and
construction of water infrastructure.
Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of toxic
substances, by protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and
restoring and maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information
Revised objectives and subobjectives are still under development.
Page 2-12
-------
Program Specific Visions,
Strategies, and Guidances
(Strategies and Guidances appearing for the first time in this update are marked with a
Section 3
-------
Contents
Clean Water Action Plan page 3-5
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water page 3-7
Office of Science and Technology page 3-21
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds page 3-31
Office of Wastewater Management page 3-41
-------
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN
*'Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters (1998)
The Clean Water Action Plan is a new initiative to achieve clean water by strengthening public
health protections, targeting community-based watershed protection efforts at high priority areas,
and providing communities with new resources to control polluted runoff. Ten federal agencies
have been working together to carry out the 111 key actions in the Action Plan since February
1998.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using the publication number EPA-840-R-98-001 order from the National
Center for Environmental Publications and Information by calling (513) 489-8190 or the Water
Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail center.water-resource@epa.gov.
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Clean Water Action Plan: The First Year. The Future (1999)
This report marks the first anniversary of the Clean Water Action Plan. It highlights the progress
that has been made toward implementing the action plan and outlines the agenda for the coming
year.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using the publication number EPA-800-R-99-001 order from the Water
Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail center.water-resource@epa. gov.
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Clean Water Action Plan - The Second Year Report: Progress Through Partnerships (2000)
This report marks the second anniversary of the Clean Water Action Plan. It highlights the
progress that has been made toward implementing the action plan.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center at (202) 260-7786 or E-mail
center.water-resource@epa.gov.
Web Address www.cleanwater. gov
'Those strategies and guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the
Regional Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing
to a work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and
strategies.
Page 3-5
-------
Clean Water Action Plan 2000 Budget Request (1999)
This fact sheet gives a summary of the FY 2000 budget request for the Clean Water Action Plan.
Highlights of FY2000 budget requests by each agency and first year accomplishments are also
included.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes •
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Len Fleckenstein at 202-260-5332 or by E-mail at
fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Web Address www.cleanwater. gov
Memorandum on Federal Coordination Teams from J. Charles Fox (March 1,1999)
The Clean Water Action Plan calls for a unified federal effort in support of watershed
management. To further this effort, federal agencies are establishing federal coordination teams in
10 locations around the country. These teams, comprised of senior regional leaders'from various
federal agencies, will coordinate their efforts to implement the Clean Water Action Plan in priority
watersheds. Each team is also expected to convene meetings to obtain broad public input into
their coordination work.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions (in coordination with stakeholders)
Contact: Len Fleckenstein, 202-260-5332; fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Len Fleckenstein at 202-260-5332 or by E-mail at
fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov •
Unified Watershed A ssessments and Watershed Restoration Priorities (1999)
This four-page fact sheet summarizes results from the first national assessment of watershed
health under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Federal agencies, regions, states, local governments, watershed groups, industries,
farmers, tribes
Contact: Greg Gwaltney, 202-260-9532; gwaltney.gregory@epa.gov
Copies Available: By calling Greg Gwaltney at 202-260-9532 or by E-mail at
gwaltney.gregory@epa.gov
Clean Water Action Plan Intranet Site
This intranet site is password-protected to encourage information sharing among federal agencies
on implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan. The site includes an action item tracking
database, a contacts database, a discussion database, and a document database.
Applicability: Federal agencies, Regions
Contact: Len Fleckenstein; 202-260-5332, fleckenstein.leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: on the Internet at www.cleanwater.gov/Implement
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov/Implement
Page 3-6
-------
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
/. Vision
The primary role of the drinking water and ground water protection program is to protect
the public health of all Americans by ensuring safe drinking water and preventing contamination
of the water resources (rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs and ground water) that serve as the
nation's drinking water supplies.
The priorities of the drinking water and ground water program have been clearly spelled
out in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): 1) ensuring that EPA sets
drinking water safety standards and develops regulations based on good science and data,
prioritization of effort, sound risk assessment, and effective risk management; 2) establishing new
pollution prevention approaches, including provisions for source water protection, implementation
and promulgation of regulations for control of underground injection of wastes, operator
certification, and capacity development; 3) providing better information to consumers, including
consumer confidence/"right-to-know" reports and, 4) expanding funding for states and
communities through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. In addition, the 1996 SDWA
Amendments increase the states' flexibility to focus on public health-based priorities and make
better use of resources; recognize the problems facing small systems and establish appropriate
cost-effective approaches for such systems; and emphasize the role of stakeholders and
partnerships as a key aspect of an effective national drinking water program. *'
In F Ys 2000-01, EPA — Headquarters and Regional staff — will be working in close
partner-ship with the states to implement both health-based standards and corresponding
treatment/ treatment technologies and drinking water source protective measures to ensure that
91 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive water for which no
violations of Federally-enforceable health-based standards have occurred.
II. Key Strategies
Data Reliability Action Plan (1998)
This plan presents both the process and the actual activities that EPA, the states, and utilities will
carry out in partnership to improve, strengthen, and ensure that consistent and reliable data are
reported by public water systems in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Jan Auerbach; 202-260-5274; auerbachjanf/jjepa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only
Web Address: Not applicable.
Page 3-7
-------
///. Key Grant Guidances
*2Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Guidelines (1997)
Section 1452 of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act authorize the Agency to
award DWSRF capitalization grants to states, which in turn can provide low-cost loans and other
types of assistance to eligible systems.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette.veronica@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA 816R97005 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@,epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/OG\VDW/docs/guidtoc.html
Utilization and Distribution of S3,780,500 Tribal Grant (Memorandum from Connie Bosma,
Chief, Regulatory Implementation Branch, Implementation and Assistance Division/OGWDW to
Regional Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch Chiefs [Regions 1,11, IV-X], dated January
2000)
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Staci Gatica; 202-260-3967; gatica. staci@epa. gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: Not applicable.
K New Rules and Guidances Issued in the Last Year (By Major Activity)
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
^Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule for Public Water Systems: Final
Rule (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527, sakata.rachel@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815Z99004 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@,epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/sat'ewater/standard/ucmr/ucmrtrf.html
2Those strategies and guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the
Regional Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before'agreeing
to a work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and
strategies.
Page 3-8
-------
^-Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Ride Fact Sheet (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527; sakata.rachel@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815F99002 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@ena.gov
Web Address: www. epa. gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/ucmrfact. html
&* Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Integrated Guidance Document (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527; sakata.rachel@epa. gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99006 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: Not yet available online
^Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Guidance for Operators of Public Water
Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527; sakata.rachel@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99005 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: Not yet available online
^Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control
Manual (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527; sakata.rachel@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99004 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www. epa. gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/ucmrqc. pdf
^National Representative Sample of Small Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State
Plans (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states
Contact: Rachel Sakata; 202-260-2527; sakata. rachel@epa. gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99003 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www. ena. uov/satewater/standard/ucmr/stats. ndf
Page 3-9
-------
Stage 1 D/DBP and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules
•frDraft Implementation Guidance for the Stage 1 D/DBP and the IESWT Rules (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer Melch; 202-260-7035; melch.iennifer@epa. gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R99013 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center, water-resourceffflepa.gov
Web Address: Not applicable
^Guidance Manual for Compliance with Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule:
Turbidity Provisions (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Nancy Cunningham; 202-260-9535; Cunningham.nancy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99010 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resourceffiepa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpptg.html#disinfect
^Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; grubbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99011 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resourceifljepa.gov
Web Address: www. epa. gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpptg. html#disinfect
^Guidance Manual for Enhanced Coagulation and Precipitative Softening (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; gaibbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99012 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: ww\\r.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpptg,.htmlj?disinfect
^Disinfection Bench marking Guidance Manual (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; grubbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99013 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.uov/satewater/mdbp/mdbpptg.html#disinfec_t
Page 3-10
-------
•^Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; gmbbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99014 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www. epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpptg. html#disinfect
&M/DBP Simultaneous Compliance Manual (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; grubbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99015 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@-epa.gov
Web Address: ww^ ea.ov/satewater/mdb/mdbt. hlml#disinfect
Survey Guidance Manual ( 1 999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Tom Grubbs; 202-260-7270; grubbs.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815R99016 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpptg. htmltfdisinfect
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
^National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Final Rule (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact. Corry Westbrook; 202-260-3228; westbrook.corrv@epa.aov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815Z99005 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: centerwater-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/leadfr.html
&Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Fact Sheet (1999)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Corry Westbrook; 202-260-3228; westbrook. corry@epa. gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA815F99010 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/standard/leadfs.html
Page 3-11
-------
Consumer Confidence Report Rule
•^Interim Guidance: States' Implementation of the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule
(1999)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Kathleen Williams, 202-260-2589; williams.kathleena@epa.aoy
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R99008 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resourcefgtepa.gov
Web Address: wvvw. epa. gov/safewater/ccr 1. html
"^Preparing Your Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report: Guidance for Water Suppliers
(1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Robert Allison; 202-260-9836; allison.rob@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R99002 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@iepa.gov
Web Address: www. epa.gov/safewater/ccr 1 .html
*National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports; Final Rule
(1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleena@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z98005 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewatcr/ccr-frne.htinl
Consumer Confidence Report Guidance Fact Sheet (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleena@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816F98007 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resourceffiepa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/ccrfact.html
Public Notification Rule
•^-Public Notification Rule: Proposed Rule (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Carl Reeverts; 202-260-7273; reeverts.carl@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z99002 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/pws/pn/proposal.pdf
Page 3-12
-------
"^Revisions to Drinking Water Public Notice Regulations Fact Sheet (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Carl Reeverts; 202-260-7273; reeverts.carl@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816K99002 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/safewater/pws/pn/pnfact.html
Underground Injection Control - Class V
$Class V Underground Injection Control Regulations Revisions: Final Rule (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delehantv.robvn(a),eDa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only
Web Address: wwAV.epa.gov/safewater/iiic.htmlffclassv
$Class V Underground Injection Control Regulations Revisions Fact Sheet (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Harriet Hubbard; 202-260-9554; hubbard.harriet@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816F99016 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www. epa. gov/safewater/uic.html#classv
State Primary Enforcement Authority (Primacy)
* Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments;
Final Rule (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Jennifer Melch; 202-260-7035; melch.jennifer@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z99005 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/sdwa/frprimac.html
Page 3-13
-------
Operator Certification
*FinaI Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification for the Operators of Community and
Nontransient and Noncommunity Public Water Systems (1999)
Applicability: Regions, states. Only the section on withholding DWSRF funds is mandatory.
Contact: Jennifer Jacobs; 202-260-2939, jacobs.jennifer@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816Z99001 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/ODguide.html
Public Water Systems, Especially Small Systems
^Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996 (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98006 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/cdguid/capfact.html
Information for States on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98008 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/cdguid/infostate.htinl
"Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water (1998)
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Peter Shanaghan; 202-260-5813; shanaghan.peter@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98002 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: cenier.water-resoiirce@epa.gov
Web Address: www.eDa.gov/'safewater/afforddh.html
Page 3-14
-------
Safe Drinking Water Information Systems (SDWIS)
^Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Act Information System
Technical Guidance (1998)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Roger Anzollin; 202-260-7282; anzoilin.roger@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R98007 from the Water Resource Center by
calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.html
*Surface Water Treatment Rule (STWR) Data Needs - SDWIS Reporting Requirements (1998)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Tom Poleck; 312-886-2407; poleck.thomas@epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only.
Web Address: www.cpa.gov/safewater/datab/database.litml
^Consolidated Summary of State Reporting Requirements for the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) (release no.2)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Roger Anzollin, 202-260-7282; anzollin.roger@epa.gov
Copies Available: Through contact only
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/conssumm.pdf
Source Water Protection
*State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance (1997)
Applicability: Regions, states. Only the guidance pertaining to the assessment program is core.
Contact: Roy Simon; 202-260-7777; simon.roy@epa.gov.
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA 816R97009 from the Water Resource Center
by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/swappg.html
Page 3-15
-------
&VL Rules and Guidances Issued/To Be Issued in FY 00 (By Major Activity)
Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program
PWSS Water Supply Guidance Manual (February 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, Tribes, drinking water systems
Contact: Stacey Werbiskis; 202-260-6781; werbiskis.stacey@epa.gov
Copies Available: Using publication number EPA816R00003 order from the Water Resource
Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail: center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater
Data Verification Protocol (August 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: George (Ray) Enyeart 202-260-5551; enyeart.georgeffiepa.gov
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
*DWSRFRegulations - Interim Final (April 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kimberley Roy, 202-260-2794; roy.kimberley@epa.gov
Public Notification Rule
*Public Notification: Final Rule (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Carl Reeverts; 202-260-7273; reeverts.carl@epa.gov
Draft Implementation Guidance for the Public Notification Rule (April 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Kathleen Williams, 202-260-2589; williams.kathleena@epa.gov
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
^Partnership Agreement for the Implementation of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Chuck Job; 202-260-7084; job.charles@epa.gov
Page 3-16
-------
Stage 1 D/DBP and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules
implementation Guidance for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the
Stage 1 D/DBP Rule (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Jennifer Melch; 202-260-7035; mekh.jennifer(2),epa.gov
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
*State Implementation Guidance for Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions (April 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite; 202-260-0713; cronkhite.leslie@epa.gov
How to Determine Compliance -with Optimal Water Quality Parameters as Revised by the Lead
and Copper Rule Minor Revisions: Guidance Manual (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite; 202-260-0713; cronkhite.lesliefgteua.gov
Monitoring Waivers under the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions for Systems Serving 3,300
or Fewer People: Guidance Manual (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite; 202-260-0713; cronkhtte.leslie@,epa.gov
How the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions Have Changed Notification and Reporting
Requirements for Partial Lead Service Line Replacement: Guidance Manual (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite; 202-260-0713, cronkhite.leslieffiepa.gov
Lead and Copper Compliance Dates: Guidance Manual (March 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite, 202-260-0713; cronkhite.leslie@.epa.gov
Ground Water Rule
^Ground Water Rule: Ground Water Rule: Final Rule (November 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric@epa.gov
Draft Implementation Guidance for the Ground Water Rule (May 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Kathleen Williams; 202-260-2589; williams.kathleenaffflepa.gov
Page 3-17
-------
Long Term 1 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule/Filter Backwash Rule
(LT1FBR)
*Long Term 1 Rule: Final Rule (November 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: JefFRobichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieffffiepa.gov
*Filter Back wash Rule: Final Rule (November 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jeff Robichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieff@.epa.gov
Draft Implementation Guidance for LT1FBR (November 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley; 202-260-0875; folev.nicole@.epa.gov
MTBE Rule
*National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation for MTBE (December 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Rachel Sakata, 202-260-2527, sakata.rachel@epa.gov
Radon Rule
*National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Radon: Final Rule (August 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Sylvia Malm; 202-260-4107; malm.sylvia@epa.gov
Draft Implementation Guidance for Radon (August 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley; 202-260-0875; folev. nicolefgiepa. gov
Radionuclides Rule
Notice of Data Availability for Radionuclides other than Radon (March 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Bill Labiosa; 202-260-4835; labiosa.william(g>.epa.goy
Draft Implementation Guidance for Radionuclides (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Ed Thomas, 202-260-0910, thomas.edwin@epa.gov
Page 3-18
-------
Underground Injection Control
^Implementation Guidance for the Class V Rule (May 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delehanty. robyn@epa.gov
Small Entity Compliance Guide for Owners and Operators of Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells (June 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delehanty. robvn@epa. gov
Technical Assistance Document for Determining a Stormwater Drainage Well from a Motor
Vehicle Waste Disposal Well (June 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delehanty .robvnfmepa.gov
Technical Assistance Document for Converting Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells to another
Class V Well (June 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; delehanty. robvn@epa. gov
Technical Assistance Document for Implementing Class V Well Rule on Tribal Lands (June
2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, small businesses
Contact: Robyn Delehanty; 202-260-1993; ddehantv.robvnffiepa.gov
Source Water Protection
Technical Assistance Document on the Definition of Source Water Protection and Critical
Aspects for States' Implementation of Source Water Protection (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, local communities
Contact: Roy Simon; 202-260-7777; simon.roy@.epa. gov
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
^Revised Reporting Requirements for Phases I-V Rule in SDWIS (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Robert Burns; 404-562-9456; burns.robcrt@eDa.gov
*Reporting Requirements for Source Water Assessments (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, primacy states
Contact: Roy Simon; 202-260-7777; simon.roy@epa.gov
Page 3-19
-------
Page 3-20
-------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
I. Vision
The role of Office of Science and Technology programs is to provide training, guidance
and technical tools to help State, Tribal and local watershed managers protect human health and
maintain and improve the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. The tools and
guidances help environmental managers implement Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
programs and meet commitments under the Clean Water Action Plan.
The Office's priorities focus on strengthening and modernizing the basic structure of the
water quality standards program. We will work with states and tribes to put in place improved
processes for developing, adopting, and improving water quality standards as well as strengthen
their scientific basis. We will work with states to establish mutually-accepted commitments and
schedules to conduct triennial reviews of water quality standards within the three-year review cycle
required by the Clean Water Act. We will also work with states and tribes to reduce and
eventually eliminate the backlog of water quality standards actions. By expanding the suite of
criteria and working with states/tribes to adopt the appropriate criteria, we will strengthen the
program's scientific base for managing water resources on a watershed basis. Applying strong
water quality standards and implementation procedures on a watershed basis should result in
reduced exposure to microbial and other contaminants in recreational waters, reduced
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish, and reduced stress on aquatic communities. We
will also be working in partnership with our stakeholders to select and develop effluent guidelines
regulations that will reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants into our waters and discharges from
feedlots and urban storm water.
One of the highest priorities of the drinking water program is to protect the public health
of all Americans by ensuring that the water is safe to drink. It is critical that the program sets
drinking water regulations based on good science and data and sound risk assessment. We will
continue to provide scientific support for these regulations, including risk assessments for
contaminant selection and regulation.
//. Key Strategies
The National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, published in the
Federal Register on June 25, 1998
When waterbody-type guidance and nutrient criteria are established, the Agency will assist states
and tribes in adopting numerical nutrient criteria into water quality standards by the end of 2003.
National default nutrient criteria will be published by the Agency for four types of water bodies
across 14 ecoregions starting in 2000. Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to
include water quality criteria fir nutrients, EPA's Office of Water will recommend tho the
Page 3-21
-------
Administrator that she act under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. This action will assure
that the protective criteria for nutrients apply in all states no later than 3 years after the National
default criteria are published.
Applicability: Regions, States, and Tribes
Contact: Robert Cantilli, 202-260-5546, Cantilli.Robert@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Robert Cantilli
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/June/Day-25/wl6941.htm
EPA Plan For Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/600/R-98/079.
The "Beach Plan" is a multi-year strategy for reducing the risks of infection to users of recreational
water through improved recreational water quality programs, risk communication, and scientific
advances. The plan promotes consistent management of recreational water quality programs and
improves the science that supports water monitoring programs. To support these objectives, EPA
will identify needs and deficiencies in recreational water programs, assist states/Tribes in
strengthening their recreational water quality standards, and work with local managers in their
transition to the recommended criteria. We will issue guidance on managing risk and using
Agency-developed monitoring methods and indicators at recreational waters. Improving the
science that supports recreational water monitoring programs includes research into rapid
analytical methods and better indicators of enteric pathogens, evaluation of modeling and
monitoring tools, and research on exposure and health effects. The transition to E. Coli and
enterococci indicators will be a priority for the triennial reviews of water quality standards that will
occur in FY2000-02. Beginning with FY 2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices will
develop management agreements that will include commitments to have states and tribes adopt the
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. Where a state does not amend its water
quality standards to include the 1986 criteria, EPA will act under Section 303(c) of the Clean
Water Act to promulgate the criteria with the goal of assuring the 1986 criteria apply in all states
not later than 2003.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes and local communities
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, 202-260-0642, Hoffmann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies Available: With the title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/BEACH Watch
Interim Final Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan; published June 1998
The Plan sets out EPA's commitments to develop and enhance important scientific and technical
tools that will strengthen and modernize the water quality criteria and standards program. The
plan defines key objectives and activities to be undertaken over the next decade. A number of
these activities build upon ongoing efforts, while others are new and yet to be started.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Bill Swietlik, 202-260-9569, Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Bill Swietlik
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/criplan615.pdf
IU. Key Grant Guidance (N/A)
Page 3-22
-------
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances (those issued in the last year are noted new)
- 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia, Notice of Availability, 64
FR 71973, and criteria document, EPA-822-R-99-014, December 22. 1999. Contains EPA's
recommended ammonia criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. These criteria are
EPA's recommendations for states, territorities, and authorized tribes to use as guidance in
adopting water quality standards. The 1999 Update incorporates revisions made in response to
comment on the 1998 Update and supercedes all previous freshwater ammonia criteria. The
adoption of numeric criteria for ammonia will be a priority for the triennial reviews of water quality
standards that will occur in FY 2001-2003. Beginning with FY 2001, EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices will develop management agreements that will include commitments to have states
and tribes adopt numeric criteria for ammonia. Where a state does not amend its water quality
standards to include water quality criteria for ammonia that will ensure protection of designated
uses, EPA's Office of Water will recommend to the Administrator that she act under Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act to promulgate numeric criteria with the goal of assuring that the
protective criteria for ammonia apply in all states not later than 2004.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809, thompson.brian@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/
Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
was published and public comments solicited on August 14, 1998. Final revisions are anticipated
for early 2000.
This is the first revision of the methodology since 1980. The revised methodology will give EPA
and the States a more sound scientific basis for developing new or revised ambient water quality
criteria to protect human health. The methodology will incorporate the latest science in important
areas such as fish consumption, bioaccumulation and cancer risk.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Denis Borum
Web A ddress: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/August/Day-14/w21517.htm
Page 3-23
-------
^National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
A compilation of recommended water quality criteria for approximately 150 pollutants to protect
human health and aquatic life.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Cindy Roberts, 202-260-2787, roberts.cindy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Cindy Roberts
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/wqcriteria.pdf
Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on MtBE
Developed to support the immediate needs for information by state and local drinking water
facilities and public health personnel on MtBE contamination of potable water.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Rita Schoeny, 202-260-7579, Schoeny.Rita@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Rita Schoeny
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/MtBEaa.pdf
Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Streams and Small Rivers, published 1996
Published to provide States and Tribes information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that support water quality decisions for streams and
small rivers.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Jackson, 202-260-1800, jackson.susank@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Susan Jackson
Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Lakes and Reservoirs, published 1998
Published to provide States and Tribes information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that support water quality decisions for lakes and
reservoirs.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epamail.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact William Swietlik
•^new-Draft Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Salt Water: Cape Cod to
Cape Hatteras)
EPA draft recommended ambient water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life in marine
waters from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. Criteria can also be applied to other waters where same
3Those strategies and guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the
Regional Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing
to a work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and
strategies.
Page 3-24
-------
species are present or site specific data is available. Draft published in January 2000; scheduled for
final publication later in 2000.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Erik Winchester, 202-260-6107, Winchester.erik@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Erik Winchester
*Guidancefor Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume I:
Sampling and Analysis. Second Edition EPA 823-R-95-007
The Sampling and Analysis volume provides the latest information on sampling strategies for a
contaminant monitoring program and on selecting target species; selecting chemicals as target
analytes; and processing, preserving, and shipping samples. The volume also covers sample
analysis and data reporting and analysis.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and other Federal Agencies
Contact: JeffBigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidancefor Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume II:
Risk Assessments and Consumption Limits. Second Edition EPA 823-B-97-009
This volume provides guidance on the development of risk-based meal consumption limits for 25
high-priority chemical contaminants (target analytes) selected based on their documented
occurrences in fish and shellfish, persistence in the environment, potential for bioaccumulation, and
toxicity to humans.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: JeffBigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidance for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys, EPA-823-B-98-007
This document provides explicit instructions for selecting a survey approach and designing a
survey to obtain consumption rate information. It emphasizes the importance of objectives in
selecting a survey approach and designing the survey; provides selection criteria for choosing
among survey approaches; and critically evaluates key components in survey design and methods,
including question development, statistical analysis, quality assurance/quality control, and data
interpretation. A statistician should also be consulted to provide advice on specific sampling and
statistical analysis considerations. The survey information can then be used to evaluate risk to
persons who consume organisms that may contain bioaccumulative chemicals at potentially
Page 3-25
-------
dangerous levels and to develop consumption advisories and water quality standards that protect
human health.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: JeffBigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish
*Guidance to States, Tribes and Regions on Priorities for the Water Quality Standards Program
for FY2000-2002, EPA-823-B-99-005
The FY 2000-2002 Water Quality Standards priorities are designed to strengthen and modernize
the Water Quality Standards program and the management of water resources on a watershed
basis. The priorities have four organizing themes:
• Strengthen and modernize the basic structure of the water quality standards program;
• Improve the process for developing, adopting and approving water quality standards;
• Strengthen the scientific basis of water quality standards; and
• Expand the water quality standards program's implementation in Indian Country.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Marjorie Pitts, 202-260-1304, pitts.marjorie@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards
*Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition 1994. EPA 823/B-94-005
This document supports the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131, as amended) and
provides direction for states and Tribes as they develop, review, revise, and implement water
quality standards. The Handbook also presents evolving program concepts designed to reduce
human and ecological risks such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife,
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired biological communities in
aquatic ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Shippen, 202-260-1329, shippen.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI) (1-800-490-9198)
*Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Cooperation Under
the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, 63 FR 2742-2757, January 15, 1999
Describes procedures for enhancing coordination in the protection of endangered and threatened
species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act's Water Quality
Standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542, leutner.fred@epa.gov
Copies Available: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542
Web Address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces 140.html
Page 3-26
-------
new — Permit Guidance Document for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Point
Source Category
This permit guidance document for bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
facilities is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing NPDES
permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards established as part of the Cluster Rules promulgated April 15, 1998. The
document discusses permitting issues such as in-process compliance points, compliance deadlines,
production definitions, mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP).
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Troy Swackhammer, 202-260-7128, swackhammer.j-troy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not yet available; expected May 2000
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST's website.
new — Permit Guidance Document for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category
(40 CFR Part 439)
This document is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing
NPDES permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the revised
pharmaceutical manufacturing effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated September
21, 1998.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Frank Hund, 202-260-7182, hund.frank@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not yet available in final; expected Spring 2000
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST's website.
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
Describes actions that EPA intends to take to accomplish the following four strategic goals: 1)
prevent the volume of contaminated sediment from increasing; 2) reduce the volume of existing
contaminated sediment; 3) ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are
managed in an environmentally sound manner; and 4) develop scientifically sound sediment
management tools for use in pollution prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged
material management. The Strategy is comprised of six component sections: assessment,
prevention, remediation, dredged material management, research, and outreach. Each section
describes EPA actions to accomplish the four broad strategic goals.
Applicability: EPA Program Offices and Regional Offices
Contact: Jane Marshall Farris, 202-260-8897, farris.jane@epa.gov
Copies Available: Copies of EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (document
number EPA-823-R-98-001) are available from the EPA National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information 800-490-9198
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/cs/
*Inland Testing Manual
Contains up-to-date procedures to implement requirements in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines for evaluation of potential contaminant-related impacts associated with the
discharge of dredged material in fresh, estuarine, and saline (near coastal) waters. Formally titled
Page 3-27
-------
"Evaluation of Dredged material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual",
it was prepared by a joint Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Workgroup. The Inland Testing Manual provides a national testing framework which comprises
one element of an overall decision-making process for determining whether dredged material can
be discharged into Clean Water Act Section 404 waters.
Applicability: EPA Headquarters and Regions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, States, Dredged
Material Dischargers
Contact: Michael Kravitz 202-260-8085, kravitz.michael@epa.gov
Copies Available: Printed Copies are not currently available but the document is available for
viewing and printing on the Internet in both PDF and HTML format.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/pubsATM.html
new - BASINS Version 2. 1 : Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources,
EPA-823-B-98-006 November 1998 (Y2K Compliant version upgrade December 1999).
BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system for use by regional, state, and local
agencies in performing watershed and water-quality-based studies. It was developed to facilitate
examination of environmental information, to support analysis of environmental systems, to
provide a framework for examining management alternatives, and to support the development of
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes, and Local Governments
Contact: Russell Kinerson, 202-260-1330, kinerson.russell@epa.gov
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications, 800-490-9198; NTIS
PB99-121295, 800-553-6847.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/basins
* National Coordination of EPA 's Water Quality Standards Actions. Tudor Davies,
Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, April 20, 1998
This memorandum sets forth a process to achieve an increased level of coordination and
communication to provide consistent, defensible, and appropriately protective EPA decisions on
water quality standards. The memorandum includes attached Guidelines for National
Coordination of EPA 's Water Quality Standards Actions, which outline a process for
Headquarters and Regions to follow in water quality standards reviews, approvals/disapprovals,
and promulgations.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions
Contact: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542, leutner.fred@epa.gov
Copies Available: From the Office of Science and Technology
Web Address: None (since this is internal EPA guidance)
new - Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates - Second Edition.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing procedures for testing freshwater
organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the potential toxicity or bioaccumulation of chemicals in whole
sediments. This second edition updates methods originally published in 1994 (EPA/600/6-94/024).
The second edition of the manual includes new methods for evaluating sublethal effects of
sediment-associated contaminants utilizing long-term sediment exposures. Procedures are described
Page 3-28
-------
for testing the freshwater organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the potential toxicity or
bioaccumulation of chemicals in whole sediments.
EPA prepared the Freshwater Manual in response to a need for more consistent methods to determine
whether sediments have the potential to affect aquatic ecosystems. More than ten (10) federal statutes
provide authority to many USEPA program offices to address the problem of contaminated sediment.
The sediment test methods in this manual will be use by USEPA to make decisions under a range of
authorities concerning such issues as: dredged material disposal, registration of pesticides, assessment
of new and existing industrial chemicals, Superfund site assessment, and assessment and cleanup of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, and tribes
Contact: Scott Ireland, 202-260-6091, Ireland. Scott@.epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH., 45242 by phone at 1-800-490-9198 or on their web
site at www.epa.gov/ncepihom/orderpub.html.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost
— Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose Of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs and the Appendix. These documents serve as a status and needs
summary of the use of available bioaccumation testing and interpretation methods and data. These
data were compiled by members of the EPA Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup. These documents
were prepared to respond to increased interest in the fate and effects or persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic (PBT) pollutants, as evidence by the development of EPA's multimedia PBT Strategy. The
purpose of these documents is to describe existing knowledge on the use of bioaccumulation data as
part of sediment quality assessments. These documents provide a comprehensive summary of existing
knowledge on bioaacumlation; provide a compilation of exposure and effects data for persistent,
bioaccumlative chemicals; discusses factors that affect the bioavailability of sediment-associated
contaminants; identifies how various programs use bioaccumulation data for sediment management
decisions and identifies issues and research needs for interpreting bioaccumulation data for the purpose
of assessing sediment quality.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions States, Tribes
Contact: Richard Healy 202-260-7812, healy.richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)(1 -800-490-9 1 98)
Page 3-29
-------
Page 3-30
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS & WATERSHEDS
/. Vision
The Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, through its Regional and state partners,
will continue to promote adoption and implementation of the watershed approach, particularly
through continued emphasis on meeting commitments under the Clean Water Action Plan. We
expect significantly new levels of protection to be afforded through upcoming revisions to the
TMDL program, and we expect more accurate and consistent data to result from 305(b)
enhancements. Regions should be working with states to support monitoring consistency efforts,
to implement their recently upgraded nonpoint source management and control programs, to
complete their coastal nonpoint pollution control programs, and to ensure the development and
implementation of high-quality Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS), including
through funding of WRAS-related projects with increased levels of §319 grant funds.
