The National Program Guidance
                for the
            Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              FY2002-03
               June 2001
         http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/strategic/gpra.html

-------
  — 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 2000)

-------
                                Table of Contents
Introduction
Section 1:    Moving the National Water Program Forward
             Important efforts underway in the National Water Program.
Section 2:    GPRA Goals, Objectives, and Subobjectives
             Contains the strategic goals, objectives, and subobjectives under which the work of
             the National Water Program falls and which were developed as part of the
             strategic planning process the Agency undertook to meet requirements of the
             Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Section 3:    Program Offices' Vision, Strategies, and Guidances (revised for 2001)
             Provides a brief vision statement and lists key strategies and guidances (including
             sources and contacts) for each of the four water program offices within the Office
             of Water. (Note: The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) will be
             issuing its own guidance separately.)
Section 4:    Management Agreement Instructions and Template
             Instructions and template for the FY2002 Management Agreement (MA). The
             template includes the FY2002 Annual Performance Goals and Measures
             (APGs/APMs) and Office of Water Tribal Strategy Goals.
Section 5:    Core Performance Measures
             Contains the Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under
             NEPPS: 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 6:    Timeline (revised for 2001)
             Shows key planning and accountability dates including dates for development and
             finalization of the MAs and for the Mid-Year and End-of-Year Reports.

-------
Section 7:    Midyear and End-of- Year Reporting (revised for 2001)
             Contains initial guidance for mid-year and end-of-year reporting, the FY 01
             Management Agreement Matrix (Annual Performance Goals and Measures) for the
             Office of Water.
SectionS:    FY 2000 Annual Report
             Contains Goal 2 (Clean and Safe Water) Chapter from the Agency's FY 00 Annual
             Performance Report and the F Y 00 End-of-Year Results for the National Water
             Program.
Section 9:    Key Contacts (revised for 2001)
             Contains lists of the Headquarters and Regional contacts for the Office of Water's
             Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG).

-------
Introduction
Overview
The National Program Guidance for the Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2002-03 is intended to serve as guidance for the implementation of the National Water
Program. This guidance should assist all of us in providing consistent and fair implementation of
the important programs for which we are responsible. In addition, this guidance provides the
framework for EPA negotiations with our State and Tribal partners who play a vital role in
protecting and restoring the Nation's waters.  This guidance should be shared with these partners
and should serve as a primary resource for National Water Program staff and managers as they
plan and implement their programs for FY2002-03. This guidance addresses key elements of the
National Water Program's accountability system ~ priorities, core program guidances,
Management Agreements (MAs),  and mid-year and end-of-year reporting.
Content
This guidance consists of eight sections which are listed and described in the Table of Contents on
page i. Further key points on several of these sections follow. In Section 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. Also, a table showing the CPMs and the parallel APMs is provided for ease in
identifying them from the longer list of annual performance goals (APGs) and APMs.
                                          in

-------
Vision and Priorities for the
 National Water Program
           Section 1

-------
                         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                JUN 2 9  2001
MEMORANDUM
FROM:             Diane
                    Acting Assistant Administrator for Water

TO:                 National Water Program

SUBJECT:          Moving the National Water Program Forward
       During the first week of May, over 250 water program managers from EPA regions and
headquarters offices gathered in Washington for the third National Water Program Meeting. We
shared experiences and ideas and invested time in defining specific steps to make clean water and
drinking water programs more effective.  Although we touched on virtually every aspect of our water
programs, we focused our discussion on how to better integrate the delivery of water programs.

       Listening to the many discussions and presentations during these meetings, I was impressed
with everyone's dedication to the mission of ensuring clean and safe water and the determination to
move the National Water Program forward. While we develop a more comprehensive list of follow-
up actions, we have already started work on a number of key recommendations from that meeting.
Some examples include: 1) moving ahead with renewed attention to septics and other onsite systems;
2) initiating a thorough review of our management measures with both short and long term changes
expected; 3) energetically pursuing action on information and data issues; and 4) looking at how we
can better link the thousands of source water assessments being conducted with watershed protection
efforts.

       With the discussions at the National Program Meeting fresh in mind, I want to offer some
thoughts on where the National Water Program  stands today and where we are going.

       First and foremost, we are all very fortunate that President Bush has nominated Tracy Mehan
as the Assistant Administrator for Water.  Tracy was the Director of the Office of the Great Lakes
in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Before that, he served at EPA and as Director
of the Department of Natural Resources  in the State of Missouri. Tracy is on-board as a consultant
and will bring a valuable perspective to  the table as we take on key challenges.

-------
       I have had the pleasure of working as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water and, for the
past five months, Acting Assistant Administrator.  I can't claim to be an unbiased observer, but I
think that, on the whole, we are able to give Tracy the reins of a National Water Program that is
fundamentally strong and effective.

       We are approaching a major milestone for the National Water Programs. October 18,2002
is the thirtieth anniversary of the enactment of the original Clean Water Act. The Safe Drinking
Water thirtieth anniversary is just two years later.

       Over the last three decades we have dramatically improved the quality of rivers, lakes and
coastal waters and ensured safer drinking water. The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act are national success stories. Most Americans remember past water pollution problems and
recognize the dramatic improvement in the health of surface waters and drinking water. Today, we
can look back and know that millions of pounds of toxic pollutants have been removed from industrial
discharges,  almost  every city has improved sewage  treatment, and drinking water is  freer of
microbiological and other contaminants.

       We have done great things over the past 30 years, but big challenges are still out there waiting
to be addressed. In addition, our success has given the public high expectations that we will continue
to make rapid progress hi improving water quality and will even eliminate pollution problems
altogether.   Most of you know the dimensions of the pollution problems we face.

              Too  many people in this country still do not have basic water and sewer services.
              Many of these people live in areas along the U.S./Mexico border or on tribal lands,
              including those in Alaska.

              Too  many waterbodies still  do not meet clean water goals.  States report that over
              one-third of the waters they monitored suffer from pollution problems serious enough
              to prevent basic uses like fishing and swimming. Over 20,000 of these waters were
              included on lists as needing restoration  plans or TMDLs.

              States have issued over 2,500 advisories warning that fish are too contaminated for
              all to eat.

              One  out of three beaches surveyed report at least one advisory or closing.

              Although discharges from industry and  sewage treatment plants contribute to these
              pollution problems, in most watersheds across the country, the leading cause of
              pollution is an array of diffuse sources of polluted runoff from agriculture, logging,
              irrigation return flows, atmospheric deposition, construction, and sprawl.

              We still have a long way to go to ensure that the drinking water provided by tens of
              thousands of water systems, especially small systems, is free of microbiological and

-------
             other contaminants.

             Lack of adequate management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems has been
             identified as a major problem. Approximately 25% of existing U.S. households and
             33% of new development use some form of onsite or decentralized waste water
             treatment system. Based on recent data, between 10% and 25% of these systems are
             failing significantly.

       In looking at all the challenges that we still face, it is reassuring to know that we have a solid
foundation of core programs and a proven record of effective implementation of these programs in
cooperation with our State and Tribal partners.

             We  have  a proven tool for financing water infrastructure in the clean water and
             drinking water State revolving loan funds.

             We  have  basic, technology-based controls for industrial dischargers and sewage
             treatment plants.

             We  have  water quality standards and drinking water standards that are based on
             sound science.

             We have effective permit programs for both discharges to waters and for protection
             of wetlands.

             We have worked with States to develop effective programs for reducing runoff from
             a wide array of nonpoint sources.

             We have strong programs supervising public water systems, informing consumers of
             drinking water quality, and protecting sources of drinking water.

       So, as we approach the end of three decades of hard work to ensure clean water and safe
drinking water, what do we need to do next?  In the short term — over the 18 months between now
and the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act ~ there are a number of important efforts underway
to refine and improve our core programs. Let me say at the outset that this list is in no specific order
and there are any number of important projects not on this particular list.

       •     Water Quality Standards - We need to strengthen State water quality standards by
             expanding our water quality criteria in key areas, such as nutrients and pathogens, and
             by working with States and Tribes to assure that their standards are appropriate and
             fully protect designated uses. Because the standards are the foundation for our move
             to focusing on water quality,  the standards, and public support for appropriate
             standards, will be an important determinant of our success.

-------
Charting a Course For Effluent Guidelines - We recently kicked-off a major
review of the effluent guidelines program with the goal of involving a wide range of
stakeholders in helping us set priorities for review and revision of industrial and
pretreatment effluent guidelines. This effort is especially important because, for the
first time in several years, we have the opportunity to show that EPA can get this job
done without judicial oversight.

Reducing Nonpoint Pollution - It is critical that we continue and expand the work
we are doing with States to strengthen section 319 programs and to support diverse
and innovative efforts to reduce polluted runoff such as diversifying the kinds of
nonpoint source projects financed through Clean Water State Revolving Funds. We
will encourage states to use innovative funding mechanisms to provide SRF financing
to non-traditional recipients, such as farmers and individual septic tank owners, with
important needs.  The number of states using their Clean Water State Revolving
Funds to fund nonpoint source projects has grown rapidly,  and we will continue
encouraging states to increase this use of their Funds.  Our immediate goal is that
$200 million in SRF funds be used for nonpoint source projects per year. Finally, we
will increase our efforts to describe and communicate the environmental results of the
Federal investment in nonpoint source programs, particularly with respect to nutrient
and sediment loading reductions.

Water Monitoring and Reporting  - In April of next year, we expect to  receive
important new information from States about the health of our waters, including both
general reports concerning water quality and specific lists of impaired waters. This
new information is a good opportunity to present to the  public more and better
information about our progress in protecting the Nation's waters.

Restoring Impaired Waters ~ Over the past several years, we have debated at
length the specifics of how to restore polluted waters through the TMDL program.
Whatever happens to the new TMDL rule, it seems clear that States and EPA will be
doing a substantially larger number of TMDLs. And, there is great public interest in
the details of each of these projects. Over the next year, we need to both resolve the
basic regulatory ground rules and proceed with a steady effort to develop TMDLs
that will reduce the number of polluted waters around the county.

Discharge Permit Program and Backlog, and Wet Weather Pollution -- EPA,
States and Congress all agree that the backlog in discharge permits is too large and
that we need to substantially reduce it by next year.  Congress expects us to follow-
through on this commitment. While  we undertake this work, we are challenged to
better understand and explain the environmental importance of permits. We also need
to find appropriate permit program solutions to address wet weather pollution
including Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs),
storm water, C AFOs, and mining operations, and come to grips with a range of other

-------
difficult permit program issues ranging from when new discharges should be allowed
to impaired waters to control of ballast water from ships.

Implement New Legislation Enacted By Congress - Last year, Congress passed
a number of new clean water initiatives - including the new beach safety legislation
and the new wet weather grant legislation. Both of these new efforts are funded in
the President's budget and we need to launch these new programs successfully. In
addition, Congress  enacted a  multi-faceted estuary  bill and a comprehensive
restoration plan for  the Florida Everglades, both of which will require increased
coordination with our Federal, state, and local partners to be successful..

Develop Drinking Water Regulations -  Since the reauthorization of the Safe
Drinking Water Act in  1996, we have made good progress in developing new
standards for contaminants in drinking water. Over the next year, we will be finalizing
standards for radon in drinking water and establishing new  requirements for control
of microbiological contaminants in small surface water systems and ground water
systems.

We will be conducting an intensive process to review the science and costs related to
arsenic in drinking water and come to a decision about a new arsenic standard. The
Agency has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a review of
a range of 3 ppb to 20 ppb, and we will likely continue the same compliance dates for
systems as are identified in the January 2001 rule. This means that systems that are
at or near 20 ppb should be planning now to lower the arsenic levels in their finished
waters.  The process that we are now following to work with the NAS and the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council will provide useful information that will
help us reach a sound decision . . arsenic  in a timely manner.

Drinking Water Contaminant Selection - In addition to developing new drinking
water standards, we will be working hard to evaluate unregulated contaminants that
should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act in  the years to come.  This
Spring, we will publish for comment notice of the contaminant selection process we
expect to follow in the future and will identify contaminants to be regulated in the
next several years.  We will also be seeking comment on which of the  existing
drinking water standards should be the highest priority for  review and revision.

Source Water Protection -- After several years of work by EPA and the States, we
expect that source water protection programs will emerge over the next several years
and take on an increasingly important role in the National Water Program.

Persistent Bioaccumalitive Toxics (PBTs) -   In 2002 and 2003, we will continue
to participate in a cross-agency effort to produce measurable results in reducing the
use and release of priority  PBT pollutants in the environment and in  reducing

-------
              exposure to PBTs, especially to sensitive and vulnerable populations.

       This is a challenging list of projects and there is lots of important work that is not on this list,
whether it's building our programs in Indian country, developing cooling water intake regulations,
managing the wetlands program, protecting estuaries, or overseeing State Revolving Loan Funds.

       While I expect that the new management team will be closely involved in all the projects I just
mentioned, I expect that they will also be looking for ways to give the National Water Program new
energy and direction.  Over the next several months, as some of the pressing, holdover issues are
addressed and Tracy Mehan is confirmed as Assistant Administrator, the time will  come to think
about longer-term, strategic directions for the water programs.

       It is hard to say what new directions might emerge for the National Water Program in the
coming years. But, we should expect to be asked what new directions we think are called for and we
should be ready to put some ideas on the table. Here are some of the strategic questions I hope the
new management team will think about.

       •       Partnerships — The water program needs to reach across organizational boundaries
              and build strong partnerships with other federal agencies, other government agencies,
              and with private entities.  It is only through the combined work of all of us that our
              clean water goals will be achieved.

       •       Program Integration — Clearly,, better integration of water programs at the State,
              watershed and waterbody level has the potential to accomplish our clean water and
              drinking water goals more effectively. As I indicated above, we are working now to
              assemble specific recommendations for enhancing program integration based on the
              work at the  recent National Water Program meeting.