We will continue to develop and expand partnerships to enhance the protection of our
Nation's coastal and ocean resources. The Coastal Watershed Protection Strategy will promote
increased and improved coordination among EPA's water and air programs, including
implementation of the National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans, to protect our coastal resources. The dredging program will also emphasize partnership
opportunities through the coordinating functions of the National Dredging Team, the Regional
Dredging Teams, the formation of Local Planning Groups, and through efforts to identify and
implement projects that will re-use dredged materials in an environmentally sound/beneficial way.
Additional emphasis will be placed on efforts to better coordinate actions to control and manage
invasive species, monitor marine debris, protect coral reefs, and control pollutants from vessels.
The Wetlands program will restore and maintain the nation's waters including wetlands by
effectively implementing EPA's responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by
encouraging and enabling the incorporation of wetlands protection and restoration into watershed
planning efforts undertaken by States, Tribes or local entities. EPA will serve: 1) as a partner
supporting protection efforts to conserve wetlands, shallow waters and free-flowing streams
through our programs and authorities; 2) as a regulator developing and implementing fair, flexible
and effective wetlands standards and policies; 3) as a promoter and developer of tools for assessing
wetlands health and extent; 4) as a developer and distributor of sound scientific information for
wetland and watershed decision-making; 5) as a supporter and proponent of effective State, Tribal
and local wetlands protection and restoration programs; and 6) as a catalyst for cultivating
community interest in developing wetland and aquatic ecosystem protection strategies on a
watershed basis.
Page 3-31
-------
//. Key Strategies
The Administration's Wetlands Plan
The Clinton Administration convened an interagency working group to address concerns with
Federal wetland policy After hearing from States, developers, farmers, environmental interests,
members of Congress, and scientists, the working group developed a comprehensive, 40-point plan
to enhance wetland protection while making wetland regulations more fair, flexible, and effective.
The plan was issued on August 24, 1993. The Plan emphasizes improving Federal wetland policy
by: streamlining wetlands permitting programs; increasing cooperation with private landowners to
protect and restore wetlands; basing wetland protection on good science and sound judgement;
and increasing participation by States, Tribes, local governments, and the public in wetlands
protection.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community, general public
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlandsAVetPlan/index.html
Nonpoint Sources: Picking Up the Pace; Strategy for Strengthening State Nonpoint Source
Program (October, 1998)
Sets forth a strategy for more effectively linking existing authorities under the Clean Water Act,
other air and water programs at EPA and related programs of other Federal agencies to accelerate
the prevention and control of nonpoint source pollution. Many, but not all, elements of the strategy
have been included in the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112); email: tuller.stu@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/nsfsnsm/index.html
Coastal Watershed Protection Strategy
Describes the mission, goals, objectives and organization of EPA's coastal Management Branch,
and provides the Branch with a framework for facilitating improved coordination between EPA
offices on coastal management issues.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Jessica Cogan (202-260-7154); cogan.jessica@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (202-260-1952)
Web Address: not available on Internet.
* 4
TMDL Regulations/Guidance
Proposed TMDL regulations [based in part on recommendations issued by the TMDL FACA
committee] were published in August 1999. The comment period on these regulations closed in
January 2000 and we anticipate promulgation of final revised TMDL regulations before the end of
"Those strategies and guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the
Regional Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing
to a work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and
strategies.
Page 3-32
-------
FY2000. After the new TMDL regulations are finalized, we will subsequently issue new general
TMDL program guidance.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
* New Policies for Establishing and Implementing TMDLs (August 8, 1997).
Sets forth fundamental EPA policies in two key areas: schedules for establishing TMDLs for all
303(d)-listed waters and implementation of TMDLs for waters impaired solely or primarily by
nonpoint sources.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Jendayi Oakley-Gordon (202-260-7074)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/ratepace.html
Key Grant Guidances
- Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY
2000 (December 21, 1999)
Provides guidance on the use of Section 319 funds in FY 2000 for animal feeding operations,
lakes, watershed restoration action strategies, and American Heritage Rivers. Also reiterates that
States need to complete their nonpoint source program upgrades in order to be eligible to receive
incremental funds in FY 2000.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/fy2000.html
- Guidance on Awarding Section 319 Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2000 (December 27,
1999)
Provides guidance for awarding increased amounts of Section 319 dollars to Tribes. Increases the
amount available to Tribes from 0.33% of the total 319 allocation to 1.25% (i.e., from $666,666 to
$2,500,000). Establishes base funding of $30,000 per eligible Tribe (i.e., has an approved
nonpoint source assessment and management program), and establishes a process to distribute the
remaining funds on a competitive basis in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $150,000.
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Ed Drabkowski (202-260-7009)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address: hup ://www. epa.gov/owow/nps/tribes/tribes20 . html
Process and Criteria for Funding State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs
in FY 1999 (August 18, 1998)
Provides additional guidance on the use of increased funds (from $105 million in FY 1998 to $200
million in FY 1 999) for the implementation of state, territorial and tribal nonpoint source
management programs in FY 1999. Discusses the use of incremental funds to support
Page 3-33
-------
implementation of actions called for in Watershed Restoration Action Strategies developed in
conjunction with Unified Watershed Assessments carried out by the States, Territories and Tribes
pursuant to the Clean Water Action Plan.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://\vww.epa.gov/owow/nps/section319/fV99guid.html
Funding the Development and Implementation of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies under
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (December 4, 1998)
Provides more detailed guidance on the award and use of the incremental amount of Section 319
grants to support implementation of actions called for in Watershed Restoration Action Strategies
developed by the States, Territories and Tribes in response to the Clean Water Action Plan.
Clarifies that incremental funds are to be used to fund activities in watersheds identified as not
meeting clean water and other natural resource goals (Category I watersheds) and should be
focused in those sub-watersheds where nonpoint source control activities are likely to have the
greatest positive effect.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/fyl9992.html
* Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May
1996)
Sets forth the framework for a stronger and more effective partnership between EPA and state
lead agencies to guide the upgrading and implementation of dynamic, effective state nonpoint
source programs. Provides guidance on developing priorities and ensuring effective use and
management of annual Clean Water Act Section 319 program grants to States, Territories and
Tribes.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112); email: tuller.stu@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/guide.html
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (January 1993)
Sets forth the program elements and other requirements which coastal states with Federally
approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs must include in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Programs (CNPCP) in order to achieve joint EPA and NOAA approval of their programs
and continue to be fully eligible for annual program grants under Section 319 of the CWA and
Section 6217 of CZARA.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (EPA) (202-260-710
Page 3-34
-------
National Estuary Program Grant Guidance
This guidance provides annual funding levels to the 28 estuary projects in the National Estuary
Program. Updated and issued annually, the guidance may also clarify any program issues that arise
from year to year.
Applicability: Regions and Estuary Programs
Contact: Nancy Laurson (202-260-1698); laurson.nancy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet
Wetland Program Development Grants
These grants assist state, tribal and local government (S/T/LG) agencies in wetlands protection,
management and restoration efforts. Grant funds can be used to develop new wetland programs
or refine existing wetland programs. EPA must ensure that the grant funds are directed toward
activities that result in demonstrated progress in achieving the objective of improving S/T/LG
wetland programs.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes, local governments, intergovernmental organizations
Contact: Shanna Draheim, (202) 260-6218, draheim.shanna@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/2000grant/
Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grants
The Five-Star Restoration Program provides modest financial assistance to support community-
based wetland and riparian restoration projects to build diverse partnerships, and to foster local
natural resource stewardship. The "stars" in "Five-Star" are the partners, flinders, and/or
participants necessary to complete the restoration project, including youth organizations, county
governments, corporations, and others. The projects will include strong environmental education
and on-the-ground habitat restoration components, and may also include outreach and community
stewardship.
Applicability: Regions, states, local governments, non-profit organizations
Contact: John Pai, (202) 260-8076, pai.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances
Final Framework for Unified Watershed Assessments, Restoration Priorities, and Restoration
Action Strategies (June 9, 1998)
Provides guidance for preparation of Unified Watershed Assessments (UWA) and Watershed
Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) by states and tribes. These are key elements of the Clean
Water Action Plan that provides a cooperative approach to restoring and protecting water quality.
State, federal, tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and interested citizens
Page 3-3 5
-------
to (1) identify watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resources goals and (2) work
cooperatively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to solve these problems.
Applicability: Federal agencies, Regions, States, Tribes, local governments, watershed
groups, industries, farmers
Contact: Greg Gwaltney; 202-260-9532
Copies Available: Gwaltney at 202-260-9532 or by E-mail at gwaltney.greg@epa.gov
Web Address: www.cleanwater.gov
Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (January, 1993)
Describes the management measures to be implemented within their coastal watersheds by all
coastal states with Federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs as required by Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). A brief
description of the effects of nonpoint source pollution upon surface and ground water and the most
effective management measures and strategies for reducing or preventing such pollution is
provided for five major categories of nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, forestry, urban,
hydromodification and wetlands. Also contains extensive reference lists of additional technical
material and limited cost data. i
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Goo (202-260-7025)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov
Process for Approval of Upgraded State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs
and Formal Recognition of Enhanced Benefits Status (January 7, 1999)
Reviews the process EPA is using to approve upgraded State and Territorial Nonpoint Source
Management Programs and to formally recognize Enhanced Benefits Status as originally outlined
in Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Years 1997 and Future Years (May,
1996). This Guidance also emphasizes the provision in the Clean Water Action Plan which limits
award of the incremental funds (new section 319 monies above the $100 million base amount) to
those states with EPA-approved nonpoint source management program upgrades beginning in FY
2000 and provides a checklist for states to use in ensuring that their program upgrades adequately
address the Nine Key Elements which are the principal criteria for the program upgrades.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stu Tuller (202-260-7112)
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: will shortly be available at the "Clean Water Act 319" button on the NPS
Homepage at: http//www.epa.gov/owow/nps
Final Administrative Changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Guidance for
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) (October
16, 1998)
Sets forth final administrative changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
Guidance resulting from a cooperative effort with the states to resolve outstanding issues for the
coastal nonpoint program, including targeting, enforceable policies and mechanisms, time frames
Page 3-36
-------
and resources. The changes provide substantial flexibility for coastal states, commonwealths and
territories to complete development of their programs, remove conditions placed on program
approval and successfully implement their coastal nonpoint programs, while maintaining the core
principles of the program.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contacts: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788); Marcella Jansen (NOAA) (301-713-3098 ext
143
Copies Available: Joseph P. Flanagan (301-713-3121, x201)
Web Address: http://www.nos.noaa.gov/ocrm/czm/62 1 7/admin_changes.html
* Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305 (b)
Reports) and Electronic Updates: Report Contents and Supplement (September 1997)
Provides detailed guidance on the contents of a State or Tribal 305(b) Report and the methods for
assessing water quality. This document emphasizes approaches for achieving comprehensive
assessments of States and Tribes' waters, enhancing the data quality for assessing aquatic life and
other designated use support, improving the consistency of decision criteria used in assessments,
reporting assessments electronically, and indexing data geographically. This document represents
the consensus of the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and will serve as the guidelines for States and
Tribes to use in preparing their next 305(b) report due April 1, 2000. The May 1999 update will
be in the form of a memorandum clarifying some elements and underscoring key priorities for the
FY2000 reporting cycle, including comprehensive assessments, improved consistency, and linkage
to core performance measure reporting.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
— Guidelines for the Preparation of State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and
Electronic Updates for the 2000 Reporting Cycle (Memo dated June 29, 1999)
This guidance memo reiterates that states, territories, commissions and tribes should follow the
guidelines published in 1997 when preparing their individual reports, due April 1, 2000. EPA
attached a series of fact sheets to the memo to clarify and reinforce areas of focus, for the 2000
report.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria (August, 1998)
Provides managers and field biologists with functional methods and approaches that facilitate the
implementation of viable lake bioassessment and biocriteria programs. This document is organized
in a tiered framework to encourage users to design programs to meet their needs. The document
includes procedures for program design, reference condition determination, field biosurveys,
biocriteria development and data analysis. It also provides information on the application of
Page 3-37
-------
bioassessments in existing programs including 305(b) assessments, NPDES permitting, risk
assessment and watershed management.
Applicability: State, Tribal and other natural resource agencies
Contact: Chris Faulkner (202-260-6228)
Copies Available: Chris Faulkner (202-260-6228)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet
Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material Management Plans (June 1998)
Provides a suggested framework through which local planning groups can develop implementable
long-term dredged material management plans.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Craig Vogt (202-260-1952)
Copies Available: contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/ndt
new/upcoming — Replacement Nationwide Permit
This set of activity-based CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permits, proposed in July 1998 by the
Corps of Engineers in coordination with EPA and other federal resource agencies, will replace
Nationwide Permit #26, which is being phased out in response to concerns about its adverse
environmental effects. The provisions of the replacement permit package ensure impacts are
minimal, while continuing to provide expedited review for certain categories of activities. The
Corps intends to publish replacement nationwide permits for purposes of State and tribal CWA
§401 certification in March 2000, with a goal of final, effective permits in May 2000.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/acenwp.html
upcoming — New Agricultural Wetlands MO A
This MO A, scheduled to be issued in the second quarter of FY2000, will clarify how EPA and the
Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Army and Interior will cooperate to provide farmers with
clear and reliable determinations of the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands on
their properties for Clean Water Act and Farm Bill purposes. Amendments to the Farm Bill
enacted in 1996 and corresponding USDA regulatory and administrative policy changes make it
necessary to replace the original MOA issued by the agencies in 1994.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs.html#PoIicy
^new/upcoming ~ In-lieu-fee Mitigation Guidance
EPA, the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Natural Resource Conservation Service are completing guidance on the use of in-lieu-fee
Page 3-3 8
-------
compensatory mitigation to offset impacts from activities permitted under Clean Water Act Section
404. The guidance will be issued in the second quarter of FY2000.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: John Goodin, (202) 260-9910, goodin.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/
upcoming - Identifying, Planning and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged
Material
Presents a framework for identifying, planning and financing projects to beneficially use dredged
material.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Sharon Lin (202-260-1952); lin.sharon@epa.gov
Copies Available: copies not yet available — expected by late spring 2000
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
^upcoming — EPA/Corps Joint Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup for Dredged Material
Management Program
The EPA and Corps are jointly forming this workgroup on bioaccumulation assessment and
interpretation for implementation of the dredged material management program (under both the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103, and the Clean Water Act Section
404). The primary objective of this workgroup is to provide guidance on using bioaccumulation
data to make regulatory decisions in the dredged material management program.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Dave Redford (202-260-1952); redford.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: First Draft Guidance Document - expected by the end of 2000
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.
- EPA/Corps Guidance to the Field on Protecting Coral Reefs under the CWA Section 404
andMPRSA programs
This guidance was prepared jointly by the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to
emphasize the protection afforded the Nation's valuable coral reef ecosystems under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404 regulatory program, the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) Sections 102 and 103 provisions, Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA)
Section 10 requirements, and Federal Projects conducted by the Corps.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Laura Johnson (202-260-3597); johnson.laura.s@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/coralNav.html
Page 3-39
-------
Page 3-40
-------
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
/. Vision
The primary role of the wastewater management program will continue to be to control
point source discharges to the Nation's waters through the NPDES permits program. In addition,
we will continue our support for States and communities as they address the Nation's pressing
wastewater treatment needs through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF).
Effective management of these programs is essential if we are to maintain the gains we have made
in water quality and address emerging sources of pollution that threaten the health of our waters.
The priorities of the Office of Wastewater Managementwill be tied closely to achieving the
ambitious goals set forth in the President's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP). In particular, we
will work to address various wet weather sources such as Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs),
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), stormwater, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and
silviculture. We will also work on integrating wet weather programs into a watershed approach.
Effective management of the base NPDES program will also be a priority, including efforts to
reduce unacceptably high permit backlogs in many areas and improving the quality of NPDES
permits to meet water quality standards . The CWSRF program will continue to provide funding
for wastewater treatment needs in a timely and efficient manner.
All of our efforts are driven by the need to achieve improvements in water quality through
a substantial reduction of loadings from point sources over the next 5 years. Meeting this goal will
pose many challenges, many of them relating to our ability to obtain reliable and consistent data.
We will work to improve to quality in national data systems and to assess the need for other
sources of data, including modeling where appropriate.
II. Key Strategies
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding & the Clean Water Action Plan
This strategy helps link CWSRF as a financial resource for implementation of many of the key
actions in the CWAP. Several activities are currently underway:
4 "Financing Clean Water Action Plan Activities" is a funding matrix developed to
demonstrate the CWSRF/CWAP connection. The matrix detailslS key actions that
may benefit from CWSRF assistance. It also provides program and contact
information for many other funding sources available for financing these key
actions. (Includes programs from EPA, USDA, HUD, DOC, and DOI.)
4 A series of fact sheets is being developed which will further detail how the CWSRF
can be used to implement the key actions described in the aforementioned funding
matrix. Fact sheets on using the CWSRF to fund polluted runoff, AFOs, wetlands,
and estuary projects have already been issued.
Page 3-41
-------
4 The Administration has proposed a discretionary 20% nonpoint source and estuary
management grant from the CWSRF in FY 2000. The grant, along with low
interest loans, will help states implement Watershed Restoration Action Strategies.
The proposed grant will cover up to 60% of a projects costs. States using the grant
option will be required to use an Integrated Project Priority List (IPPL) that
considers wastewater, nonpoint source, and estuary projects together to direct
funds towards the highest priority water quality projects. In 1996, EPA
recommended a framework for states to use when funding nonpoint source and
estuary projects with the CWSRF. Two alternative approaches to IPPLs have
already been negotiated with the states.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-260-9762
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo. srcnip^pa. pt >vV by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 260-7360.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework Strategy
This strategy supports the Office of Water's watershed approach to managing its environmental
programs. The Framework is designed to help states set priorities and demonstrate the relative
importance of both point and nonpoint source projects to meeting their water quality goals.
Through a series of regional workshops, EPA is assisting states to develop integrated priority
setting systems and linking their CWSRF programs to watershed planning efforts.
Applicability: States
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-260-9762
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo.gr(nip'(?'.epa.gov\ by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 260-7360.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
*5 Construction Grants Close Out Strategy
This strategy, issued in June 1997, is the road map for closing out the remaining projects in the
municipal wastewater treatment construction grants program under Title II of the Clean Water
Act. Each Region has an input to the yearly updates to the strategy, and is responsible for meeting
close out goals in a given fiscal year. MSD provides oversight and direction of the program,
reporting progress on a regular basis to the EPA Administrator, IG, and OW, as well as outside
agencies such as GAO.
The ultimate goal of the strategy is for all regions to have closed out their construction grants
programs by the end of FY 2002. Success is defined by there being no more than 10 projects left to
be closed out in a region, with no more than 5 projects left in any state within the region.
Although the June 1997 strategy generally defined how the construction grants program was to
5Those strategies and guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the
Regional Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing
to a work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked guidances and
strategies.
Page 3-42
-------
proceed to closeout and defined success in the process, certain aspects of the project universe
needed further clarification. As District of Columbia and territories are still receiving State
Revolving Fund (SRF) money as grants, the number of grants to be closed needed further
clarification. On May 6, 1999, clarifications to the post-1997 construction grants closeout strategy
was issued. This supplemental guidance clarified that all grants awarded prior to FY 1992 (pre-92)
will be targeted for close out by FY 2002. The grants made after FY 1991 (post-91), especially
those made with post FY 1990 funds in the territories that receive Title VI funds as Title II grants,
will be targeted to be administratively completed within 5 years of grant award and closed out
within 7 years of grant award. According to Office of Water Management Agreement at the end
of FY 2000, 123 pre-92 grants will remain to be closed out. It is expected that by the end of FY
2001 and FY 2002, 45 and 13 pre-92 grants respectively will be left for close out. The
construction grants closeout goal is to achieve success as defined in the 1997 strategy by FY
2002. Region wise break down is given below.
Remaining Pre-92 Construction Grant Projects
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Country Total
At the end of FY 2000
11
30
31
15
24
1
2
2
5
2
123
At the end of FY 2001
4
15
6
8
9
0
1
0
0
2
45
At the end of FY 2002
0
1
6
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
13
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bill Hasselkus, 202-260-3707, hasselkus.william@.epa. gov
Copies Available: Contact Bill Hasselkus.
Web Address: Not available.
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Strategy
EPA will promote the use, where appropriate, of centralized management of decentralized
wastewater systems. This initiative will include financial and technical support of state, tribal, and
decentralized wastewater programs so that they are consistently managed and administered. EPA
will, together with regions, states and other stakeholders, develop voluntary national standards for
onsite management programs that address siting, performance, design, and maintenance of these
systems. EPA will also fund projects that demonstrate how to overcome barriers to decentralized
Page 3-43
-------
sewage management. In addition, guidance will be published on the appropriate use of state loan
funds to support these systems. This work is a part of the Clean Water Action Plan and was
identified in the Response to Congress on Decentralized Wastewater Treatment.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Joyce Hudson, 202-260-1290, hudson.iovce@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm
Biosolids Strategy
The goal of the Biosolids Management Strategy is to have an effective national biosolids
management program. This goal is to be achieved through numerous coordinated activities
including: developing sound, scientifically defensible regulations governing the use and disposal of
biosolids; developing a database management system to store and analyze biosolids information;
promoting beneficial use consistent with the Agency's Policy on Municipal Sludge Management
issued in 1984 and section 405(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act; recognizing outstanding
achievements through the annual awards program; conducting surveys of biosolids quality; and
working with the National Biosolids Partnership to develop and implement environmental
management systems (EMS) for biosolids.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: John Walker, 202-260-7283, walker .iohnfgtepa.eov
Copies Available: Contact John Walker.
* Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy, April 1994
The CSO Policy establishes a consistent national approach for controlling CSOs through the
NPDES permit program. The Policy calls for communities with combined sewer systems to take
immediate and long-term actions to address CSO problems. The immediate actions, called the
"nine minimum controls," include proper operation and maintenance of the sewer system, public
notification of CSO risks, and control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs. Longer-term
actions may require extensive study, design, and capital investment and will provide for attainment
of water quality standards and other Clean Water Act requirements.
Applicability: States, municipalities
Contact: Tim Dwyer (202) 260-6064
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/csopol.htm
* Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), March 1999
The Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, developed jointly by the
Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, will employ a range of
flexible, common-sense tools to reduce potentially harmful runoff from 450,000 animal feeding
operations nationwide. The Strategy discusses: (1) the relationships between AFOs and
environmental and public health; (2) is based on a national performance expectation for all AFO
owners and operators; and presents a series of actions to minimize public health impacts and
improve water quality while complementing the long-term sustainability of livestock production.
Applicability: States, animal feeding facilities
Contact: Will Hall 260-1458
Web Address: httiv/Avww.epa.gov/owm/fmafost.htm
Page 3-44
-------
* The draft Endangered Species Act MO A, published in the Federal Register January 15. 1999
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) have
developed a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) explaining how the three agencies will
work together to achieve the complementary goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The MOA's objectives include improving federal coordination to
protect at-risk species while ensuring that States and Tribes remain primarily responsible for
implementing the requirements of the CWA. The Agency believes this national guidance will assist
EPA and Service regional and field offices in working together more efficiently and effectively.
EPA and the Services expect to finalize the MO A sometime Spring 2000.
Applicability: States, other Federal agencies
Contact: Tom Charlton (202) 260-6960
Web Address: http://www.epa.goV/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/l 999/January/Day-15/e 1029.htm
* Reduce the Backlog in NPDES Permits
In a memo dated May 4, 1999, the AA for Water established the following quantitative targets for
reducing the backlog:
- The backlog of major permits will be reduced to 20 percent by the end of calendar year 1999
- The backlog of major permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2001
- The backlog for all permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2004
Over the past year, the Agency worked closely with State and Regional partners to formulate a
comprehensive strategy the reduce the NPDES permit backlog. The strategy, titled the Interim
Framework to Ensure Issuance of Timely and High Quality NPDES Permits (Approaches for
Reducing the NPDES Permit Backlog) was issued by OWM on July 28, 1999. The strategy and
the latest backlog trends data are available on the NPDES Backlog Reduction web site.
Applicability: EPA Regions and Authorized States
Contact: David Hair (202) 260-0712
Web Address: http:/7www.epa. gov/owm/permits/backlog/backlog.htm
///. Key Grant Guidances
* Updated — Fiscal Year 2000 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l)
Operator Technical Assistance Grants; from the allocation memorandum of fiscal year 1999
Operator Training Grant Funds.
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is
to provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the
operation, maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also
propose using these funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and technical assistance on
sewer system maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The
Page 3-45
-------
program will assist approximately 776 facilities in fiscal year 2001, the table below represents the
regional breakdown.
Region
Assisted
facilities
1
66
2
30
3
79
4
84
5
170
6
80
7
40
8
92
9
25
10
110
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-260-5806, baranowski . curt@,epa. eov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski.
Web Address: Not applicable for obtaining the guidance document; 104(g)(l) Program web-page
address is http://www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm
* Framework Document for Section 106 State Surface Water Grants
Framework of the procedures and principles for administering and managing the Section 106
surface water grants to States and interstate agencies for FY 1997 and future years.
Applicability: Regions, States, interstate agencies
Contact: Carol Crow, 202-260-6742
Copies Available: Regional State 106 Coordinators
Guidance on the Award of Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106 of the Clean Water
Act for FY2000 and Future Years, August 25, 1999
This guidance provides EPA Regions with a framework of the operating procedures and guidelines
for awarding and administering environmental program grants to federally recognized Indian
Tribes under the authority of Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), for Fiscal Year 2000
and future years. This guidance supersedes the previously issued guidance of June 20, 1995. The
guidance addresses key elements of the CWA Section 106 Tribal Grant Program- program
priorities, eligibilities, funding allocations, cost-sharing, performance evaluation, and progress
reporting.
Applicability: Regions and Tribes
Contact: Clarence Braddock, 202-260-5828
Copies Available: Regional Tribal 106 Coordinators
^Procuring Analytical Services: Guidance for Industrial Pretreatment Programs, October 1998.
EPA developed this guidance to assist POTWs and industrial users on when to use a contract
laboratory rather than perform in house analyses, how to structure requests for analytical services
and how to evaluate laboratory performance. In addition to information on these issues, the
guidance covers the entire laboratory contracting process, from development of the analytical
requirements and solicitation of the contract, to evaluation of laboratories and data review
Applicability: POTWs, laboratories
Copies Available: Water Resources Center
Web Address: http://www.epa.HOv/owmitnet/procure.pdf
Page 3-46
-------
^h* Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, March 1991.
This document provides technical guidance for assessing and regulating the discharge of toxic
substances to the waters of the United States. Special attention should be paid to the procedures
for deriving wasteload allocations for discharges to impaired waters in the absence of a TMDL.
See chapters 3, 5, and case examples in chapter 7. Use of ambient background values is essential.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Greg Currey, (202) 260-1718
IV. New Guidances Issued in the Last Year
Water Conservation Plan Guidelines
On August 6, 1998, EPA issued guidelines for water conservation plans for public water systems.
States may require water systems to submit a water conservation plan consistent with the EPA or
any other guidelines as a condition of receiving a loan under the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF); however, there are no federal requirements. The guidelines contain step-by-step
approaches and conservation measures that can be used by water system planners to develop and
implement plans for water conservation.
Applicability: States, Regions, Tribes, Municipalities
Contact: John E. Flowers, 202-260-7288, flowers.iohn@epa.gov
Copies Available: By Internet and from NCEPI (800-490-9198.) Ask for Document
832-D-98-001.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/genwave.htnv
* Review Standards for Construction Grants Audits, Management Decisions, and Dispute
Resolution
The purpose of this memorandum is to call attention to Congressional Committee report language
regarding the standards of review in the construction grant program audit and dispute resolution
processes, and to provide guidance on the review standards to be used.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Lucille Liem, 202-260-5844, liem.lucille@epa.gov
Copies Available: By Internet and by mail from Lucille Liem, EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 401 M St. SW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/eligfin.htm
* Guidelines and Requirements for Applying for Grants From the Indian Set-Aside Program
Intended to help Indian Tribes apply for and manage grants for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities that are available from EPA under Section 518(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Applicability: Regions, Tribes
Contact: Sylvia Bell, 202-260-7255, bell.svlvia@epa.gov
Copies Available: from Sylvia Bell, EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 401 M St. SW
(4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: Not available.
Page 3-47
-------
* Guide to Using EPA 's Automated Clearing House for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program
Provides information and guidance on how states draw federal cash into their State Revolving
Funds (SRFs) based upon incurred project costs. The Guide provides the cash draw rules,
methodology and numerical examples for each type of allowable SRF assistance.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Stephanie vonFeck, 202-260-9762, vonfeck. stephanie@epa. gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the financial management of the SRF
programs.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Environmental Indicators for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Feasibility Analysis,
Methodology and Resource Document
Provides information and guidance on how environmental indicators are used in water programs ,
throughout the country, how environmental indicators should be developed to document
environmental benefits of the CWSRF and what some proposed indicators for the CWSRF could
be.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu. kong@epa. gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the CWSRF program.
Web Address: Not Available
Choosing a Contract Laboratory, October 1998.
EPA developed this guidance to assist POTWs that want to use contract laboratories to analyze
discharge samples collected from industrial users.
Applicability: POTWs, laboratories
Contact: Robin Danesi (202) 260-2991
Guidance and Standards for Calculating Point Source Pollutant Loads Using the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), August 1997
PCS is the primary repository of data used to determine reductions in pollutant loads to the waters
of the United States, which is needed to measure NPDES and effluent guideline program
performance under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Since PCS data are
being used for purposes other than compliance monitoring, this guidance explains to permit writers
and PCS coders how data will be used to calculate loads. It also presents instances to be avoided,
such as inconsistencies in permit writing and PCS data coding, which lead to improper load
calculations. Permit writers are advised to use this guidance when developing monitoring
requirements in NPDES permits.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Steve Rubin, OECA, (202)-564-7052
Web Address: http:/Avww.epa.gov/owm/pcsguide.htm
Paee 3-48
-------
Guidance Manual for the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements of the NPDES Storm Water
Multi-Sector General Permit, January 1999
This publication describes the storm water discharge monitoring requirements (visual, analytic and
compliance) and analytic monitoring reports required of certain industrial sectors covered by
the Multi-Sector General Permit.
Applicability: States, industry
Contact: Bryan Rittenhouse (202) 260-0592
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/dmr-fin.pdf
Combined Sewer Overflows — Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling, February 1999
This guidance document explains the role of monitoring and modeling in the development and
implementation of a CSO control program. It expands discussions of monitoring and modeling
introduced in the CSO Control Policy and presents examples of data collection and sewer system
simulation activities.
Contact: Tim Dwyer, (202) 260-6064
Copies available: Water Resource Center
Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, February 1999
The intent of this guidance manual is to: (1) provide a reference for anyone interested in
understanding the basics of pretreatment program requirements, and (2) provide a road map to
additional and more detailed guidance materials for those trying to implement specific elements of
the Pretreatment Program.
Contact: Pat Bradley (202) 260-6963
Copies Available: Office of Water Resource Center
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/final99.pdf
"^Guidance Manual for the Control of Wastes Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
September 1999
This guidance is designed to provide information for smaller POTWs, generally those without
pretreatment programs, on how to develop and implement hauled waste controls. The guidance
discusses collection of information on waste haulers, characterization of hauled waste received,
evaluation of potential impacts, and the development and implementation of controls. The
guidance also includes case studies of successful waste hauler programs and example forms.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Copies Available: OWM Web site (http://www.epa.gov/owm/pdfs/hwfinal.pdf): Water Resource
Center
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
&Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance For Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Office
of Water, EPA 833-B-99-002. August 1999
This document represents the first update of USEPA's "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" (1989a). This guidance provides a general
framework for conducting TREs at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and describes the
available methods and procedures that experience to date has shown to be most useful. It is
Page 3-49
-------
designed for POTW staff, consultants, and regulatory staff who are implementing TREs to identify
and reduce or eliminate sources of effluent toxicity.
Applicability: EPA Regions, States, Municipalities, Consultants, Laboratories
Contact: Laura Phillips, (202) 260-9522
Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (PIFT) Spreadsheet and Guidance, Version 1 .0
completed 1 1/99, Version 2.0 to be completed 2/00
EPA is asking EPA Regions to track permit issuance and expiration data for facilities covered by
individual and general NPDES permits, and to project permit issuance over a five year period
(through calendar year 2004). Updated versions of the spreadsheet and guidance (user
instructions) will be distributed approximately once per year, and Regions are to provide data to
headquarters on a quarterly basis.
Applicability: EPA Regions
Contact David Hair (202) 260-0712
Guidance for Using the Biosolids Database Management System
EPA has developed a biosolids database to help Regions, States, POTWs and others manage
biosolids information. This guidance provides documentation for the database and instructions in
its use. Most Regions and many States have already been trained in the use of the database. As a
result of that training, data elements and modifications have been added to make the database work
better for the state and local users.
Applicability: States, Regions, POTWs
Contact: Robert Brobst (303) 313-6129
Web Address: http://www.biosolidsinfo.com
V. Guidance Under Development and Planned Through 2001
Management, Operation and Maintenance Requirements for Sanitary Sewers, 2000
This document will provide guidance to municipalities on how to develop and implement
management programs for sanitary sewer collection systems to comply with NPDES requirements.
Contact: Kevin Weiss, (202) 260-9524
Copies Available: Water Resource Center
^Guidance for Electronic NPDES Application Forms, to accompany electronic versions of
existing NPDES permit application forms, to be completed CYOO
EPA will prepare guidance on how to access and complete the electronic versions of existing
NPDES permit application forms. This guidance will be issued upon availability of electronic
application forms.
Applicability: EPA Regions, States, Municipalities, Industry
Contact: David Hair (202) 260-0712
Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program. The July 1999 draft was
revised (December 3, 1999) and is currently undergoing an EPA peer review. The final document
Page 3-50
-------
is to be publicly released by June 30, 2000 and will be available in the Office of Water docket.
The purpose of this document is to provide regulatory authorities with an understanding of whole
effluent toxicity (WET) test variability, provide guidance to permitting authorities on what they
can do to account for and minimize WET test variability and its effects on the regulatory process,
and identify areas where EPA can further evaluate ways to minimize WET test variability.
Applicability: EPA Regional and States Permit Writers, Regulated Community
Contacts: Debra Denton (415) 744-1919, Alternate: Laura Phillips (202) 260-9522
Draft Interim Clarifications Regarding Toxicity Reduction Evaluations and Toxicity
Identification Evaluations in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program
(NPDES) Regulatory Process memorandum. Memo expected later this year.
Provides clarification on the terms Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) and Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TRE), to explain how these tools are used to control Whole Effluent
Toxicity (WET), and to reiterate guidance on when and under what circumstances a permittee
should conduct a TRE or TIE activities. In addition, the memo will address several technical topic
areas relevant to the TRE/TIE process which EPA has been requested by the regulated community
to address.
Applicability: EPA Regions, States, Regulated Community
Contact: Laura Phillips (202) 260-9522
Draft Policy on the Determination of Reasonable Potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity. Draft
expected later this year.
This draft document will look at stakeholder issues concerning determining reasonable potential
with respect to whole effluent toxicity (WET) for effluents. It goes through the step by step
discussion of the decision making and technical issues when making a WET reasonable potential
determination with respect to the development of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) WET limits, especially when the available valid WET test data is limited or not available.
Applicability: EPA Regional and State Permit Writers, Regulated Community
Contacts: Laura Phillips, HQ (202) 260-9522; Phillip Jennings, EPA Regional Lead (214)
665-7538
^h* Permitting in Impaired Waterbodies Prior to the Establishment of a TMDL, Date of
completion not set.
EPA will clarify existing procedures and requirements and develop, where necessary, new
guidance for deriving NPDES permit limits and conditions for dischargers (new and existing)
located on impaired waterbodies in the absence of a TMDL.
Applicability: Permitting authorities (both States and Regions), regulated entities located on
impaired waterbodies
Contact: Greg Currey (202) 260-1718, Kim Kramer (202) 260-7933
* CAFO Permitting Guidance and Mode I Permits, will be issued in 2000
EPA will develop comprehensive guidance on NPDES permitting of CAFOs including
development of Statewide, individual, and watershed general permits. EPA will also develop
Page 3-51
-------
model Statewide, individual, and watershed general permits. This guidance will answer a number
of policy questions regarding CAFO permits.
Applicability: States, Regions, animal feeding facilities
Contacts: Greg Beatty (202) 260-6929
EPA's NPDES Storm Water Program and TEA-21, should be available in March 2000
Guidance for States, municipalities, environmental and transportation agencies, and transportation
planners to assist them in understanding the link between EPA's NPDES Storm Water Program and
TEA-21.
Applicability: States, Regions, local governments
Contact: Laura Palmer (202) 260-6961
•&Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Guidance, expect publication in FY2001
Updates old guidance on generating effective SWPPPs for complying with the Construction General
Permit and industrial Multi-Sector General Permit.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contacts: Dan Weese (202) 260-6809 or Bryan Rittenhouse.(202) 260-0592
^Technically -Based Local Limits Guidance Manual, expect publication in late 2000
This will update the existing pretreatment guidance which is over 10 years old.
The manual focuses on the general approach for development, re-evaluation, and update of local limits
based on the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) method. Further, it includes data
that may facilitate the process, as well as options for resolving challenges commonly encountered.
This manual does not detail every possible abnormal or unique situation that may arise during local
limits development and re-evaluation, and therefore, is not intended to preclude discussions between
local and oversight agencies to resolve such site-specific issues. The manual does provide examples
of reasonable approaches for applying best professional judgement (BPJ), and therefore, may be of
benefit when making site-specific BPJ decisions.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, industry
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
Guidance Manual for the Control of Waste Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, expect
publication 3rd quarter FY 1999
This guidance is designed to provide information for smaller POTWs, generally those without
pretreatment programs, on how to develop and implement hauled waste controls.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Guidance, expect publication in FY2001
Updates old guidance on generating effective SWPPPs for complying with the Construction General
Permit and industrial Multi-Sector General Permit.
Applicability: States, Regions, industry
Contacts: Dan Weese (202) 260-6809 or Bryan Rittenhouse.(202) 260-0592
Page 3-52
-------
Local Limits Guidance Manual, expect publication in FY2000
This will update the existing pretreatment guidance which is over 10 years old.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, industry
Contact: Jeff Smith (202) 260-5586
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Annual Review Guide
Provides EPA Regional Offices with guidance and direction on performing comprehensive annual
reviews of State DWSRF programs to assess fund performance and financial status. The guide
includes specific guidance on conducting reviews and a set of checklists that can be used to assist the
review process.
Applicability: Regions
Contacts: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu. kong@epa.gov or Veronica Blette, 202-260-3980
.blette.veronical@epa. gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA Regional
Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not Available
Fiscal Fund Management of the State Revolving Fund: A Manual
Provides information and guidance on managing the fiscal aspects of Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds. Topics include adjusting loan terms, assessing investment returns, efficient
fond utilization, long term planning, sustainable funding levels, leveraging decisions and the impact of
set-asides and capitalization transfers on the fond. Analytical tools and techniques, including key
financial measures, for assessing the fiscal health of a fond are included as an appendix.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Kong Chiu, 202-260-1722, chiu.kong@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPARegional
Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not Available
Clean Water SRF Integrated Priority List Protocol and Regional Review and Approval Criteria
Provides a step by step description of the process states may use to develop Integrated Project Priority
Lists that consider wastewater, nonpoint source and estuary management projects together
to direct funds to the highest priority water quality projects.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contacts: Stephanie vonFeck (202) 260-9762 and Cleora Scott (202) 260-5817
Drinking Water SRF Sample Biennial Report
Provides a model for states to consider when developing their biennial reports. These reports
document the activities of the DWSRF loan fond and set-asides.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Stephanie vonFeck (202) 260-9762
Page 3-53
-------
SRF Transfer and Cross-Collateralization Guidance
Provides a description of the requirements for states that transfer funds between the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF programs. It also describes requirements for states that wish to Cross-
Collateralize, or enhance bond security, with the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF program.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Sheila Hoover (202) 260-7376
Guidance on Conducting the 2000 Clean Water Needs Survey, January 2000
EPA will develop a comprehensive package on the type of information that is allowable to be included
in the 2000 survey and how that information must be documented, and procedures for data entry and
verification.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Sandra Perrin (202) 260-7382
Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Stormwater and Biosolids Treatment
EPA has developed, and will continue to develop, a series of fact sheets on all technologies available.
The goal is to have approximately 180 fact sheets completed by the end of FY 2002. Fifty-five fact
sheets have already been completed. About 30 new fact sheets will be developed in FY 2000. The
FY 2000 fact sheets will focus on conventional and innovative technologies including some wet
weather technologies. Additional fact sheets will be developed in 2001 and 2002. Completed fact
sheets are posted on the OWM web site.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, consulting engineers
Contact: Bill Hasselkus (202) 260-3707
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/0H7H/>n««/./tf7H
Guidance on the Beneficial Use of Biosolids Awards Program, January 2000, January 2001
EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids facilities, develop
technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This guidance defines
how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 260-7283
Field Storage Guidance for Biosolids and Other related By-Products
EPA in conjunction with USDA and other stakeholders has developed this guidance for use by
municipalities, farmers, and others that need to store biosolids and related by-products in the field
before they are applied to the land.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 260-7283
Development of Guidance for POTW's on Radioactivity in Biosolids: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is working with EPA through a subcommittee of the Interagency Steering Committee on
Radiation Standards (ISCORS) to develop guidance on radioactivity in biosolids. Interim guidance
was issued in June 1999. Draft revisions to that interim guidance are being developed and are to be
circulated for comment. The final guidance is expected to be released in the Fall of 2001.
Page 3-54
-------
Guidance on the GPRA Measure Related to Beneficial Use ofBiosolids: This guidance will address
the following: how and why the measure was established, a definition of beneficial use for the purpose
of this measure, how the percent of beneficial use is to be calculated and other issues.
Applicability: Regions & States
Contact: Charles E. (Ed) Gross (202-260-7370) or John Walker (202-260-7283)
FY 2000 STA G Guidance Memorandum
Provides information and guidance on how the agency will award and administer grants for the 200
projects included in the in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account in the Agency's
FY 2000 Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-260-5825, mcgee. larrv@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA Regional
Offices, all state agencies and all potentially eligible grant applicants.
Web Address: Not available.
Decentralized Wastewater Management Guidance Manual
EPA is developing a manual for management of individual wastewater treatment (Onsite systems) and
small wastewater treatment systems. It is a part of the Clean Water Action Plan. The goal of the
guidance is to stimulate effective management of these systems in such a manner that it will become
a natural and normal state of the art. Information relating to this guidance is posted on the OWM web
site for comment during the Spring of 2000. Final guidance is be released during the summer of 2000.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Joyce Hudson (202) 260-1290
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm
Guidance on Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance ofWastewater Collection Systems
(Sewers)
EPA will develop guidance on the management practices and operation and maintenance techniques
that have served municipalities best in the reduction and elimination of wet weather flows from their
systems. This guidance will help municipalities make decisions on the rehabilitation and repair of their
collection systems and ways to better operate those systems. Scheduled release date is September
2000.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: Jim Wheeler (202) 260-5827
Storm Water Phase II Guidances Proposed for the Next 2 Years:
Model Municipal Permit for Phase II, available by October 27, 2000
EPA will prepare and distribute to States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program, as well
as to EPA Regions, a model general permit for the regulation of small municipal separate storm sewer
systems. Applicability: Regions, States
Contact Wendy Bell (260-9534)
Page 3-55
-------
Menu of BMPs for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
EPA is developing a menu of best management practices (BMPs) applicable to municipal separate
storm sewer systems. The BMPs address each of the minimum measures proposed for municipal
storm water management programs in the January 9, 1998, proposed rule. Twenty-nine BMPs
havebeen completed and are posted on the OWM web site. Additional BMPs will be developed in
2000 and 2001.
Applicability: Municipalities
Contact John Kosco (260-6385)
Web Address: www.epa.gov\owm\mtbfact.htm
Guidance on Measurable Goals
EPA will prepare and issue a guidance document to assist municipal separate storm sewer systems in
the development of measurable goals to assist in the design, as well as the assessment of
implementation of the minimum measures for Phase II. The scheduled completion date is October
2001.
Contact John Kosco (260-6385)
No Exposure Guidance, available second quarter of FY2000
EPA will develop a guidance document on the industrial no exposure exemption of the Phase II rule.
This guidance manual is designed to help industrial facilities, that are subject to a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activities, take advantage of a conditional exclusion from permitting based on a condition
of "no exposure."
Contact Dan Weese (260-6809)
^Revisions to NPDES Requirements for Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems
Under a Presidential directive dated May 29, 1999, EPA is developing within one year, a strong
national regulation to prevent the 40,000 (plus) annual sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from
contaminating our Nation's beaches and jeopardizing the health of our Nation's families. EPA's
proposed regulation will include three standard permit conditions for permits for POTWS and
municipal sanitary sewer collection systems addressing requirements on capacity assurance,
management, operation and maintenance requirements for municipal sanitary sewer collection systems,
reporting, recordkeeping and public notification for SSOs, and a prohibition on SSOs. The Agency
will also propose a framework for regulating municipal satellite collection systems under the NPDES
permit program. In addition, the Agency is planning to recommend early implementation using the
proposed approach as guidance.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Municipalities
Contact: Sharie Centilla, 202-260-6052, centilla.sharie@,epa.eov
Copies Available: After proposal
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/sso.htm
Page 3-56
-------
Commitment to
Agency-Wide Priorities
Section 4
-------
Contents
Protecting Children's Health page 4-5
Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxics Initiative page 4-8
Reinvention page 4-11
-------
— Introduction -
There are three Agency-wide priorities that the Office of Water is highlighting in this
Program Guidance -- Children's Health, Reinvention, and the Persistent, Bioaccumulative
Toxics Initiative (PBTI). We recognize and support other Agency-wide priorities and guiding
principles, such as placing emphasis on Indian Country and maximizing public participation and
right to know. As we continue to create and refine the idea of an integrated, cross Agency
guidance, we will work to include more specific references to these other efforts in future Office
of Water Program Guidance documents.
Our purpose in highlighting Children's Health, Reinvention, and the Persistent,
Bioaccumulative Toxics Initiative is to encourage greater collaboration between staff of the
water program and Regional staff who work on these priorities. The hope for these Agency-
wide priorities is to eventually have them woven into program implementation, so that their
existence as separate initiatives will no longer be needed. By including these priorities in our
Guidance and in our End of Year Reporting, we are attempting to forge a closer link between
the Agency-wide priorities and the day-to-day operation of the water program.
- Protecting Children's Health -
7. Vision
EPA's National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats,
announced in September, 1996, recognizes that children may be at higher risk from pollution
than adults because: 1) they have proportionally greater exposure than adults, 2) they may be
more susceptible and less able to fight off diseases because their immune systems are not fully
developed, 3) they are not fully grown and exposure to contaminants may retard their physical
and mental development.
Children's exposure to waterborne contaminants can occur when eating contaminated
fish, consuming contaminated drinking water, or swimming in contaminated oceans, lakes, or
streams. Our vision is that drinking water will be safe to consume in unlimited quantity, that
beaches will be safe for play at all times, and that children can safely consume all the fish they
can catch. The Office of Water is working to protect children from risks associated with water
pollution in drinking water, surface water, and fish by issuing national standards and health
advisories; overseeing the monitoring of drinking water supplies; and supporting state programs
that help ensure safe beaches, clean water, and uncontaminated fish.
Page 4-5
-------
—Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program
EPA's Fish Contamination Program (FCP) provides technical assistance to states,
Tribes, and others on matters related to persistent bioaccumulative toxics in fish and wildlife and
associated potential health risks to those who eat contaminated fish. The FCP works with state
and Tribal agencies to establish national consistency in the approaches, methods, and protocols
for assessing contaminants in fish and wildlife for the purpose of developing and managing fish
consumption advisories. Through this program, EPA publishes guidance documents, develops
and manages national databases, holds national forums, conferences and training workshops,
provides grants for advisory development, conducts special studies, develops outreach materials,
and assists in the issuance of advisories.
The goal of national consistency is an Action Item included in the Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP). A major premise of the Plan is that informed citizens and officials can make
better decisions with clear, accurate, and timely information. The use of the EPA guidance for
establishing fish consumption advisories will result in good scientific, protective advice for all
citizens.
The FCP is also involved with the development and dissemination of outreach materials,
including a new brochure, Should I Eat the Fish 1 Catch?. The brochure was developed as part
of the CWAP and is available in three languages (English, Spanish, and Hmong).
Lastly, upon request, the FCP assists States and Tribes in the issuance of advisories to
ensure adequate protection of public health which has been successful. There has only been one
case, in 1997, where FCP, in collaboration with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, coordinated the development and issuance of the first federal fish consumption
advisory. This federal issuance was done after determining that the State of Michigan intended
to issue an advisory which EPA determined did not provide adequate protection of public health,
particularly for women and children. A total of 1.2 million copies of the advisory were printed
and distributed by EPA to fishing license holders and health care facilities throughout the State
of Michigan. In 1998, Michigan issued a new advisory providing adequate protection of women
and children. The FCP continues to work with other states to ensure adequate protection of
public health.
Development and Issuance of Fish Advisories. Regions should encourage the
remaining states that have not yet adopted a risk-based approach to fish consumption advisories
to do so, in order to achieve the goal of national consistency in the approach to establishing fish
consumption advisories. Regions should encourage States and Tribes to attend national
conferences on chemicals in the environment, training workshops, and the Annual
State/Tribal/Federal Forum on Contaminants in Fish. The next Forum will be held in October,
1999.
Regions should encourage States and Tribes to monitor fish flesh, with particular
Page 4-6
-------
emphasis on waters where there is heavy recreational or subsistence fishing. Regions should be
alert for situations where there is scientifically valid monitoring data about a waterbody that
indicates an advisory is appropriate, and in such cases should work with the state or Tribe to
develop and issue protective advisories. Regions should notify the FCP of any such instance so
that any technical assistance can be offered.
Regions should encourage states and Tribes to seek creative means to reach out to their
residents regarding how to consume fish safely. Encourage the use of the brochure now
available in three languages (English, Spanish, and Hmong).
-Beach Action Plan for Recreational Waters
Studies in the United States and abroad have consistently found an association between
gastrointestinal illness and exposure to recreation waters. Other illnesses such as eye, ear, and
throat infections in children have been linked to pathogen exposure in recreational waters.
EPA's Beach Plan for Recreational Waters (the "Beach Plan") is intended to reduce the risks of
infection to children and other recreational water users.
The Beach Plan describes activities to enable consistent management of recreational
water quality programs and improve the science that supports recreational water monitoring
programs. Consistent with the plan, EPA will strengthen water quality standards and provide
guidance and training on recreational water quality monitoring and risk management. The
Agency will also conduct a National Beach Health Safety Survey and maintain a website to
communicate recreational water quality information to beach managers and the public.
As EPA works with states and Tribes to implement point and nonpoint source control
programs, we should pay particular attention to beaches where children may have direct
exposure to contaminants. Specifically, when cleaning up sewage overflows (CSOs and SSOs in
particular), we should give special consideration to minimizing risks to children.
—Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments of 1996 include a new focus on
risk-based priority setting, meaning that EPA will decide which contaminants to. regulate based
on data about the adverse health effects of the contaminant, its occurrence in public water
systems, and the projected risk reduction. Under the amendments, EPA identifies
subpopulations at greater risk than the general public of experiencing adverse health effects from
exposure to drinking water contaminants. These sensitive subpopulations include infants,
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and immunocompromised persons. First, through its
ongoing health risk assessment, EPA sets Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking
water with the goal of protecting those most sensitive to contaminant exposure. This assures
Page 4-7
-------
that children's health will be protected by the regulation. Second, the 1996 SDWA amendments
call for better regulatory science, including an analysis of the health effects to sensitive
subpopulations.
EPA is engaged in a number of activities to better characterize occurrence, exposure and
health impacts of drinking water contaminants on a number of particularly vulnerable segments
of the population, or "sensitive subpopulations," including infants and young children. These
activities will result in improved health assessments and regulatory and non-regulatory decisions
with respect to drinking water.
//. Key Strategy
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories
Provides an approach for developing risk-based, scientifically sound, cost effective fish
consumption advisories.
Contact: Jeffrey Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epamail.epa.gov
Web Address: http.//www.epa.gov/OST/fishadvice
~ Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Initiative -
I. Vision
In 1998, EPA made binding commitments to reduce 12 priority PBTs as part of the
Canada/US Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (Binational Strategy), with a long-range goal
of "virtual elimination." These interim goals are national for some of the 12 -- mercury (50%
reduction in deliberate use and release from human activity sources by 2006), dioxin (75%
reduction in releases from human activity sources by 2006), and PCBs (90% reduction in PCBs
used in electrical equipments by 2006). The PBT strategy sets forth the approach EPA will take
to meet these commitments, and, indeed, goes further than the Binational Strategy by
establishing a process to identify additional priority PBTs for targeted action. We will begin by
developing and implementing national action plans for the 12 Level 1 pollutants. In the future,
EPA will select additional PBTs of concern for cross-Agency action and future action plan
development.
The Binational and the PBT Strategies have led in part, to the development and
implementation of three innovative and cutting-edge partnership agreements with industry. In
1998, EPA and the American Hospital Association (AHA) signed an historical Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of minimizing and reducing the amount of persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants manufactured and disposed of by hospitals. The AHA
Agreement also contains a provision for a Mercury Virtual Elimination plan to be achieved by
Page 4-8
-------
2005. In September 1998, three Northwest Indiana steel mills signed a voluntary agreement
with EPA to reduce the use of mercury at their facilities. Over the past two years, the EPA has
been, working with the Chlorine Institute to help them achieve a 50% reduction in mercury use
and release in their chlor-alkali sector. Since the project's inception, usage has been significantly
reduced each year.
These partnerships are excellent examples of the Agency's new approach to pollution
prevention and toxics reduction, and in FY 2000 we will actively support similar partnership
opportunities, ideas, and activities. Headquarters Program Offices, EPA Regional Offices, Great
Waterbody Offices, States and Tribes should seek to reduce or eliminate priority persistent
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances in the environment through use of the full range of
regulatory and nonregulatory actions, including pollution prevention strategies and assistance;
permitting and other controls; compliance assistance and enforcement activities; remediation
activities, and voluntary incentives.
Each Regional Office and Great Waterbody Office should identify those PBTs of
concern to the Region and its States and Tribes from among those priority PBTs identified for
the Agency's PBT strategic targeting efforts and should provide support for Regional, Great
Waterbody Office, State, and Tribal activities that will reduce or eliminate these PBTs in the
environment. Whenever possible, Regional and Great Waterbody Office initiatives should be
developed in partnership with States and Tribes. Note: Additional up-dated guidance on an
expanded Agency-wide list of high-priority PBT pollutants of national concern will be provided
to the Regions by the end of FY99. This expanded list will go beyond the initial twelve
chemicals identified as national priorities under the Agency's PBT Initiative.
Sector and Geographic Priorities: National priority PBTs can provide a focus for
specific projects or activities within existing HQ Office, Regional Office or Great Water Body
Office priority sectors and geographic areas, as well as provide a rationale for selecting new
priority sectors. The Agency PBT Initiative, through individual chemical plans, will identify
those sectors primarily responsible for the generation or discharge to the environment of priority
PBT pollutants Regions and Great Water Body Offices should ensure that all opportunities for
PBT reductions are being addressed as their sector and geographic activities are implemented.
For example, if a Regional Office or a Great Water Body Office identifies iron and steel facilities
as a priority sector for action, it should ensure that reduction of mercury use, emissions and
discharges by iron and steel facilities are addressed.
Specific PBTs: Regions and Great Water Body Offices may also choose to initiate
projects focused on specific PBT substances based on past regional pollution problems or fish
consumption advisories, such as mercury spills, dioxin contamination, or wide-spread pesticide
contamination. Whenever possible, the focus should be on innovative ways to prevent such
contamination in the future.
Page 4-9
-------
International: HQ Offices, Regional Offices and Great Water Body Offices are
encouraged to look for opportunities to reduce PBTs in the environment as part of any
international or binational work. Because many PBT substances can travel long distances and
cause transboundary problems, we encourage HQ Offices, Regional Offices, Great Water Body
Offices, States and Tribes to identify and pursue opportunities for PBT reductions through
existing or proposed activities conducted jointly with counterparts in other countries.
Measurement: If possible, projects and activities should be designed to document
quantifiable results or progress, such as amount of canceled pesticides collected through "clean
sweeps" programs, amount of PBT-containing hazardous wastes discharge from a certain
industry, or increased use by a business or industry of environmentally preferable
products/equipment such as non-mercury-containing equipment.
//. Key Strategies
Canada-US Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great
Lakes
A summary of current voluntary PBT reduction efforts undertaken by the Great Lakes National
Program Office and its private and public partners. Excellent source of information and ideas
that can be shared.
Contact Elizabeth LaPlante, 312-353-2694, laplante.elizabeth@epa.gov
Web Address, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns
Region 5 Toxic Reduction Team Statement of Purpose and Principles
An organization that brings together key professional staff from throughout the organization "to
weave the best efforts of the Region and other stakeholders on Toxics Reduction into the most
coherent and effective enterprise possible."
Contact. Jon Barney, 312-886-6102, barney.jonathon@epa.gov
Web Address, http://www.epa.gov/toxteam
PBT Frequently Asked Questions
Some basic information about what PBTs are and what EPA is doing about reducing releases
and exposures to PBTs.
Contact. Lynda Wynn, 202-260-0221, wynn.lynda@epa.gov
Web Address, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Executive Summary (Draft)
A one-page summary of EPA's draft strategy to overcome the remaining challenges in
addressing priority PBT pollutants.
Contact. Lynda Wynn, 202-260-0221, wynn.lynda@epa.gov
Web Address http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Page 4-10
-------
Full PBT Strategy Document (Draft)
The entire PBT draft Strategy document which includes the purpose, goal, guiding principles,
approaches to reduce risk, linkages and stakeholder involvement.
Copies Available: National Service Center for Environmental Publications, 800-489-8695 Order
Number EPA 742D98001
Contact. Lynda Wynn, 202-260-0221, wynn.lynda@epa.gov
Web Address', http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Mercury Action Plan (Draft)
This action plan focuses on regulatory and voluntary actions, enforcement and compliance,
research, and outreach to characterize and reduce risks associated with mercury.
Contact. Lynda Wynn, 202-260-0221, wynn.lynda@epa.gov
Web Address, http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
Mercury Action Plan Fact Sheet
A one-page summary of EPA's review of regulations, initiatives, and programs which manage
and control mercury, and the action plan which identifies a set of cost-effective options to move
toward achieving further reductions.
Contact. Lynda Wynn, 202-260-0221, wynn.lynda@epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt
— Reinvention —
I. Vision
In our day-to-day activities, we should search for opportunities to improve our core
programs through innovation and streamlining. We should also strive for more integrative and
holistic environmental protection — through sector-based approaches, community-based
environmental protection, working in partnerships with states, and improving management of
environmental information. There are several specific Reinvention Goals, Objectives and
Subobjectives listed at the end of this Section.
- Industry and Sector-Based Environmental Protection
Sectors/Industry
The goal of EPA's Sector Based Action Plan is to incorporate sector strategies into EPA core
functions, where appropriate, to solve environmental problems. Identifying source sectors for
PBT chemicals, animal feeding operations, and dischargers into impaired waters should present
more efficient and cost-effective mechanisms for addressing complex environmental problems.
For example, if a Regional Office identified petroleum refineries as a priority sector, then
Page 4-11
-------
multiple PBT pollutants and Great Waters pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury, dioxin/furans,
and benzo(a)pyrene) could be addressed. Similarly, regional/state efforts in implementing the
National AFO Strategy lend themselves to focus on specific sector activities such as poultry,
hog, beef, and dairy operations that affect water quality and impact other multimedia (e.g, air
and land) issues. The new TMDLs for impaired waters that will be proposed later this year also
should offer effluent trading possibilities for regions interested in pursuing watershed restoration
action strategies as well as efforts to protect sources of drinking water and wetlands.
Project XL
Project XL is one of the primary tools we can use to conduct experiments and promote change
in the Agency's approach to environmental protection. Project XL provides OW the
opportunity to test innovations that help us meet our goals. For example, the pretreatment
program developed a framework for a series of POTW pilot projects under Project XL.
Programs and Regions should continue to work to ensure the successful development and
implementation of XL projects.
- Community-Based Environmental Protection
The February 1, 1999 CBEP Framework which was released under the Deputy Administrator's
signature identified four CBEP goals for the Agency:
• Achieve environmental results consistent with EPA's mission and base program goals, as
stated in EPA's authorizing statutes and Strategic Plan;
• Address environmental concerns and issues that are not addressed under traditional
federal regulatory approaches, such as urban sprawl, urban and agricultural runoff, and
loss of biological diversity;
• Help communities develop the tools and capacity necessary to be stewards of their
human and natural resources;
• Coordinate and integrate EPA's programs and activities to increase the Agency's
effectiveness in supporting community environmental decision making.
The Agency's Strategic Plan calls upon all of the programs to work across their
traditional statutory boundaries to achieve integrated, holistic results. In cooperation with the
Regions, and other National Programs, the National Water Program will work to implement the
CBEP Framework and to support targeting of priority places within each state for EPA and
other federal support. This work should cut across traditional programmatic lines and lend
support to communities holistic environmental protection activities. OW will also continue to
build capacity within communities for better environmental management decision making
through more integrated information; the development of tools that can be used by communities;
and, in some places, direct support.
Page 4-12
-------
- Innovative Approaches
Permitting
EPA's Permit Action Plan calls for cross-Agency efforts to harmonize administrative
procedures, strengthen public participation, move toward more performance-based permitting,
and evaluate the potential value in multimedia permitting. Regional permitting staff should
participate in these efforts to provide perspective from their front-line experience.
Partnership Programs
EPA sponsors national and regional voluntary partnership programs for businesses, industries,
trade associations, communities, universities, and state and local governments. They have
demonstrated success in addressing environmental problems such as conserving and protecting
water resources, reducing greenhouse gases, and encouraging energy efficient product design.
Regional and Program Offices should continue to work collaboratively to efficiently develop and
expand voluntary programs that meet the needs of our partners and result in environmental
improvements.
Innovations with States
The EPA-State partnership provides a natural laboratory for testing new ideas, and developing
successful innovations into system-wide improvements. Regional and Program offices should
pursue opportunities to work collaboratively on innovative projects, and should respond
promptly to State proposals.
Evaluating Reinvention Activities
EPA is committed to learning from experience, so that successful innovations can be expanded
and new approaches can be used more broadly. Regional and Program offices should evaluate
their innovative programs, and document and communicate results.
//. Key Strategies
Reinventing Environmental Protection — EPA 's Approach
Statement from EPA's senior management that explains what reinvention means, why EPA
needs to reinvent, how reinvention affects the way EPA does business, and a framework that
describes EPA's reinvention activities.
Contact: Gail Robarge, 202-260-9101, robarge.gail@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/reinvent/strategy
Sector Based Environmental Protection Action Plan
This Plan identifies principles to guide the use of the sector-based approach and outlines what
the Agency will do differently in the future to integrate this approach into our toolbox for
Page 4-13
-------
solving environmental problems.
Contact Greg Ondich, 202-260-4822, ondich.greg@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/sectors
Project XL: Best Practices Guide for Proposal Development
Designed to help project sponsors submit proposals that will go through the review process as
quickly and smoothly as possible. See also: Stakeholder Involvement Guide, and Manual for
EPA XL Project Teams.