       •       Water Infrastructure — There is  growing concern that the nation is  unprepared to
              deal with pressing water infrastructure financing needs and some have estimated that
              we have a shortfall in funding of over $20 billion per year. Without new investment
              and better management approaches, growing populations and aging facilities could
              erode some of the  important water quality  gains of  the past decades. We need to
              complete our own  analysis of this problem and work with Congress  to ensure that
              there is a common understanding of this problem. If Congress chooses to develop
              legislation, we must be ready to participate in this effort.

       •       Suburban Growth — As we gradually get the remaining pollution problem areas
              cleaned-up, we will increasingly focus on  prevention of future problems and our
              attention is likely to turn to the water quality impacts of unsustainable development
              and suburban growth. To enhance prevention, we can provide new tools to help local
              governments, stakeholders and others plan for growth in ways that protect sources
              of drinking water, protect precious water resources, plan for adequate infrastructure,

-------
              and contribute to a high quality of life in urban areas.

       •      Innovation — Innovation is an ongoing challenge - today's innovation quickly
              becomes tomorrow's tradition.  The Agency is refocusing and re-energizing the
              innovations effort and water programs need to be part of this process.  We need to
              continue to build on innovations work, such as water pollution trading, strategically
              promoting the use of environmental management systems and other innovative tools
              like asset management, while continuing to look for smarter, cheaper, faster ways to
              run the water programs.

       •      Valuing All Our Employees - The increasing diversity of our workforce is a terrific
              opportunity for us to bring in new ways of looking at our work. As we become more
              diverse, we can strengthen our partnerships with different communities outside the
              Agency.  Taking  full  advantage of this strength will require  us to adapt our
              organization, making sure that many voices can be heard.

       As we approach the end of three decades of hard work to ensure clean and safe water, we can
be proud of our accomplishments and challenged by the difficult problems that are before us. Judging
from the energy and enthusiasm I saw among people at the National Water Program meeting, the next
few years will include great strides toward cleaner and safer waters.
       Administrator  ,
       Assistant Administrators
       Regional Administrators

-------
GPRA Goals, Objectives, and
       Subobjectives
           Section 2

-------
             Agency's Strategic Plan submitted to Congress, September 2000

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water

       Objective 1:  By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by
       community water systems will receive  water that meets  health-based drinking water
       standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to
       microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced.

             Subobiective 1.1:  By 2005, the population served by community water systems
             providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards (issued under the
             SDWA as amended in 1986) will increase to 95% from a baseline 83% in 1994. For
             standards issued in 1998 and beyond (under the SDWA as amended in 1996), the
             population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets
             such new health-based standards will reach 95% within five years after the effective
             date of each rule.

             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
             and will provide increased protection to the general population as well as sensitive
             subpopulations such as children, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised.

             Subobiective 1.3:  By 2005, demonstrate the effectiveness of both voluntary and
             regulatory activities to protect sources of drinking water by (1) ensuring that 50% of
             the population served by community water systems  will receive their water from
             systems with source water protection programs in place; and, 2) managing identified,
             high-risk Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g.,  wellhead,
             source water, sole source aquifer, etc.) and all Class I, II, and III injection wells.

             Subobjective 1.4:  By 2005, 5% of the waters with fish advisories will demonstrate
             a decline in fish tissue contamination, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish
             will be reduced, and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting
             the consumption offish and shellfish will increase.

             Subobjective 1.5: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination
             in waters used for recreation will be  reduced and the percentage of waters attaining
             the designated recreational uses will increase.

             Subobiective 1.6:   Through 2005,  provide a stronger scientific basis  for future
             implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Note: This Subobjective belongs to
             ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
                                        Page 2-3

-------
Objective 2: By 2005, increase by 175 the number of watersheds where 80 percent or more
of assessed waters meet water quality standards, including standards that support healthy
aquatic communities. (The 1998 baseline is 501 watersheds out of a national total of 2,262.)

       Subobjective 2.1: By 2005,5,000 additional miles of water will attain water quality
       standards and specific interim milestones will be achieved in 50,000 impaired miles.

       Subobjective 2.2: By 2005, and in each year thereafter, the work of federal, state,
       tribal, and local agencies; the private sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and
       citizen groups will result in a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands.

       Subobjective 2.3: Through 2005, provide means to identify, assess, and manage
       aquatic stressors, including  contaminated sediments.  (Note: This Subobjective
       belongs to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)
Objective 3: By 2005, reduce pollutant loadings from key point and nonpoint sources by at
least 11 % from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants will be reduced to 1990 levels.

       Subobjective 3.1: By 2005, using both pollution control and prevention approaches,
       reduce at least 3 billion pounds of annual point source loadings from key sources,
       including  a combined 11% reduction from industrial sources, publicly owned
       treatment works (POTWs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

       Subobjective 3.2:  By 2005, through the work of federal, state, tribal,  and local
       agencies and the private sector, nonpoint source loadings (especially sediment and
       nutrient loads) will be reduced or prevented, including a 20% reduction from 1992
       levels of erosion from cropland (i.e., reduction of 235 million tons of soil eroded)

       Subobjective 3.3: Through 2005, deliver decision support tools and alternative, cost-
       effective  wet weather flow control technologies for use by local decision makers
       involved in community-based watershed management.  (Note: This Subobjective
       belongs to ORD and is supported by ORD resources.)

       Subobjective 3.4: By 2005, improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted
       persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by  50 percent compared
       to 1990 levels, as measured by the National Toxics Inventory. Also by 2005, reduce
       ambient nitrates and total  nitrogen deposition to 1990 levels, as measured by the
       National  Atmospheric Deposition Network and the Clean Air Status and Trends
       Network.
                                  Page 2-4

-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces,
Ecosystems

       Objective 6: By 2005, EPA will assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the
       condition of their  environment,  help  in building  the  tribes'  capacity to implement
       environmental management programs, and ensure that EPA is implementing programs in
       Indian Country where needed to address environmental issues.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks

       Objective 1: By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to human health and shared ecosystems
       in North America, including marine and Arctic environments, consistent with our bilateral and
       multilateral treaty obligations in these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to tribes.

             Subobjective 1.2:    By 2005, the population in the U.S./Mexico Border Area
             (including tribes) that is served by adequate drinking water, wastewater collection and
             treatment systems will increase by 1.5 million through the design and construction of
             water infrastructure.

             Subobjective 1.4:   Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
             integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, particularly by reducing the level of
             toxic substances, protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and restoring and
             maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations.
                                        Page 2-5

-------
                      EPA's Strategic  Plan
                                    (September 2000)
      1  Clean Air
                                       6. Global and Cross-Border
                                       Environmental Risks
       2. Clean and Safe Water
     L
                                       7. Expansion of Americans' Right To Know
 (0
 o
O
3. Safe Food
8. Sound Science
       4.  Preventing Pollution and
       Reducing Risk
      ^ **-»!*£
                                       9. Credible Deterrent and Greater
                                       Compliance with the Law
        5. Waste Management, Contaminated
        Waste Sites, and Emergency Response
                                       10. Effective Management

-------
                                            Goal 2
                                   Clean and  Safe Water  $  <
                                                                 v  ' '' 4*w,|, A'; y ^*$V^|l-Ci,T 4V

        Protect Human
             Health
             (OGWDW/OST)
                                  Protect and Restore
                                  Aquatic Ecosystems
                                                (OST / OWOW)
                               Reduce Pollutant
                                   Loadings
                                   (OWM/OWOW/OST)
 V)
 0)
*3
 O
 0)
!5*
 o
&
 3
(/>
CO
      Community Drinking Water Systems
      High Risk Contaminant Standards
Source Water / Ground Water
Protection Programs
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
Recreational Use of Waters
      Stronger Scientific Base
      (ORD)
                                     Healthy
                                     Watersheds
Wetlands Net
Increase
Identify, Assess & Manage
Aquatic Stressors (ORD)
                                       U.S. EPA Headquarters Ubrary
                                           Mail code 3201
                                       1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                        Washington DC 20460
                                  Point Source
                                  Reduction
Nutrient and
Sediment Reduction
Decision Support
TOOlS (ORD)
                                                                      Air Deposition
                                                                                     Page 2-7

-------
 0)
^3
 O
 0
5*
O
 0
*3
 O
o
JQ
3
CO
                       Additional Goals where OW resides
            Preventing Pollution
            and Reducing Risk
              EPA Strategic Goal #4
                      (AIEO)
 Conditions
Assess Conditions on Tribal
Land Objective
    Implement
   Environmental
   Management
  Programs in Indian
     Country
                                     Reduction of Global and
                                        Cross-Border'Risks  ,
                                            .' *,. *• KillM'^" -
                                         EPA Strategic
                                                    '
                                                            (OWM/GLNPOj;:


Transboundary
Reduce Threats to North
American Ecosystems
Objective
 Mexico Border
                                                Restore Great Lakes
                                                                             ag

-------
    Program Specific Visions,
    Strategies, and  Guidances
(Strategies and Guidances marked with an asterisk (*) are considered core, and the Regional
Administrator must consult with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a
   work plan with a State that differs significantly from these asterisked Guidances and
                      Strategies.)
 (Strategies and Guidances appearing for the first time in this update are marked with a &.
                     Section 3

-------
                    Contents

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water   page 3-5
Office of Science and Technology           page 3-16
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds   page 3-30
Office ofWastewater Management           page 3-41

-------
                      Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

/. Vision

       The fundamental mission of the National Drinking Water Program is to protect public health
by ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The framework within which the EPA strives to
achieve this mission is the "multiple barrier approach."  Under this approach, in FY 2002-2003,
EPA, its partners -  - States, and Tribes -  -  and stakeholders (public health and environmental
organizations, utilities, communities, and the public) will continue to engage in a comprehensive set
of activities to protect the public from contaminants in drinking water.  These activities cover the
entire process for providing safe drinking water to Americans, from protecting water at the source
to ensuring consumer confidence in the safety of the water flowing from the tap.

       The multiple barrier approach comprises several strategic components that allow EPA,
partners, and stakeholders to achieve our mission as effectively and efficiently as possible. These
include:

•      protecting drinking water sources  from contamination through  conducting source water
       assessments, protecting wellhead areas and sole source aquifers, and ensuring that disposal
       of waste through underground injection does not contaminate drinking water sources

•      setting national health-based "primary" standards based on sound science and health risk
       information, and periodically evaluating the effectiveness of these standards in protecting
       public health

•      ensuring that states and tribes have sufficient financial, managerial and technical capacity to
       implement safe drinking water programs through regulatory  guidance, grant.-    d the
       Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). Funding from loans and set-asidto allows
       states and water systems to upgrade water infrastructure, and DWSRF set-asides allow states
       to target program areas in need of additional support

•      providing continual training and technical assistance to water system operators to maintain
       their ability to implement existing and new regulations effectively

•      monitoring source water and drinking water to ensure compliance with national standards,
       and

•      providing citizens with annual reports on drinking water quality, and notifying them when
       drinking water emergencies occur.  At the same time, EPA and its partners understand that
       public participation in the implementation of drinking water programs adds value and helps
       us serve the public more efficiently and effectively.
                                        PageS-5

-------
       Another vital component of the multiple barrier approach is better coordination of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act programs. In 2002-2003, EPA will work with States and
Tribes to explore innovative ways to utilize the programs and funding offered by both federal statutes
to protect sources (ground and surface) of drinking water from contamination.

II. Key Strategies

Comprehensive Drinking Water Research Strategy/National Drinking Water Research Agenda
(Final: December 2001)
Applicability: Drinking Water Community
Contact: Maggie Javdan, 202-260-9862, javdan.maggie@,epa. gov

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Chuck Job, 202-260-7084, iob.charles(g).epa.gov
Copies Available: www.epa.gov/safewater
Source Water Contamination Prevention National Strategy
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 202-260-6672 , farrellv.i oan(q)epa. gov
Copies Available: www.epa.gov/safewater
///. Key Grant Guidances

* Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program Guidelines (1997)
Section 1452 of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act authorize the Agency to
award DWSRF capitalization grants to states, which in turn can provide low-cost loans and other
types of assistance to eligible systems.
Applicability: Regions, states
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette.veronica@.epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail:
center. water-resource(o).epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/docs/guidtoc.html
IV. Rules and Guidances Issued in the Last Year (May 20QG-May 2001) (By Major Activity)

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)

^Federal Register Notice on Changes in Allotments for DWSRF (May 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States


                                        Page 3-6

-------
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette.veronica(g>epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/dwsrf.html

* DWSRF Regulations: Final Rule (August 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kimberley Roy; 202-260-2794; kimberlev.rov@.epa. gov
Copies Available: internet
Web Address:  www.epa. gov/safewater/dwsrf.html

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Final Rule (May 2001)
Applicability: States, conventional and direct filtration public water systems that practice recycling
Contact: Jeff Robichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieff@,epa.gov

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Quick Start Guide (May 2001)
Applicability:  States, public water systems
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568, robichaud.iefflg'.epa.gov

Public Notification Rule
Public Notification Rule: Draft Implementation Guidance and Handbook (July 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water systems
Contact: Kathy Williams, 202-260-2759, williams.kathv(g>,epa.gov
Copies: www.epa.gov/safewater/public notification

Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

Lead and Copper Rule Revisions: Technical Guidance and Compliance Guidance (April 2000)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact:  Ron Bergman, 202-260-6187, bergman.ron@,epa. gov ; Ed Thomas, 202-260-0910,
thomas.edwin(g),epa.gov
Copies Available: internet
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/implernent

Interim  Enhanced  Surface Water Treatment Rule/Stage 1  Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rules (lESWTR/Stage 1 DBF)

lESWTR/Stage 1 DBF Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (May 2001)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact:  Nicole  Foley, 202-260-0875,  folev.nicole@.epa.gov ;  Katie Leo,  202-260-0052,
leo.katie@,epa.gov
Copies Available: during comment period only

                                       Page 3-7

-------
Web Address: comment period closed, final expected soon.