Contact: Chris Knopes, 202-260-9298, knopes.christopher@epa.gov
Framework for Community-Based Environmental Protection
EPA's policy and planning framework for supporting and implementing community-based
environmental protection (CBEP) over the next three years. The Framework identifies specific
goals, strategies, activities, and measures of success for EPA in implementing community-based
environmental protection
Contact: Jerry Filbin, 202-260-8099, filbin.gerald@epa.gov
Web address: yosemite.epa.gov/osec/osechome.nsf
Action Plan for Achieving the Next Generation in Environmental Permitting
Describes strategic, cross-Agency approach to achieve the best possible environmental results
while balancing needs to streamline the permitting process, reduce unnecessary burden, provide
greater flexibility, and enhance public participation.
Contact: Michele Aston, 202-260-8767, aston.michele@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/permits
Joint EPA/State Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation and Guidance
EPA and senior state environmental officials signed an agreement designed to improve
environmental protection, improve EPA/State environmental management practices, and provide
timely decision-making on state innovation proposals,
Contact: John Glenn, 202-260-5029, glenn.john@epa.gov
Web address: www.epa.gov/reinvent/ecos
Charter for Coordination of EPA 's Partnership Programs
Establishes an operating structure for internal coordination and communication related to EPA's
partnership programs.
Contact. Rebecca Nachtrieb, 202-260-7423, nachtrieb.rebecca@epa.gov
Web address: intranet.epa.gov/reinvent/partners.htm
Page 4-14
-------
Management Agreement
Instructions and Template
Section 5
-------
Instructions to Regions, HQ Program Offices, and
Great Water Body Offices for Completing the
2001 Management Agreement Matrix
By September 1, 2000, all Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices are
responsible for completing the portions for which they are responsible in the 2000 MA Matrix
(Lotus 1,2,3 file)1. This will serve as the draft MA. The final, signed MA is due November 30,
2000.
STEP ONE. Secure and open Lotus 1,2,3 file.
STEP TWO: Complete Rows 1 and 2, indicating your affiliation and name.
STEP THREE: Review the APM Reporter column, to determine which measures you are
responsible for making commitments against. Measures are listed in the column column entitled
Annual Performance Measure. For the Tribal Strategy, you will need to look at the Annual
Performance Goal column.
STEP FOUR: For each relevant measure, provide your commitment for FY 2001 in the column
entitled Regional, GWB, OR HQ Commitment for FY01. For some measures, special instructions
(e.g., definitions) have been provided further on in this section under the title Additional
Instructions for Making Commitments Against the FY01 Annual Performance Measures. If you
have questions regarding any measure, please contact the office listed in the APG/APM
Originator column. Names and phone numbers for the key contacts for these offices are listed in
the Key Contacts section of this guidance.
STEP FIVE: Complete the column entitled Narrative with any additional information that you
believe is important to understanding your numeric commitment for a given measure.
STEP SIX: Repeat above steps 4 and 5 for remaining measures.
STEP SEVEN: Save Lotus 1,2,3 submission with a new name and a ".wk4" extension. If your
Region or program would like to feature any other key activities that are not captured by your
numerative commitments, your office or program is welcome to submit narrative descriptions of
these key activities. Obtain your Senior Management's approval for this submission, indicate that
approval in a cover email to Mike Weckesser, weckesser.mike@epa.gov, and send your
completed chart and any narrative piece as electronic attachments by September 1st.
'Lotus is an agency standard, is supported by EPA Contractors, and allows for easy
analysis and aggregation of information.
Page 5-3
-------
STEP EIGHT: HQ Water Immediate aggregates information into a national summary sheet and
HQ Program Offices and Regions use that as a basis for negotiation to reach final consensus The
Deputy AA will be involved in resolving any outstanding issues.
STEP NINE: HQ Water Immediate sends out final national summary table to Regions, HQ, and
Great Water Body Offices.
STEP TEN: Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices Senior Managers will
review and sign off on national summary table by November 30th, 2000.
STEP ELEVEN: HQ Immediate will send out a mid-year template for Regions, HQ Program
Offices, and Great Water Body Offices to complete in early Spring, 2001.
STEP TWELVE: HQ Immediate will send out an end-of-year template for Regions, HQ
Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices to complete by November 2, 2001.
NOTE: In order to facilitate aggregation of information, OW Immediate requests that the Lotus
1,2,3 file be kept in tact.
Page 5-4
-------
Additional Instructions for Making Commitments Against the FY01 Annual Performance Measures
(The following are additional instructions for some but not all of the FY01 APMs)
Goal 2 Objective 1
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Goals
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
FY 2001
Targets/
Baselines
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
In 2001, maintain the percent of the
population served by community water
systems that will receive drinking water
meeting all health-based standards.
% of the population served by water
systems that will receive drinking water for
which no violations of Federally
enforceable health standards have occurred
during the year, up from 83% in 1994.
Target: 91%
Baseline: 85%
in 1998
All regions should have a goal stated in % of
population served within the region. Regions
which have a target of lower than 91% (the
national goal) should have a specific reason
(e.g. Reg. 1, Boston).
% of the population served by non-
community, non-transient drinking water
systems that will receive drinking water for
which no violations of Federally
enforceable health standards have occurred
during the year, up from 88% in 1994.
Target: 96%
All regions should have a goal stated in % of
population served within the region.
Baseline: 96 %
in 1998.
Protect public health by implementing
rules promulgated in FY 1999 and FY
2000 and increasing information to
consumers through public notification
(PN)
Number of States with updated primacy for
IES WTR/ Stage 1 DBP, CCR, and PN.
Target:
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBP: 21
states, CCR: 25
states, and PN:
10 states.
Note: Targets and baselines are rule specific.
A state with revisions for all 3 rules should
be counted 3 times. If a state has revisions
for 2 and adopts 1, then 2 should be counted
here and 1 below (etc. etc.)
Baseline: end
of 00 estimates
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBP: 10,
CCR: 12, PN: 5
Page 5-5
-------
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Goals
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
FY 2001
Targets/
Baselines
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
Number of States that have adopted the
IESWTR/ Stage 1 DBF, CCR, and PN.
Target:
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBF: 35
states, CCR: 35
states, and PN:
25 states.
Note. Targets and baselines are rule specific.
(See above for instructions.)
Baseline: end
of 00 estimates
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBF: 17,
CCR: 17, PN:
10
Number of States with signed extension
agreements for primacy related to
IESWTR/ Stage 1 DBF, CCR, and PN.
Target.
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBF. 34
states, CCR: 44
states, PN: NA
Note: Targets and baselines are rule specific.
(See above for instructions.)
Baseline: end
of 00 estimates
lESWTR/Stage
1 DBF: 5,
CCR: 40, PN:
NA
Enhance protection of tribal health by
increasing the percentage of tribal
community and non-community water
systems that are run by certified operators.
Percent (and number) of tribal community
and non-community water systems.
Target: 60%
Baseline: 56%
in 1999
Page 5-6
-------
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Goals
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
FY2001
Targets/
Baselines
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
Protect human health and ensure
compliance with health-based drinking
water standards through use of the
DWSRF.
Cumulative number of DWSRF assistance
agreements to community and non-
community drinking water systems.
Target: 1,800
Baseline: 760
(est.) in FY 99
Cumulative number of DWSRF projects
that have initiated operations.
Target: 450
Baseline: NA
Defintion: Initiated Actions: CWS that have
completed projects and have begun regular
operations utilizing the new or upgraded
infrastructure.
Expand public health protection through:
1) promulgation of new regulations —the
Long-term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule, arsenic, ground water,
radionuclides, filter backwash, and 2)
making determinations whether or not to
regulate potentially harmful contaminants
from the Candidate Contaminant List.
List of risk analyses completed in support
of new regulations. (OST)
Target: 1 list
Baseline:
requested from
D. McDonald
Number of regulations promulgated.
Target: 5 rules
Baseline: end
of 00 estimates
- 5 rules
Regulatory determinations for potentially
harmful contaminants.
Target: 5
regulatory
determinations
Baseline: NA
Page 5-7
-------
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Goals
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
FY 2001
Targets/
Baselines
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
Stales and community water systems
increase efforts and programs to protect
their source water resources, including
ground water.
Number of community water systems (and
population served by these systems) will be
implementing efforts to protect their source
water resources.
Target: 6,500
cws;
36 million
people
Baseline: none
because source
water
assessments are
in their first
full year of
implementation
in 2000.
Definition: Since state completed source
water assessments are required, but state
protection programs are not, we arc using the
term "efforts" to indicate source water
protection actions. Systems arc considered to
have met this goal when they have completed
assessments (SWP Steps 1-4) and local
prevention efforts are underway (SWP Steps
5 & 6 - management measures and
contingency plans).
Guidance:Rcporting matrix and guidance
were developed and provided by OGWDW's
Implementation and Assistance Division
Through the U1C program, EPA will
contribute to the protection of ground
water sources of drinking water from
potential cndangerment. <
Number of States that have formally
adopted the Class V rule.
Target: 34
states
Baseline: 5
states by the
end of 00
Number of Class IV/V wells (by well type)
brought under specific controls through
permits or closures.
Target: 500
[avg. 10 per
state]
Baseline: Not
available from
OECA
Definition: For purposes of this measure,
closure is tantamount to being plugged.
Guidance: As the measure states, only Class
IV/V wells should be counted here. Regions
may want, for their own information, to track
the type of control. This target reflects only
wells for FY 2001. It is not a cumulative
target.
Number of UIC wells plugged as a direct
actibn by the UIC program or indirectly by
another program working in partnership
with UIC to protect ground water sources
of drinking water.
Target 1,500
Baseline:
In this measure, all classes of UIC wells other
than Class IV/V that are plugged should be
counted. Wells such as oil and gas
production should not be counted. This
target reflects only wells for FY 2001. It is
not a cumulative target.
Page 5-8
-------
r Y zuui Annual
Performance Goals
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
FY 2001
Targets/
Baselines
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
Issue proposed Phase 2 UIC Class V
regulatory action.
Target: 1
action
Baseline: 0
Percentage of required mechanical
integrity tests that took place.
Target: 100%
Baseline: Class
I: 130 (States);
14 (EPA/DI).
Class II:
30,285 (States);
2,580
(EPA/DI).
Numbers based
on 1998
inventory
Wells should be included if the MIT took
place. Commitment to be stated as
percentage. If possible, total number of wells
in a Region that require testing should be
included.
Percentage of injection wells losing
mechanical integrity that were adequately
addressed.
Target: 100%
Baseline: Not
available.
Definition: Adequately addressed: Includes
well brought back into compliance, well shut-
in, well plugged, enforcement action taken.
Gudiance: Wells should be included here if
they had problems in the MIT that were
adequately addressed.
Increase (over the 1996 baseline of 36
states) the number of states reporting in
their CWA section 305(b) submittals, the
river and streams miles and the acres of
lakes that are designated for drinking
water use.
Number of states reporting.
Target: 40
states
Should reflect cumulative number of states
reporting.
Baseline: 36
Assess river miles, lake acres, and estuary
square miles that have water quality
supporting designated uses, where
applicable, for: a) drinking water supply.
Number of miles/acres/square miles
assessed for drinking water use.
Target:
Baseline:
Page 5-9
-------
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Goals
Ensure that 100% of community water
systems are complying with the Consumer
Confidence Rule (CCR) by issuing annual
consumer confidence reports.
FY 2001 Annual
Performance Measures
Percent of community water systems (and
population served) that will comply with
the regulation to publish consumer
confidence reports
FY 2001
Targets/
Baselines
i^BBBBBBHBBBBBVHBBigBBBBBBBBVBBBBBBBBBBB
Target: 100%
Baseline: 100%
by the end of
00.
FY 2001 Guidance
(to date)
By the end of FY 2000, all CWSs arc
expected to have published their first CCR.
This should continue in FY 2001. Each
Regions commitment, therefore, should be
100%.
Page 5-10
-------
Goal 2 Objective 2
MEASURE
NATIONAL
TARGET
GUIDANCE
#215: TMDLs scheduled to
be completed by the end of
2001; #218: TMDLs
submitted by the state; #219:
State-established TMDLs
approved, #214: TMDLs
established by EPA
#215 = 3,319
#218 = 2,189
#219 = 2,189
#214 = 251
See 10/19/99 email from Don Brady;
universe equals TMDLs required per
1998 303(d) lists. Commitments
should reflect anticipated cumulative
totals through FY01.
#220:% of Tribes with
appropriate monitoring and
assessment programs.
16% of tribes
Guidance/definitions under
development as of 3/20/00.
#221: Pilot STORET/305(b)
reporting projects with
Tribes.
9 tribes
Guidance/definitions under
development as of 3/20/00. Target
based on assumption of at least 1
qualifying tribe per Region.
#207: Watershed-based
wetland restoration projects
to which EPA has provided
financial support (other than
5-Star Projects) and/or has
contributed significant
technical assistance
(cumulative).
99 projects
(cumulative)
See 8/5/99 memo from Phil Oshida to
wetlands coordinators and MA contacts
re definitions. Projects must involve
either EPA funding or significant
Regional staff involvement.
#2b4: States/tribes developing
wetlands assess./monitoring
tools & making significant
progress towards establishing
formal programs to assess &
monitor overall wetland
condition, improvement,
deterioration, & restoration.
4 state/tribal
programs
(incremental)
See 8/5/99 memo from Phil Oshida to
wetlands coordinators and MA contacts
re definitions/criteria for counting.
Page 5-11
-------
Goal 2 Objective 3
MEASURE
TARGET
GUIDANCE
M: Reduction in loadings for toxic
pollutants for facilities subject to
effluent guidelines promulgated
between 1992 and 1999, as
compared to 1992 levels as
predicted by model projections of
effluent guidelines.
reduction of 4 million
pounds of toxic
pollutants
Regions should project # of permits to be
issued in all States in FY2001to reflect
effluent guidelines with standards for toxic
pollutants promulgated between 1992 and
1999. HQ will calculate loadings. Categories
include: Offshore oil & gas, Pesticide mfg.,
Coastal oil & gas, Pulp & paper,
Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, and Combustors.
M: Reduction in loadings for
conventional pollutants for
facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between
1992 and 1999, as compared to
1992 levels as predicted by model
projections of effluent guidelines .
reduction of 386
million pounds of
conventional pollutants
Regions should project # of permits to be
issued in all States in FY2001 to reflect
effluent guidelines with standards for
conventional pollutants promulgated between
1992 and 1999. HQ will calculate loadings.
Categories include: Offshore oil & gas,
Coastal oil & gas, Pharmaceuticals, Landfills,
and Combustors
M: Reduction in loadings for non-
conventional pollutants for
facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between
1992 and 1999, as compared to
1992 levels as predicted by model
projections of effluent guidelines .
reduction of 370
million pounds of non-
conventional pollutants
Regions should project # of permits to be
issued in all States in FY2001 to reflect
effluent guidelines with standards for non-
conventional pollutants promulgated between
1992 and 1999. HQ will calculate loadings.
Categories include: Offshore oil & gas,
Pesticide mfg., Coastal oil & gas, Pulp &
paper, Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, and
Combustors
M: Point sources are covered by
current permits
89% majors
66% minors
The targets are based on the National goals of
reducing the backlog of major permits to 10
percent by the end of calendar year 2001, and
reducing the backlog of all permits to 10
percent by the end of calendar year 2004
(reference Chuck Fox memorandum to the
Regions dated, May 4, 1999). Regions are
expected to meet these targets in each State.
No State or Region should backslide from a
backlog level that meets or exceeds these
targets. Region should develop backlog
reduction plans with each of its States for
achieving these targets. Each Region must
report quarterly to the Water Permits Division
on its progress in reducing its backlog.
M: Current permits are available in
all States for SW sources
associated with industrial activity
and construction sites over 5 acres.
fc of States with current permits for all
industrial activities operating in State.
(Include fractions of States based on fractions
of industrial categories covered by the MSGP
or general or individual permits tailored to
existing categories in a State.)
<= of States with current permits for
construction sites over 5 acres.
100% of States with
current industrial
permits
100% of States with
current construction
permits
Report projected # of States with general
and/or individual permits for all industrial
activities operating in the State. If a State's
permits do not cover all existing industrial
activities, then report a fraction consisting of
the number of activities permitted divided by
the total # of activities in the State.
Report projected # of States with current
general permits for construction sites over 5
acres.
Page 5-12
-------
M: # of permittees (among the
approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or
other enforceable mechanisms
consistent with the 1994 CSO
policy. (CPU)
100%
For each State, report projected # of permittees
with current permits that include requirements
of 1994 CSO Policy and projected £ of
permittees that have requirements of the
Policy included in an enforcement mechanism
if they are not included in a permit. Report
total # of CSO permittees in each State, so that
State by State % can be calculated.
M: % of States with general
permits for CAFOs >1000 animal
units or with individual NPDES
permits for all CAFOs>1000
animal units consistent with the
AFO strategy and guidance.
100%
Regions should work with States to deterine
the # of CAFOs >1000 animal units in each
State and whether the State issues general
permits, individual permits, or both for
CAFOs >1000 AUs. Each region should
report the # of States with CAFOs>1000 AUs
and project permit coverage for 100% of those
States. States with none of these CAFOs
should not be included in the base.
M: Number and percent of
approved pretreatment programs
audited in the reporting year. Of
those, the number of audits finding
significant shortcomings and the
number of local programs
upgraded to achieve compliance.
(Also a core performance measure)
100% over 5 year
period
Project # and % of programs audited in
FY2001 and % of programs audited from
FY1997 thru FY2001. Report # of programs
audited and total # of programs in each State
for current year and over the 5 year period.
Report # of audits in FY2000 that found
pretreatment program shortcomings resulting
in significant noncompliance and # of those
programs that returned to compliance.
M: CSO acres that must have a
long term control plan and number
of CSO acres for which a LTCP is
required by permit or other
enforceable mechanism.
No target
Report list of CSO communities including
location and # of acres drained by combined
sewer systems and list of CSO communities
with # of acres drained by each combined
sewer system for which a LTCP is required by
permit or other enforceable mechanism at the
endofFY2001.
M: Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) acres that
must have a stormwater permit and
number of MS4 acres covered for
which permits have been issued.
No target
Report list of MS4s including location and #
of acres served by each MS4 and list of MS4s
including acres served for which permits have
been issued at the end of FY20Q01.
M: Percent of current permits on
303(d) listed waterbodies.
90 percent
Report # of NPDES permits on 303(d) listed
waterbodies and the # and % of those that are
current at the end of FY2001.
M: # of permits necessary on
303(d) listed waterbodies where
there is a completed TMDL and #
of permits that implement
completed TMDLs.
No target
Report # of NPDES permits on waterbodies
with completed TMDLs and # of those permits
that implement the TMDLs.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Page 5-13
-------
Page 5-14
-------
Clean and Safe Water
EPA Strategic Goal #2
People
Public Health Objective
Community Drinking Water Systems
High Risk Contaminant Standards
Source Water Protection Programs
Ground water resource protection
Drinking water standards
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
Recreational use of waters
Place
Watershed Objective
Healthy
Watersheds
Wetlands
Net
Increase
Pollution
Loadings Objective
Point
Source
Reduction
Nutrient and
sediment
reduction
Air
Deposition
-------
Preventing
Pollution and
Reducing
Risk
EPA Strategic Goal #4
Conditions
Assess Conditions on Tribal
Land Objective
0)
o
-Q
3
CO
Reduction of
Global and
Cross-Border
Risks
EPA Strategic Goal #6
Transboundary
Reduce Threats to North American
Ecosystems
Objective
Mexico Border
Restore
Great Lakes
Expansion of
Americans'
Right to Know
EPA Strategic Goal #7
Education
Increase Quantity/Quality
of Education, Oureach,
Data Objective
Increase Public
Information (1WI)
Information
Improve Ability to Reduce
Exposure
Objective
Provide Information to
Community (Consumer
Confidence Reports)
-------
OFFICE OF WATER FY2001 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2001.
Agreement Between:
J. Charles Fox
Assistant Administrator for Water
Date
and
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Date
Jon M. Capacasa, Acting Director
Water Management Division, Region 3
Date
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director Date
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
William Matuszeski, Director Date
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3
Robert H. Wayland, Director Date
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Date
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Date
Beverly Banister, Acting Director
Water Management Division, Region 4
Date
Kathy Gorospe, Director
American Indian Environmental Office
Date
James D. Giattina, Director Date
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Region 4
Mindy S. Lubber
Regional Administrator, Region 1
Date
Francis X. Lyons
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Date
Linda M. Murphy, Director Date
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1
Jo Lynn Traub, Director
Water Division, Region 5
Date
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator, Region 2
Date
Gary V. Gulezian, Director Date
Great Lakes National Program Office, Region 5
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director Date
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
Region 2
Bradley Campbell
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Date
Page 5-17
-------
OFFICE OF WATER FY2001 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2001.
Gregg A. Cooke Date
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Charles C. Clarke
Regional Administrator, Region 10
Date
William B. Hathaway, Director
Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
Date
Elbert Moore, Director Date
Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Region 10
Dennis Grams
Regional Administrator, Region 7
Date
Randy Smith, Director
Office of Water, Region 10
Date
U. Gale Mutton, Director Date
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
Region 7
Bill Yellowtail
Regional Administrator, Region 8
Date
Max H. Dodson Date
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Region 8
Kerrigan Clough Date
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Region 8
Felicia Marcus
Regional Administrator, Region 9
Date
Alexis Strauss, Director
Water Division, Region 9
Date
Page 5-18
-------
FY2O01 National Water Program Management Agreement
Reglon/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
APM •
Code i
Annual Performance Goal (APG)
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
APM Tarn.* ': APG/APM j APM
APM Target ; originator ; Reporter
: Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water: All Americans will have drinking water that Is clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain
• ;• fish, plants, and wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected to Improve human health, enhance water quality,
reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife. ., .. .<-.••. • ':•:•'-:,'•.>••.;•••.:-••.•'.. '•'•• ' I.-' ....-.•,,'•.•. ..-'.-.:' 'i':.. '•• '•'.•• •'.•>•. ,-.? •''•'•,.;,- W f':-,''•*;•.< >:..•' . ^
Tribal :
Strategy
I By 2005,15% of Tribes will have in place TEAs (or another type of agreement) developed by EPA and the Tribe that Include the following basic information: assessments of water quality and drinking water;
, 4 : Tribal environmental priorities for water resources; and commitments by EPA and the Tribe to their respective water program environmental responsibilities.
Objective 1: By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by community water systems will receive water that meets drinking water standards, consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to mlcroblal and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
Subobjective 1.1: By 2005, the population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will Increase to 95% from a baseline of 83% In 1994. 95%
compliance will be achieved for any new standards within 5 years after the effective date of each rule.
si™
i Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
i By 2005, the population served by tribal
; systems providing drinking water that meets all existing
: health-based standards will increas
' ;of 86% in 1996 95% compliance v\
i new standards within 5 years after I
:rule
i Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
1'" i Protect human health and ensure compli
slateov 'based drinking water standards through
*12 i Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
; Protect public health by implementing rul
101 ;FY 1999 and FY 2000 and increasing information to
; consumers through public notification (PN)
102 i
103
121
122
123
124
'se oHheSng [Sti£f ^ "* """ ***** °Pe'a*0n*
mi i ator ' Instruction Tribal water system: Any public water
.ommuniiy water ; sys|em tha) |s regu|ated by EPA and js associated
!./ frlXTT h^oi™ :with lndian country Also, all systems run by
1 h Iw=H for »nl ! P"maCV tribeS Wil1 ** deflned 3S tribal Systems.
acnievea ror any ;OGWDW will pull from SDWIS on a date
ecuve aaie or eacn ; delermined witn tne Regions me number of tribal
i community water systems.
ance with health- i DWSRF assistance agreements to community and
jse of the Drinking i non-community drinking water systems (cumulative)
ance with hea""- i Triba, comrnunjty an(j non-transient non-community
jseoMheDnnkmg iwatersystems wyith acertified operator.
es promulgated in ; s(a(es w|(h u da(ed primacy for (ESWTR/Stage 1
jrmationto ;DBp (Repo^ng AP^
fl i
i States that have adopted the lESWTR/Stage 1
JDBP.
: States wif h signed extension agreements for
i primacy related to lESWTR/Stage 1 DBP
! (Reporting APM)
i States with updated primacy for CCR. (Reporting
JAPM)
: States with updated primacy for PN. (Reporting
;APM)
i States that have adopted the CCR
I States that have adopted the PN
450 Projects
1800 Agreements
60% Water
systems
21 States
35 States
35 States
25 States
10 States
35 States
25 States
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
Staci Gatica /
HQin
consultation
with the
Regions
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT I
RT !
RT i
RT i
j
-
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
PageS- 19
malemp wM
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Reglon/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Code Annual Performance Goal (APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM) APM Target
1 25 i States with signed extension agreements for 44 states
i primacy related to OCR (Reporting APM)
'• Population served by non-community, non-transient
Maintain percent of the population served by water systems ; drinking water systems with no violations during the
100 that will receive drinking water meeting all health-based j year of any federally enforceable health-based 96% Population
standards that were in effect as of 1994 (CG) jstandards that were in place by 1994 (Also a Core
; Performance Measure (CPM))
: Population served by community drinking water
176 j systems with no violations during the year of any „..„ pnnil|,t(m
I federally enforceable health-based standards that ropuwuon
; iwere in place by 1994 (Also a CPM and a CM)
APG/APM
Originator
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
Subobjectlve 1.2: By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional 10 high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts.
; Expand public health protection through: 1} promulgation of ; ;
j new regulations •- the Long-term 1 Enhanced Surface Water j j
1b7 i Treatment Rule, arsenic, ground water, radionuclides, filter i Regulations promulgated/proposed 5 Regulations
j backwash, and 2) making determinations whether or not to j
ireg i
10S ; ! Risk analyses completed in support of new 4 Analvses
i i regulations *
; j Regulatory determinations for potentially harmful 5 Determinations
; i contaminants
OGWDW
OST
OGWDW
A™ rl£^?nt^ Narrative (to be completed as need
Reporter Commitment for to provide clarification)
RT
RT
RT
arsenic, radon) will be Issued.
OGWDW
OST
OGWDW
Subob.ect.v.1.,: By 200, SO percent of the populate served * commun* water sy^^
i States and community water systems increase efforts and j imp|ementing efforts to protect their source i
127 ; programs to protect their source water resources, including i^ter resources : 6,500 CWSs
; ground water . i ' i
i : Population served by community water systems that
105 i i are implementing efforts to protect their source 36 Million people
: i water resources
; i Definitions: source water assessment: same
! i process as for states under the SDWA and SWAP
;By 2005, 40% of the population served by tribal community i Guidance source water assessment program:
Tribal ;wa|er systems will receive their water from systems with j contaminant source management and contingency
IM?" ^ source water assessments and. where needed, source water ; planning "where needed:" The assessment itself
j protection programs in place i should help the tribe decide whether a protection
• • plan is needed; the releasing of the results to the
i i public will also help. ;
OGWDW
OGWDW
RT
RT
Staci Gatica /
Regions
Subobjectlve 1.4: By 2005, Increase protection of ground water resources by managing all Class I, Class II, and Class III Injection wells and by managing identified high-risk Class V wells In 100% of high priority
protection areas (e.g., wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).
Through the UIC program, EPA will contribute to the ; Required mechanica| integrity tests that took place. 1mv ..c
114 protection of ground water sources of drinking water from i (Reporting APM) 100% tests
potential endangerment. [
!UIC wells plugged as a direct action by the UIC
I program or indirectly by another program working in . „_ ... ..
1d5 ! partnership with UIC to protect ground water i.ouuweiis
sources of drinking water.
1 1 1 ; States that have formally adopted the Class V rule 34 States
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW \
RT
RT i
RT i i
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 20
maternp wk4
-------
FY20O1 National Water Program Management Agreement
Region/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Cornpleted_by:
ARM
Code
112
113
115
Tribal
Strategy
Annual Performance Goal (APG)
i Annual Performance Measure (ARM)
i Class IV/V weiis (by well type) brought under
i specific controls through permits or closures.
; Issue proposed Phase 2 UIC Class V regulatory
action
By 2005. increase protection of groundwater resources by
managing all Class I, II, and III injection wells in Indian
country and by managing identified, high-risk Tribal class V
wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e g , Tribal
priority areas, well head protection, sole source aquifer or
source water protection areas.)
i Injection wells losing mechanical integrity that were
I adequately addressed (Reporting APM)
i injection well means all Class i, li, ill. IV and V
i wells as defined in the regulations. "Managed"
Class I, II, III, or V well is a well which is in
i compliance with its permit or is authorized by rule
•"Managed" Class IV wells, which are banned,
•means eliminated through immediate action.
•"Identified" means known to UIC implementing
•agency High priority protection areas: For the
i short term will be defined on a Region-specific basis
i and may include SSAs, WHPs, etc For the long-
iterm. this will be defined
APM Target
500 Wells
1 Action
100% wells
APG/APM
Originator
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
APM
Reporter
RT
OGWDW
RT
Staci Gatica /
Regions
RT, GWB, or HQ
Commitment for
FY01
Narrative (to be completed as need
to provide clarification)
Subobjective 1.5: By 2005. consumption of contaminated flsh and shellfish will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the de
Increase.
signaled uses protecting the consumption offish and shellfish will
120
129
1e1
1e2
119
tribal
Strategy
«10
12% of the naiion's river miles and 17% of nation's lake acres ;Lake acres assessed for trie need for fish
will have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and • advisories and compilation of state-issued fish
shellfish that should not be eaten or should be eaten in only ; consumption advisory methodologies (cumulative)
limited quantities, (supports CWAP) I (Also a CPM)
| Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary
; square miles that have water quality supporting
i designated beneficial uses, where applicable, for
ifish and shellfish consumption. (Also a CPM)
; States/tribes monitoring and conducting
! assessments based on the national guidance to
i establish nationally consistent fish advisories.
I River miles assessed for the need for fish
I consumption advisories & compilation of state-
I issued fish consumption advisory methodologies
I (cumulative) (Also a CPM)
„_, ,. , . . , j, ..u • • lu ; Fish tissue samples collected for: i) National Fish
Reduce consumpta of contaminated fish by increasing the ; (cumulative) and 2) by stales and
rSupport?CWAP) decision-makers. | Regbns for ^ advjsory ^^s [Reporting AMp
Fish consumption goal being developed. •
17% lake acres
40 States
12% River miles
OST
OWOW
OST
OST
OST
OST
OWOW
OST
OST
OST/RT
RT
Subobjective 1.6: By 2005, ex
Increase.
"Reijucei exposure to contaminated recreation waters by ;Beaches for which monitoring and closure data is
128 increasing the information available to the public and decision; available at http //www epa gov/OST/beaches/
!-makers (Supports CWAP) (CG) [(cumulative). (CM)
2,200 Beaches
OST
OST
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5-21
matemp wk4
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Region/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed byj
APM
Code
130
Annual Performance Goal (APG)
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
Reduce exposure to contaminated recreation waters by i Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary
increasing the information available to the public and decision i *quare 7"^? thatr have water qua"fy suPP°rtlnS
; designated beneficial uses, where applicable, for
i recreation (Also a CPM)
-makers (Supports CWAP)
APM Target
No Target
APG/APM
Originator
owow
APM
Reporter
OWOW
Kl. U
Comrr
RT.GWBToTflQ
FY01
Narrative (to be completed as need
to provide clarification)
Subobjective 1.8: By 2005, protect drinking water sources by Increasing by 50% the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act
. ,
'
! Assess river miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles that i As,ses,she? '"*' "lies/lake acres/estuary square
i have water quality supporting designated uses, where i ™lesrtha have "?* qua" y S"PPf '"B .*8»natf d
i applicable, for drinking water supply ; ^^^ ^ "^ '
•increase (over the 1996 baseline of 36 states) the number of ;„. . _.. . , j ,
: states reporting in their Clean Water Act Section 305(b) ' 1 Stf tes 'If,0*'"9 assessment of river and stream
:..... , . • miles and lake acres for dnnkinq water use in their
i ' - - ' 305(b) submittals (cumulative) (Reportino APM)
No target, rivers,
etc
40 States
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
Objective 2: By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's (state, Interstate, and tribal) waters and aquatic ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas,
oceans, and ground waters - so that 75% of waters support healthy aquatic communities.