Radionuclides

Draft Implementation Guidance for Radionuclides and Quick Reference Guide (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Ed Thomas; 202-260-0910; thomas.edwin@epa.eov
Copies Available: internet
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/implement

Radionuclides Final Rule (November 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Dave Huber; 202-260-9566, huber.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater

Notice of Data Availability for Radionuclides other than Radon (March 2000)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Bill Labiosa; 202-260-4835; labiosa@erols.com
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater

Radon

Draft Implementation Guidance for Radon (August 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, and public water systems
Contact: Robert Jordan; 202-260-2328; jordan.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: During comment period only
Web Address: Comment period closed. New draft will be available with final rule

Source Water Protection

National Association of Counties Source Water Protection Kit (May 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Kevin McCormack, 202-260-7772. mccormack.kevin@epa.gov
Copies Available: May 2001
Web Address: www.naco.org

ICMA  (International City/County Management Association) Source -water Awareness Media Tool
Kit (March 2001)
Applicability: Local governments, public water systems,  states

                                       Page 3-8

-------
Contact: Steve Ainsworth, 202-260-7769, ainsworth. steve(o),epa. gov
Copies Available: available on the internet
Web Address: www.lgean.org/html/_tooldetail.cfin

Underground Injection Control

State Implementation Guide (September 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce(g>epa.gov. Howard Beard, 202-260-8796,
beard.howard(g),epa. gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/c5imp.html

Class V, Phase II Initiative: Publish Proposed Class VPhase II Determination (April 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments
Contact: Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 202-260-6672, farrelly. i oan(g>epa. gov
Copies Available: upon request
Web Address', www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/c5imp.html

Conversion of a Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Well - A UIC Director's Guide (November 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce(g),epa.gov. Howard Beard, 202-260-8796,
beard.howard@.epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address: www.epa. gov/safewater/uic/

Technical Assistance Document for Delineating  "Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas "
(December 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski. 202-260-7275. kobelski.bruce(q)epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web Address:vfww. epa.gov/safewater/uic/

Small Entity Compliance Guide: How the New Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Well Rule Affects Your
Business (December 2000)
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275, kobelski.bruce@epa.gov
Copies Available: no
Web A ddress: www. epa. gov/safewater/uic/

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List  2 Rule

*Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule for Public Water Systems: Final Rule


                                       Page 3-9

-------
(January 2001)
Applicability: Regions, states, drinking water utilities
Contact: Charles Job, 202-260-7084Job.charles@epa.gov
Copies Available: Order from the Water Resource Center by calling (202) 260-7786 or E-Mail:
center.water-resource@epa.gov
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/
K Rules  and Guidances Issued/To Be Issued June 01 through FY 02 (By Major Activity)

Arsenic

Arsenic Rule: Final Rule (February 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Irene Dooley, 202-260-9531. doolev.irene@epa.gov

CCL Regulatory Determinations

CCL Regulatory Determinations:  Final Notice (August 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Dan Olson, 202-260-6269, olson.daniel@epa.gov

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)

Report to Congress on the Status of the DWSRF Program (est. February 2002)
Applicability: all drinking water stakeholders
Contact: Veronica Blette; 202-260-3980; blette.veronica@epa.gov

Filter Backwash

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule: Technical Guidance  (October 2001)
Applicability:  States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (late 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact:  Nicole  Foley, 202-260-0875, folev.nicoie@epa.gov  ; Katie Leo.  202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov

Ground Water Rule

Ground Water Rule: Final Rule (2002)


                                       Page 3-10

-------
Applicability: States, public water systems using ground water
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric@epa.gov

Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Ground Water Systems (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric@.epa. gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.

Guidance Manual for Conducting Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessments of Public Ground Water
Supplies (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric(g).epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.

Corrective Actions for Fecal Contamination in Public Ground Water Systems (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, states, public water systems
Contact: Ken Rotert; 202-260-5748; rotert.kenneth@,epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.

Small Systems Compliance Guidance for the Ground Water Rule (2002)
Applicability:  public water systems
Contact: Eric Burneson; 202-260-1445; burneson.eric(g),epa.gov
Copies Available: Not currently available.
Web Address: Not currently available.

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole  Foley, 202-260-0875,  folev.nicole(g!epa.gov  ;  Katie Leo,  202-260-0052,
leo.katie@epa.gov

Hydraulic Fracturing

Study of Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Wells: Final Report (February 2002)
Applicability:  Regions, States, oil and gas industry
Contact: Leslie Cronkhite, 202-260-0713, cronkhite.leslie(g>epa.gov. Bruce Kobelski, 202-260-7275,
kobelski .bruce@epa. gov

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Long Term 1 Rule: Final Rule (Summer 2001)

                                       Page 3-11

-------
Applicability: States, public water systems using surface water, serving fewer than 10,000 persons
Contact: Jeff Robichaud; 202-260-2568; robichaud.iefflg.epa.gov

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Quick Start Guide (August 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud. iefflgiepa. go v

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface  Water  Treatment Rule Technical Guidance:  Filtration  &
Turbidity(Seplember 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud. iefflgiepa. go v

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Technical Guidance: Disinfection Profiling
(September 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.jeff@epa.gov

Individual Filter Self Assessment How-to Video (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.iefffgiepa. go v

Disinfection Profiling How-to Video  (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems, assistance providers
Contact: Jeffery Robichaud, 202-260-2568; robichaud.ieff@.epa.gov

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (Fall 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole Foley,  202-260-0875,  folev.nicole(g)epa.gov   ; Katie  Leo, 202-260-0052,
leo.katie(g),epa.gov

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Final Rule (May 2002)
Applicability: States, public water systems using surface water
Contact: Dan Schmelling, 202-260-1439, schmelling.daniel(g>,epa.gov

172 Laboratory Instruction Manual (September 2001)
Applicability: laboratories (PWS, State, commercial)
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crystal@,epa.gov

Guidance on Contracting Laboratories for LT2 Monitoring (May 2002)
Applicability: Public water systems using surface water
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rouReit>.civstaM/5),epa.gov

                                        Page 3-12

-------
Data System User's Manual (Draft: Dec. 2001, Final: May 2002)
Applicability: Public water systems using surface water, laboratories, states
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crvstal(Slepa.gov

Federal Register Notice: Laboratory Evaluation and Approval (July 2001)
Applicability: Public water systems using surface water, laboratories, states
Contact: Crystal Rodgers, 202-260-0676, rodgers.crvstal(g).epa.gov

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact:  Nicole Foley, 202-260-0875,  folev.nicole@.epa.gov  ;  Katie Leo,  202-260-0052,
leo.katie@,epa. gov

MTBE

National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation for MTBE: Proposed Rule (Fall 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: James Taft, 202-260-5519, taft.iames@.epa.gov

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact:  Ron Bergman, 202-260-6187, bergman.ron@.epa.gov  ;  Ed Thomas,  202-260-0910,
thomas.edwin@,epa. gov

Public Water Systems, Especially Small Systems

Technical and Financial Assistance for Small Systems (August 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Peter Shanaghan, 202-260-5813, shagnahan.peter(g),epa. gov
Copies A vailable: Internet after August 2001
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/utilities/tfassistance.html

SDWA Regulation Overview for Water Systems (June 2001)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Peter Shanaghan, 202-260-5813, shanaghan.peter(g),epa.gov
Copies Available: Internet after June 2001
Web Address: www.epa.gov/safewater/utilities/sdwaoverview.html

Radon

National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Radon: Revisions to Final Rule (July 2001)
Applicability:
                                    ---Page 3-13

-------
Contact: Mariana Cubeddu-Negro, 202-260-5746, negro.mariana@epa.gov

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (after revisions in My 2001)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Ron Bergman,  202-260-6187,  bergman.ron@.epa.gov ; Ed  Thomas, 202-260-0910,
thomas.edwin(S),epa. goy

Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

First Notice of6- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Propose in Federal
Register (October 2001)
Applicability: States, public water systems
Contact: Judy Lebowich, 202-260-7595, lebowich.iudv(g).epa.gov; Wynne Miller, 202-260-0259,
miller.wynne(g),epa.goy

Final Notice of6- Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Publish in Federal
Register (August 2002)
Applicability:
Contact: Judy Lebowich, 202-260-7595, lebowich.iudv@,epa.gov ; Wynne Miller, 202-260-0259,
miller. wvnne(a),epa. goy

Source Water Protection

Source Water Protection Pocket Guide (June 2001)
Applicability: Regions, States, local governments, public water systems
Contact: Kevin McCormack, 202-260-7772,  mccormack.kevinfg.epa.gov: Steve Potts, 202-260-
5015, potts.ste ve(g),epa.gov

Resource List for the Web (June 2001)
Applicability: All drinking water stakeholders
Contact: Beth Hall, 202-260-5553, hall.beth@epa.gov

Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Stage 2 D/DBP: Final Rule (May 2002)
Applicability:  States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McClain, 202-260-043!, mcclain.jennifer@epa.gov

Stage 2 DBPR Distribution System Guidance  Manual (May 2002)
Applicability:  States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McLain, 202-260-0431

Small Systems Guidance Manual (May 2GG2)

                             	Page 3-14

-------
Applicability:  States, public water systems
Contact: Jennifer McLain, 202-260-0431

Consecutive Systems Guidance Manual (May 2002)
Applicability:  States, public water systems
Contact: Thomas Grubbs, 202-260-7270

Implementation Manual and Quick Reference Guide (2002)
Applicability:  Regions, States, public water systems
Contact: Nicole  Foley,  202-260-0875, folev.mcole@.epa.gov  ;  Katie  Leo,  202-260-0052,
leo.katie@,epa.gov

Underground Injection Control

*Class IUIC Rule: Final Regulatory Revision for Florida (March 2002)
Applicability: Region 4, State of Florida
Contact: Howard Beard, 202-260-8796, beard.howard(o),epa.gov

Wastewater Management Risk Analysis in Support of Class I UIC Regulation Revision for Florida:
Report to Congress (February 2002)
Applicability: EPA Region 4, State of Florida
Contact: Howard Beard, 202-260-8796, beard.howard(g>,epa.gov

Class V, Phase II Initiative

*Class V, Phase II Initiative: Final Determination (May 2002)
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States
Contact: Robin Delehanty, 202-260-1993, delehanty:robin(q),epa. gov. Lee Whitehurst,
202-260-5532, whitehurst.lee(q).epa.gov
                                       Page 3-15

-------
                      OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
/. Vision

       The role of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) is to set national water quality
baselines reflecting current science and the best pollution control technologies, and provide tools,
guidance and training to help State, Tribal and local watershed managers protect human health and
maintain and improve the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. These tools and
guidances help environmental managers implement Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
programs.

       The Office's priorities include strengthening and modernizing the basic structure of the water
quality criteria and standards program.  We will work with states and tribes to improve processes for
developing and adopting water quality standards. We will work with states to establish mutually-
accepted commitments and schedules to conduct triennial reviews of water quality standards within
the three-year review cycle required by the Clean Water Act. We will  also  work with states and
tribes to reduce and eventually eliminate the  backlog  of water quality standards  actions.  By
expanding the suite of ecological and human health criteria and working with states and tribes to
adopt the appropriate criteria, we will strengthen the program's scientific base for managing water
resources on  an  integrated,  watershed basis.   Applying strong  water quality standards  and
implementation procedures on a watershed basis should result in reduced exposure to microbial and
other contaminants in recreational waters, reduced consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish,
and reduced stress on aquatic communities. We will also work with our  stakeholders to select and
develop technology based effluent regulations that will reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants from
industrial sources and also reduce harmful discharges from feedlots and  urban storm water.

       One of the highest priorities of the drinking water program is to protect the public health of
all Americans by ensuring that the water is safe to drink. It is critical that the program sets drinking
water regulations based on good science and data and sound risk assessment. We will continue to
provide scientific support for these regulations, including risk assessments for contaminant selection
and regulation.

//. Key Strategies

The National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, published in the Fecfera/
Register on June 25,  1998
The Strategy describes the approach the Agency is taking to develop scientific information relating
to nutrient over enrichment of the Nation's waters and to work with the States and Tribes to assure
that State water quality  standards reflect this nutrient information. This information  includes
waterbody-type guidance and ecoregionally derived nutrient criteria. Once guidance and ecoregional
criteria are published, the Agency will assist states and tribes in adopting numerical nutrient criteria
into water quality standards by the end of 2003.  National default ecoregional nutrient criteria will


                                        Page 3-16

-------
be published by the Agency for four types of water bodies across 14 ecoregions starting in 2000,
where data are available.  Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to include water
quality criteria for nutrients, EPA's Office of Water will recommend to the Administrator that she
act under Section 303© of the Clean Water Act. This action will assure that the protective criteria
for nutrients apply in all states no later than 3 years after the National default criteria are published.
Applicability: Regions, States, and Tribes
Contact: Robert Cantilli, 202-260-5546, Cantilli.Robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Robert Cantilli
Web Address: http://www.epa.gOV/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/l 998/June/Day-25/wl 6941 .htm

EPA Plan For Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/600/R-98/079.
The "Beach Plan" is a multi-year strategy for reducing the risks of infection to users of recreational
water through improved recreational water quality programs, risk communication, and scientific
advances. The plan promotes consistent management of recreational water quality programs and
improves the science that supports water monitoring programs.  To support these objectives, EPA
will  identify  needs and deficiencies in recreational  water  programs, assist  states/Tribes in
strengthening their recreational water quality  standards, and work with local managers in their
transition to the recommended criteria. We will issue guidance on managing risk and using Agency-
developed monitoring methods and indicators at recreational waters.  Improving the science that
supports recreational water monitoring programs includes research into rapid analytical methods and
better indicators of enteric pathogens, evaluation of modeling and monitoring tools, and research on
exposure and health effects. The transition to E.  Coli and enterococci indicators  will be a priority
for the triennial reviews of water quality standards that will occur in FY 2000-02. Beginning with
FY 2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices will develop management agreements that will
include commitments  to have states and tribes adopt  the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria-1986. Where a state does not amend its water quality standards to include the 1986 criteria
or criteria and standards that are as protective of human health as EPA criteria, EPA will act under
Section 303  © of the Clean  Water Act and  pursuant  to the requirements  of the  Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, to promulgate the criteria with the goal
of assuring the 1986 criteria apply in all states not later than April 2004.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes and local communities
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, 202-260-0642, Hoffniann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies  Available: With the title and document number from  National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/BEACH Watch