Subobjective 2.1: By 2005,1
224 / : 40% of Tribes will have a "water program environmental
Tribal i presence" (i e , one or more persons, as appropriate, with
strategy: environmental capability to advise Tribal governments on
*' i developing and implementing programs)
i Encourage comprehensive planning for the management of
203 ; dredged material, and assure environmentally sound disposal
: of dredged material
' ' ' '! Encourage comprehensive planning for the management of
204 i dredged material, and assure environmentally sound disposal
i of dredged material
i Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration
209 I action strategies (WRAS) or their equivalent in 14 priority
.•coastal river and estuary segments.
Tribes with a water program presence (cumulative)
40% Tribes
IO
i Facilitate establishment of Local Planning Groups to:
: develop comprehensive plans for dredged material i
\ management.
3 Local Planning
Groups
I Participate in the development of local
i comprehensive plans for dredged material
i management (cumulative).
I Impaired Gulf coastal river and estuary segments
• implementing WRAS or equivalent
210
211
i Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration
i action strategies (WRAS) or their equivalent in 14 priority
I coastal river and estuary segments.
i TMDLs (1) scheduled to be completed; (2)
I submitted by Gulf States for segments in the
! coastal watershed; and (3) established by EPA and
Gulf State established TMDLs approved
; Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration
i action strategies (WRAS) or their equivalent in 14 priority
j coastal river and estuary segments
Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary
jsquare miles that a) are covered under WRAS and
;b) were restored to their designated uses during the
; reporting period.
i Assist the Gulf States in characterizing the impairments jGulf coastal watersheds with characterizations of
212 i caused by invasive aquatic species in 30 (cumulative) priority i impairments caused by invasive aquatic species
! coastal watersheds ; (cumulative) (Reporting APM)
: Assist the Gulf States in characterizing the impairments j Assessed coastal river miles and estuary square
213 : caused by invasive aquatic species in 30 (cumulative) priority j miles impaired by invasive aquatic species in the 30
i coastal watersheds i priority coastal watersheds (Reporting APM)
3 Plans
14 Segments
No target TMDLs
No target, miles,
etc.
30 Watersheds
No target, miles
OWOW
OWOW
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
IO
OWOW
OWOW
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 22
maremp wk4
-------
FY2D01 National Water Program Management Agreement
Reglon/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
APM ' :
Code | Annual Performance Goal (APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM)
i Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of j Acres of habitat preserved, restored and/or created
202 ; Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans | nationwide as part of the National Estuary Program
j(CCMPs). i (cumulative). (CM)
2ac / ; Assure that States and Tribes have effective, up-to-date I
Tribal ; water quality standards programs adopted in accordance with I Tribes with water quality standards adopted and
strategy j (ne water Quality Standards regulation and the Water j approved (cumulative) (CM)
*5 i Quality Standards program priorities. (CG) !
; | States with new or revised water quality standards
_gg i i that EPA has reviewed and approved or
i i disapproved and promulgated federal replacement
i i standards (CM)
i Funds will be awarded for 20-25 projects to assist with I
222 iTlTSs"^ IproJecUfundedtoimprovewaterqualitylnGreat
; sediments, controlling polluted runoff and stormwater. j L ° concern.
i restoring wetlands, and acquiring greenways and buffers \
-.. -Restore and protect watersheds through implementation of if MDLs established by EPA (cumulative) (Also a
i Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) strategies. i CPM)
-,.,- i iTMDLs scheduled to be completed by the end of
! i 2001 (cumulative). (Also a CPM)
i ; Impaired, assessed river miles, lake acres. &
_16 i i estuary square miles that a) are covered under
| JWRAS and b) were restored to their designated
j i uses during the reporting period. (Also a CPM)
j ; Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary
j j square miles that have water quality supporting
i i designated beneficial uses, where applicable, for
i i aquatic life support. (Also a CPM)
i i TMDLs submitted by the state (cumulative). (Also a
218 i JCPM)
: -State-established TMDLs approved (cumulative)
219 ; l(AlsoaCPM)
• Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of : Priority actions or commitments initiated nationwide
201 i Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans jas part of the National Estuary Program since
i(CCMPs) (CG) iapproval of the first CCMP in 1991 (cumulative)
! P'°vide tools for risk ctaiactoriatlon and decision making j me,hods, criteria developed/available for risk
; regarding surface water contaminants, inducting | PBTs and ; £ contaminants.
* ; nutrients, that allow States and Tribes to set and meet their ; (Reportjna APM)
i own water quality standards. ;
; ; Pounds reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen and
208 j Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay ; phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay
i i (cumulative)
| i Wastewater How to the Chesapeake Bay treated by
25a ; ; Biological Nutrient Removal (cumulative)
! j Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
26a j i present in the Chesapeake Bay (cumulative)
APM Target
50,000 Acres
27 Tribes
30 States
20-25 Projects
251 TMDLs
3.319 TMDLs
2, 189 TMDLs
2, 189 TMDLs
82% Actions
1 List
71/7 Pounds
49 % WW How
78.000 Acres
APG/APM
Originator
owow
OST
OST
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OST
CBPO
CBPO
CBPO
APM
Reporter
OWOW
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
OWOW
RT
RT
OWOW
OST
CBPO
CBPO
CBPO
RT, GWB, or HQ
Commitment for
FY01
Narrative (to be com
to provide clar
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 23
malemp wk4
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
ReglonfHQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
APM ' •
Code ! Annual Performance Goal (APG) j Annual Performance Measure (APM)
2ax i i Stream miles of migratory fish habitat reopened
i 'through provision of fish passages (cumulative).
i i Agricultural, recreational and public lands that have
2aw i ivoluntary integrated pest management (IPM)
j : practice established in the Chesapeake Bay
; ^watershed (cumulative).
205 i Identify sources of marine debris along U S coasts ^valuation of data from the National Marine Debris
I : Monitoring Program (Reporting APM)
220 / ; 16% of Tribes will have water quality monitoring and i
Tribal ; assessment programs appropriate for their circumstances j Tribes with monitoring and assessment programs
strategy ; and will be entering water quality data into EPA's national j (cumulative)
*2 : data systems j
221 1 : 16% of Tribes will have water quality monitoring and j
Tribal \ assessment programs appropriate for their circumstances j pi( . oTnpPTn™=,h. rorwtinn nm»rta with Trihoe
strategy ; and will be entering water quality data into EPA's national ] Pltot STORE"30*") reporting proiects with Tribes
*2 idata systems •
Tribal ;By 2005 15% 0( Tr|bes wj|| be reporting information to 305(b) i
oirBtcov ; M i
»3 : reports :
i By 2005, 20% of tribes that have EPA-approved water ;
: quality standards and that have demonstrated an interest in i
Tribal i establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program j
m \ under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act will wither have ;
;such a program in place or. in coordination with EPA, will be i
I in the process of developing such a program i
jWater quality will improve on a watershed basis such that ;Watereneds ,ha, have ater than 80% of
223 ™ of the,Nf lons 2'1f ? tershed,S ** """! 9reat^,than iassessed waters meeting all water quality
i 80 percent of assessed waters meeting all water quality :ct=mH=.H<= «~M\
i standards, up from 500 watersheds in 1998 (CG) jStanaaras (t,M)
APM Target
1,172 Miles
75% lands
1 Evaluation
16% Tribes
9 Pilot projects
550 8-digit HUCs
APG/APM
Originator
CBPO
CBPO
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
OWOW
APM
Reporter
CBPO
CBPO
RT
RT
Susan
Holdsworth /
Regions
Hazel
Groman /
Regions
OWOW
FtT.GWK.orHQ
Commitment for
FY01
Narrative (to be completed as need
to provide clarification)
Subobjectlve 2.2: By 2005, and In each year thereafter, the work of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; the private sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and citizen groups will result in a net Increase ol
100,000 acres of wetlands.
• . . . . .. ... j : Watershed-based wetland restoration proiects to •
:SuPport wetlands and stream corridor restoration and ;which EPA has provided financial support (other QQP . . _.._...
207 ; management and assessment/monitoring of overall wetland j than 5.5,3,. p^.., and/or has contributed 99 Proiects OWOW
!nealtn isignificant technical assistance (cumulative)
I j States/tribes develop wetlands assess /monitoring
i ; tools & making significant progress towards est.
2^ j i formal programs to assess & monitor overall
i iwetland cond., improve , deterior , & restor. (inc.).
j :Watershed-/community-based wetlands/river
28a i ; corridor restoration projects funded by EPA's Five
j i Star Program (cumulative)
Tribal :By 2005. 20% of Tribes will have developed Tribal !
strategy • conservation plans or alternate approaches for protecting i
*15 i wetlands and watersheds. i
4 States/tribes OWOW
107 Projects OWOW
RT
RT
OWOW
Shanna
Draheim /
Regions
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 24
matemp wk4
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Regfon/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
£££ J Annual Performance Goal (APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM) APM Target | I™*™ _ A™ Sm^ltae'ntlter j """'^l 1'° ^nZSo^ ""'
• i * ^/riQIiiQiOff KGpOfTGl c^A4 ' prOVIQG CI3illICHilOiljr
t ; I r" 1 U 1 '
Objective 3: By 2005, pollutant discharges from key point sources and nonpoint source runoff will be reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants Impacting water bodies will be
reduced
Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), and Industrial sources will be reduced by 30% from 1992 levels.
i Reduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the i States that are using integrated planning and
31 i i $30 billion in CWSRF assets to encourage use of state funds i priority systems to make CW SRF funding
i for state high-priority projects ; decisions (cumulative).
i Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into i
325 ithe nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges i Minor point sources are covered by current permits
ifrom municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from i (CM)
i urban storm water, CSOs. and CAFOs. i
'Prevent pass through of pollutants to sludge and the nation's !Appr°ved pretre™ pr°9rams !"*? *£*
"
'Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into j
,Q3 j the nation's waters of ( 1 ) inadequately treated discharges j Major point sources are covered by current permits
ifrom municipal and industrial facilities, and (2) pollutants from j (CM)
i urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs (CG) I
; fake final action on 2 and propose 2 effluent guidelines i
3a7 i limitations for industrial categories that contribute significantly i Effluent guidelines proposed or promulgated
; to pollution of surface waters i
'Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into i Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
ithe nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges i acres that must have a stormwater permit and
ifrom municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from i number of MS4 acres covered for which permits
i urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs ihave been issued (Reporting APM)
;500 projects funded by the Clean Water SRF will initiate ;
joperations. including 300 projects providing secondary j
'treatment, advanced treatment. CSO correction (treatment), 'CW SRF projects that have initiated operations
3 iand/or storm water treatment Cumulatively, 6,200 SRF ; (cumulative) (CM)
'funded projects will have initiated operations since program j
i inception (CG) i
i Protect human health and avoid increased point source i Wastewater treatrnerrt faci|ities maintaining
;load,ngs by helping the approximately 7.000 small U S. ; performance levels through assistance
iwastewater treatment systems to maintain permitted :^nder Se(£im 1Q4( , of ,he CWA "
i performance levels j
321 , 'increase protection of human health in Indian Country by ; Homes in Indian Country whose residents are
Tribal j providing adequate wastewater sanitation to more of the 7 1 , i provided with adequate wastewater sanitation
strategy JQ28 homes in Indian Country with inadequate wastewater [systems though funding from the CW SRF Tribal
89 i sanitation systems. I Set Aside Program (cumulative).
iReduce point source loadings by expediting completion of iConstruction ants projects awarded before FY92
319 iprojects funded under Clean Water Ac Title II (construct™ ;remain| ,„ £, clos^d ou,
i grants) and special project STAG grants :
i Reduce human health risks and nonpoint source loadings i
ifrom the approximately 1 1 million failing septic systems that 'States which adopt the Voluntary Management
317 ' pollute drinking water supplies, playgrounds and beaches, j Standards Program for On-site Wastewater
i back up into homes and damage shellfish and other aquatic ; Treatment Systems
ilife '• -
17 States
66% Point Sources
100 % over 5yrs
Programs
89% Point Sources
2/2 Rules
No target acres
6.200 SRF
projects
744 Facilities
9% Homes
45 Projects
10 States
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OST
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
RT
RT
RT
RT
OST
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
!
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 25
matomp wk4
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Reglon/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by^
APM ' •
Code • Annual Performance Goal (APG) ; Annual Performance Measure (APM)
ICurrent NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into ;
310 :the nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges • Permits that implement completed TMDLs
jfrom municipal and industrial facilities, and (2) pollutants from I (Reporting APM)
I urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs I
: Reduce point source loadings by expediting completion of :_ . , . , _TA_ , . .... -
3as ! projects funded under Clean Water Act Title II (construction j Special project STAG grants closed out w,th,n 7
I grants) and special project STAG grants ! *ears of 9rant award
I • POTWs beneficially reusing all or a part of their
3ab • lncrease tne beneficial use of the approximately 7 million dry j biosolids and, where data exists, the percent of
• weight tons of biosolids produced each year. ; biosolids generated that are beneficially reused
i '(AlsoaCPM)
312 gSSJSSMME—
jsrrjMMSsr '•-••• '-^^SSSSSA.
I Reduce point 'source loadings by expedttirig completion of irnn<.tmr,inn nranto nmipr-t^ awarrisH aftpr FYqi
313 iprojects funded under dean Water Act T«e „ (construction i^ ^ulwith^fyea^ of g^t ttd
; grants) and special project STAG grants ; ' M
j Reduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the ;EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the
3ar j $30 billion in CWSRF assets to encourage use of state funds ICIean Water State Revolving Fund Program (Also
! for slate high-priority projects ^a CPM)
; Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into 1
,-„ ;the nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges jPermits necessary on 303 (d) listed waterbodies
jfrom municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from : where there is a completed TMDL. (Reporting APM)
'• urban storm water, CSOs. and CAFOs. ;
•Reduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the ; States that meet or exceed "pace of trie program"
31k ;$30 billion in CWSRF assets to encourage use of state funds i measures for loan issuance and construction
I for state high-priority projects • (cumulative)
i Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into j
ithe nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges ;Current permits on 303 (d) listed waterbodies
•from municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from j (Reporting APM)
i urban storm water. CSOs, and CAFOs '••
' '• Permits necessary on 303 (d) listed waterbodies.
307 i j (Reporting APM)
• '.'"" ^Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants for
; Industrial discharges of pollutants to the nation s waters will ; fecHjtJes c, (o effluent jde|ines promu|ga,ed
323 : be significantly reduced through implementation of effluent ;between 1992 & 1999 as compared ,0 1992 levels
.•guidelines (CG) i as predicted by model projections. (CM)
i : Reduction in loadings for toxic pollutants for
i i facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
322 ! ibetween 19928 1999. as compared to 1992 levels
; ias predicted by model projections (CM)
! Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into j
„ . i the nation's waters of ( 1 ) inadequately treated discharges ! States with current permits for construction sites
ifrom municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from iover 5 acres.
i urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs. j
: ! Reduction in loadings for non-conventional
i Industrial discharges of pollutants to the nation's waters will ; pollutants for facilities subject to effluent guidelines
324 i be significantly reduced through implementation of effluent j promulgated between 1992 and 1999. as compared
•guidelines • to 1992 levels as predicted by model projections
i I (CM)
APM Target
90% Grants
55% biosolids
1 Methodology
90% grants
1 Report
35 Sates
386 Million pounds
4 Million pounds
100% States
370 Million pounds
APG/APM
Originator
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
APM
Reporter
RT
RT
RT
OWM
RT
OWM
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
RT
-RT,dW6,orH
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Region/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
Code I Annual Performance Goal (APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM)
: Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into ; Permittees (among the approximately 900 CSb
31: jthe nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges 'communities nationwide) that are covered by
;from municipal and industrial facilities, and (2) pollutants from i NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanisms
i urban storm water. CSOs, and CAFOs (CG) ; consistent with the 1 994 CSO policy. (Also a CPM)
I i States with general NPDES permits for CAFOs > 1.
31 1 j iOOO animal units or with individual NPDES permits
; ifor all CAFOs > 1,000 animal units consistent with
| ;the AFO Strategy and guidance
'Reduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the ; , _ R . A rt conarats
3M~;!gS^°^^
! Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into i
,-g jthe nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges i States with current permits for all industrial activities
jfrom municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from j operating in the state
: urban storm water, CSOs. and CAFOs i
j i CSO acres that must have a Jong term CSO control
305 j i plan and number of CSO acres for which a long
i jterm control plan is required by permit or other
i | enforceable mechanism. (Reporting APM)
suafegy ' By 2005' 50% °' lndian country will have approved nonpoint j
«7 j source assessment and management plans i
i By 2005. 100% of all major NPDES permits within Indian j
Tribal \ country will be permitted using effluent guidelines limitations ;
siraiegy j or secondary treatment requirements where they apply. In j
** \ addition. 50% of all facilities (majors and minors) will be j
i permitted according to Clean Water Act requirements. j
APM Target
100% permittees
100% States
45 States
100% States
No target acres
APG/APM APM
Originator Reporter
OWM RT
OWM RT
OWM I RT
OWM RT
OWM RT
Ed
Drabkowski /
Regions
Betty West /
Regions
RT, GWB, or HQ
Commitment for
FY01
Narrative (to be con-
to provide cla
Subobjective 3.2: By 2005, nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to rivers and streams will b* reduced. Erosion from cropland, used as in Indicator of success In controlling sediment de
surface waters, will be reduced by 20% from 1992 levels.
3Q1 Reduce nonpoin, source sediment and nutrient loads to nW(J^£S.E^^
and streams. I (cumulative).
, '-. Clean Water SRF loaned for projects to prevent
302 i polluted runoff.
i implementation plans associated with tMDLs
: involving sediment and/or nutrients from nonpoint
300 ! sources that provide reasonable assurance that
i needed NPS actions will occur. (Reporting APM)
10%CWSRF
No target plans
OWM RT
OWM RT
OWOW OWOW
Subobjective 3.4: By 200E, Improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50-75% as measured by the N
deposition of nitrogen by 10-15% from 1980 levels as measured by wet and dry deposition monitoring networks, and Improving our understanding of, and cross-media respoi
effects of air pollutants deposited on water bodies and watersheds.
'''"^''\Devt^'a'JM'^aW^mum'^\^c^Wia[mgen"ma jAvailability of a pilot f MDL for nitrogen. ('Reporting j 1 pj|o( j" QWOW "i OWOW '" i ''•
jwaterbody impacted by atmospheric .deposition. ]A.P.M). i i i ; i
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk In Communities, Homes, Workplaces, Ecosystems
atlonal Toxics Invent
ises to, the sources,
y, reducing
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 27
matcmp wk4
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Region/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
APM :
Code i
Annual Performance Goal (APG)
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
APM Target
APG/APM
Originator
APM
Reporter
; RT, GWB. or HQ
i Commitment for
: FY01
Narrative (to be completed as need
to provide clarification)
Objective 7: By 2003,60% of Indian Country will be assessed for its environmental condition and Tribes and EPA will be Implementing plans to address priority issues.
arm :Baseline environmental information wiil be collected by 34% lEnviroYimeriy'assessments for Tr'ite^^
-------
FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement
Region/HQ Program Office or Waterbody:
Completed by:
APM '•
Code i Annual Performance Goal (APG)
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
613
614
606
605
602
615
609
604
Reduce Great Lakes toxic pollutants
[Amount of high-level PCBs used in eiectricai
•\ equipment nationally.
i Catalogued and publicized actions (partnerships or
I virtual elimination demonstration projects) initiated
; toward reduction challenges under BNS (Reporting
I APM)
I Amount of mercury deliberately used nationally and
j released nationally from sources resulting from
j human activity
•Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated
: in the Great Lakes.
i Completed 'Great Lakes sediment cleanup
^demonstrations. (Reporting APM)
| Level i substances for which i-2 toxic reduction
I activities are being implemented (Reporting APM)
'Amount of dioxins and furans (2,3,7, 8-tcbb toxicity
: equivalents) released from sources resulting from
: human activity.
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including
progress on nsh contaminants, beach toxics, air toxics, ana
Reduce Great Lakes toxic pollutants
: Follow-up assessments and characterizations to
i support State/community clean-up of contaminated
i sediments at Great Lakes AOCs. (Reporting APM)
APM Target
Reasonable
Progress
8 Actions
Reasonable
Progress
56,666 Cubic ''
yards
1 Demonstration
5 Substances
Reasonable
Progress
Declining Trend
3 Assessments
APG/APM
Originator
GLNPO
GINPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
APM
Reporter
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
RT.GWB.orHQ
Commitment for
FY01
Narrative (to be completed as need
to provide clarification)
Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About Their Environment
Objective 1: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the American public to participate In the protection of human health and the environment by increasing the quality and quantity of general environmental
education, outreach and data availability programs, especially In disproportionate Impacted and disadvantaged communities.
Subobjectlve 1.2: By 2005, via the Internet and improved technology, the Agency will provide the public with increased access to integrated, comprehensive environmental data; online access to enforcement
and compliance data; Information on the watershed in which they live, Including the environmental condition, stressors, and the environmental health threats by 2003; and Information In an easily accessible
and user friendly manner.
Objective 2: By 2005, EPA will Improve the ability of the public to reduce exposure to specific environmental and human health risks by making current, accurate substance-specific Information widely and
easily accessible.
Subobjective 2.1: By 2005, Pesticide, TSCA, Water and other environmental Information and tools will be available to all communities and citizens, through the Internet, outreach efforts, and consumer
confidence reports, to help make Informed choices about their local environment, including where to live and work, and what potential exposures are acceptable, and to assess the general environmental health
of themselves and their families.
i Ensure that 100% of community water systems are
rk4 I complying with the Consumer Confidence Rule (CCR) by
i issuing annual consumer confidence reports
rk6 !
i Community water systems that will comply with the
i regulation to publish consumer confidence reports
i Population served by CWSs that will 'comply with
I the regulation to publish consumer confidence
• reports
55,000 CWSs
249 Million people
OGWDW
OGWDW
RT
RT
CG = Congressional Goal / CM = Congressional Measure
Page 5 - 29
matemp wkl
-------
Core Performance Measures
Section 6
-------
Contents
Addendum to 199'7 Joint Statement on Measuring page 6-5
Progress under NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and
Applicability of Core Performance Measures
FY 2000-01 Core Performance Measures for Water page 6-11
Comparison Between Core Performance Measures and page 6-13
FY2001 Annual Performance Measures
Information Sources and Reporting for page 6-17
FY 2000-01 Water Core Performance Measures
-------
ADDENDUM TO 1997 JOINT STATEMENT ON MEASURING PROGRESS UNDER NEPPS-
CLARIFYING THE USE AND APPLICABILITY OF CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
When EPA and States initiated the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS),
our goals were to achieve greater environmental protection, better measurement of environmental
progress, and the most efficient use of public resources in achieving these goals. While States vary in the
extent to which they actively participate in specific aspects of NEPPS, the basic concept of performance
partnerships guides State-EPA relationships throughout the country. The development of Core
Performance Measures (CPMs) that has taken place under NEPPS auspices has been successful in
focusing both EPA and State attention on improving how we measure the effectiveness of our
environmental protection efforts.
In August 1997, leaders of ECOS and EPA signed a Joint Statement on Measuring Progress under
NEPPS. The Joint Statement has served as a guidance document for use of CPMs. It also established a
hierarchy of CPMs which was attached to the Joint Statement and is hereby reaffirmed. The purpose of
this addendum is to clarify and update certain principles, guidance and time frames as originally
referenced in the August 1997 Joint Statement. This Addendum accompanies a revised and updated set
of Core Performance Measures. It is in effect during the life of the 1995 NEPPS Agreement unless
otherwise amended.
This addendum addresses and clarifies four key issues. These issues generally relate to the
implementation and use of Core Performance Measures, Associated Reporting Requirements, and
Accountability Measures (hereafter referred to as CPMs). The clarifications presented below constitute
official amendments to the Joint Statement.
Core Performance Measures: What Are They?
CPMs are a limited set of national measures, designed to help gauge progress towards protection of the
environment and public health. They include a mix of three types of measures (as arrayed in the CPM
hierarchy) needed to understand environmental programs and their effectiveness: (1) environmental
indicators (high level trends describing environmental and public health conditions), (2) program
outcomes (measures of program influence or effect), and (3) program outputs (measures of program
activities). CPMs, based on data collected and reported primarily by States, serve the NEPPS objective
of'managing for environmental results' by:
• driving a system of measurement based on performance (with an emphasis on shifting "up the
hierarchy" described above, to more meaningful reporting of environmental results);
• providing States and the Nation as a whole with the information and tools to increase accountability
and make policy, resource or other changes to support improvements in environmental conditions;
and
• providing a benchmark upon which States and EPA can focus efforts to reduce high cost/low value
reporting for public and private entities.
In addition to using CPMs to help paint a national picture of environmental progress, States may wish to
use additional indicators and measures to reflect progress toward State-specific goals and objectives. The
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) negotiated between EPA and States under NEPPS reflect
Page6-5
-------
both State and Federal priorities, and, in addition to CPMs, may include State-specific environmental
goals, objectives, indicators, and performance measures.
Together, EPA and ECOS have led, with participation by a number of other state organizations, the
development of enhanced FY2000 CPMs for water, air, and waste management and remediation; as well
as Accountability Measures for enforcement and compliance. In addition, work continues on developing
CPMs for pollution prevention, pesticides, and lead for use in the future. Most of the current CPMs rely
on data the states already collect and report. Over time, EPA and States will refine and improve the
CPMs to enhance their ability to measure the responses of industry and the public to EPA and State
programs, and the resulting changes in the environment. A few of the existing CPMs represent such an
improvement, and may require new data and reporting.
Continued joint effort will be needed to bring these measures increasingly closer to an accurate and useful
reflection of the most important environmental and program outcomes. EPA and States need to continue
to ask such questions as:
• Are we focusing on the most important outcomes?
• Do we have the data we need to inform the American people on the progress and status of our work?
• Are we measuring cross-program outcomes in a way that encourages more efficient and effective
collaboration among different environmental programs?
• How can we accelerate the pace of the transition to a results-based performance measurement system
which emphasizes use of outcomes versus outputs?
• How can States and EPA continue to advance efforts to minimize high cost/low value reporting?
As this work progresses, EPA and State work groups will continue to consult with the officials who
implement the various programs covered by these measures, a range of experts on data and measurement,
and the many stakeholder groups who constitute an important audience for Core Performance Measures.
Many refinements will undoubtedly be needed as these measures come into use over a period of time. Up
to this point, our initial efforts in improving environmental measurement systems have focused on the
relationships between States and EPA. We now need to expand outreach efforts to include our many
stakeholders as we continue to improve measurement systems over time.
Issue 1: Uses and Audiences for Core Performance Measures
One of the primary purposes of CPMs is to help "paint a national picture" of the nation's progress in
protecting public health and the environment. This picture reflects the progress and accomplishments
achieved by EPA, the States, and others working together. This national picture is intended to inform
Congress, the public, stakeholders and environmental managers of trends and environmental progress
across the nation and in individual states; and to give them the tools to increase accountability and make
(or influence) policy, resource and other decisions. In addition to informing a national audience, many
states plan to use the measures to communicate environmental and program progress to state legislatures
and residents.
CPMs are also intended to help shape EPA and State management decisions by providing environmental
program managers with information on environmental conditions and trends, important program
outcomes, and key program activities. EPA and States will strive to reduce the number of core program
Page 6-6
-------
output measures in favor of outcome measures and environmental indicators. CPMs do not attempt to
capture the full range of information needed to manage environmental programs at the national, resional
or state level; environmental managers at all levels will, in most cases, need additional information "to
guide program management decisions. As stated in the Joint Statement, "...information about activities
(e.g., permitting) is routinely reported each year and maintained in national data bases which we
recognize must be maintained through existing comprehensive data systems." CPMs are not intended to
be used to rank states against each other. They will be used to analyze and describe important
environmental and programmatic trends among states. CPMs should be carefully used in a way that
recognizes the context and quality of the information upon which they are based.
Any reports that use CPMs should emphasize that the results reflect the achievements of States and EPA
working together. Performance results for CPMs may provide Congress and others with a gauge of the
success of important components of the Nation's environmental programs in which the states and EPA
play a major role. States are not directly responsible for fulfilling EPA's Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) reporting requirements to Congress, but CPMs may represent a subset of the
Agency's performance measures under GPRA. EPA intends that the information needed to report CPMs
and other key reporting requirements described herein will satisfy any reporting EPA needs from States
to meet EPA's GPRA reporting responsibilities.
Issue 2: Applicability of Core Performance Measures
States and EPA have identified CPMs as part of the overall NEPPS process for reinventing the
State/EPA partnership. As a result of the NEPPS Agreement, States are active participants in the
development of the CPMs and of the "national picture" that CPMs paint. CPMs as such only apply to
States participating in NEPPS; States not participating in NEPPS will continue to provide key
information needed by EPA through State/EPA Agreements, grant work plans, or other operating
agreements. States participating in NEPPS are presumed to incorporate all CPMs in their Performance
Partnership Agreements with EPA, subject to the conditions described in Issue #3 below. Non-NEPPS
states may voluntarily choose to utilize CPMs to track environmental progress. The great majority of
data points needed for the CPMs jointly approved in April 1999 are already being reported by all states
through national data systems (such as RCRIS and SDWIS) or other established mechanisms. This
reporting should continue by NEPPS and non-NEPPS states alike unless otherwise agreed by States and
EPA.
Where CPMs involve data States are already reporting to EPA, EPA's expectation is that such data will
suffice to report the CPM, i.e., no duplicate reporting is expected. We recognize that CPMs that require
new data may take a year or more to implement. If a CPM requires new data, EPA will work with
States (individually or collectively) to develop a plan to obtain the necessary data. This plan should
articulate ways to manage, schedule, and finance any new data collection and reporting requirements. All
States and Regions are encouraged to be flexible and creative in finding means to collect the needed data
and report on these measures.
Issue 3: Flexibility in Using Core Performance Measures
One of the most challenging aspects of implementing CPMs is balancing the need for consistent
information with the need to accommodate the circumstances of individual States. As per the August
Page 6-7
-------
1997 Joint Statement, it is presumed that states participating in NEPPS will use the CPMs. If a particular
CPM does not fit a State's or Region's situation, that measure may be modified, substituted, or
eliminated in any given year, as agreed to by both the State and EPA. Good judgment and common sense
should guide the determination to modify or eliminate a CPM under the circumstances described below
The State and EPA may jointly agree to deviate from particular CPMs where:
1. The CPM does not apply to a State's or Region's physical setting or environmental condition (e.g.
ocean beach closures in a land-locked state).
2. The state does not have authority for the program to which the CPM applies (e.g., EPA still has
primacy for the program).
3. Data for the CPM are not available or alternative data are more relevant in painting a picture of
environmental progress (e.g., a state-based environmental data and/or performance management system
provides a better description of environmental performance than the CPM). If data are unavailable, EPA and
the State may agree upon a plan to develop the necessary data.
4. The State and EPA agree that the CPM or the work associated with it are not a high priority in the state
(e.g. use of available resources to work on other activities is a higher priority in that state). In this case, the
level of effort devoted to reporting that CPM should be negotiated as part of the NEPPS process.
The States and EPA also affirm joint efforts to continue pursuing innovative environmental projects and
measurement systems that may improve the effectiveness of current and future CPMs.