III. Key Grant Guidance

& New-Federal Register Notice of Availability of Grants for Development of Coastal Recreation
Water Monitoring and Public Notification Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) signed into law on
October 10,2000, amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) to reduce the risk of disease to users of the


                                       Page 3-17

-------
Nation's recreational waters.  The BEACH Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to award program development and implementation grants to eligible States,
Territories, Tribes and local governments to support microbiological testing and monitoring of
coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, that are adjacent to beaches or similar points
of access used by the public.  BEACH Act grants also  provide support for development and
implementation of programs to notify the  public of the risk of exposure to  disease-causing
microorganisms in coastal recreation waters. This Federal Register notice announces the availability
of grants to develop comprehensive coastal  recreation water monitoring and public notification
programs and provides grant application procedures. Indian tribes will not be able to apply for these
grants until EPA develops a rule that will establish procedures so that Tribes may be treated in the
same manner as a state for purposes of this program. EPA is currently developing this rule.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Charles Kovatch, 202-260-3754, Kovatch.Charles@epa.gpv
Copies Available: FR Notice is expected to be published in May, 2001

* & New-National Beach Guidance and Grant Performance Criteria for Recreational Waters
This document will be used by potential grant recipients (identified in the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000) to adopt criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators,
to implement effective programs for the monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters
adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public, and to provide for prompt public
notification of any exceedance of or likelihood of exceedance of applicable water quality standards
in coastal recreation waters. This document also establishes performance criteria which EPA will
use to evaluate potential grant recipients' programs.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, 202-260-0642, Hoffmann.Rick@epa.gov
Copies Available: Document is expected to be published in October 2001
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances (those issued in the last year are noted new)

Permit Guidance Document for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Point Source
Category  EPA-821-B-00-003
This permit guidance document for bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
facilities is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing NPDES
permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards established as part of the Cluster Rules promulgated April 15,1998.  The document
discusses permitting issues such as in-process compliance points, compliance deadlines, production
definitions, mandatory  Best Management  Practices (BMPs), and  the  Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program (VATIP).
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Mark Perez, 202-260-7175, perez.mark@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Mark Perez
Web Address: http://www epa.pov/ost/DulDpaDer/oermitguide/

                                       Page 3-18

-------
Permit Guidance Document for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (40
CFR Part 439)
This document is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing
NPDES permits  and individual control  mechanisms for facilities subject  to  the  revised
pharmaceutical manufacturing effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated September
21,1998.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: Frank Hund, 202-260-7182, hund.frank@epa.gov
Copies Available: Not yet available in final; expected Summer 2001
Web Address: Not yet available, but will be posted on OST's website.

& New - Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing
(40 CFR Part 136). EPA-821-B-00-004.
This guidance document provides additional clarification of whole effluent toxicity (WET) test
methods that are approved at 40 CFR part 136 for use in monitoring under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. This document is designed to assist
EPA Regional, State, and local authorities; regulated entities; and environmental laboratories by
providing guidance on the conduct of WET tests and interpretation of WET test results. Specific
technical  guidance  is  provided on  nominal  error  rate  adjustments,  confidence intervals,
concentration-response relationships, dilution series, and dilution waters.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes, Industry,  and Testing Laboratories
Contact: Marion Kelly, 202-260-7117, kelly.marion@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Marion Kelly
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OSTAVET/guide

& New - Guidance for Implementation and Use of EPA Method 1631 for the Determination of
Low-Level Mercury (40 CFR part 136)  EPA-821-R-01-023
This document is intended to provide assistance to the analytical community, permit writers, States,
Tribes, and the regulated community in the application and use of EPA Method 1631 for the
determination of mercury in ambient water and for monitoring requirements established when
issuing NPDES permits.  The document discusses the use of clean sampling techniques to prevent
contamination when measuring low levels of mercury, known matrix interferences and what to do
to overcome these matrix interferences, and flexibility to make certain changes to the method.
Additionally, the document provides responses to frequently asked questions on quality control and
other analytical issues.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States, Tribes, Local Governments, and Analytical Laboratories
Contact: Maria Gomez-Taylor, 202-260-1639, gomez-taylor.maria@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Maria Gomez-Taylor
Web Address: http://www.epa.gOv/ost/methods/l 631 .html

& New - Permit Guidance Document: Transportation Equipment and Cleaning Point Source
Category  EPA-821-R-01-021
This document is intended to assist permit writers and pretreatment control authorities in issuing

                                      Page 3-19

-------
NPDES permits and individual control mechanisms for facilities subject to the effluent limitations
and standards that EPA promulgated on August 14, 2000, for Transportation Equipment and
Cleaning Point Source Category.
Applicability: Industry, Regions, States and Local Governments
Contact: John linger, 202 260-4992, tinger.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact John Tinger
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/teci/

* National Coordination of EPA's Water  Quality Standards Actions.  Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Memorandum to Water Management Division Directors, May 9,2000. This memorandum sets forth
a process to achieve an increased level of coordination and communication to provide consistent,
defensible, and  appropriately protective  EPA  decisions on water quality  standards.   The
memorandum includes attached Guidelines for National Coordination of EPA's Water Quality
Standards Actions, which outline a process for Headquarters and Regions to follow in water quality
standards reviews, approvals/disapprovals, and promulgations.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions
Contact: Fred Leutner, 202-260-1542, leutner.fred@epa.gov
Copies Available: From the Office of Science and Technology
Web Address: None (since this is internal EPA guidance)

*1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia, Notice of Availability, 64 FR
71973,  and criteria document, EPA-822-R-99-014, December  22,  1999.   Contains EPA's
recommended ammonia criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life.  These criteria are
EPA's recommendations for states, territories, and authorized tribes to use as guidance in adopting
water quality  standards. The 1999 Update incorporates revisions made in response to comment on
the 1998 Update and supercedes all previous freshwater ammonia criteria. The adoption of numeric
criteria for ammonia will be 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© of the Clean Water Act
to promulgate numeric criteria with the goal of assuring that the protective criteria for ammonia
apply in all states not later than 2004.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States and Tribes
Contact:  Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809, thompson.brian@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/

*  & NEW- Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality  Criteria for  the Protection of
Human Health (2000). (EPA-822-B-00-004) was published in October 2000.
This is the first revision of the methodology since 1980.  The revised methodology provides EPA

                                       Page 3-20

-------
and the States a more sound scientific basis for developing new or revised ambient water quality
criteria to protect human health. The methodology incorporates the latest science in important areas
such as fish consumption, bioaccumulation and cancer risk.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@.epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/method/index.html

* J^K NEW- Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Human Health (2000): Technical Support Document Volume 1: Risk Assessment. (EPA-822-B-00-
005) was published in October 2000.
The TSD provides detailed information on how to evaluate data when conducting a risk assessment
of a particular chemical for the protection of human health. An Exposure TSD and Bioaccumulation
TSD will be prepared in the near future.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Denis Borum, 202-260-8996, Borum.Denis@.epa.gov
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/method/index.html

* National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
A compilation of recommended water quality criteria for approximately 150 pollutants to protect
human health and aquatic life.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Cindy Roberts, 202-260-2787, roberts.cindy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Cindy Roberts
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/wqcriteria.pdf

& NEW- Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01 -
005) was completed March 2001.
The guidance is intended to add to and complement the 1994 Interim Guidance on Determination and
Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-B-94-001). Whereas the 1994 Interim Procedure
applies to essentially all situations for most metals, the Streamlined Procedure is recommended only
for situations where copper concentrations are elevated primarily by continuous point source
effluents. The entity conducting the study may choose between using the Interim Procedure or using
the Streamlined Procedure.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Charles Delos, 202-260-7039, delos.charles@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Charles Delos
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/standards
t
* & NEW- 2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium EPA 822-R-01-001.
Published April 2001.
The 2001 update document incorporates new data, identified by a recent literature review, into the
data  base  utilized to develop previous aquatic life criteria for cadmium. The new freshwater
dissolved criterion continuous concentration (CCC or "chronic criterion") for cadmium is 0.15 ug/L,

                                       Page 3-21

-------
at a hardness of 50 mg/L. This criterion is more stringent than EPA's previous freshwater dissolved
criterion continuous concentration of 2.2 ug/L, at a hardness of 50 mg/L.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Cindy Roberts, 202-260-2787, roberts.cindy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Cindy Roberts
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqualife/cadmium/

&  NEW - Draft Technical Basis for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESG's)for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to establish the technical basis of the Draft ESGs. The draft
guidance explains equilibrium partitioning theory  and its relationship to the bioavailability of
chemicals to benthic organisms.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

& NEW- Draft Methods for the Derivation of Site-Specific Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment
Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. March 2000.
Contains the  science and analysis used to adjust national ESGs to reflect site-specific conditions.
Recommended for use when the species at a site are more or less sensitive than those used in the
tests to derive the guidelines or when the chemical or physical attributes of a site are particularly
unique.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

&  NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin.  March 2000.
Contains the  science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for dieldrin.  The draft ESG
provides scientific information to Regions,  States, and  Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

^T  NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Endrin. March 2000.
Contains the  science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for endrin.  The draft ESG
provides scientific information to Regions,  States, and  Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tnbes

                                       Page 3-22

-------
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

* NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Metals Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc).  March
2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for metals mixtures. The draft
ESG provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

& NEW - Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive a draft national ESG for PAH mixtures. The draft
ESG provides scientific information to Regions, States, and Tribes when assessing sediments for
contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic organisms from sediment
contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Heidi Bell, 202-260-5464, bell.heidi@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Heidi Bell

& NEW - Draff Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics Compendium. March 2000.
Contains the science and analysis used to derive national tier II ESGs for 32 nonionic organic
chemicals.  The draft ESG provides scientific information to Regions,  States, and Tribes when
assessing sediments for contamination and when determining the best approach to protect benthic
organisms from sediment contamination.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Scott Ireland, 202-260-6091, ireland.scott@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Scott Ireland

&NEW- Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Salt Water: Cape Cod to Cape
Hatteras). EPA 822-R-OO-012. Published November 2000.
The guidance document provides EPA recommended ambient water quality criteria for protection
of aquatic life in marine waters from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.  Criteria can also be applied to
other waters where same species are present or site specific data is available.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Erik Winchester, 202-260-6107, winchester.erik@epa. gov
Copies Available: Contact Erik Winchester
Web Address:  http://www.epa.gov/standards

                                       Page 3-23

-------
Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on MTBE
Developed to support the immediate needs for information by state and local drinking water facilities
and public health personnel on MTbe contamination of potable water.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Diana Wong, 202-260-7838, Wong.DianaM@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Diana Wong
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/MtBEaa.pdf

* NEW- Stressor Identification Guidance Document (EPA-822-B-00-025). Published December
2000. This technical guidance document is designed to assist water quality managers in identifying
unknown causes of biological impairments in water bodies through a logical, scientific eco-risk
assessment process.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes and other stakeholders.
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epa.gov
Copies Available: From Office of Water Resource Center 202-260-7786, or by email to center.water-
resource@epa. go v
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.htail

&NEW- Estuarine and Near Coastal Marine Waters: Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical
Guidance (EPA 822-B-00-024).  Published December 2000.  This technical guidance document
provides an extensive collection of methods and protocols for  conducting bioassessments in
estuarine and coastal marine waters and the procedures for deriving biocriteria from the results.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@epa.gov
Copies Available: From Office of Water Resource Center 202-260-7786, or by email to center.water-
resource@epa. go v .
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/States/estuaries/estuariesl .html

Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Streams and Small Rivers, published 1996
Published to provide States  and Tribes  information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that support water quality decisions for streams and small
rivers.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Jackson, 202-260-1800, jackson.susank@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Susan Jackson
Web Address: http:/7www.epa.gov7ceiswebl/ccishorne/atlas,/bioindicators/tech_guidance.htnil

Biological Criteria Technical Guidance Document for Lakes and Reservoirs, published 1998
Published to provide States  and Tribes  information that can be used to perform biological
assessments and develop biological criteria that  support water quality decisions for lakes and
reservoirs.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes

                                       Page 3-24

-------
Contact: William Swietlik, 202-260-9569, swietlik.william@.epa.gov
Web Address: http ://www.epa. gov/owow/monitoring/tech/lakes.html
 jfr NEW-Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs EPA-822-BOO-
001 published in 2000. This technical guidance manual provides methods for assessing the nutrient
status of a lake or reservoir and presents a process for developing ecoregional nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address:  http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html

 •& NEW- Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams EPA-822-BOO-002
published in 2000.  This technical guidance manual provides methods for assessing the nutrient
status of a rivers and streams and presents a process for developing ecoregional nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact. Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address:  http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html

 ^ NEW •- Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the
Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria published in 2000. This set of 17 ecoregional
nutrient criteria documents presents EPA recommended criteria for total phosphorus and nitrogen
as well  as chlorophyll a and turbidity for  lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers and wetlands within
specified ecoregions.  These recommended criteria are starting points for States and Tribes to use
in developing their own nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Bob Cantilli, 202-260-5546, cantilli.robert@epa.gov
Web address:  http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nutrient.html

*  ^K New - Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Volume I: Sampling and Analysis. Third Edition EPA 823-B-00-007
The Sampling and  Analysis volume provides the latest information on sampling strategies for a
contaminant monitoring program and on selecting target species; selecting chemicals as target
analytes; and processing, preserving, and shipping samples. The volume also covers sample analysis
and data reporting and analysis.
Applicability: States,  Tribes, Regions and other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8192)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish

*  ^ New - Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Volume II:  Risk Assessments and Consumption Limits. Third Edition EPA 823-B-00-008


                                       Page 3-25

-------
This volume provides guidance on the development of risk-based meal consumption limits for 25
high-priority chemical  contaminants  (target analytes) selected  based on  their documented
occurrences in fish and shellfish, persistence in the environment, potential for bioaccumulation, and
toxicity to humans.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8190)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish

*Guidancefor Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys,  EPA-823-B-98-007
This document provides explicit instructions for selecting a survey approach and designing a survey
to obtain consumption rate information. It emphasizes the importance of objectives in selecting a
survey approach and designing the survey; provides selection criteria for choosing  among survey
approaches; and critically evaluates key components in survey design  and methods, including
question development, statistical analysis, quality assurance/quality control, and data interpretation.
A statistician should also be consulted to provide advice on specific sampling and statistical analysis
considerations.  The survey information can then be used to  evaluate risk to persons who consume
organisms that may contain bioaccumulative chemicals at potentially dangerous  levels and to
develop consumption advisories and water quality standards that protect human health.
Applicability: States, Tribes, Regions and Other Federal Agencies
Contact: Jeff Bigler, 202-260-1305, bigler.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198) or (513-489-8190)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish

*Guidance to States, Tribes and Regions on Priorities for the Water Quality Standards Program
for FY2000-2002, EPA-823-B-99-005
The F Y 2000-2002 Water Quality Standards priorities are designed to strengthen and modernize the
Water Quality Standards program and the management of water resources on a watershed basis. The
priorities have four organizing themes:
•      Strengthen and modernize the basic structure of the water quality standards program;
•      Improve the process for developing, adopting and approving water quality standards;
•      Strengthen the scientific basis of water quality standards; and
•      Expand the water quality standards program's implementation in Indian Country.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Marjorie Pitts,  202-260-1304, pitts.marjorie@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards

*Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition 1994. EPA 823/B-94-005
This document supports the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131, as  amended) and


                                       Page 3-26

-------
provides direction for states and Tribes as they develop, review, revise, and implement water quality
standards. The Handbook also presents evolving program concepts designed to reduce human and
ecological risks such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife, wetlands, and
sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired biological communities in aquatic
ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Shippen, 202-260-1329, shippen.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: With title and document number from National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) (1-800-490-9198)

Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
Describes actions that EPA  intends to take to accomplish the following four strategic goals: 1)
prevent the volume of contaminated sediment from increasing; 2) reduce the volume of existing
contaminated sediment; 3) ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are managed
in an environmentally sound manner; and 4) develop scientifically sound sediment management tools
for use in pollution prevention, source control, remediation, and dredged material management. The
Strategy is comprised  of six component sections: assessment, prevention, remediation, dredged
material management,  research, and outreach.  Each section describes EPA actions to accomplish
the four broad strategic goals.
Applicability: EPA Program Offices and Regional Offices
Contact: Richard Healy, 202-260-7812, Healy.Richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Copies of EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (document
number EPA-823-R-98-001) are  available from the  EPA National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information 800-490-9198
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/cs/

*Inland Testing Manual
Contains up-to-date procedures to implement requirements in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines for evaluation of potential contaminant-related impacts associated with the
discharge of dredged material in fresh, estuarine, and saline (near coastal) waters. Formally titled
"Evaluation of Dredged material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual",
it was prepared by a  joint  Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Workgroup. The Inland Testing Manual provides a national testing framework which comprises one
element of an overall decision-making process for determining whether dredged material can be
discharged into  Clean Water Act Section 404 waters.
Applicability: EPA Headquarters  and  Regions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, States, Dredged
Material Dischargers
Contact: Richard Healy, 202-260-7812, Healy.Richard@epa.gov
Copies Available: Printed Copies are  not currently available but the document is available for
viewing and printing on the Internet in both PDF and HTML format.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OST/itm/index.html

 BASINS Version 3.0:  Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources,


                                       Page 3-27

-------
EPA-823-B-01-001
BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system for use by regional, state, and local
agencies in performing watershed and water-quality-based studies. It was developed to facilitate
examination of environmental information, to support analysis of environmental systems, to provide
a framework for examining management alternatives, and to support the development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs).  Version 3.0 includes additional watershed models and an
automated watershed delineation tool.
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes, and Local Governments
Contact: Russell 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

* ^ NEW - Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates - Second Edition,
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published procedures for testing freshwater
organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the potential toxicity or bioaccumulation of chemicals in
whole  sediments.  This  second  edition updates  methods  originally published  in   1994
(EPA/600/6-94/024).    It  includes  new  methods  for  evaluating  sublethal  effects  of
sediment-associated contaminants utilizing long-term sediment exposures.  The sediment test
methods in this manual will be use by USEPA to make decisions under a range of authorities
concerning such issues as: dredged material disposal, registration of pesticides, assessment of new
and existing  industrial chemicals,  Superfund site assessment, and assessment and cleanup of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, and tribes
Contact: Scott Ireland, 202-260-6091. Ireland.Scott(g>,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

^h NEW - Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose Of Sediment Quality
Assessment: Status and Needs and the Appendix.   These documents serve as a status and needs
summary of the use of available  bioaccumulation testing and interpretation methods and data, and
were compiled by members of the EPA Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup.  These documents
provide  a  comprehensive  summary of  existing knowledge  on bioaccumulation;  provide  a
compilation of exposure and effects data for persistent, Bioaccumulative chemicals; discusses factors
that affect the bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants; identifies how various programs
use bioaccumulation data for sediment management decisions and identifies issues and research
needs for interpreting bioaccumulation data for the purpose of assessing sediment quality.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Richard Healy 202-260-7812, healy.richard@epa.gov
Copies  Available:   National   Service   Center  for   Environmental   Publications

                                        Page 3-28

-------
(NSCEP)( 1 -800-490-9198)
Web Address:

# New - AQUATOX (EPA-823-C-00-001, EPA-823-R-00-006,-007,-008)
AQUATOX is a PC based ecosystem model that simulates the transfer of biomass and chemicals
form one ecosystem compartment to another.  It does this by simultaneously computing important
chemical and biological processes over time. AQUATOX can predict not only the fate of chemical
in aquatic ecosystems, but also their and indirect effect on the ecosystem.
Applicability: Industry, Universities, Regions, States, Tribes and Local Governments
Contact: Marjorie Wellman, 202-260-9821, Wellman.marjorie@epa.gov
Copies Available: NSCEP (10800-490-9198
Web Address: www.epa.gov/ost/models/aquatox

^ New -Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
Draft document published in January 2000 (EPA-823-D-00-001), publication of the final document
is expected in August 2001.
Applicability: Regions, States and Tribes
Contact: Jennifer Wigal,  202-260-5177,Wigal.Jennifer@epa.gov

* Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Cooperation Under the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, 66 FR 11202-11217, February 22, 2001
Describes procedures for  enhancing coordination in the protection of endangered and threatened
species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act's Water Quality
Standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809, thompson.brian@epa.gov
Copies Available: Brian Thompson, 202-260-3809
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/esa.html
                                      Page 3-29

-------
                 OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS & WATERSHEDS

7. Vision

       The Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds, through its Regional and state partners, will
continue to promote  adoption and implementation of the  watershed  approach  We expect
significantly new levels of protection to be afforded through implementation of the TMDL program,
and we expect more accurate and consistent water quality assessment to result from the Consolidated
Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM). Regions should be working with states to upgrade
their ambient monitoring programs and better manage their water quality information, to implement
their recently upgraded nonpoint source management and control programs, to complete their coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs, and to ensure the development and implementation of high-
quality TMDLs, including through the funding of TMDL-related implementation projects with half
of their Section 319 grant funds.

       We will continue to develop and expand partnerships and technical assistance efforts to
enhance the protection of our Nation's coastal and ocean resources, including continued support for
implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for the 28 estuaries in the
National Estuary Program. In addition, as the program moves entirely into the implementation stage,
greater emphasis will be placed on developing methods to measure environmental results for the
NEP. We will also strengthen the assessment, research and monitoring efforts that underlie our
coastal protection activities through the periodic updates of the Coastal Conditions Report and
implementation of the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy, a blueprint for meeting the key
research and monitoring needs in the area of coastal protection.  The dredging program will also
emphasize partnership opportunities through the coordinating functions of the National Dredging
Team, the Regional Dredging Teams, and Local Planning Groups, and through efforts to identify and
implement projects that will re-use dredged materials in an environmentally sound/beneficial way.
Continued emphasis will be placed on efforts to better coordinate actions to control and manage
invasive species, monitor marine debris, protect coral reefs, identify sources and assess and mitigate
the impacts of air deposition of pollutants to  coastal waters, and control pollutants from vessels. We
will also continue to coordinate and exchange lessons-learned with the Great Water Body Programs
in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf of Mexico.

       The Wetlands program will restore and maintain the nation's waters including wetlands by
effectively implementing EPA's responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by
encouraging and enabling the incorporation of wetlands protection and restoration into watershed
planning efforts undertaken by States, Tribes or local entities.  EPA will serve:  1) as  a partner
supporting protection efforts to conserve wetlands, shallow waters and free-flowing streams through
our programs and authorities; 2) as a regulator developing and implementing fair, flexible and
effective wetlands standards and policies;  3) as a promoter and developer of tools for assessing
wetlands health and extent; 4) as  a developer and distributor of sound scientific information for
wetland and watershed decision-making; 5) as a supporter and proponent of effective State, Tribal
and  local wetlands protection and restoration programs; and  6) as a  catalyst for cultivating


                                        Page 3-30

-------
community interest in developing wetland and aquatic ecosystem protection strategies on a
watershed basis.

//. Key Strategies

The TMDL Program

EPA proposed changes to the existing TMDL regulations in August, 1999. After a long comment
period including hundreds of meetings and conference calls and the Agency's review and serious
consideration of over 34,000 comments, the final rule was published on July 13, 2000. However,
Congress added a "rider" to one of their appropriations bills that prohibits EPA from spending FY
2000 and FY 2001 money to implement this new rule. Thus, the current rule remains in effect until
30 days after Congress permits EPA to implement the new rule.  TMDLs continue to be developed
and completed under the current rule, as required by the  1 972 law and many court orders. The
regulations that currently apply are those that were issued in 1985 and amended in  1992 (40 CFR
Part 1 30, section 1 30.7). These regulations mandate that states, territories, and authorized tribes list
impaired and threatened waters and develop TMDLs.

* Implementation of Section 303(d) Until the New TMDL Rule Becomes Effective (December 7,
2000)
Memo from Bob Wayland to Regional Water Division Directors describing: (1) how to deal with
2000 303(d) list submissions; (2) methodology/scenarios for 2002 303(d) list submissions; and (3)
policy on TMDL pace and priorities.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
Web Address: http://intranet.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/docs/303dl2-7.html

* New Policies for Establishing and Implementing TMDLs (August 8, 1997).
Sets forth fundamental EPA policies in two key areas: schedules for establishing TMDLs for all
303(d)-listed waters and implementation of TMDLs for waters impaired solely or primarily by
nonpoint sources.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Don Brady (202-260-7074); brady.donald@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Jendayi Oakley-Gordon (202-260-7074)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/ratepace.html
        — Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy (September 2000)
Assesses national coastal research and monitoring needs and recommends an integrated framework
to protect vital national, state, tribal coastal resources.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060
Copies available: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060; burgan.barry@epa.gov
Web address: http://www.cleanwater.gov/coastalresearch/

                              -- -- Page 3-31

-------
        ~ Air-Water Interface Workplan (January 2001)
Joint Office of Water (OW)/Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) workplan outlines a schedule of
specific regulatory and non-regulatory actions OAR and OW will take to reduce air deposition of
toxics and nitrogen.  EPA will review and update the work plan every two years.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Debora Martin, 202-260-2729; martin.debora@epa.gov
Copies available: Debora Martin, 202-260-2729
Web address: pdf file located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/combuied.pdf

•fr Upcoming - Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water: What Should EPA's Role Be? (Draft
expected 5/01)
EPA received a  petition to regulate ballast water discharges from ships under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, in order to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species.  In response, EPA is
preparing an assessment of the environmental, technical, and legal issues surrounding ballast water
regulation by EPA. The assessment will be released as a draft report open for public comment. The
report, when finalized, will include recommendations for EPA, and perhaps other regulatory bodies,
on the appropriate role of EPA regulation in control of aquatic nuisance species from ballast water.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dorn Carlson, (202/260-6411); carlson.dorn@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet published
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/petition.html

"&" Upcoming ~  Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (Draft expected 5/01)
EPA is preparing an assessment of cruise ship discharges as a first step in response to a petition to
assess and, where necessary, regulate the discharges and waste management practices of cruise ships.
The assessment will cover discharges of sewage, gray water (bath, shower, and galley water), bilge
water, and other wastes generated aboard cruise ships. It will be released as a draft report open for
public comment. The  report, when finalized, will include recommendations for EPA and other
regulatory bodies on appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory actions to assure the protection of
the environment from cruise ship discharges.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dorn Carlson, (202/260-6411); carlson.dorn@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet published
Web address: http://www/epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/

^Upcoming - Coastal Condition Report (summer 2001)
Summarizes Federal agencies' and regional data sets to present broad baseline picture of coastal
waters conditions. The Report, which will be updated periodically, presents national-level coastal
assessment information on water quality, sediment quality, biota, habitat, ecosystem integrity, public
health.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Barry Burgan, 202-260-7060; burgan.barry@epa.gov
Copies available: Barry Burgan,  202-260-7060


                               	 - Page 3-32

-------
Web address: draft Report available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cwap/index.html

III. Key Grant Guidances

j*-upcoming: Section 319 2002 Grant Award Guidance [being drafted now]
The objective of this guidance is to strengthen state efforts to carry out pollutant reductions specified
in an approved TMDLs hi waters impaired by nonpoint sources. States will be encouraged to use
their 319 funds to both develop TMDLs and related TMDL implementation plans and to implement
needed NFS controls specified in the TMDLs.

Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY2001 (65
FR 70899-70905, Nov.  28, 2001)
Provides guidance on the use of Section 319 funds in FY 2001 for total maximum daily loads and
watershed restoration action strategies; direction to focus  funds on  completing states' coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs; and guidance on how Regions should document their findings
of satisfactory progress  in State programs.
Applicability:  Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Wib address:  http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/fy2001 .html

Supplemental Guidance for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants in FY 2000
(December 21, 1999)
Provides guidance on the use of Section 319 funds in F Y 2000 for animal feeding operations, lakes,
watershed restoration action strategies, and American Heritage Rivers. Also reiterates that States
need to complete their nonpoint source program  upgrades  in order to be  eligible to receive
incremental funds in FY 2000.
Applicability:  Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address:  http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/fy2000.html

Guidelines on Awarding Section 319 Grants to Indian Tribes in FY 2001 (December 2000)
Provides guidance for awarding increased amounts of Section 319 dollars to Tribes.  Increases the
amount available to Tribes for one year to $6 million. Establishes base funding of $30,000 for most
eligible Tribes (i.e., has an approved nonpoint source assessment and management program) and
$50,000 for the largest Tribes, and establishes a process to distribute the remaining funds on a
competitive basis in amounts ranging up to $ 100,000 each..
Applicability:  Regions, Tribes
Contact: Ed Drabkowski (202-260-7009); drabkowski.ed@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web address:  http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/tribes/tribes20.html
                                       Page 3-33

-------
Process and Criteria for Funding State and Territorial Nonpoint Source Management Programs
in FY1999 (August 18, 1998)
Provides additional guidance on the use of increased funds (from $105 million in FY 1998 to $200
million  in FY  1999) for the implementation of state, territorial  and  tribal nonpoint source
management  programs in  FY  1999.   Discusses the  use  of incremental funds to support
implementation of actions called for in Watershed Restoration Action Strategies developed in
conjunction with Unified Watershed Assessments carried out by the States, Territories and Tribes
pursuant to the Clean Water  Action Plan.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/section319/fy99guid.html

* Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May
1996)
Sets forth the framework for  a stronger and more effective partnership between EPA and state lead
agencies to guide the upgrading and implementation of dynamic, effective state nonpoint source
programs. Provides guidance on developing priorities and ensuring effective use and management
of annual Clean Water Act Section 319 program grants to States, Territories and Tribes.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/guide.html

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (January 1993)
Sets forth the program elements and other requirements which coastal states with Federally approved
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs must include in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs (CNPCP) in order to achieve joint EPA and NOAA approval of their programs and
continue to be fully eligible for annual program grants under Section 319 of the CWA and Section
6217ofCZARA.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788); craddock.stacie@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (EPA) (202-260-710

National Estuary Program Grant Guidance
This guidance provides annual funding levels to the 28 estuary projects in the National Estuary
Program. Updated and issued annually, the guidance may also clarify any program issues that arise
from year to year.
Applicability: Regions and Estuary Programs
Contact: Nancy Laurson (202-260-1698); laurson.nancy@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact OCPD (202-260-1952)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet
                                       Page 3-34

-------
 Wetland Program Development Grants
These grants assist state, tribal and local government (S/T/LG) agencies in wetlands protection,
management and restoration efforts. Grant funds can be used to develop new wetland programs or
refine existing wetland  programs. EPA must ensure that the grant funds are directed toward
activities that result in demonstrated  progress in achieving the objective of improving S/T/LG
wetland programs.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes, local governments, intergovernmental organizations
Contact: Donna An, (202) 260-0335, an.donna@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
 Web Address:  http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/2001grant/

Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grants
The Five-Star Restoration Program provides modest financial assistance to support community-based
wetland and riparian restoration projects to build diverse partnerships, and to foster local natural
resource stewardship.   The "stars" in "Five-Star" are the partners,  funders, and/or participants
necessary to complete the restoration project, including youth organizations, county governments,
corporations, and others.  The projects will include strong environmental education and on-the-
ground habitat restoration components, and may also include outreach and community stewardship.
Applicability: Regions, states, local governments, non-profit organizations
Contact: John Pai, (202) 260-8076, pai.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
 Web Address:  http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/
IV. Key Programmatic Guidances

 •A-Upcoming: Section 303(d) 2002 Listing Guidance [being drafted now]
This guidance sets out EPA's expectations for the list of impaired waters, under section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act, that states and other jurisdictions must submit to EPA for approval no later
than April  1, 2002.  EPA's goal in issuing this guidance is to ensure that the 2002 lists  are
scientifically sound and supported by good monitoring data. The 2002 list will replace previous lists
that a state has submitted, unless legal obligations dictate otherwise. The 2002 lists should also
contain a schedule for developing the TMDLs at a reasonable pace.  States should look to the CALM
guidance for more in depth information on monitoring and assessment methods.

Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (January, 1993)
Describes the management measures to be implemented within their coastal watersheds by all coastal
states with Federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs as required by Section 6217 of
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990  (CZARA).  A brief description of the
effects of nonpoint source pollution upon surface and  ground water and  the most effective
management measures and strategies for reducing or preventing such pollution is provided for five
major categories of nonpoint source pollution: agriculture, forestry, urban, hydromodification and
                                       Page 3-35

-------
wetlands. Also contains extensive reference lists of additional technical material and limited cost
data.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Robert Goo (202-260-7025); goo.robert@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
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: Dov Weitman (202-260-7088); weitman.dov@epa.gov
Copies Available: Janet Shifflett (202-260-7100)
Web Address: will shortly be available at the "Clean Water Act 319" button on the 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 and
resources.  The changes provide substantial flexibility for coastal states, commonwealths and
territories to complete development of their programs, remove conditions placed on program
approval and successfully implement their coastal nonpoint programs, while maintaining the core
principles of the program.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contacts: Stacie Craddock (EPA) (202-260-3788); craddock.stacie@epa.gov; Marcella Jansen
(NOAA) (301-713-3098, ext. 143
Copies Available: Joseph P. Flanagan (301-713-3121, x201)
Web Address: http://www.nos.noaa.gov/oemi/czni/6217/admin_changcs.luml

* ft Upcoming - Elements of an Adequate State Ambient Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program (Draft April 2001)
Provides guidance to better define the elements of an adequate state ambient water monitoring
program for purposes of Section 106(e)( 1) of the Clean Water Act. Because these elements have not


                                       Page 3-36

-------
been clearly defined in the past, EPA expects most States to employ an iterative process to fully
achieve all elements. States generally will need to: develop a monitoring program strategy addressing
all required elements; identify resource/technology gaps for those portions of the strategy not yet
achieved; and adopt an implementation schedule for those portions of the strategy not yet achieved.
This guidance will be a component of the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology, to be
available in final in July 2001.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html
* Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)
Reports) and Electronic Updates: Report Contents and Supplement (September 1997)
Provides detailed guidance on the contents of a State or Tribal 305(b) Report and the methods for
assessing water quality.  This document emphasizes approaches for achieving comprehensive
assessments of States and Tribes' waters, enhancing the data quality for assessing aquatic life and
other designated use support, improving the consistency of decision criteria used in assessments,
reporting assessments electronically, and indexing data geographically. This document provides
guidance for States and Tribes to use in preparing their next 305(b) report due April 1, 2002.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available:  Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet

* & upcoming — Consolidated Asssessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) (Draft April 2001)
Provides guidance to states, territories, tribes, and commissions regarding the data used to  make
decisions about whether waters are impaired. The CALM is built on, among other things, the work
of the long-standing 305(b) consistency workgroup; findings of the Intergovernmental Task  Force
on Monitoring Water Quality;  and  guidance on  the  elements of an adequate state watershed
monitoring and assessment program, which was prepared for EPA and the Standards and Monitoring
Task Force of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. The
CALM describes  data which a state should cover  in  a consolidated Section  305(b)/303(d)
assessment. Phased issuance of the CALM will include six major parts, three in the first release of
the guidance. The CALM will include: 1) guidance on artainment/non-attainment of state  water
quality standards (covering listing/de-listing decisions), 2) comprehensive state monitoring coverage,
3) presentation of data, 4) elements of an increasingly comprehensive state monitoring program, 5)
causes and sources of impairment, and, 6) additional sections on discrete types of pollutants such as
pathogens, nutrients, sedimentation, and fish advisories. The CALM will provide guidance on the
monitoring and assessment needed to underlie decision making,  and on communicating attainment
of water quality standards to the public. Final guidance will be available in July 2001.
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202) 260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov


                                       Page 3-37

-------
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html

?*- upcoming: Guidance for State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic
Updates for the 2002 Reporting Cycle (being drafted now)
This guidance sets out EPA's expectations for the development and submission of §305(b) water
quality reports from States, territories, and authorized tribes by April 1, 2002.  It also includes
necessary data elements for electronic submission of water quality data and information..
Applicability: States and Tribes
Contact: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743); holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
Copies Available: Susan Holdsworth (202-260-4743)
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet

Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material Management Plans (June 1998)
Provides a suggested framework through which local planning groups can develop implementable
long-term dredged material management plans.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Elizabeth Beiring (202-260-8484); beiring.elizabeth@epa.gov
Copies Available: contact Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484)
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/guidance.pdf

Replacement Nation wide Permit
This set of activity-based CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permits were published in March 2000 by
the Corps of Engineers and went into effect in June. The were developed in coordination with EPA
and other federal resource agencies, and replaced Nationwide Permit #26, which was phased out in
response to concerns about its adverse environmental effects.  The provisions of the replacement
permit package ensure impacts are minimal, while continuing to provide expedited review for certain
categories of activities.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Lisa Morales, (202) 260-6013, morales.lisa@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/

In-lieu-fee Mitigation Guidance
EPA, the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service
completed guidance on the use of in-lieu-fee compensatory  mitigation to offset impacts from
activities permitted under Clean Water Act Section 404.  The guidance was published in the Federal
Register in November 2000.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Lisa Morales, (202) 260-6013, morales.lisa@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Helpline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/
                                       Page 3-38

-------
 Hr upcoming — Identifying, Planning and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged
Material
Presents a framework for identifying, planning and financing projects to beneficially use dredged
material.
Applicability: Regions, states, local planning groups
Contact: Laura Johnson (202-260-3597); johnson.laura-s@epa.gov
Copies Available: copies not yet available - expected by the end of 2001
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.

 •& upcoming -- EPA/Corps Joint Bioaccumulation Analysis Workgroup for Dredged Material
Management Program
The EPA and Corps have formed this workgroup on bioaccumulation assessment and interpretation
for implementation of the dredged material management program (under both the Marine Protection,
Research,  and Sanctuaries Act Section 103, and the Clean Water Act Section 404). The primary
objective of this workgroup is to provide guidance on using bioaccumulation data to make regulatory
decisions in the dredged material management program.
Applicability: Regions, states, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Dave Redford (202-260-1952); redford.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: First Draft Guidance Document - expected by the end of 2001
Web Address: not yet available on the Internet.

 & EPA/Corps Guidance to the Field on Protecting Coral Reefs under the CWA Section 404 and
MPRSA programs (November 1999)
This guidance was prepared jointly by the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to emphasize
the protection afforded the Nation's valuable coral reef ecosystems under the  Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 regulatory program, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) Sections 102 and 103 provisions, Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Section 10 requirements,
and Federal Projects conducted by the Corps.
Applicability: Regions, states, regulated community
Contact: Laura Johnson (202-260-3597); johnson.laura-s@epa.gov
Copies Available: U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline, (800) 832-7828
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/coralNav.html

Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives —A Technical
Framework (November 1992)
This document provides a consistent technical framework for identifying environmentally acceptable
alternatives for the management of dredged material. Application of this framework will enhance
consistency and coordination in EPA/Corps of Engineers decision-making, in accordance with
Federal environmental statutes that regulate dredged material management.
Applicability: Regions, States, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484); beiring.elizabeth@epa.gov
Copies available: Contact Elizabeth Beiring (202/260-8484)
Web address: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/framework/


                                      Page 3-39

-------
Implementation Review (December 2000)
Provides current guidance on EPA's process for reviewing each National Estuary Program's (NEP)
implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Guidance lists topics
about which NEPs must provide documentation, and includes the review schedule through 2005.

Applicability: Regions, States, National Estuary Programs
Contact: Gregory Colianni (202-260-4025); colianni.gregory@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Gregory Colianni (202-260-4025)
Web Address: Not available on the Internet.

& upcoming -- Guidance Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites
Provides guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Regions and Army Corps of Engineers
Districts on preparation of ocean dredged material  disposal site designation, management and
monitoring plans; lays out a recommended framework for site designation,  management, and
monitoring plan development and content.
Applicability: Regions, States, Local Planning Groups
Contact: Jonathan Amson (202/260-9125); amson.jonathan@epa.gov
Copies available: Not yet available
Web address: http://epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/siteplan.html
                                      Page 3-40

-------
                        Office of Wastewater Management

/. Vision

       The goal of the Office of Wastewater Management is to ensure that every watershed in the
United States, including source water for drinking water, is free from impairments from point source
discharges.  States, and local communities are partners with EPA headquarters and regions in
achieving this goal. EPA provides its partners with appropriate tools to achieve water quality and
human health goals, focusing on the appropriate use and improvement of wastewater infrastructure,
management and operations techniques, and financial mechanisms. The major mechanisms used by
the Office  of Wastewater Management are the  Clean Water State  Revolving Fund Program
(CWSRF) (which also provides  funding to control nonpoint sources of pollution and to implement
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary
Program) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program.

       Over the next several years, our programs will face a number of significant challenges if we
are to effectively address the remaining threats to water quality. First, we are increasingly aware of
the importance of finding new ways to implement our programs on a watershed basis.  Second,
implementing TMDLs, addressing wet-weather discharges (storm water, combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as
well as addressing the water infrastructure and nonpoint source funding gap are major issues that will
present significant managerial  challenges to  our programs and to our partners in states and
communities.