Issue 4: The Role of CPMs in Improving the Value/Reducing the Cost of Environmental Information
(Burden Reduction)
While the primary purpose of CPMs is better environmental information to support improved environmental
management, the August, 1997 Joint Statement also contains a clear commitment to reducing the reporting
of those outputs that are lower priority. It states: "We are committed to working together to reduce the
overall reporting burden placed on states, especially that created by reporting on outputs... Over time, we
hope to reduce unnecessary reporting and activity counting and streamline necessary reporting so that our
time is spent sharing information on the nation's environmental and pollution problems."
Burden reduction is critical to maintaining and hopefully increasing the resources available for environmental
protection. Both EPA and ECOS remain firmly committed to reducing high cost/low value reporting
requirements on states and others and wish to accelerate progress toward this end. The Joint State/EPA
Information Management Work Group has begun work on this charge. The Work Group has proposed an
approach for assessing environmental information, including data reporting requirements, through an
examination of the value of information (in understanding and making decisions to protect human health and
the environment), as compared to its cost (including the work involved by all parties in data collection,
management and reporting). The following direction is hereby provided to help guide and accelerate this
process:
• Application of the cost/value approach to examining burden reduction opportunities is hereby endorsed,
and the Joint Work Group should continue to develop proposals to implement this approach. EPA and
Page 6-8
-------
States need to work together to ensure that the reporting of CPM data is efficient and improvements in
data collection and reporting are made where possible.
CPMs serve to frame discussions of what reporting meets the value/cost test, by spelling out what
information EPA and States jointly believe to be highest priority. Information not necessary to support
CPMs then becomes subject to review according to value/cost criteria, and is a candidate for burden
reduction. Together, EPA and States (as well as other suppliers and users of environmental information)
will work to ensure that they collect and share information that has "specific and demonstrable uses," as
outlined in the State/EPA Vision and Operating Principles for Environmental Information Management
The Joint Work Group should, in coordination with EPA and ECOS CPM Work Groups, expeditiously
design a process for accomplishing this review and identifying opportunities for burden reduction.
A State/Regional dialogue provides the best entry point for investigating what information ~ especially
information beyond that required to report on CPMs ~ is needed for States and EPA to do their
respective jobs. EPA and States need to create an atmosphere that promotes working together to
explore possibilities for reducing high cost/low value reporting, and that encourages States and EPA
Regions to test and apply specific initiatives to reduce high cost/low value reporting through their PPAs
at the earliest possible time. EPA Regions should consult EPA national program offices prior to
implementing any initiatives that change national reporting requirements. EPA and ECOS support the
establishment of a clearinghouse of successful initiatives and pilot projects in specific States and Regions
to improve the value and reduce the cost of information.
Page 6-9
-------
Extension of Joint Statement
The Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under NEPPS, signed in August 1997, applied to FY98 and
FY99. It is hereby extended to apply for FY 2000 and beyond, during the life of the 1995 NEPPS
Agreement, subject to the amendments and clarifications contained in this Joint Statement Addendum.
Specific references in the original Joint Statement to CPMs for FY 98 or FY 99 are also amended to apply
for FY 2000, and beyond, as applicable.
This Addendum is effective as of the date of signature.
Robert Varney, Date Carol Browner, Date
New Hampshire DES, EPA Administrator
ECOS President
Lewis Shaw, " Linda Rimer,
South Carolina DF£EC, EPA Deputy Associate Administrator
ECOS Vice-President
Langdon Marsh, J. Charles Fox,
Oregon DEQ, EPA Assistant Administrator
Chair, ECOS Strategic Planning Committee
Page 6-10
-------
FY 2OOO-01 Core Performance Measures for Water1
Subject Area: Protection of Public Health
Core Environmental Indicator
Core Program Outcome Measure
Core Program Output Measure
1. Number of: a) community drinking water
systems and percent of population served by
community water systems, and b) non-transient,
non-community drinking water systems, and
percent of population served by such systems,
with no violations during the year of any
federally enforceable1 health-based standard.
2. Estimated number of community water systems
(and estimated percent of population served)
implementing a multiple barrier approach2 to prevent
drinking water contamination.
3. Percent of river miles and lake acres that have been
assessed for the need for fish consumption advisories;
and compilation of State-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies, as reported through the
National Listing of Fish arid Wildlife Advisories.
Notes/Comments
1. EPA will develop language clarifying meaning of "federally enforceable," i.e., includes more stringent State standards.
2. EPA and States are still working to develop a source water protection measure. ECOS will adopt this measure only upon agreement to the definition by
the ECOS Water Committee. As of April 2000, work continues to develop a final source water CPM. Thus for FY2001, there will not be a source
water CPM.
Subject Area: Protection of Ecological Health, Protection of Public Health
Core Environmental Indicator
4. Number and percent of assessed river miles,
lake acres, and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated beneficial
uses, including, where applicable, for: a) fish
and shellfish consumption; b) recreation; c)
aquatic life support; d) drinking water supply.
(The reporting period is two years.)
Core Program Outcome Measure
5. Number and percent of impaired, assessed river
miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles that a)
are covered under Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies, and b) were restored to their designated
uses during the reporting period. (The reporting
period is two years.)
Core Program Output Measure
6. The TMDL status for each State, including: a) the
number of TMDLs identified on the 1998 303(d) list that
the State and EPA have committed to produce in the two
year cycle; b) the number of TMDLs submitted by the
State to EPA; c) the number of State-established
TMDLs approved by EPA; and d) the number of EPA-
established TMDLs. (This cumulative measure would
be jointly reported by EPA and the State.)
1 As stated in the 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring Progress under NEPPS, "Beyond core performance measures, there arc other program output and
fiscal reporting requirements we must use to document our various program activities." States are expected to continue reporting this routine program
and fiscal tracking information. At the same time, States and EPA Regions are encouraged to work together to review the value and cost of these data
exchanges and eliminate low-priority reporting.
Page 6-1
-------
Subject Area: Reduction of Point source and Non-point Source Pollutant Discharges
Core Environmental Indicator
Core Program Outcome Measure
7. Percent of POTWs that are beneficially reusing all
or a part of their biosolids and, where data exists, the
percent of biosolids generated that are beneficially
reused.
Core Program Output Measure
8. Number and percent of facilities that have a discharge
requiring an individual permit: a) that are covered by a
current individual NPDES permit; b) that have expired
individual permits; c) that have applied for but not been
issued an individual permit, and d) that have individual
permits under administrative or judicial appeal.
9. Number of storm water sources associated with
industrial activity, number of construction sites over five
acres, and number of designated storm water sources
(including Municipal Phase I) that are covered by a
current individual or general NPDES permit
10. Number of permittees (among the approximately 900
CSO communities nationwide) that arc covered by
NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanisms
consistent with the 1994 CSO policy.
11. Number and percent of approved pretrcatmcnt
programs audited in the reporting year. Of those, the
number of audits finding significant shortcomings and the
number of local programs upgraded to achieve
compliance.
12. EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF) Program. (EPA
and States are working to develop an outcome measure
for the CW SRF.)
13. Number of EPA approvals of State submitted
upgraded Nonpoint Source Programs (incorporating the
nine key elements outlined in the national Nonpoint
Source Program and Grants Guidance for FY 1997 and
Future Years jointly transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA). (This CPM is discontinued in 2001 )
Page 6-12
-------
Comparison Between Core Performance Measures as Agreed to with ECOS April 1999
and Core Performance Measure Language included in FY01 President's Budget
as Annual Performance Measures
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY01
OMB Submission
Comments
Number of: a) community
drinking water systems and
percent of population served by
community water systems, and
b) non-transient, non-
community drinking water
systems, and percent of
population served by such
systems, with no violations
during the year of any federally
enforceable health-based
standard.
% of population served by
community drinking water systems
with no violations during the year
of any federally enforceable
health-based standards that were in
place by 1994.
% of population served by
non-community, non-transient
drinking water systems with no
violations during the year of any
federally enforceable health-based
standards that were in place by
1994.
Split into two measures to allow
2 different targets to be entered
into EPA's BAS database.
APMs are missing number of
systems.
APMs add clause "that were in
place by 1994" at the end of the
measure.
2. Estimated number of community
water systems (and estimated
percent of population served)
implementing a multiple barrier
approach to prevent drinking
water contamination.
Still working to develop a final
source water CPM.
3. Percent of river miles and lake
acres that have been assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories; and compilation of
State-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies, as
reported through the National
Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories.
Percent of river miles assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.
Percent of lake acres assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.
Two APMs allows for separate
targets for river miles and lake
acres.
Neither APM contains last clause
in CPM due to space constraints
in BAS.
Page 6-13
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY01
OMB Submission
Comments
4. Number and percent of assessed
river miles, lake acres, and
estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses,
including, where applicable, for:
a) fish and shellfish
consumption; b) recreation; c)
aquatic life support; d) drinking
water supply. (The reporting
period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for fish and shellfish consumption.
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for recreation.
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for aquatic life support.
Assessed river miles/lake
acres/estuary square miles that
have water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses, where
applicable, for drinking water
supply.
Split CPM into 4 separate APMs
in order to array the APMs under
the most applicable
subobjectives.
5. Number and percent of
impaired, assessed river miles,
lake acres, and estuary square
miles that a) are covered under
Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies, and b) were restored
to their designated uses during
the reporting period. (The
reporting period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres, &
estuary square miles that a) are
covered under WRAS and b) were
restored to their designated uses
during the reporting period.
APM doesn't contain the word
"impaired".
6. The TMDL status for each state;
including:
a. The number of TMDLs
identified on the 1998 303(d)
list that the State and EPA have
committed to produce during the
current two-year cycle.
b. The number of these TMDLs
submitted by the State to EPA.
c. The number of
states-established TMDLs
approved by EPA.
d. The number of
EPA-established TMDLs.
(This cumulative measure can
be reported jointly by EPA and
the States.)
Number of TMDLs established by
EPA (cumulative).
Number of TMDLs scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2001
(cumulative).
Number of TMDLs submitted by
the state (cumulative).
Number of state-established
TMDLs approved (cumulative).
Page 6-14
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY01
OMB Submission
Comments
7. Percent of POTWs that are
beneficially reusing all or a part
of their biosolids and, where
data exists, the percent of
biosolids generated that are
beneficially reused.
POTWs that are beneficially
reusing all or a part of their
biosolids and, where data exists,
the percent of biosolids generated
that are beneficially reused.
8. Number and percent of facilities
that have a discharge requiring
an individual permit: a) that are
covered by a current individual
NPDES permit; b) that have
expired individual permits; c)
that have applied for but not
been issued an individual
permit, and d) that have
individual permits under
administrative or judicial
appeal.
% of major point sources covered
by current permits.
% of minor point sources covered
by current permits.
APM significantly shorter than
CPM. APMs focus only on
sources with current permits.
9. Number of storm water sources
associated with industrial
activity, number of construction
sites over five acres, and number
of designated storm water
sources (including Municipal
Phase I) that are covered by a
current individual or general
NPDES permit.
% of states with current permits for
all industrial activities operating in
the state.
% of states with current permits for
construction sites over 5 acres.
APMs in terms of states rather
than sources.
No parallel APM to the storm
water portion of the CPM.
10. Number of permittees (among
the approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that
are covered by NPDES permits
or other enforceable
mechanisms consistent with the
1994 CSO policy.
% of permittees (among the
approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms consistent
with the 1994 CSO policy.
APM is in terms of percent while
CPM is in terms of number.
11. Number and percent of
approved pretreatment
programs audited in the
reporting year. Of those, the
number of audits finding
significant shortcomings and
the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve
compliance.
% of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting
year. Of those, the number of
audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of
local programs upgraded to achieve
compliance.
APM in terms of percent only
while CPM is in terms of number
and percent.
Page 6-15
-------
Core Performance Measures
as Agreed to with ECOS
(April 1999)
Parallel EPA Annual
Performance Measure
(APM) included in FY01
OMB Submission
Comments
12. EPA will report to Congress on
the pace of the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CW
SRF) Program. (EPA and
States are working to develop
an outcome measure for the
CW SRF.)
EPA will report to Congress on the
pace of the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program.
No differences.
13. Number of EPA approvals of
State submitted upgraded
Nonpoint Source Programs
(incorporating the nine key
elements outlined in the national
Nonpoint Source Program and
Grants Guidance for FY1997
and Future Years jointly
transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA).
This measure is not being
continued in 2001.
Page 6-16
-------
Information Sources and Reporting
for
FY 2000-01 Water Core Performance Measures
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
Number of: a) community drinking water systems
and percent of population served by community
water systems, and b) non-transient, non-
community drinking water systems, and percent of
population served by such systems, with no
violations during the year of any federally
enforceable health-based standard.
Source: SDWIS. Every drinking water system -
community as well as nontransient, noncommunity ~
(and, in some cases, State approved laboratories)
report to the State such data elements as: sources of
drinking water supply, population served by the
system, violation(s) of MCL for drinking water
contaminants (both chemical and microbial) and
treatment techniques along with the failure to monitor
for these types of violations. States enter this data into
SDWIS. SDWIS provides data that while system
specific can also be aggregated to show state-wide
information, Regional information (States within
EPA's Regional structure), and national information.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
2. Estimated number of community water systems
(and estimated percent of population served)
implementing a multiple barrier approach to
prevent drinking water contamination.
The source water protection CPM is still under
development and has not been finalized. Use of this
measure will not be expected until the measure is
finalized.
3. Percent of river miles and lake acres that have
been assessed for the need for fish consumption
advisories; and compilation of State-issued fish
consumption advisory methodologies, as reported
through the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories.
Source: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories. In calendar year (CY)
1998, States submitted information to EPA on paper
and EPA entered the data into the database; starting in
CY 1999, States may enter data directly into the
database.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake
acres, and estuary square miles that have water
quality supporting designated beneficial uses,
including, where applicable, for: a) fish and
shellfish consumption, b) recreation; c) aquatic
life support; d) drinking water supply. (The
reporting period is two years.)
Source: State Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
5. Number and percent of impaired, assessed river
miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles that a)
are covered under Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies, and b) were restored to their designated
uses during the reporting period. (The reporting
period is two years.)
Source: For part (a), as part of Watershed Restoration
Action Strategies submission, report which watersheds
(8-digit HUC or finer detail) are covered by strategies
(EPA will deduce stream miles, etc.). For part (b),
States are encouraged to use Clean Water Act Section
305(b) reports.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
Page 6-17
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
6. The TMDL status for each state: including:
a. The number of TMDLs identified on the 1998
303(d) list that the State and EPA have committed
to produce during the current two-year cycle.
b. The number of these TMDLs submitted by the
State to EPA.
c. The number of states-established TMDLs
approved by EPA.
d. The number of EPA-established TMDLs.
(This cumulative measure can be reported jointly
by EPA and the States.)
Source: (1) Biennially-required Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) Lists which include TMDL schedule
and (2) TMDL Submittals
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
7. Percent of POTWs that are beneficially reusing all
or a part of their biosolids and, where data exists,
the percent of biosolids generated that are
beneficially reused.
Source: Biosolids Data Management System. Key
information for this measure are A) dry weight tons
generated by Class I (40 CFR Part 503) facilities; B)
use and disposal methods for the above in dry weight
tons by categories: land application, surface disposal,
incineration, other named; C) percentages for the
above dry weight tons meeting Table III (40 CFR Part
503) land application requirements.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
8. Number and percent of facilities that have a
discharge requiring an individual permit: a) that
are covered by a current individual NPDES
permit; b) that have expired individual permits; c)
that have applied for but not been issued an
individual permit, and d) that have individual
permits under administrative or judicial appeal.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS). Key
information for this measure are permit application
date, permit issuance date, and permit expiration date.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
9. Number of storm water sources associated with
industrial activity, number of construction sites
over five acres, and number of designated storm
water sources (including Municipal Phase I) that
are covered by a current individual or general
NPDES permit.
Source: State issued permits. Key information for
this measure are permit application date, permit
issuance date, and permit expiration date.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
10. Number of permittees (among the approximately
900 CSO communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or other enforceable
mechanisms consistent with the 1994 CSO
policy.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS).
Informal dialogue between EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regions and States.
What to Report: status of NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms for CSOs
11. Number and percent of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting year. Of
those, the number of audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve compliance.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS). Key
information for this measure are audit dates. State
reporting.
What to Report: States would need to report to EPA
the number of audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of local programs
upgraded to achieve compliance as this
information is not tracked in PCS.
Page 6-18
-------
Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
for Measure
12. EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF)
Program. (EPA and States are working to develop an
outcome measure for the CW SRF.)
Source: State Revolving Fund Information System
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
13. Number of EPA approvals of State submitted
upgraded Nonpoint Source Programs
(incorporating the nine key elements outlined in
the national Nonpoint Source Program and
Grants Guidance for FY1997 and Future Years
jointly transmitted by EPA and ASWIPCA).
Source: Upgraded state nonpoint source programs
submitted by states to EPA
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
This measure is discontinued in FY01.
Page 6-19
-------
Timeline
Section 7
-------
Contents
Calendar by Date page 7-5
Calendar by Topic page 7-9
-------
Water Accountability Key Dates for FY 2000/2001
FY2000
April
19 2000 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate
21 Final Updated FY2000/1 Program Guidance to Regions
28 2000 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA on all 2000 Congressional Measures
(APMs) for which data is available
Full draft of revised strategic plan distributed for review
May
10 Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FYOO Mid-Year Results and FY02 Budget
Plans
June
Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities.
disinvestments, and other budget issues
OCFO issues Guidance for the FY 2000 Annual Performance Report
July
Investment Proposals for 2002 submitted
Final passback on 2002
August
15 Revised Strategic Plan submitted to OMB
Page7-5
-------
September
1 Draft 2001 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use as
basis for negotiation)
1 FY02 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to OMB
29 Revised Strategic Plan submitted to Congress
FY2001
October
6 End of Year F Y2000 Reporting Guidance to Regions
FY 2001 Annual Performance Report Draft Goal Narratives due to OCFO
November
3 End of Year Data for FY2000 due to OW Immediate
End of Year Data for FY2000 due to OPAA
30 Signed FY2000 Management Agreements between HQ and Regions
December
Revisions to FY2001 Annual Performance Goals and Measures to reflect any budget
changes
Finalize FY 2002 Annual Performance Goals and Measures
January
Final review of FY2000 Annual Performance Report
Page 7-6
-------
February
FY02 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to Congress
2 Draft FY 2002/03 Program Guidance to Regions (post issuance of President's Budget to
Congress)
March
1 EPA FY2000 Performance Report to Congress
OPAA Guidance on Mid-Year Reporting for FY2001
FY2001 Mid-Year Reporting Guidance to Regions
April
2 Final FY2002/03 Program Guidance to Regions
2001 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate
2001 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA on all 2000 Annual Performance Measures
for which data is available
May
?Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FY01 Mid-Year Results and FY02 Budget
Plans
June
Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
July
Investment Proposals for 2003 submitted
Final passback on 2003
Page 7-7
-------
September
4 Draft 2002 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use as
basis for negotiation)
4 FY03 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to OMB
Page 7-8
-------
Key Accountability and Budget Dates by Topic Area
(All dates are 2000 unless otherwise stated}
National Program Guidance
- 2/15 issue draft update to FYOO/01 program guidance
- 4/21 issue final update to FYOO/01 program guidance
- 2/7/01 issue draft FY02/03 program guidance
- 4/2/01 issue final FY02/03 program guidance
FY2001 Budget and Annual Plan
- Ill submit to Congress
- Oct./Nov. final revisions to reflect operating plan
-Dec. revisions to APGs/APMs to reflect any budget changes
FY2002 Budget and Annual Plan
- Spring/ APGs/APMs development
Summer
- June Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities.
disinvestments, and other budget issues
- mid-June OCFO issues budget guidance
- July Investment Proposals submitted
- July: Budget Forum
- 7/28 final passback
- 9/1 submit to OMB
- Dec. finalize APGs/APMs
- 2/5/01 submit to Congress
FYOO Mid-Year Report
4/03 issue mid-year reporting guidance
4/19 responses from Regions and HQ program offices due to Mike Weckesser
4/28 mid-year data due in Agency system
5/10 Goal 2 Team Meeting with Deputy Administrator to report mid-year results
FYOO End-of-Year Report for the National Water Program
- 10/6 issue guidance to Regions
- 11/3 data due to HQ
- Nov. data due to OPAA
Page 7-9
-------
FYOO Annual Performance Report
- Oct first draft
- Jan. "01 final review
-3/30/01 submit report to Congress
FY2001 Management Agreement
- 9/1 draft MAs due to HQ
-11/30 all MAs signed
Page 7-10
-------
Mid-Year and End-of-Year
Reporting
Section 8
-------
Mid-Year and End of Year Reporting
As indicated in the calendar of key dates in this national program guidance, mid-year and end of
year reporting will be required by Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices
for the annual performance measures for which they made commitments against in the FY2000
Management Agreement. The Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability is requiring the
mid-year information to be provided for all Congressional performance measures for which such
information is available. April 19, 2000 is the due date for mid-year reporting. November 3,
2000, is the due date for end of year reporting.
Templates and guidance for reporting mid-year and end of year results will be provided several
weeks before each due date. Ultimately, the information provided by HQ Program Offices.
Regions, and Great Water Body Offices will be very important to the preparation of the
performance report to Congress.
In addition, in recognition of the highlighted Agency-wide priorities of Children's Health,
Reinvention, and the Persistent. Bioaccumulative Pollutant Initiative. Regions. HQ Program
Offices, and Great Water Body Offices should include with their End of Year Report a brief
narrative that describes with specificity how these four cross-agency priorities were reflected in
their work.
The Goal 2 Chapter for the Agency's FY99 Annual Performance Report and the final
accomplishments for all FY99 annual performance measures for the National Water Program are
provided on the following pages.
Page8-3
-------
Page 8-4
-------
National Analysis or End-of-Year Data
Final - 2M/00
OCFO ID
GOAL
OWNE
Annual Performance Goals/Measures „ L™J
»nd Key Actions from the Clean Water I RfP°™r
„<££,
Action Plan
HQ
R2
R3
RS I R6
R7
R8 R9
R10
"•«»»
Unit 99 Target
_ * , I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation ol
f.?. I shortage il"-") I Missed Target
Met
'Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Objective 1 ; By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by community water systems will receive water that meets drinking water standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to microbial and other
I forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.
i
Subobjective 1.1: By 2005, the population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards will Increase to 95% from a baseline of 63% in 1994. 95% compliance will be achieved for any new standards within 5
. years after the effective date of each rule.
B9% (an increase of 1% over 1998) of the
population served by community water
1 ri OGWD systems will receive drinking water
130 W meeting ail health-based standards in
effect as of 1994. up from 83% in 1994.
(Core Performance Measure (CPM|)
91%
75%
61%
98%
95% 95% 95% 95% 94% 98% 94% 91 % Population 89% 102%
2%
Data will be available in
December
1a7
OGWD At least 100 Tribes will take on major
W responsibility for their PWSS program.
N/A
5 14 10 0 25 25 ' 20 , 103 Tribes 100 ' 103%
Region 7 No tribes in this
region have primacy
Region 9 Mid-Yf report
should have shown 9 3
'Tribes rec'd cap S 7 Tribes
have 20 new cert ops 1
Tribe formed co-op No
DW-SRF grants awarded
to Tribes
1a8
1aa
1a6
At least 400 community drinking water
nruvn systems witl receive OWSRF funds thai
W wl" help ensurc that these systems
provide drinking water that meets all
health-based standards.
orwn At least 20 States will have satisfied the
w requirements for ensuring that new
small systems have adequate capacity.
W
104
64
122 ; 147
81 47 24
65464
EPA will publish operator certification
guidelines in the Federal Register. OGWDW
(internal goal)
rwuun Increase the number of States using the
UM Safe Drinking Water Information System
w (SDWISySTATE to 22. (internal goat)
- Communrt
82 792 y Water 400 198%
I Systems
51 Slates 20 255%
1 Guidelines 1 , 100%
( I '
2 I 2 1 3 1 ; 1 0 14 States 22 64%
392
Region 5 Data as of June
30, 1998
Region 9 Number
represents loan
agreements that have
been signed and executed
Region 6 All Region 6
Stales capacity
Development Programs
were approved
Region 5 Date as of June
30. 1998
Region 6 Oklahoma
adopted SWIS/State
This target shoutd have
been revised lo 15
Region 2 New
York Region 5 IN & II.
systems are not being
used in production mode
Region 9 No now R9
states have chosen lo
adopt SSWI'1 St.-ilc at ihis
lime Wf> continue lo
evaluate UIR of SIJWIS
Slate lor Re<)'l Tnbal
Program
% of community and non transient
,-,,-iA.rv community water systems (and
OGJWD population served) with Lead levels in OGWDW N/A
w drinking water exceeding (he action
level in the Lead and Copper rule (LCR).
25% N/A
Ilns r.oinmilmrnl 11
COS/OHM! id l.'id
Subobjecttve 1 2: By 2005, standards that establish protective levels for an additional 10 high-risk contaminants (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon) will be issued.
Yellow cells ai
ire Congressional goals Red cells indicate accomplishment is less than commitmeni. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitment. TBO-To Be Determined
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Yeat Data
Final • 2/1/00
OCFO ID
GOAL I Annual Performance Goals/Measures |D Leaf I
OWNE I and Key Actions from the Clean Water I RfPQrter I
R I Action Plan I J'f n°M
I I Region) I
EPA will develop major risk analyses for
microbial and chemical contaminants to -o-r
support selection of contaminants to be U5>'
regulated.
OST
HQ
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
RB RQ
R8 I R9
Bin I National I .... I qq Taraei I Tarael I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanalion ol
R10 I To(a| I Unit 1 99 Target I rargel I Shor1age lf .-..•) I Missed Targel
I I I I Mel II
1 i Analyses , 1 list ' 100% 0
! i :
1b5
EPA will issue and begin implementing
2 protective drinking water standards for
OGWD ^.'9n "*** contami°.ants. including
w disease-causing micro-organisms OGWDW 2
(Stage I Disinfection / Disinfection
Byproducts and Interim Enhanced
Surface Wa'cr ln;j tment Rules).
Drinking
2 Water 2
Standards
100%
EPA promulgates monitoring of
OGWD unregulated contaminants rule to ensure
W that the highest risk contaminants are
identified and managed.
Rule
100%
Subobjective 1.3: By 2005, 50 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive their water from systems with source water protection programs in place.
1c2
4,400 community water systems
nruun (serving 17.6 million people) will be
w implementing programs to protect their
source water (an increase of 1650
systems over 1998). (CPM)
Communit
2318 765 466 846 2699 1320 822 586 936 253 11011 y Water 4400 250% 6611
Systems
nruun (a> 5 States will be implementing their
1c1 w EPA approved source water protection
assessment program, (internal goal)
(b) 40 States will submit their source
water assessment programs to EPA for
approval, (internal goal)
W
0 ; 0
10 States ; 5 200%
51 States I 40 128% 11
Subobjective 1.4: By 2005. Increase protection of ground water resources by managing all Class I. Class II, end Class 111 Injection well* and by managing Identified high-risk Class V wells In 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g.. wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.).
EPA witl ensure the protection of
/-./•Minn groundwater sources of drinking water
1d1 OGJWD from potential endingerment by OGWDW 0
w promulgate gtre r .gulation ofUIC
Class V wells.
0 Regulation 1 0%
Region 10 WA & OR
were both approved in
FY99 and are
implementing their
programs
Region 2 NY and NJ will
be approved in 11/99 PR
will be resubmitled in 2/00
Region 6 SWAP
Programs submitted by all
Region 6 States in Feb
1999 Region 7 One
completed and returned (o
Stale for resubmiltat
Region 10 All 4 Slates
have submitted programs
for approval
The final rule was
published in the Federal
Register on December 7
1999
Yelfow cells are Congressional goals Red cells indicate accomplishment is less than commitment. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitmenl, TBD-To Be Det
termmed
Page 8 6
-------
National Analysis of End-ol-Year Data
Final - 2/1/00
OCFO ID
GOAL
OWNE
R
Annual Performance Goats/Measures
and Key Actions from the Clean Water
Action Plan
Lead I
Reporter I
HI not I
Region] I
HQ
R1 I R2 I R3 I R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
National
Total
I 99 Target I
1d2
Ensure that 95% of injection wells
OGWD requiring mechanical integrity testing in
W a designated high priority protection
area pass the test on schedule.
0 96% 100% 472
95%
97%
91%
100%
T8D-
Final Gala
Not
Available
Until
Match
2000
injection
Wells
95%
Subobjectfve 1.5: By 2005, protect drinking water sources by Increasing by 50% the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act.
Subobjective 1.6: By 2005, comum|>to i of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting the consumption offish and shellfish will increase.
Target
Met
TBO-
Final
Data
Not
I Surplus (or
I shortage if"-")
TBD - Final
Data Not
Availabl Available Until
e Until March 2000
March
2000
Comments/Explanation of
Missed Taigcl
Region 2 The region only
had 94 MITs to run as
more wells were plugged
than anticipated, and one
permittee has (alien behind
schedule However the
' national goal ol 9S% well
passing was exceeded as
only 1 well failed
Region 6 95%
based on preliminary data
from Slales. 7520 I orms
with final tally will be lec'd
in 11/99 Region 7
Estimate data not
reported unlil Dec
Region 10 See
aftachrnenl
< < nc?T States/Tribes monitoring and assessing
1e1 OST (or |iSn advisories.
626
6 stales/ 4
Inbes
5 0 349 43
Slates/
Tribes
25 N/A
Rivers/Lakes assessed for contaminated
fish
OST
158%
lake
acres/6 6
% river
miles
15% Me
acres/?%
river miles
Rivers/
Lakes
25%
N/A
25 states have indicated
through (he Nalional Fish
and Wildlife Consumption
Survey that (hey aie using
risk based analyses
Region 2 NY & Nj issue
fish advisories Region 5
Several lubes m the GL's
. Slales have been issuing
fish consumption advice for
10-15 years or more
Region 7 All R7 Slales
have fish tissue monitoring
and assessment programs
lor advisiones but none
lollow all of Ihe EPA
guidance entirely Region
8 ND. SD-Cheyenne River
Sioux CO Region 10
See allachmenl
The percentages tor lakes
and acies cannot be
added logehler and must
be reported separately
Thus Ihe accomplishments
don't match with Ihe tticuM
1e3
_„,
u=>
Initiate a nationwide survey of fish
tissue to gather data on the presence
and extent of persistent bioaccumulative
tonics in fish (internal goal)
OST
100%
Survey
Survey was successfully
begun Sampling stalled
mOclobct I ^'19
Subobjective 1.7: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated recreational uses will increase.
Congressional goals
Red cells indicate accomplishmenl ,s less than commitment. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commrlmenl TBD- To Be Determined
-------
National Analysts of End-of-Year Data
Final 2/1/00
OCFO ID
1g3
GOAL
OWNE
R
Annual Performance Goals/Measures
and Key Actions from the Clean Water
Action Plan
Expand baseline public right to know
database on state/local government
OST beach monitoring and closure methods
to include more beaches nationwide and
enter data Tor 42 states.
Lead I
Reporter I
(if not I
Region) I
OST
HQ
26
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
Rin I National I ,lnit I qq Tflrn.,, I T.T" , I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation of
R1° I Total I Unit I "Tar9Gt I TJ2fl I shortage if"-") I Missed Taiget
Beaches/
Stales
42
62%
A management decision
was made as a result of
resource shifts (FMPACT)
from Hqrts to the Regs lo
limit survey to coastal
beaches in FY99 A)so
chose to delay the
nationwide survey to focus
on developing the ability
lor states to entei teal-time
data in the database
Complete peer review for indicators and
methods for detection of disease
1(3 OST causing organisms for skin, respiratory,
eye, ear, throat, or gastrointestinal
diseases, (internal goal)
OST
Indicators/
Methods
0%
Unabfe to carry out (his
peer review as ORD did
not award EMPACT funds
to do this activiliy
Objective 2: By 2005, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation/Es (state, interstate, and tribal) waters and aquatic ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground waters - so that 75% of waters will
support healthy aquatic communities.
Subobjective 2.1: By 2005, restore and protect watersheds so that 75% of waters support healthy watersheds as shown by comprehensive assessment of the nation's watersheds.
21 States ei set rani ;alfy update their
nuurttA/ 1*98 305{b) infcrm ition reflecting
uvvuvv adequate mOnttoring and assessment
programs.
owow
(consol-
idates
informal!
on)
29
Stales
21
138%
Region 2 New York. Hew
Jersey, and Interstate
Sanitation Commission all
submitted assessment
information electronically
using their own database
Region 6 AH 5
Slates submit electronic
updates, however there
are concerns about Ihe
adequacy of the monitoring
and assessment programs
Region 8 ND, MI and
SO submitted electronic
updates Does not mlcude
evaluation of adequate
program awaiting guidance
•> K
Zah
26 States submit implementation plans
to EPA (either as separate plans or as
part of water quality management plans
°r other watershed planning process)
(ha( describe the processes for
implementing TMDLs developed for
waters impaired solely or primarily by
nonpoint sources.
OWOW
(consol-
idates
informal!
on)
3 6001522
Region 5 Slates backed
off from submitting plans
due to new regulations
coming out which would
make Ihe plans obsolete
Region 7 V ansas
i inn t~, a. ai Region 8 ND did not
23 Slates 26 86% '3 (on.*^el al submit TMDL
MT) Implementation Plan
Expected in FY 2000
Region 10 Washington 7
Idaho as part of their
nonpoint source
management plan updates
As part of the Clean Water Action Plan,
all states will be conducting or have
completed unified watershed
2as OWOW assessments, with support from EPA, to
identify aquatic resources in greatest
need of restoration or prevention
activities.
,-» , r,.**™/ Number of Tribes completing Unified
(2as) OWOW WaterShed Assessments.
owow
(consol-
idates
infofmati
on)
N/A 1 30 0 0 12 26
56
84
States
SO
Tribes no targel
112%
N/A
Region 2 Region has
been working with the
tribes to develop UWAs.
but none have been
submiled
YeBow cells are Congressional got Is lti« cells indicate accomplishment is less than commitment. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitment, TBD-To Be Determined
Page 8 8
-------
National Analysis of End-ol-Year Data
Final 2M/OO
Annual Ptrform.nce Goals/Maasures
and Key A :llo n; :om the Clean Water
I GOAL
OCFO ID I OWNE
I R
Complete 21 of 28 Comprehensive
?a4 nuunuu Conservation and Management Plans
' uwuw (CCMPS) In the National Estuary
Program. (Base of 17|
Appropriate action taken with regard to
3ai nuun\A/ dredged material ocean disposal site
' uwuw designation in one additional case.
(Base of 77)
HQ
R2
R3
R5 I R6
R7 I RR I Rq I Bin I National I ,|rii( I 09 Taraet I Taroel I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation ot
R7 1 R8 I R9 I R10 I Tota( I Unrt 199 Target I Target I shortage rt-."jl Missed Target
1 ; N/A N/A
100%
OWOW
Cases 1
Region 2 The draft
CCMPs for Peconic and
San Juan were released
for public review in 9/99
Final CCMPs wilt be
completed m FYOO
Region 10 Bolh Lower
Columbia & Tillamook are
completed
Provide to States and Tribes appropriate
tools for risk characterization of and
decision-making regarding surface
2aa OST water contaminants, including
persistent bioaccumulative toxics and
nutrients, that allow them to set and
meet their own water quality standards.
OST
Tools
EPA wilt review and approve or
disapprove new or revised water quality
27a OST standards for 15 states that reflect
current guidance, regulation, and public
input.
19 StfnXfrds 15 ! 120%
Region 2 The final draft
NJ approval letter {1994
WQS) is under review by
OGC and will be sent out
in 1 QtrFYOO The NY GLI
90 day letter to be sen! 1st
Qlr FYOO and final by 3/00
Region 5 Didn't make
progress because of need
(o resolve complicated
cross piogram issues at
the HQ level All 6 reviews
will be completed prior to
mid-year 00 We will also
complete review of Ohio
designated use rules.
Michigan non-GU revisions
& possibty it ammonia
rule Region 7 Iowa &
Nebraska R8.9&10
attachment
17 Tribes will have established effective
water quality standards programs.
OST
Region 6 Acuna Pueblo
'TASfand Standards)
submitlal approval pending
' Standaids subnitttaf
pending from Pawnee
Nation. Inadequate staff
resources
Region (i Changed at mid
-year lo 1 Hoopa ft the fi
Tubes have submitted diafl
applications
2aq
Reduce the number of nonpoint sources
contributing to the total toad of fecat
contarnination and nutrients in Gulf
u waters, in two priority Gulf coastal
watersheds.
GOMPO
Point/
3 Nonpoinl
Sources
2ak
GOMP Gulf states with marine conservation
O plans for seagrasses.
GOMPO
States
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red ceils indicate accompl,shment ,s less than commrtment. Green cells md-cale accompl.shmeni exceeded comm,tment TBO-To Be Determined
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Final - 2/1/00
I GOAL
OCFO ID I OWNE
I R
Annual Performance Goals/Measures
and Key Actions Irom the Clean Water
Action P.an
I Lead I
I Reporter I
HQ
R1 R2
R3
R6
R7 R8
R9
R10
National
Total
Unit I 99 Target I Target
I I Met
Surplus (or
shortage if "."
Comments/Explanation of
Missed large!
There will b s 65,( 0 J acres of submerged
26a CBPO aquatic vegetation |SAV) in the
Chesapeake Bay,
CBPO
63.500
63500
Acres of
SAV
We need lo increase our
efforts lo reduce nutrient
and sediment pollution
since natuial events, such
as above average rivei
flow in 6 of the past tO
years, can degiade SAV
65000 98% -1500 habitat Given the natural
conditions and continued
pollution levels on the
Eastern Shoie. resources
are being expended lo
plant glasses inslnad of
relying exclusively on
natural recovery of beds
Designate 11,000 acres of aquatic reef
2av CBPO habitat for shellfish in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, (internal goal)
CBPO
11000
Acres of
Reef
11000 100%
At least 25% of the wastewater flow to
the Chesapeake Bay will be treated by
Biological Nutrient Reduction (BNR).
25a CBPO (Region should report on the % of
wastewater flow to specific watersheds
funded by EPA will be treated by BNR.)
(Internal goal)
CBPO
32%
32%
Waslewale
r Flow
25%
128%
7%
400 stream miles of migratory fish
2ax CBPO habitat reopened through provision of
fish passages.
CBPO
524
524
Miles
131%
124
2aw
Agricultural, recreational, and public
lands that have voluntary integrated
CBPO pest management (IPM) practices
established in
watershed.
in the Chesapeake Bay
CBPO
79%
79% Lands 60% 132%
19%
nuunuu/ Develop Watershed Restoration Action
CWAP 98 ASi, Strategies for watersheds most in need
UWM of restoration.
owow
OWM
9 3 9 12 12 11% 9 94
Strategies : no target N/A
Increase information and technical
,-,,,.„.„, r,,,,,-,,., assistance available to local
CWAP 104 OWOW orBanizations and citizens involved in
local watershed protection efforts.
OWOW
N/A X ? X X
Informatio
Technical no ta'9el N/A
Assistance
Region 2 NJ has provided
3 WRAs, PR has submitted
2 draft ones and NY's
PPA now requires WRAs
to be submitted in 12/99
Region 5 Michigan and
Minnesota Region 6
Develop Water shed
Restoiation Action
Strategies foi watersheds
most in need of restoration
Region 7 Noi all
watersheds have the
WRAS completed yet
Region 9 All lour R9
stales are developing
WRAS as patt of NFS
program Reg 10 See
Attachment
Region 6 Increase
information and technical
assistance available to
local oiganization and
citizens involved m locat
watershed protection
efforts Region 7 R7 has
used Water Quality Coop
Agreement funding to
accomplish this Region
10 there are many grants
and place-based stuff
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red cells indicate accomplishment is less lhan commitment. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commrtmenl. TBD-To Be Del.rm.ned
-------
National Analysis ot End-of-Year Data
Final - 211100
I GOAL I Annual Performance Goals/Measures I Lead I
OCFO ID I OWNE I and Key Actions from the Clean WaTer I Rff°«*'l
I R I Action Plan I lctncnt,itt(i[i
Us are Congiessional goals Red cells indicate accompl-shment is less than commitment Green ce«s indicate accomplishment exceeded comrmfment mD-To8« Oerermmed
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Vear Data
Final-2/1/00
I GOAL I Annual Performance Goals/Measures |DLea5 I I I I
OCFO ID 1 OWNE I and Key Actions from the Clean Water | JJJJJter | HO | RI | R2 J R3
R5 I R6 1 R7 I R8 I R9 I R10
On.
Surplus (or
I Comments/Explanation of
I Missed Target
Objective 3: By 2005. pollutant discharges from hey point sources and nonpoint source runoff will be reduced by at least 20% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants Impacting water bodies wifl also be reduced.
Subobjective 3,1: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). and industrial sources will be reduced by 30% from 1992 levels.
Another 3.4 million people will receive OWM
3ai OWM the benefits of secondary treatment of through 3 4mit1ion
wastewater, for a total of 179 million PCS
3 4mi||ion People 3 4million 100%
More than 220 communities will have
3am OWM 'ocal walersheds improved fay controls
on combined sewer overflows and storm
water.
Results reported in rows 3am-1 and 3am 2
513
Communiti
220 233%
293
Cannot show actual
improvement MI
watersheds so progress
against this goat is being
measured using (he (wo
measures below
i ™ i i-\\nik* * °* storniwater pha ;e I communities with
3am-1 OWM cuf(en(permils
17 103 12 29
6 324 , 12 513
Communii
ll 90% N/A
N/A
Region 2 5 Phase 1
stormwaler communities
covered by 14 individual
'SPDES permits
'Region 512 permits
Region 6 Were all issued
in 1998 Of eantier
Region 7 Wichita.
KS. Topeka. KS, Oes
Motnes, IA. Cedar Rapids.
IA Region 9
Three hundied twenty-four
Reg 10 Boise. ID MSA
completed by Q2FYQO
3am-2 OWM
# of CSO communities where
implementation ol LTCP is complete
32
35
78
164
Communtli
no target N/A
AM permitees among the approximately
900 CSO communities are covered by
31j OWM permits or other enforceable
mechanisms consistent with the 1994
CSO policy.
Results reported in rows 31j-1 and 31j 2
830
Cities
300
92%
-70
Region 2 The total
number where the LTCP
has been implemented is 4
(NJ-1.NY3) RegtonS
204 have begun CSO
LTCPs This measure was
changed from mid-year
Region 8 The City of
Glasgow. MT has
completed their separation
project and no longer has
any CSOs The Oly of
Lead. SD is completing
(heir LTCP (final part due
in JAN 2000) with
implementation occunng m
subsequent years No
other CSOs are known to
exist tn R8
Region 9 One
OWM May reflect
oveccounting and
implementation ol only
portions ol CSO Policy
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red cells indicate accomplishment is less than commitrrem. Green cells indicate accomplishmenl exceeded commitment, TBD-To Be Determined
Page 8 17
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Final • 2I1/OO
OCFO ID
GOAL
OWNE
R
Annual Performance Goals/Measures It,1-03,? I
and Key Actions from the Clean Water I "eponeri Ho
Action Plan I J'1 not I
I Region) I
R2
R3 I R4 I R5 I R6 I R7 I R8 I R9
R10
National
Total
99 Target
Target
Mel
31|-1 OWM Number ot CSO permits.
114 60 215 35 332 0
777
Permits
900 • (31J-
1 «31j-2=
900)
97%
I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation of
I shortage if"-") I Missed T arget
Region 2 IheKolCSO
permits that conform with
the CSO policy is 32 in Nj
and 28 in NY Region 5
Many CSO permits have
not been leissued due to
significant local interest
Region 6 No CSOs in the
Region Region 7 SI
Louis MO. St Joseph, MO
. Alchison, KS. Kansas
City. KS Region expected
1 more from KS and 2
from NE Region 8 As in
3am-2 above, there is only
one known CSO
Community remaining in
R8. and that community
(Lead. SD) has a current
CSO permit
27
311-2
OWM
Number of CSO enforcement
mechanisms (CPM)
55 27 , N(A 0 : H 0 0 0 , N/A
Enforceme 9nn (31j .,
Mechanis , *|J'nf ' 97%
ms
27
3ay
AM storm water sources associated with
industrial activity, construction sites
OWM over s acres, and designated storm
water sources will be covered fay current
NPDES permits.
Results reported in rows 3ay-1 and 3ay-2
N/A Permits 100% N/A
• Region 2 The number of
CSO enforcement
mechanisms issued by NJ
is 6 and 21m NY Some
CSO communities have
been issued both 3 permit
with CSO (equirements
and an enfotcmenl
mechanism (or violation of
l the permit requirements
.Region 5 0 derived from
PCS These are ait cunent
and aclive enforcement
mechanizrns (either
ocnsent decrees or admin
orders More detailed
CSO information can be
found in OECA's CSO
Implementation Summary
dated 2/99 Region 6 No
, CSOs in the Region
OWM Data unavailable to
deteimtne number of
industrial and construction
storm water sources used
tt of stales thai issued
general or individual
permits to cover alt sources
(see 3ay 1 and Jay -2
below)
3ay1
OWM
Stales with current permits for all industrial
activities operating in the State (Includes
fractions of states based on fractions of
industrial categories covered by the MSGP
or general or individual permits tailored to
existing categories in a Stale )
536
47 5 3 6
92% Slates 100% 92%
Untveise lor this measure
is 57 Slates and Territories
Region 2 NJ- 1 Nr
1 , PR 1 Vt 0
Huqion 5 It 2/3
or 7 OH 0/3 01 0 0
Hcq.on Q
see alMr.hinc-ut
_ rt,- * . £?iaica »»'•' i ****•» ^' *
3ay-2 OWM sttes over 5 acres
Slates with current permits for construction
5 3 6 5 55467
8B% Stales 100% 86%
Uniuorse Ini Itus nu-.isu/e
is 57 States anil Ii'iiiior»--
Hf-gum 7 NJ t
NlM. f>R 1 V/l 0
Hfqirm A
Alabama Dtirtcl.i
Kentucky Hotth (;,iinitn.-»
South (.aiolin.i
Mfgidii 6 OH 0/1 in 0 O
Hr.'fjiOM H Mrm t};ifi><|
an;.'!1, vviihm rhc (, <,i,(tc<,
3'P I ()V«'H«d Ny ( tilfci it
t Kl i-jsu*"!) i.Uii'Anir lion
g*»f it-fa! fi('imiir.
s lonal goals Red celts indicate accomplishment is less than commitment Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitment, TBD To Be Determined
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Final • 2/t/OO
I GOAL I Annual Performance Goals/Measures |DLea5 I
OCFO ID I OWNE I and Key Actions from the Clean Water I RfP°rter I
R Action Plan "*!
HQ
R1
R2 I R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
National
Total
Unit I 99 Target
Target
Met
SurPlus (or I
snorlage ,, -.») I
Comments/Explanation of
Missed Taiget
80% of major point sources will be
3ae OWM covered by cunentNPDES permits.
(CPM)
56% 82% 83%
82%
89%
60%
69%
68%
54%
71%
Permits
80%
89%
-9%
Region 7 IA-40/123. KS
43/57. MO 104/147. NE 20
/60
3a3
31i
31d
31k
311
An assessment of necessary elements
of a comprehensive general permit will
OVWI be developed to aid Regions and States
issue permits to concentrated animal
feeding operations.
26 states are funding nonpoint source
wiln th(,)r SRFs
15 states are using integrated planning
OWM and priority setting systems to make
SRF funding decisions
OWM
OWM
21233 2
25
Assessme
nl
States
States
100%
26
15
80%
-1 (on target
at MY)
-3 (on target
at MY)
Initiate operations at a total of 4201 SRF
projects
295 962 969
598
1087 333 313 315 • 152
31g
26 states meet or exceed pace of the
OWM program measures for loan issuance
and pace of construction
38 states and Puerto Rico conduct
OWM separate annual audits of their SRFs and
utilize fund management principles
rnA/M 30 Colonias projects will have been
UVVM completed or under construction.
All taut 267 of the remaining
OWM construction grants projects will be
closed out.
See
comment
,2:2
N/A N/A N/A
97 56
N/A
26
N/A 37 N/A N/A N/A
196 5200 i Projects 4201 124% 999
3 30 Slates . 26 | 115% 4
' : ! '
I j
2 41 States . 38 , 108% 3
I , , ,
N/A 37 Projects ' 30 123% 7
59
19
22
340
Projects 267
79%
-73
Region 4 Georgia &
Florida Region 5
Assumed Ml. Wl or IN
would fund NPS projects
but taking longer to
establish NPS funding
programs than anticipated
Region 10 Washington &
Oregon
Region 5 MM still in
development due to
reorganization Wl
decided not lo fund non
traditional projects.
precluding the need for
IPPS systems Region 10
Alaska dropped
development effort
Region 4 Florida, Georgia.
Mississippi North Carolina
, Kentucky. Alabama
Region 5 Data as of
June 30, 1998
Region 7 IA -104
NI89. KS81.NE39
Region 7 This measure is
under negotiations w/
stales Pace has not been
redefined as this time
Region 10 3 Stales
Region 7 KS, IA. NE
Region 10 Two Slates do
separale audits
Region 2 Issues related to
appeals could not be
resolved in time to close
out seven {7) of ihe
grants tatgeted by the end
of this FY (Note An RA
decision in May 1999 was
issued for two (2) grants
bul appealed to Ihe AA for
Water and we anticipate
decisions involving ten (10)
grants in ihe first quarter
FY'OO) Region 4
24 Pre 1991
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red cells indicate accomplishment is less lhan commitment. Green cells ind,cale accomplishment exceeded commitment. TBO-To Be Determined
Page 8
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
F»\al 2/1/OO
OCFO ID
3ab
3a7
GOAL
OWNE
R
31h
OST
OST
OWM
3ac
Annual Performance Goals/Measures
and Key Actions from the Clean Water
Action Ptan
so% °' biosofids are beneficially reused.
(CPM)
Take final a ;tion o,» one effluent
guideline limits'iur for industrial
categories that contribute significantly
to pollution of surface waters.
Propose two effluent guidelines
limitations for industrial categories that
contribute significantly to pollution of
surface waters.
Audit a" approved pretreatment
programs over a 5 year period.
Development of a national inventory of
AFOs and estimates of pollutant
loadings.
Lead
Reporter
(if not
Region)
HQ
R1
R2
56%
R3
56%
R4
61%
25%
50%
80%
National
Tola)
50%
OST
OST
7%
31%
15%
21%
21%
30%
28%
5%
205%
OWM
Biosolids
Guideline ,
Guidelines
Pretreatme
nt
Programs
(under
which
there may
be multiple
lacililies)
I 99 Tam«f I Tam*t I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation of
I 99 Target I Target I shortage ,, ••_••) I Missed Target
Region 5 Actual number
should be *50% but small
WWTPs don't re pott to
PCS Use as landfdf cover
by large WWlPSs not
counted as beneficial use
lowers # 1994 mhouse
estimate was 5. Region 7
estimate
50%
100%
100%
100%
100% over
5 years
Inventory
0%
Took dual action. deciding
not to promulgate a rule for
Industrial Laundries
Region 7 Audited 24/80
OWM determined that this
measure was not
appr opt safe because it
would be difficult to
conduct an inventory since
there are as many as 450
000 AFOs and rapid
changes are occurring in a
number of these facilities
Region
10 Currently there are 81
permuted CAI"OS> 1000
Animat Units in Region 10
OWM
Quantify the number of CAFOs which
are currently permitted by EPA and
states and the extent the permits include
manure management requirements.
Animal
Feeding
Operations
Hist
100%
Subobjective 3.2: By 2005, nonpoint source sediment and nutrient foads to rivers and streams wilt ba reduced. Erosion from cropland, used as an indicator of success In controlling sediment delivery to surface waters, will be reduced by 20% from 1992 levels.
In support c-f th'» C'ean Water Action
Plan, 10 additional States upgrade their
NPS programs to ensure that they are
3b1 OWOW implementing dynamic and effective
nonpoint source programs that are
designed to achieve and maintain
beneficial uses of water.
nwow •
Stales
Region 2 Goaf is to have
ail 4 stales
01 ft<)' i nnen! heir-
corniiK-nl i>i N'-itKj
ellow ceits aie Congressional goals Red celts .nd,cate accomphshment .s less than commrtment. Green celts indicate accomplishment exceeded comm-tment TBO-To Be Determined
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Final - 2/1/00
OCFO ID
GOAL I
OWNE I
R I
Annual Performance Goals/Measures
and Key Actions from the Clean Water
Action Plan
I Lead I
I Reporterl
I (if not I
I Region) I
HO
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
National
Total
Unit
99 TarMt I T Joel I Surplus (or I Comments/Explanation of
99 Target I Target I snortage,,..., I Mlssed Taige,
Goal 4: Communities, Homes, Workplaces, Ecosystems
Objective 7: By 2003, 60% of Indian Country will be assessed lor its environmental condition and Tribes and EPA will be Implementing plans to address priority issues.
25 (cumulative total of 171) Tribes with
AIEO/IO delegated/approved environmental
programs
36 (cumulative total ol 246) Tribal
6-2 AIEO/IO environmental rnerjia/multi-media
programs delegated/approved
N/A
24
a t
8-3
I0"/0 °' Tribal environmental baseline
in(ormation wH, be conected
10% 0 N/A
50% 24% : N/A
10%
Tribes
Tribal
Tribal
I Baseline
inlormatio
25
96%
10% 100%
84
10 additional tribes (cumulative total of
45) will have Tribal/EPA environmental
agreements or identified environmental
priorities.
20
46
Tribes
' 460%
36
Goal 6: Reducing Global and Transboundary Risks
Objective 1: By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to public health and shared ecosystems in North America consistent with our bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations in these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to Tribes
Region 5 "27" is the cumul
number "4" is for FV'99
Region 8 As delined.
23 tribes wilhin R8 have
TAS above Region 9
Ftve Tribes are revising
diafl applications for CWA
303/401 and 402
Region 5 the cumulative
number is 43 Region 8 2
WQS approved 5'CAA
TAS approved. 9 lead (Pb)
TAS approved Region 9
Same as 8-1
HQ has collected 10% of
tribal data on a national
level Each Region is also
collecting data separately
and is reporting the % for
the individual Region
Region 6 45% ol Region 6
tribes have preliminary
SAs Regions Has230
data sets out of 962
available (36 data sets x
26 reservations)
Region 2 The region has
had numerous discussions
with the SRMT Delays
have been incurred but a
second draft is under
review and is expected to
be signed by 6/00 The
region has funded the
Haudenosaunee
Envirorvmental Taskfoice
to develop environmental
priorities
Region 5 the cumulative
number is 31
Region 7
Wtnnebago Tribe has
committed to developing a
TEA with this region
Region 8 see attachment
i Sub-Objective 1.2: By 2005, the population in the US /Mexico Border Area (including Tribes) that is served by adequate drinking water, waslewater collection and treatment systems will Increase by 1.S million through the design and construction of water infrastructure.
8 • • 1 • 9 Proiecls 1 900% 8 Region 9 Pechanga Tribe
1 additional water/ 'rastewater projects
OWM along the «* sx'c a 1 jorder will be
certified for design construction.
Subobjective 1.4: Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of toxic substances, by protecting human hearth, restoring vital habitats, and restoring and maintaining
stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red cells mdicale accomplishment is less than commilmenl. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitment. TBD-To B. D«termin.d
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Ftoal - 2/1/OO
OCFOID
GOAL
OWNE
Annual Performance Goals/Measures
and Key Actions from the Clean Water
|_l-ea'? I
I RP°rt<>'
HQ
R1
R2
R3
R4 I R5 I R6 I R7
National
Total
I 99 Target I
Target
Met
I Surplus (or
I shortage if"-")
Develop protocols for 5 of a proposed
12 GLNPO Monitoring Indeies,
nf9 n Npn summarizing the prior year's data on
9 ou " select fish contaminants, atmospheric
deposition, limnology, biology, and
sediments.
gle
gib
GLNPO
Assessme
nV
Informatio 5 protocols 100%
n/
Indicators
Catalog and publicize actions
GLNPO (partnerships or virtual elimination
ULNPU demonstration projects) toward
reduction challenges under BNS.
Assessments and characterizations of
r-i Kton
GLNPO
Cumulative total (out of 5 started since
GLNPO 1996) of sediment demonstrations
completed
~, ..n-,
GLNPO
GLNPO
Projects
Actions
Areas of
Concern
Cleanup
Demos
109%
100%
67%
ni NPO Acreage ecologically enhanced in
GLNPO lefrestrial biodiversity investment
6.000
95,000
6000
g,a
«i«
glm
GLNPO
Identify steps in ballast water
,"i wpn management that will prevent the
GLNPO in,roductjon of new non-indigenous
species,
Projects
Set
Set of quantifiable targets for ecological
glk GLNPO enhancement in aquatic biodiversity
investment areas.
GLNPO
1583%
160%
100%
0%
89000
Comments/Explanation ol
Missed Target
Protocols developed for
swimniabilily index, benthic
community health.
sediment assessment,
sediment remediation and
predator fish
2 new plus 5 follow-up
Region 5 A GLNPO site
remediation was
completed at the Fox River
(Wl) An Ottawa River
(OH) site was done before
FY99 Haylon Mitlpond
(Wl) will now be completed
in FYOOraiher than in
FV99 due to the desiie ol
Slate and private partners
, for a more extensive.
•cooperative cleanup than
ongmatfy planned
GLPO The 95.000 acres
enhanced includes some
overlaps m acreage
numbers or double
counting, however, even
when double-counting is
accounted for the goal was
significantly exceeded
This exceedance is due in
part to some of the ptejects
having a regional or basin-
wide impact which
translates into a large
number ol acres impacted
Region 5 Remove for
FY'99 p(;[ .M'd ycai Ippoit
PremaluM* (p»?r 98
SOLEC meeting)
Goal T: Expansion of America's Right to know About their Environment
Oblectlve 1 • By 2005 EPA will improve the ability of the American public to participate in the protection of human heafth and the environment by increasing the quality and quantity of general environmental education, outreach and data availability programs, especially
! in disproportionally impacted and disadvantaged communities.
<:uhobiec*ive 3 Bv 2005 via the internet and improved technology, the Agency will provide the public with increased access to integrated, comprehensive environmental data; onli,
the live including the environmental condition; stressors. and the environmental health threats by 2003; and Information m an easily accessible and user friendly manner.
ine access to enforcement and compliance data; information on the watershed m which
they live, including the envln
cells are Congressional goals Heo cells indicate accomplishment .5 less than commitment. Green cells indicate accomplishment exceeded commitment TBD-TO Be Oeterrr«ned
-------
National Analysis of End-of-Year Data
Final- 2/1 00
I GOAL I Annual Performance Goals/Measures
OCFO 10 I OWNE I and Key Actions from the Clean Water
I R I Action Plan
Lead I
Reporter I
(ilnol I
Regionl I
HO
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R7
R8
R9
R10
National
Tolal
Unit 99Targe, Targe, I ^<°!J
• • rviei II
Comments/Explanation of
Missed large!
rk3 OWOW 'ncle* °' Watershed Indicators (Ml) is
OWOW
Report
100%
< Objective 2: By 2005, EPA will improve the ability of the public to reduce exposure to specific environmental and human health risks by making current, accurate substance-specific information widely and easily accessible.
Subobjective 1: By 2005, Pesticide, TSCA, Water and other environmental information and tools will be available to all communities and citizens, through the Internet, outreach efforts, and consumer confidence reports, to help make informed choices about their local
environment, including where to live and work, and what potential exposures are acceptable, and to assess the general environmental health of themselves and their families.
0 of States with which EPA has an
agreement on the most efficient and
OGWD effective methods (e.g., training,
W outreach} for implementing the
Consumer Confidence Rule in each
state.
OGWDW
States
88%
Stales
Yellow cells are Congressional goals Red cells indicate accompl-shment is less than commi.ment. Green cells ,nd,ca.e accomplishment e.ceeded commitment. TBD-To Be Determined
Page 8 10
-------
Artwork by Krystelle
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink. Effective protection of
America's rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish,
plants, and wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities. Watersheds
and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected to improve human health,
enhance water quality, reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
OVERVIEW
EPA strives to ensure that all Americans have
access to water that is safe for drinking, fishing, and
swimming and that all fresh and saltwater resources
support healthy populations of fish and wildlife.
Safe drinking water is the first line of defense in
protecting human health. The American public
enjoys some of the safest drinking water in the
world, yet illnesses due to contamination continue to
occur. For example, in 1993, an outbreak of the
contaminant Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee's drinking
water supply caused over 400,000 illnesses and more
than 100 deaths. More recently, in September 1999,
two people died and more than 700 became ill after
drinking water tainted by E. coli at an upstate New
York count\' fair. Overall, in 1999, nine percent of
Americans served by community water systems, or
approximately 38 million people, received water that
violated health standards at least once during the
year.
Clean water and healthy aquatic ecosystems sup-
port all life, are vital to many sectors of the U.S.
economy, and play an important role in Native
American culture. U.S. manufacturers and the agri-
cultural industry use vast quantities of clean water
every year to manufacture products, irrigate crops,
and raise animals. The nation's tourist industry relies
heavily on ocean and fresh-water destinations. Na-
tive American cultures place great importance on
clean water and invoke the spirit of water in cultural
ceremonies for medicinal and purification purposes.
In its Strategic Plan, EPA established three
objectives to guide its work to provide clean and safe
water over the next five years: protect human health
by ensuring safe drinking water and protection from
contaminated fish and recreational waters; conserve
and enhance the ecological health of waterbodies;
and reduce the impact of pollutants entering the
nation's waters.
FY 1999 PERFORMANCE
Safe Drinking Water, Reduced Exposure to
Contaminated Fish, and Healthy Recreational Waters
EPA, working with its partners, protects the
public from exposure to contaminated water by
addressing the three primary paths of exposure:
drinking, eating fish and shellfish, and recreational
contact. By 2005, EPA's objective is to protect
human health so that 95 percent of people served by
community water systems will receive water that
meets the 1994 health-based drinking water stan-
dards, consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to microbials
(pathogenic viruses, bacteria, and parasites) and
other forms of contamination in waters used for
recreation will be reduced.
Improving Drinking Water Quality
To ensure the delivery of safe drinking water,
EPA works in partnership with the States, Tribes,
and other interested parties to design and implement
strong protective standards. In FY 1999, EPA met
its goal of promulgating two new health-based
regulations. One addresses disinfection byproducts
(DBFs—potentially harmful contaminants formed by
the reaction of disinfectants, such as chlorine, with
naturally occurring organic matter in water); the
other addresses microbials (APG 8). The DBF rule
provides increased protection for as many as 140
million people. The microbial rule establishes
controls for Cryptosporidium and other waterborne
pathogens. The Agency estimates that this rule will
reduce the number of cryptosporidiosis cases by
between 110,000 and 463,000 per year.
Knvironmenlal Prelection Agency
21
-------
PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFE WATER
The Partnership for Safe Water is a voluntary effort
of the nation's drinking water utilities and their
representative organizations, States, and EPA. The
goal is to provide an additional measure of safety
to millions of Americans by implementing preven-
tion programs beyond regulator}1 requirements.
The Partnership gives members specific tools they
can use immediately to examine their operations
and identify ways to improve performance. Plants
that completed the self-assessment phase of the
Partnership showed a 30 percent reduction in
finished water turbidity levels. (Under normal
conditions turbidity is an indicator of the effective-
ness of filtration for pathogen removal). As of
April 1999, membership includes 225 surface water
utilities representing 330 water treatment plants,
. serving over 90 million people.
EPA provided critical technical assistance for
implementation of the Drinking Water State Revolv-
ing Fund (DWSRF). As of September 30, 1999,
States entered into 792 assistance agreements with
community and non-community drinking water
systems. This program has contributed to greater
compliance with health-based standards through
improvements to pipes, treatment plants, and other
components of drinking water infrastructure.
Population Served by Community Water
Systems Meeting Drinking Water Standards
-3.: I
.-,£
Year
In FY1999, 91 percent of the population served by
community water systems received drinking water
meeting all health-based standards, up from 83
percent in 1994, achieving FY 1999 targets (APG 9).
To provide a safer drinking water supply and
reduce the costs of treating drinking water, EPA
works with the States and Tribes to protect sources
of drinking water. As a key component of the
multi-agency Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP),
EPA works with States, Tribes, other Federal agen-
cies, and local communities to conduct source water
assessments and implement source water protection
programs. In FY 1999, 51 States/territories submit-
ted source water assessment plans, 10 of which were
approved, and the remaining 41 were in the review
process and expected to be approved in FY 2000.
In addition, 11,011 community water systems (CWS)
are implementing programs to protect their source
water (exceeding the FY 1999 target by 6,611).
Combined, these community water systems serve a
population of almost 49 million people (APG 10).
The wellhead protection program includes five
steps as follows:
• Form a team.
• Delineate areas around the wellhead to be
wellhead protection areas (YX'HPA).
• Take an inventory of actual or potential sources
of contamination in or near the WHPA.
• Institute preventative/protective measures to
manage WHPAs and ensure the groundwater
resources will not be contaminated.
• Develop and implement contingency plans
should the groundwater resources that serve as
drinking water supplies inadvertently become
contaminated.
In FY 1999, community water systems' efforts in
implementing programs to protect their source
water resources included not only steps four and/or
five of the wellhead protection program, but also
the completion of steps one through three that
provide the basis for implementation activities.
This resulted in a larger number of systems being
counted than originally forecast. In FY 2000, CWS'
efforts will be expanded to include both surface
water and groundwater sources of drinking water
supplies.
22
tmiroiinicniiil 1'roicciion Apenn
-------
Reducing Exposure to Contaminated Fish
States and Tribes take primary responsibility for
informing the public about risks of fish consump-
tion. Approximately seven percent of river miles
and 16 percent of lake acres have been assessed and
found to have fish that should not be eaten or eaten
in only limited quantities. To communicate this
information to the public, EPA has improved its
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
Internet site (ht^^/WWW.epa.gOV/OSt^sh). States and
Tribes can enter advisories directly on this site,
allowing easy public access to timely information.
In addition, EPA has distributed fact sheets to State
and Tribal fish advisory programs that explain how
to use technical information to develop fish con-
sumption advisories. To help ensure consistency
across the country, EPA has worked with govern-
ment and private parties to establish a common
standard for decision-making about fish consump-
tion advisories. Currently, 25 States follow EPA's
guidance for monitoring and evaluating fish.
As part of its efforts to better understand the
contaminated fish problem, the Agency began a
nationwide survey to learn about the presence of
persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs-pollutants
that when eaten stay in fat and organs, passing along
the food chain) in fish tissue. EPA also developed a
draft water quality criterion for methyl mercury, a
major contaminant of fish in lakes and rivers and a
health risk to people, particularly children and
pregnant women.
Getting to Healthy Recreational Waters
In FY 1999, EPA continued its efforts to make
nationwide beach safety information available. The
Agency gathered and provided to the public infor-
mation from 26 States on the quality of beaches and
how States assess and inform the public about them.
EPA has major efforts underway to address wet
weather discharges (sewage overflows and runoff
from streets), a major cause of beach closures.
Research Contributions
EPA's drinking water research program provides
the scientific and technical basis for improving
drinking water quality and supporting the Agency's
BEACH ADVISORIES PROTECT
HUNTINGTON BEACH BATHERS
EPA's Beach Protection Pro gram focuses on
assuring that the public is notified of risks at
bathing beaches. In the summer of 1999, a major
water safety effort contributed to developing an
advisory for Huntington Bea ch for much of the
summer. In keeping with EPA's Right-to-KbKv
Initiative, Orange County provided critical infor-
mation to the Southern California beach-going
public. The count}- is leading an intens ive effort to
identify and reduce the sources of contamination
and is committed to taking appropriate actions to
return this recreational resource to unrestricted
public use.
rulemaking activities under the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments. In FY 1999, EPA met its goal of
developing dose-response information on disinfectant
byproducts, waterborne pathogens, and arsenic for
characterizing potential exposure risks from consum-
ing drinking water (APG 11). The results of this
work include data on the first urban study on micro-
bial gastrointestinal disease, as well as hazard identi-
fication and screening studies on the reproductive
and developmental effects of selected DBFs. This
research provides important information on possible
community risks and on methodologies for future
studies. With this information, the Agency develops
critical health data on priority drinking water con-
taminants to better understand the nature and
magnitude of the risks posed by these agents,
leading to the development of more scientifically
sound regulations.
Conserve and Enhance the Nation's Waters
Improving the overall health of the nation's
waters is a core objective of each of EPA's water
programs. By 2005, EPA, working closely with its
partners, especially States and Tribes, has committed
to conserve and enhance the ecological health of the
nation's waters and aquatic ecosystems-ivers and
streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas,
oceans, and groundwater—so that 75 percent of
waters will support healthy aquatic communities.
Currently, 500 of the nation's 2,150 watersheds have
Hnvironmi'nuil Prolcction
23
-------
more than 80 percent of the assessed waters meet-
ing water quality standards, an increase from 486
watersheds in 1996.
Strengthening Water Quality Standards
State and Tribal Water Quality Standards repre-
sent water quality goals for each water body and
establish the regulatory groundwork for water
quality-based controls (like National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permits)
necessary to protect public and ecological health.
EPA is responsible for approving the standards
when submitted by a State or Tribe. In addition,
EPA helps these endues strengthen existing stan-
dards and incorporate advancements in risk assess-
ment and bio-accumulation analysis into water
quality criteria. In FY 1999, the Agency issued
guidance to assist States and Tribes in assessing the
biological health of their lakes and reservoirs and
recommended new criteria that States and Tribes can
incorporate into existing standards to control dis-
ease-causing microorganisms. EPA is helping Tribes
to adopt water quality standards for waters on Tribal
lands. In FY 1999, EPA approved new water quality
standards for one Tribe and standards revisions in 17
States. The Agency also helped 17 States take
corrective actions to address deficiencies in their
standards, and initiated rules to establish replace-
ment Federal standards for three States.
Achieving Water Quality Standards
States and Tribes are primarily responsible for
assessing and prioritizing problem waters and for
devising and implementing strategies to achieve
standards. As part of the Clean Water Action Plan
(CVC'AP), 56 States and Territories (six more than the
FY 1999 target of 50) and 84 Tribes worked with
EPA, USDA, and other Federal agencies to develop
Unified Watershed Assessments (UWAs) that identi-
fied the watersheds in greatest need of restoration
and protection (APG 12). The UWAs mark the first
comprehensive, nationwide assessment of water-
sheds using water quality data, habitat conditions,
endangered soecies listings, and other environmental
factors.
EPA, its Federal partners, and States and Tribes
work together to develop Watershed Restoration
IOWA'S BEAR CREEK BENEFITS FROM STREAM
CORRIDOR RESTORATION
Landowners, working with Iowa State University
professors, developed a riparian buffer nearly five
miles in length on Bear Creek in central Iowa.
This stream corridor restoration project utilizes
plantings of grasses, shrubs, and trees to intercept
eroding soil and agricultural chemicals from fields,
slow flood waters, stabilize streambanks, provide
wildlife habitat, and allow for alternative market-
able products. Constructed wetlands have been
developed around tile outlets to act as a sink for
drainage high in nutrients. In FY 1999, this
project was selected as one of 21 CWAP national
restoration demonstration projects and received
funding from EPA's 319 Program and other
sources, including Pheasants Forever and the
Leopold Center.
Action Strategies to address those watersheds
identified in the UWAs as most in need of restora-
tion. These actions will coordinate the work of
many partners to protect and restore the full physi-
cal, chemical, and biological integrity of these
watersheds. EPA targeted SI 00 million of FY 1999
funding for non-point source grants to support
implementation activities in high-priority watersheds.
To focus attention on entire water bodies instead
of individual discharges, States, working with EPA,
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). A
TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water body can receive from all
sources of pollution and still meet.water quality
standards. TMDLs are part of a strategy to imple-
ment the water pollution controls and management
measures necessary to reduce these pollutants. Over
the next 15 years, almost 40,000 TMDLs need to be
established; in FY 1999, States developed and
submitted approximately 500 TMDLs to EPA for
approval. EPA has developed better models to allow
for the consideration of more factors, like runoff
and air deposition, in TMDL calculations and has
proposed stronger TMDL regulations to better
identify impaired waters and develop and implement
TMDLs for them.
24
Environnn'ni;U Protection
-------
Supporting Water Quality Work in Specific Places
EPA actively supports State and local initiatives
in specific high-priority areas throughout the coun-
try:
• The National Estuary Program (NEP) supports
inclusive, community-based planning and action
to restore and protect 28 of America's nationally
significant estuaries. In FY 1999, EPA approved
four Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plans (CCMPs), blueprints that NEPs
develop and use to improve, restore, and protect
their estuaries, for a cumulative total of 21
CCMPs.
tion, monitoring, and planning capabilities. In
FY 1999, to support local partnerships that restore
wetlands and river corridors, EPA initiated the Five
Star Partnership Program, under which EPA
grantees funded 46 community projects, exceeding
the Agency's FY 1999 goal by 16 projects (APG 13).
Five Star Partnerships involve student groups,
conservation corps, corporations, watershed groups,
and government agencies in demonstration projects,
training, and other educational activities related to
stabilizing stream banks, eliminating harmful
non-native vegetation, replanting wetlands and
riverside areas, and restoring natural water flows.
• EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program, in
partnership with the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, launched
the Gulf of Mexico Challenge
Fund. This fund leverages volun-
tary contributions from the private
sector to support projects identi-
fied by Gulf States and local
coastal communities, protecting
and restoring important habitats
for recreational and commercial
fisheries of the Gulf.
• From 1985 to 1999, the Chesa-
peake Bay Program Partners
restored over 26,000 acres of Bay
grass beds, contributing signifi-
cantly to the current total level of
63,500 acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation. Bay grasses provide
food and habitat for waterfowl,
fish, shellfish, and invertebrates. The grasses
serve as a nursery habitat for many species of
fish, such as young spot and striped bass, which
seek refuge from predators in the grass beds.
To foster local partnerships, EPA supported the
development of the Watershed Assistance Grants
Program at River Network, a national nonprofit
organization. Every dollar applied to the Watershed
Assistance Grants program has leveraged an addi-
tional two dollars in matching funds and has assisted
46 local efforts across the country to start up new
watershed partnerships and build outreach, educa-
Community-Based Projects Supported in FY 1999
by the Five Star Restoration Program and Watershed
Assistance Grants
ive Star Projects
Watershed Assistance
Grants
Research Contributions
In FY 1999, EPA met its goal to provide data
and information for use by States and EPA Regional
Offices in assessing and managing aquatic stressors
in watersheds to reduce toxic loadings and improve
ecological risk assessment (APG 14). Specifically,
EPA developed and disseminated a research strategy,
completed in September 1999, for integrating
economic assessments with ecological risk assess-
ments of multiple aquatic stressors. This strategy
will help environmental managers determine risks
more accurately and more explicitly weigh manage-
Emironmcntal Hroiccliun Apcnq
25
-------
ment options to choose those that provide the
greatest degree of ecological protection. EPA also
produced three publications on "knowledge-based
approaches" to watershed assessments and a tourth
on ecosystem classification and mapping.
Reduce Loadings and Air Deposition
To better protect aquatic ecosystems and public
health, EPA works to reduce the pollution entering
surface waters from discrete point sources (e.g.,
discharge pipes) and diffuse non-point sources (e.g.,
agricultural runoff). EPA has set an objective of
reducing pollutant discharges from key point sources
and non-point source runoff by at least 20 percent
from 1992 levels by 2005. Air deposition of key
pollutants impacting water bodies also will be
reduced.
Reducing Point Source Pollution
To reduce point source pollution, it is critical to
maintain and upgrade the nation's municipal waste-
water treatment facilities. In most cases, secondary
treatment is the minimum level of treatment re-
quired for discharges from publicly owned treatment
works. In FY1999, an additional 3.4 million people
(for a cumulative total of 179 million) received the
benefits of secondary treatment, meeting the
Agency's goal (APG 15), Through the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, Congress
TRIBAL DRINKING WATER AND SEWAGE
DISPOSAL IMPROVED
With funding provided in FY 1999, 2,500 homes
among 28 Tribes in Indian country with inadequate
sewage disposal systems were connected to new or
upgraded facilities. Over 300 homes using pit
privies were placed on septic systems or connected
to treatment works for the first time. Hundreds of
failing septic or other wastewater treatment
systems were repaired. Other homes were taken
off septic systems and connected to community
treatment works. In addition, with special funds
earmarked for Alaskan Native Villages, the public
health and sanitation systems of over 40 Alaska
Native Villages were improved through the con-
struction of drinking water and sewage disposal
systems.
V „
continues to provide funds to States for the con-
struction and maintenance of wastewater treatment
facilities. Since 1988, the CWSRF has financed
5,200 infrastructure projects across the country, with
859 of those funded in FY 1999. In addition,
approximately S400 million was provided for other
infrastructure projects, including projects addressing
the needs of the colonias (Hispanic rural communi-
ties) along the U.S.-Mexico boundary and Alaskan
Native Villages.
Through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program,
EPA and States are ensuring that all facilities requir-
ing a permit have one that includes all conditions
necessary to assure water quality protection. EPA,
working closely with the States, regulates industrial
point sources by developing effluent guidelines
implemented through NPDES permits. In FY 1999,
EPA proposed two new effluent limitation guide-
lines. The proposal for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry will, if promulgated as pro-
posed, prevent 18.8 million pounds of pollutants
from entering the nation's waters each year. The
proposal for Synthetic-based Drilling Fluids, if
promulgated as proposed, will reduce air emissions
of the criteria air pollutants by 450 tons per year,
decrease fuel use by 29,000 barrels per year of oil
equivalent, and reduce the disposal of oily drill-
cutting wastes by 212 million pounds per year.
In addition to routine discharges from point
sources, EPA and its municipal partners must also
control episodic releases associated with wet weather
sources of pollution from Combined Sewer Over-
flows (CSO), Sanitary Sewer Overflows, and storm
water. Five hundred thirteen communities imple-
mented requirements in Storm Water Phase I per-
mits and/or CSO Long Term control plans that are
anticipated to contribute to improvements in their
local watersheds (APG 16). EPA is not yet able to
measure actual improvement in watersheds; there-
fore, this goal has been dropped after FY 1999.
Communities that implemented requirements in
Storm Water Phase I permits and/or CSO Long-
Term Control Plans were used as surrogate indica-
tors of progress, which resulted in a significantly
larger number of communities meeting the goal
than originally forecast. EPA and States work with
26
Enxirunmvnlul Froiection Agcnn
-------
IMPROVING THE CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED
The lower Charles River (Boston, Massachusetts) is
one of the busiest recreational rivers in the world.
Yet, in 1995, swimming standards were met only 19
percent of the time, and boating standards only 39
percent. The "Clean Charles 2005" initiative aims
to make the Charles River swimmable and fishable
by Earth Day 2005. In April 1999, EPA issued its
report card on the river's health giving it a B-, an
improvement from a D in 1995. Achieving a
swimmable, fishable Charles River means integrat-
ing permitting, enforcement, and voluntary pro-
grams on a watershed basis. For example, through
the work of Federal, State, and local partnerships,
inspections for illegal storm water connections are
resulting in the elimination of roughly one million
gallons of contaminated flow.
V J
over 900 communities to promote compliance with
the CSO requirements. Approximately 800 of these
communities now have permits or other enforceable
mechanisms that will minimize the amount of direct
sewage discharges from CSOs into local waters and
avoid major impacts such as shellfish bed and beach
closures. The overwhelming majority—96 percent
of municipal separate storm sewer systems serving
populations greater than 100,000—are covered by
permits requiring practices to minimize discharges
of pollutants into aquatic habitat. EPA also issued a
number of storm water general permits that will
help reduce and prevent pollutant loadings from
thousands of industrial and construction activities.
As part of the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in partner-
ship with man\- others, released a final strategy to
minimize impacts to water quality and public health
from animal feeding operations and from application
of animal waste to agricultural lands. This strategy
is based on the expectation that owners and opera-
tors will, adopt sound and economically feasible
site-specific Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans that will identify actions to meet clearly de-
fined nutrient management goals.
Strengthening State N'on-Poini Sourre (NFS) Programs
EPA is working with States to upgrade their
non-point source pollution control programs. In
FY1999,11 States submitted upgrade^NFS pro-
grams for a cumulative total of 13, meeting EPA's
goal. EPA approved all of these programs (APG
17). The Agency expects virtually all States will
complete this work by the end of FY 2000.
In FY 1999, Congress provided S200 million for
non-point source grants to States to upgrade existing
non-point source programs and to support imple-
mentation of watershed restoration action strategies
in priority watersheds. Through the CXYSRF pro-
gram, 25 States funded non-point source and estua-
rine projects valued at SI 69 million dollars in
FY 1999. EPA, in partnership with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, also has begun work with
stakeholders to develop voluntary national standards
for managing onsite/decentralized septic systems.
The failure of these systems due to improper siting,
design, installation, or maintenance is a major source
of NPS pollution.
Reducing Atmospheric Deposition Loads
EPA initiated a pilot project in FY' 1999 to
explore inclusion of atmospheric sources of pollu-
tion in TMDLs. States will use the TMDL allocation
process as a new tool to reduce pollution from these
sources. Additionally, EPA added coastal atmo-
spheric deposition monitoring sites for mercury and
nitrogen to the nationwide network to improve the
understanding of deposition on water quality;
supported monitoring efforts, including the Great
Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network,
which monitors deposition of toxic pollutants in the
Great Lakes Region; and began a national modeling
effort to collect and distribute high-quality deposi-
tion data for six pollutants.
Research Contributions
In FY 1999, EPA continued efforts to deliver
support tools such as watershed models, which
enable resource planners to select consistent and
appropriate watershed management solutions and
alternatives as well as less costly wet weather flow
technologies. EPA is making progress toward this
Emlronmi'nul Proltf lion Agtnii
27
-------
goal, which it expects to reach in 2003 (APG 18).
Specifically, EPA is working to integrate its Storm
Water Management Model (SXX'MM) with the
geographic information system compatible with the
Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and
Non-Point Sources (BASINS) model. EPA's SXX'MM
has become the fundamental program for estimating
urban storm water and sewer design. EPA uses
BASINS to develop TMDL estimates; this integra-
tion will allow the Agency to factor urban geo-
graphic information into watershed management
decisions. These decision support tools will enable
community-based water resource planners to select
consistent, appropriate watershed management
solutions to reduce the cost and increase the effec-
tiveness of wet weather flow abatement facilities.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
EPA completed a program evaluation of the
National Estuary Programs (NEPs) in FY 1999.
The key objective was to assess the effectiveness of
the NEP approach in managing the nation's estuaries
and to identify program elements that could serve as
successful management tools for other community-
based environmental protection efforts. Major
findings include the following: (a) the NEP ap-
proach improves the management of estuaries and
their resources by integrating Federal, State, and
local management efforts, enabling citizen participa-
tion and public involvement; and (b) EPA can
improve program success by encouraging more local
funding for implementation and by improving the
structure for measuring environmental progress. In
addition, EPA conducts a biennial review of each
NEP implemendng an approved plan to ensure
adequate progress and to identify valuable informa-
tion to be shared with other watersheds.
CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES
EPA, States, Tribes, and local providers will
strive to address the burden of implemendng new
drinking water reguladons and guidance, including
those focusing on microbials, DBPs, arsenic, radon,
monitoring for unregulated contaminants, consumer
confidence reports, small systems, and operator
certification. The sheer number of requirements
strains State capacity, meaning a redoubled effort is
key to the achievement of the goal of safe drinking
water.
The Agency is concerned about long-standing
impairments to aquatic systems (such as damage to
fish habitat, loss of wedands that are nurseries of
aquatic life, and stream corridor degradation) that
have become more apparent as the Agency and its
partners move to address problems on a watershed
basis. Management actions and investments targeted
at in-stream and watershed-scale restoration are
required to solve tiiese types of impairments. As
States develop implementation plans for their
impaired waters over the next 15 years, many will
need to include watershed restoration activities in
order to meet Clean XX'ater Act goals.
EPA will work to foster a national commitment
to preventing non-point source pollution. Often the
governmental entity responsible for preventing NPS
pollution is not the traditional water quality agency,
but rather a natural resource agency with a mission
broader than pollution control. In many cases, the
responsibility for preventing and abating NPS
pollution falls to individual citizens. EPA, in part-
nership with other Federal and State agencies and
Tribes, needs to intensify efforts to reduce NPS
pollution and provide the information and financial
incentives citizens need.
As EPA continues its progress toward the goal
of clean and safe water, the Agency faces the key
challenges of improving performance measurement
to reflect outcomes and improving the ability to link
annual program actions to long-term environmental
outcomes. EPA will strive to increase the propor-
tion of annual performance goals and measures that
support environmental outcomes to make the
connection between EPA's efforts and the environ-
mental results achieved. The Agency will work to
improve environmental information through existing
and new monitoring and assessment strategies
designed to fill data gaps and increase the under-
standing of watershed health. EPA also will strive to
improve its efforts to provide sound data on the
quality of the drinking water supply and to modern-
ize the Safe Drinking XX'ater Information System.
28
Emironmi'nlaJ I'rolcclion Ajienq
-------
Every year different organizations and con-
sumer-oriented journals conduct studies of \vhat
Americans rank as high priority items for ensuring a
good quality of life. Clean and safe water has
consistently placed in the top five areas of greatest
importance. EPA, the principal Federal agency for
regulating and protecting the waters of the United
States, will continually strive to design, develop, and
carry out programs to strengthen Americans' confi-
dence in their water resources. Success depends on
concentration, commitment, and cooperation
toward finding the best solutions to ensure clean and
safe water for the nation.
KEY MILESTONES FOR THE FUTURE
To accomplish the goal of Clean and Safe Water,
EPA will continue to develop protective standards
on a strong scientific foundation. The following will
form the basis for updated point source permits and
prevent increased pollutant loadings to America's
rivers:
• By the close of 2002, EPA will issue effluent
guidelines and nutrient criteria and will partner
with States and Tribes to set water quality
standards.
• By FY 2002, EPA and its partners will complete
the establishment of a significant number of
TMDLs for the most at-risk waters.
To further reduce wet weather pollution, EPA
will:
• Work with States to issue additional guidance
and ensure effective implementation of the CSO
Policy, existing Storm Water rules, and new
Storm Water Phase II rules so that by the end of
FY 2002, Sanitary Sewer Overflow regulations
will be in place.
• Review the effectiveness of States' revised non-
point source plans and through the NEP, pre-
serve, restore, and/or create 50,000 acres of
habitat nationwide.
Public health protection is the cornerstone of
the drinking water and fish and beach advisory
programs. The Agency will support States and
Tribes in ensuring timely implementation of the
following requirements:
• By 2001, EPA will issue drinking water regula-
tions to limit arsenic and radionuclides in drink-
ing water and to further improve treatment of
surface waters and groundwater that face risk of
microbial contamination.
• Through authorities under the Clean Air Act and
Clean Water Act, EPA also will propose to
strengthen controls on sources of mercury and
other toxics impacting fish.
• Finally, by 2003, EPA will work with all States to
adopt beach water quality standards.
29
tmironmcnuil Protccuun Agcno
-------
Key Contacts
Section 9
-------
Contents
Management Agreement Workgroup Contacts page 9-3
Clean Water Action Plan Contacts page 9-5
-------
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG)
Regional Contacts
Region 1: Paul Wintrob/Ron Manfredonia
Region 2: Paul Molinari
Region 3: Francis Mulhern
Region 4: Wayne Aronson
Region 5: Kelley Moore
Region 6: Dina Grinado
Region 7: Jody Hudson/Jennifer Morris/Reggie Kidwell
Region 8: Cynthia Gonzales/Andrea Stone
Region 9: Mike Schul:
Region 10: Bevin Reid
Great Water Body Contacts
CBPO: Nita Sylvester
GLNPO: Mike Russ
GMPO: Gloria Car
HQ Contacts
IO: Mike Weckesser. 202-260-7949
OST: Ted Johnson/Danna McDonald
OWM: James Home
OGWDW: Clare Donaher/Dan Gonzalez
OWOW: Bob Brown
Tribal: Dianne Baucom
Note: Where two names are listed, lead contact is the first listed. All phone numbers are listed in
the Agency's LAN or Email directories.
Page 9-3
-------
Page 9-4
-------
CWAP Action Team Leaders
Name
Agency
Phone
Fax
E-mail
Address
Tribal Implementation
To be
determined
Kathy
Gorospe
DOI-
AS/IA
EPA
202-260-
5887
202-260-
7509
gorospe.katherine
@epa.gov
4104
US EPA
401 MSt.. SW
Washington. DC 20460
Unified Watershed Assessment
John Wilson
Tom livari
EPA
USDA
202-260-
7878
301-504-
2225
202-260-
7024
301-504-
2264
wilson.john@epa.g
ov
tom.iivari@usda.g
ov
4503 F
US EPA
401 MSt., SW
Washington. DC 20460
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705
Federal Land Management
Steve
Borchard
Warren
Harper
DOI
USDA
202-452-
0357
202-205-
1671
202-452-
7709
202-205-
1096
sborchard@wo.bl
m.gov
wharper/\vo@fs. fe
d.us
1849CSt,NW
MS-LS-204
Washington, DC 20240
201 14lhSt, SW
3rd Floor South Wing
Cindy R. Yates Bldg
Washington, DC 20250
Wetlands
Michael Davis
DOD
703-695-
1370
703-697-
3366
davisml@hqda.ar
my.mil
Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Army. Civil Works
(Policy & Legislation)
108 Army Pentagon, Rm.
2E569
Washington. DC
20310-0^08
Page 9-5
-------
Animal Feeding Operations
Will Hall
Obie Ashford
EPA
USDA-
NRCS
202-260- 202-260-
1458 1460
301-504- 301-504-
2197 2264
hall.william^epa.
2OV
obie.ashfbrd@usda
-gov
4203
US EPA
401 MSt.. SW
Washington. DC 20460
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Mail Stop 5473
Beltsville, MD 20705-500
Monitoring, Research, Information
Andrew
Robertson
Tim Miller
DOC
DOI-
USGS
301-713-
3032x162
703-648-
5012
301-713-
4388
703-648-
6693
andrew.robertson
@noaa.gov
tlmiller(o;usgs.gov
NOAA/NOS, N/SCI 1
Room 10110. SSMC4
1305 East- West Highway
Silver Spring. MD 209 10
413 National Center
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr
Reston. VA20192
Standards
Marjorie Pitts
EPA
202-260-
1304
202-260-
9830
pitts.majorie@epa.
gov
4305
US EPA
401 MSt., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Communications
Amy Gambrill
Jane Dodds
EPA
USDA
202-260-
7105
202-401-
4044
202-260-
5711
202-401-
1706
gambrill.amy
@epa.gov
jdodds@reeu
sda.gov
4101
US EPA
401 MSt.. SW
Washington. DC 20460
1400 Independence Ave, SW
MailStop2210(Rm816
Aerospace Bldg)
Washington, DC 20250-2210
Page 9-6
-------
Watershed Framework
Louise Wise
David
Cottingham
EPA
DO1
202-260-
2007
202-208-
4811
202-260-
2529
202-371-
2815
wise.louise:??
epa.gov
david_cotting
ham@ios.doi
.gov
4501
US EPA
401 MSt.. SW
Washington. DC 20460
1849CSt., N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20240
Coastal Protection & Polluted Runoff
Dov Weitman
Marcella
Jansen
EPA
DOC-
NOAA
202-260-
7088
301-713-
3098x143
202-260-
7024
weitman.dov
@epa.gov
marcella.jans
en@noaa.gov
4503F
US EPA
401 MSt., SW
Washington, DC 20460
NOAA
1305 East- West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 209 10
Stewardship Incentives
Ron Harris
Andrew
Johnson
USDA-
NRCS
USDA-
NRCS
301-504-
2195
202-720-
0907
301-504-
2264
202-720-
4265
ronald.harris
@usda.gov
andrew.johns
on@usda.gov
Mail Stop 5473
Room 2-2276C
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705
Room 6027 South Agricultural
Building
14lh & Independence Ave
Washington, DC 200 13
Page 9-7
-------
EPA Regional Office CWAP Coordinators
Name
Steven
Winnett
Alfred
Basile
Cyndy
Belz
Terri A.
White
Marjan
Peltier
Paul
Thomas
Susan
Branning
Julie
Elfving
Karen
Hamilton
John Ong
Bevin Reid
Dave
Cowgill
Region
1
2
**
j
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Great
Lakes
Phone
617-918-
1687
617-918-
1599
212-637-
3832
215-814-
5523
404-562-
9420
312-886-
7742
214-665-
8022
913-551-
7475
303-312-
6236
415-744-
1867
206-553-
1566
312-353-
3576
Fax
617-918-
1505
212-637-
3889
215-814-
2318
404-562-
9224
312-886-
7804
214-665-
6689
913-551-
7765
303-312-
6071
415-744-
1235
206-553-
0165
312-353-
2018
E-mail
winnett.steven@epa.gov
basile.alfred@epa.gov
belz.cyndy@epa.gov
white.terri-a@epa.gov
peltier.marjan@epa.gov
thomas.paul@jepa.gov
branning.susan@epa.gov
Elfving.Julie@epa.gov
hamilton.karen@epa.gov
ong.john@epa.gov
reid.bevin@epa.gov
cowgill.david@epa.gov
Address
US EPA New England
1 Congress St
Suite i"lOO(CCT)
Boston. MA 02 11 4-2023
US EPA Region 2
290 Broadway 24Ih Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(3WPOO)
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029
US EPA - Region 4
GBTSB
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
77W-16J
US EPA - Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
6WQ-EW
1 445 Ross Ave
Suite #1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
US EPA Region 7,
WWPD/GPCB
As of June 21: 901 N. 5th St
Kansas City, KS 66101
US EPA (8EPR-EP)
999 18th St. Ste. 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
WTR-1
US EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorn St
San Francisco, C A 94 105
USEPA-Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave fOW- 135)
Seattle, WA 9810!
G-17J
US EPA - Region 5
77 Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Page 9-8
-------
Gloria Car
Carin
Bisland
Gulf of
Mexico
Chesap
eake
Bay
228-688-
2421
410-267-
5732
228-688-
2709
410-267-
5777
car.gloria'S.epa.gov
bisland. caring eoa.sov
US EPA - GMPO
Bids. 1103. Rm 202
Stennis Space Center. MS
39529
USEPA - CBPO
4 10 Severn Avenue. = 109
Annapolis. MD 21403
Page 9-9
-------
EPA Headquarters
CWAP Coordination Team
Name
Len Fleckenstein
Ruby Ford
Kitty Miller
Jennifer Wu
Phone
202-260-5332
202-260-6051
202-260-3722
202-260-0425
Fax
202-401-3372
202-401-3372
202-401-3372
202-401-3372
E-mail
fleckenstein.leonard@
epa.gov
ford.ruby@epa.gov
miller.kitty@epa.gov
wu.jennifer@epa.gov
Address
401 MSt. SW(4101)
Washington, DC 20460
401 MSt. SW (4101)
Washington. DC 20460
401 MSt. SW (4101)
Washington. DC 20460
401 MSt. SW (4101)
Washington. DC 20460
Page 9-10
------- |