       Effective management of the base NPDES program will also be a priority, including efforts
to continue to reduce permit backlogs and assess the health of state NPDES programs to ensure
appropriate solutions to water quality problems. Wet-weather discharges are the largest cause of
point source impairments to surface waters. Solutions cannot be considered in isolation and will
need to be tailored to the characteristics of individual watersheds.  Creative approaches, including
use of Best Management Practices and techniques like environmental management systems, will be
integral to finding cost-effective solutions.  Finally, EPA needs to play a leadership role in the
national dialogue on maintaining and improving wastewater infrastructure around the country. As
the American population continues to grow, the nation will have to have to significantly increase
spending to maintain the existing level of service and maintain (and replace) aging infrastructure.
//. Key Strategies

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) (March 1999)
The Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, developed jointly by the Department
of  Agriculture and  the  Environmental Protection  Agency,  employs  a  range  of flexible,
common-sense tools to reduce potentially harmful runoff from 450,000 animal feeding operations
nationwide. The Strategy: (1) discusses the relationships between AFOs and environmental and

                              	 - Page 3-41

-------
public health; (2) is based on a national performance expectation for all AFO owners and operators;
and (3) presents a series of actions to minimize public health impacts and improve water quality
while complementing the long-term sustainability of livestock production.
Contact: Louis Eby; (202-564-6599); eby.louis@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web address: www.epa.gov/npdes

Reduce the Backlog in NPDES Permits (May 4,1999)
In a memo dated May 4,1999, the AA for Water established the following quantitative targets for
reducing the backlog:
  - The backlog of major permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2001
  - The backlog for all permits will be reduced to 10 percent by the end of calendar year 2004
Over the past year, the Agency worked closely with state and regional partners to formulate  state
and regional strategies to reduce the NPDES permit backlog. A broader national strategy, Titled the
Interim Framework to Ensure Issuance of Timely and High Quality NPDES Permits (Approaches
for Reducing the NPDES Permit Backlog) was issued by OWM on July 28,1999. The strategy and
the latest backlog trends data are available on the NPDES Backlog Reduction Website.
Contact: David Hair (202-564-0712); hair.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes

The Endangered Species Act MOA Published in the Federal Register (February 22, 2001)
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) finalized
and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) explaining how the three agencies will work
together to achieve the complementary goals  of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Endangered
Species Act (ESA). The MOA's objectives include improving federal coordination to protect at-risk
species while ensuring that states and tribes remain primarily responsible for implementing the
requirements of the  CWA. The MOA establishes coordination procedures regarding the issuance
of state or tribal NPDES permits, as well as EPA-issued permits. The Agency believes this national
guidance will assist EPA and Service regional and field offices in working together more efficiently
and effectively.
Contact: Susan Johnson (202-564-8329); johnson.susan@epa.gov or Tom Charlton (202-564-6960);
charlton.tom@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contacts or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2001/February/Day-22/e2170.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework Strategy
This strategy supports the Office of Water's watershed approach to managing its environmental
programs.  The Framework is designed to help states set priorities and demonstrate the relative
importance of both point and nonpoint source projects to meeting their water quality goals. EPA is
encouraging states to develop integrated priority setting systems and linking their CWSRF programs
to watershed planning efforts. EPA has issued an Integrated Priority System Protocol for regional
offices tc use \vhen reviewing state priority systems that provides a step by step description of the

                              	._ _ .page 3-42

-------
process states may use to develop Integrated Project Priority Lists that consider wastewater, nonpoint
source and estuary management  projects and direct funds to the highest priority water quality
projects.  A series of fact sheets is being developed which will further detail how the CWSRF can
be used to implement nonpoint source and estuary management plans. Fact sheets on using the
CWSRF to fund polluted runoff, decentralized wastewater treatment systems, brownfields, MTBE
remediation, source water protection, class V injection wells, mining, wetlands, and estuary projects
have already been issued. EPA has also issued clarification on how states may finance projects using
the 319 and 320 authorities.
Applicability: States and Regions
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-564-0609
Copies Available: by Internet (srfinfo.group@epa.gov), by mail  from EPA Office  of Wastewater
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at
(202) 564-0752
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owrn

Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis
The Nation has made a substantial investment in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems.
Today, this water and wastewater infrastructure provides Americans with significant benefits in the
form of reduced water pollution and safe drinking water. In the case of wastewater treatment, the
economy and population have grown by a third, but today, our wastewater treatment infrastructure
has reduced discharges into waterways by 40 percent since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.
This critical infrastructure, however, is aging and deteriorating. In addition, increases in population,
population shifts, and new treatment demands are straining financial resources in many communities.
It is generally agreed that significant investment will need to take place in the water and wastewater
infrastructure industry to replace and enhance aging systems and to maintain improvements that have
been made in human health and environmental quality.
EPA is currently  conducting an analysis which will quantify the difference (i.e., the "gap") between
current infrastructure investment  and the investment levels that  will be necessary to replace and
enhance water and wastewater infrastructure.  EPA is also committed to fostering a constructive
dialogue  over the best approaches to assuring  that critical water and wastewater infrastructure is
maintained and improved so that Americans can enjoy clean and safe water for many years to come.
Applicability: Regions, states, municipalities
Contact: Angela Cracchiolo (202)564-0607 cracchiolo.angela@epa.gov and Steve Allbee (202)564-
0581 allbee.steve@epa.gov
Copies Available:
Web address:

Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Strategy
EPA  will promote the  use, where appropriate, of centralized management  of decentralized
wastewater systems. This initiative will include financial and technical support of state, tribal, and
decentralized wastewater programs so that they are consistently managed and administered.  EPA
will, together with regions, states  and other stakeholders, develop voluntary national standards  for
onsite management programs that address siting, performance, design, and maintenance of these


                                        Page 3-43

-------
systems. EPA will also fund projects that demonstrate how to overcome barriers to decentralized
sewage management.  In addition, guidance will be published on the appropriate use of state loan
funds to support these systems.  This work was identified in the  Response to Congress on
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact: Joyce Hudson, 202-260-1290, hudson.joyce@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm

Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Storm water and Biosolids Treatment
EPA has developed a series of fact sheets on technologies available.  The goal is to have
approximately 180 fact sheets completed by the end of FY 2002.  Completed fact sheets are posted
on the OWM web site.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, consulting engineers
Contact: Jim Wheeler, (202) 564-0662
Web Address: http://www.epagov/owm/muni.htm

& Guidance for the year 2002 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence Awards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The guidance, to be  issued in January 2002,  provides the national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability: Regions, municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact:  Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available:  EPA regions distribute  copies to State  water pollution control  facilities, or
interested parties may contact Maria Campbell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.

&  Guidon ce on th e Biosolids A wards Program
January 2002. EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for  the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Copies Available: Contact John Walker, (202) 564-0654
Web Address: http://ww\v.epa.gov/o\vm

*  Review Standards for Construction Grants Audits, Management Decisions, and Dispute
Resolution
The purpose of this memorandum is to call attention to Congressional Committee report language

                                       Page 3-44

-------
for the FY 2001 Appropriations Act regarding the standards of review in the construction grant
program audit and dispute resolution processes, and to provide guidance on the review standards to
be used.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Chau Hoang, 202-564-0689, hoang.chau@epa.gov
Copies Available: TBA
Web Address:  TBA

*  Construction Grants Close Out Strategy
This strategy, issued in June 1997, is the road map for closing out the remaining projects in the
municipal waste water 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
asGAO.
The ultimate goal of the strategy is for all regions to have closed out their construction grants
programs by the end of FY 2002. Success is defined by there being no more than 10 projects left to
be closed out in a region, with no more than 5 projects left in any state within the region.  Although
the June 1997 strategy generally defined how the construction grants program was to proceed to
closeout and defined success in the process, certain aspects of the project universe needed further
clarification. As District of Columbia and territories are still receiving State Revolving Fund (SRF)
money as grants, the number of grants to be closed needed further clarification. On May 6, 1999,
clarifications to the post-1997 construction grants closeout strategy was issued. This supplemental
guidance clarified that all grants awarded prior to F Y 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 F Y 2000,123 pre-92 grants and by the end
of FY 2001 and FY 2002, 45  and 13 pre-92 grants respectively will be left for close  out.  The
construction grants closeout goal is to achieve success as defined in the 1997 strategy by FY 2002.
Current status of Regionwise break down is given below.

                     Remaining Pre-92 Construction Grant Projects
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
At the end of FY 2000
11
51
30
18
46
5
At the end of FY 2001
9
23
12
8
9
4
At the end of FY 2002
0
2
6
2
4
0
                                        Page 3-45

-------
7
8
9
10
Country Total
6
1
11
9
188
1
1
1
2
70
0
0
0
0
14
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Gajindar Singh, 202-564-0634, singh.gajindar@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact  Gajindar  Singh, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management,  1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: Not available.
///. Key Grant Guidance

 & FY2002 STAG Guidelines
Will provide information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for
the special and programs included in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account of the
Agency's FY 2002 Appropriations Act.
Applicability: Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: Guidelines will be developed and issued approximately 90 days after enactment
of the Agency's FY 2002 Appropriations Act.
 Web Address: Not available
      2001 Clean Water Act Section 106 Grant Guidance
Document provides guidance to the EPA Regions, States, territories, and interstates agencies on the
procedures and principles for administering and managing the Section 106 grant program, including
Clean Water Act, Section 1 06(e) eligibility requirements, special grant conditions, and optional
funding tools (i.e.  In-kind-assistance). Appendix A of the document provides a comprehensive
summary of the water quality programmatic priorities to be considered by the Regions and States in
the negotiations of grant work programs supported with Section 106 funding.
Applicability: Regions, States, territories, D.C., and interstate agencies
Contact: Carol Crow, 202-564-0644, crow.carol@epa.gov
Copies Available: Regional State Section 106 Coordinators
Web Address: Not available.
 & Fiscal Year 2002 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
 Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
                            . C.L  ui/iid  CV.TIC«-» trsstitiSTi.. v/or^E
                                                                        lor* T\rr\r\f\c(* ncinrr
                                       Page 3-46

-------
these funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and technical assistance on sewer system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The program will assist
approximately 775 facilities in fiscal year 2002, the table below represents the regional breakdown.
FY 2002
Region
#of
facilities
1

75
2

30
3

JOS
4

90
5

120
6

100
7

40
8

90
9

40
10

80
TOTAL

775
Applicability:  Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: Not yet available (grant guidance for FY 01 is at www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htrn.)

*  Guidelines and Requirements for Apply ing for Grants From the Indian Set-Aside Program
Intended to help Indian Tribes apply for and manage grants for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities that are available from EPA under Section 518© of the Clean Water Act.
Applicability:  Regions, Tribes
Contact: Sylvia Bell, 202-546-0621, bell.sylvia@epa.gov
Copies Available: from Sylvia Bell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460
Web Address: Not available.

^h Final Guidance on the Award of Grants to Indian Tribes Under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act for FY 2000 and Future Years
This guidance provides EPA Regions with a framework of the operating procedures and guidelines
for awarding and administering environmental program grants to federally recognized Indian Tribes
under the authority of Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (C WA), for Fiscal Year 2000 and future
years. This guidance supersedes the previously issued guidance of June 20, 1995. This guidance
provides the basis for negotiations with our tribal partners who play a vital role in protecting and
restoring the Nation's waters. The guidance addresses key elements of the C WA Section 106 Tribal
Grant Program- program priorities, eligibilities, funding allocations, cost-sharing,  performance
evaluation, and progress reporting.  Section 106 of the Clean Water Act(CWA) authorizes annual
appropriations of funds for federal grants to assist state and interstate agencies in administering water
pollution control  programs.  Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes  EPA  to treat a federally
recognized Indian Tribe as  a State  for the purposes of receiving funding under Section  106.  A
portion  of the total section  106 appropriation is set-aside to fund Tribal water pollution control
programs. The Section 106 set-aside funds are allocated to the EPA Regions in accordance with the
Section 106 allotment formula adopted in Fiscal Year 1998. Unlike states and interstate agencies,
individual Tribes do not receive allotments directly from EPA.  Each Region has the discretion to
make Section 106 grant awards to eligible Tribes, as it believes appropriate, consistent with statutory
limitations, Agency regulations, and this guidance.
Applicability:  Eligible Tribes
Contact:  Clarence Braddock, (202) 564-0648, braddock.clarence@epa.gov
                                       Page 3-47

-------
Copies Available: Contact regional Section 106 tribal coordinators

rf- IV. New Guidance Issued in the Last Year (FY2001)

Understanding and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (June 2000)
The purpose of this final document issued on June 30,2000, is to provide regulatory authorities with
an understanding of whole effluent toxicity (WET) test variability, provide guidance to permitting
authorities on what they can do to account for and minimize WET test variability and its effects on
the regulatory process, and identify areas where EPA can further evaluate ways to minimize WET
test variability.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes

Guidance Manual for Conditional Exclusion from Storm Water Permitting Based on "No
Exposure" of Industrial Activities to Storm Water (July 2000)
This guidance provides industrial facilities, as identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(I) to (ix) and (xi)
(note: not applicable to construction activity, "category (x)"), subject to storm water program
requirements with information to determine if they qualify for a permitting waiver and how to apply
for it. The waiver is based on the lack of exposure of the facility's industrial activities or materials
to precipitation or runoff.  This provision was previously available only to light (category (xi))
industries, but is now available to any industrial storm water discharger, as of publication of the
storm water Phase II rule on December 8, 1999. The new provision requires all facilities who wish
to take advantage of the permitting exclusion to submit a no exposure certification to EPA.
Contact: Bryan Rittenhouse (202-564-0577); rirtenhouse.bryan@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address.
Website:  www.epa.gov/npdes

EPA Plan for PCS Data Management (September, 2000)
In September 2000,  OW and OECA signed a joint memo re-emphasizing the  importance  of
maintaining accurate and complete NPDES data in the Permit Compliance  System  (PCS). The
memo provided a list of key data fields that are essential to the management of the NPDES program
and a plan to populate PCS with the necessary data. States and regions are encouraged to enter and
upload this key data into PCS and, where necessary, OW is providing contract resources to assist in
the process.
Contact: Keiiey Voiak; 202-564-G3C7; volak.kellcy@cpa.gov
Copies Available: See contact
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes

Implementation of Clean Water Act Section 316(b) in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permits (December 28, 2000)
This guidance memorandum identifies as a priority for ilicNFDES program the issuance of permits

                                       Page 3-48

-------
to new or existing major point sources subject to the requirements of section 316 of the Clean Water
Act and describes existing guidance applicable to the development of permits for these dischargers.
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity
of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact. While EPA is developing national regulations to implement section 316(b)
of CWA, EPA and state permitting authorities are expected to use existing guidance and information
to inform their best professional judgement in issuing/reissuing major permits to facilities subject
to the requirements of section 316 (b).
Contact: Ruby Cooper Ford; (202-564-0757); ford.ruby@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or Web address.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes

Clarifications Regarding Toxicity Reduction Evaluations and Toxicity Identification Evaluations
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (May 2001)
This document provides clarification on the terms Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)  and
Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE), explains how these tools are used to control whole effluent
toxicity (WET), and reiterates guidance on when and under what circumstances a permittee should
conduct TRE or TIE activities. In addition, the document addresses several technical topics relevant
to the TRE/TIE process.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact or web address.
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)

Menu ofBMPsfor Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (May 2001)
EPA has developed a menu of best management practices (BMPs) applicable to municipal separate
storm sewer systems.  The BMPs address each of the minimum measures for municipal storm water
management programs listed in the December 8, 1999 storm water Phase II rule.
Contact: Wendy Bell; (202-564-0746); bell.wendy@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes

Guidance On Implementing  The Water Quality-Based  Provisions in the Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control Policy  (July 31, 2001)
EPA will publish a Final Guidance On Implementing The Water Quality-based Provisions in the
CSO Control Policy.  The guidance will address questions raised since the publication of the CSO
Control Policy in 1994 on integrating the long-term control plan (LTCP) development process with
the water quality standards review.  As outlined in the guidance, EPA will continue to implement
the CSO Control Policy through its existing statutory and regulatory authorities. The guidance will
not impose legally binding requirements or substitute for Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements,
EPA's regulations, or the obligations imposed by consent decrees or enforcement orders.
Contact: Timothy Dwyer; (202-564-0717); dwyer.tim@epa.gov
Copies Available: July 31,2001
                                       Page 3-49

-------
Web Address:  www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)

Report to Congress on the Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy (September 1, 2001)
On December 21, 2000, Public Law 106-554 was enacted; it included Section 112, Wet Weather
Water Quality which amended Clean Water Act section 402 to include the requirement:
Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the
progress made by the Environmental Protection Agency, States and municipalities in implementing
and enforcing the CSO Control Policy. (Section  402 (q) (3) of the Clean Water Act)
Contact: Timothy Dwyer; (202-564-0717); dwyer.tim@epa.gov
Copies Available: September 1, 2001
Web Address:  www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)

Guidance on Measurable Goals (October 2001)
EPA will prepare and issue a guidance document to assist municipal separate storm sewer systems
in the development of measurable goals to assist in the design, as well as  the assessment of
implementation of the minimum measures for Phase II. The scheduled completion date is October
2001.
Contact: Wendy Bell; (202-564-0746); bell.wendy@epa.gov
Copies Available: See Web address
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm (when issued)
                  o
Local Limits Guidance Manual (Fall 2001)
This will update the existing pretreatment guidance which is over 10 years old. The manual will
focus on the general approach for development,  re-evaluation, and update of local limits based on
the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) method. Further, it will include data that
may facilitate the process, as well as options for resolving challenges commonly encountered. This
manual is not intended to preclude discussions between local and oversight agencies to resolve site-
specific issues where they arise. The manual will provide examples of reasonable approaches for
applying best professional judgement (BPJ), and therefore, may be of benefit when making site-
specific BPJ decisions.
Contact: Jeff Smith;  (202-564-0652); smith.jeff@epa.gov
Copies Available: Fall 2001
Web Address:  www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)

Guidance for Electronic NPDES Application Forms (Fall 2001)
To modernize the NPDES permit application process.  EPA will make available  electronic
application software and associated operating guidance by the Fall of 2001. Use of these forms will
facilitate quick and easy completion of permit data.
Contact: David Hair (202-564-0588); hair.david@epa.gov
Copies Available: See contact
Web Address: www.epa.gov/npdes (when issued)
                                       Page 3-50

-------
CWSRF Guide to Integrated Priority Setting Systems
EPA is issuing a guide to help states develop integrated priority setting systems (IPPSs) that consider
the water quality benefits of wastewater, nonpoint source and estuary management projects.  The
Guide elaborates the steps needed to develop IPPSs, sources of water quality information and the
ranking systems used by various state CWSRF programs.
Applicability: States
Contact: Stephanie von Feck, 202-564-0609 or Cleora Scott 202-564-0687
Copies Available: by Internet (srfmfo.group@epa.gov), by mail from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at
(202) 564-0752
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm

SRF Transfer and Cross-Collateralization Guidance
Provides a description of the requirements for states that transfer funds between the Clean Water and
Drinking Water  SRF programs.  It also describes requirements for states  that wish to Cross-
Collateralize, or enhance  bond security, with the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF program.
Applicability:  States, Regions
Contact: Sheila Platt (202) 564-0686
Copies Available:  by  mail from EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 564-0752
Web Address: Not available

Policy on Fees Charged  by States to Recipients of Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
Assistance
Establishes EPA policy regarding the use of fees that states charge on clean water state revolving
fund loans and include as  principal in loans and the use of fees that states charge on loans but do not
include as principal in loans.
Applicability:  States,  Regions
Contact: Kit Farber, 202-564-0601, farber.kit@epa.gov
Copies Available:  by  mail from EPA Office of Wastewater Management, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW (4204M), Washington, DC 20460, and by phone at (202) 564-0752
Web Address: Not available

*  Guidance on the Privatization of Federally Funded Wastewater Treatment Works
The guidance (1) serves as an informational resource for local governments and private companies
interested  in the privatization  process, (2)  discusses the financial and non-financial  factors
influencing the privatization decision, and (3) describes the information local governments must
submit for EPA's review and approval of their proposed privatization arrangements.
Applicability: Regions, Grantees
Contact: Haig Farmer, 202-564-0592, farmer.haig@epa.gov
Copies Available: By Internet and from NCEPI (800-490-9198) Ask for Document EPA-832-B-00-
002.
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/owm/prigud.htm
                                       Page 3-51

-------
FY2001 STAG Guidelines
Provides information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for the 246
special projects and programs (United States-Mexico Border program and the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages program) included in the in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account
of the Agency's FY 2001 Appropriations Act and the seven special projects added to the STAG
account by the FY 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Applicability:  Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices, all state agencies and all potentially eligible grant applicants.
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm0316.pdf.

Fiscal Year 2001 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also propose using
these funds  to promote energy/water use efficiency and  technical  assistance on sewer  system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows.  The program will assist
approximately 713 facilities in fiscal year 2001, the table below represents the regional breakdown.
FY2001
Region
#of
facilities
/

66
2

27
3

75
4

80
5

135
6

76
7

36
8

67
9

21
10

130
TOTAL

773
Applicability: Regions
Contact:  Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available:  Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm

Guidance for Infrastructure Grants Under Long Island Sound Restoration Act
EPA is developing guidelines, policies, and procedures for implementing the infrastructure grants
portion of Title IV of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (PL 106-457) which enacts the
Long Island Sound Restoration Act. The goal is to develop the guidelines by 9/30/01. PL 106-457
authorizes $40 million per year for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The Long Island Sound office,
through Regions I and II, has issued non-infrastracture grants using section 119 as authority for
several years, but no infrastructure grants have been issued under this program.  Hence, these new
guidelines are required for managing the infrastructure grants  likely to be issued in future.
Applicability: Regions I and II, States- NY and CT.
Contact: Gajindar Singh, 202-564-0634, singh.gajindar@epa.gov
Web Address: Not available.
                                       Page 3-52

-------
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Strategy
EPA will promote  the use, where  appropriate, of centralized management of decentralized
wastewater systems. This initiative will include financial and technical support of state, tribal, and
decentralized wastewater programs so that they are consistently managed and administered.  EPA
will, together with regions, states and other stakeholders, develop voluntary national standards for
onsite management programs that address siting, performance, design, and maintenance of these
systems. EPA will also fund projects that demonstrate how to overcome barriers to decentralized
sewage management. In addition, guidance will be published on the appropriate use of state loan
funds to support these systems.
Applicability: Regions, States, Tribes
Contact'. Joyce Hudson, 202-564-0657, hudson.joyce@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Joyce Hudson
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm

Development, Selection, and Pilot Demonstration of Preliminary Environmental Indicators for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program
Provides information and guidance on how environmental indicators are used in water programs
throughout the country, how environmental  indicators should  be developed  to  document
environmental benefits of the CWSRF and what some proposed indicators could be.
Applicability: Regions, States
Contact: Richard Derringer, 202-564-0613, derringer.richard@epa.gov or Cliff Yee, 202-564-0598,
yee.clifford@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all  EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the CWSRF program.
Web Address: Not Available

Fiscal Fund Management of the State Revolving Fund A Manual
Provides information and guidance on managing the fiscal aspects of Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds.  Topics include adjusting loan terms, assessing investment returns,
efficient fund utilization, long term planning, sustainable funding levels, leveraging decisions and
the impact of set-asides and  capitalization transfers on the fund. Analytical tools and techniques,
including key financial measures, for  assessing the fiscal health of a fund are included as  an
appendix.
Applicability: States, Regions
Contact: Cliff Yee, 202-564-0598, yee.clifford@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA distributes copies to all who can use the document, including all  EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not available

New SRF Financial Planning Model
EPA issued its new SRF Financial Planning Model (FPM) in January 2001. The model will enable
users to better understand the effect of different program structures and program changes on the
ability of SRFs to provide financial assistance now and in the future.  Because the new model uses
                                       Page 3-53

-------
aggregates/averages rather than detailed project-by-project data, users can quickly and easily
determine the amount of financial assistance an SRF can provide, based on current and projected
program parameters, and then modify these parameters/assumptions to determine the impact of
changes on the amount of projected financial assistance an SRF can provide over time.

In March 2001, a Users Guide was issued to provide a detailed explanation and examples on how
to use the new model. In addition, training sessions have been scheduled at all  regional offices.
Each year, the model will be updated to incorporate the latest NIMS data (both Clean Water and
Drinking Water), and to make other enhancements to the model based on user feedback.  Future
versions of the FPM will be released at the CIFA SRF Conference.
Applicability: Headquarters, Regions, and States
Contact. Kit Farber 202-564-0601; Farber.Kit@EPA.gov
Copies Available: Kit Farber
Web Address: Not available

Guidance for the year 2001 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence Awards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The  guidance, issued in January  2001,  provides the  national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability: Regions,  municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact: Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available:  EPA regions distribute copies to State water pollution control facilities, or
interested parties may contact Maria Campbell, EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.

Alternative  Water Sources Grant Guidance
Title VII of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 establishes an EPA grant program in Section
220 of the Clean Water Act for alternative water source projects  to meet critical water needs.
Eligible  projects provide municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supplies by  conserving,
managing, reclaiming, or reusing water or wastewater.  Guidance scheduled for completion in FY
2001.
Applicability: States, interstate and intrastate water development agencies, local  governments,
private utilities, and non-profit agencies.
Contact: John Flowers, 202-564-0624, flowers.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: TEA
Web Address: TEA

Sewer Overflow Grant Guidance
FiGvides EPA Regional Offices and States \vith guidance and direction on a/warding and managing

                                        Page 3-54

-------
grants established in Section 221 of the Clean Water Act for planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to intercept, transport, control or treat combined sewer overflows (CSO) and
sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) established . Guidance is scheduled for completion by September
30, 2001, and will focus on the awarding, management, and coordination of these grants with the
State Revolving Fund loan program.
Applicability: Regions and States
Contacts: Leonard Fitch, 202-564-0656, Fitch.Leonard@epa.gov
Copies Available: EPA will distribute copies to all who can use the document, including all EPA
Regional Offices and all state agencies responsible for the management of the SRF programs.
Web Address: Not Available

Biosolids Strategy
The  goal  of the  Biosolids Management Strategy is to have an  effective national biosolids
management program.  This  goal is to be achieved through numerous coordinated activities
including: developing sound, scientifically defensible regulations governing the use and disposal of
biosolids; developing a database management system to store and analyze biosolids information;
recognizing outstanding achievements through the annual awards program; conducting surveys of
biosolids quality; and working with the National Biosolids Partnership to develop and implement
environmental management systems (EMS) for biosolids.
Applicability:  Regions, States
Contact: John Walker, 202-564-0654, walker.john@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact John Walker
Web Address: Not available

Guidance on the Use of Biosolids Awards Program
January 2001. EPA  annually  recognizes municipalities and institutions which operate biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids. This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Web Address: Not available

Guidance on Technologies Available for Wastewater, Storm water and Biosolids  Treatment
EPA has developed, and will continue to develop, a series of fact sheets on technologies available.
The goal is to have approximately 180 fact sheets completed by the end of FY 2002.  The FY 2001
fact  sheets focus on conventional and innovative technologies including some wet weather
technologies. Completed fact sheets are posted on the OWM web site.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities, consulting engineers
Contact: Jim Wheeler, (202) 564-0662
Web Address: http://www.epagov/owm/muni.htm

Guidance for POTWs on Radioactivity in Biosolids
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission worked with EPA through a subcommittee of the Interagency


                                       Page 3-55

-------
Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) to develop guidance on radioactivity in
biosolids. Interim guidance was issued in June 1999.
Applicability:  States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: Robert Bastian, (202) 564-00653
Web Address: Not available

Decentralized Wastewater Management Guidance Manual
This is a manual for management of individual wastewater treatment (Onsite systems) and small
waste water treatment systems. The goal of the guidance is to stimulate effective management of
these systems in such a manner that it will become a natural and normal state of the art.
Applicability:  States, Regions
Contact: Joyce Hudson (202) 564-0657
Web Address: http://www.epa.gov/OWM/decent/decent.htm
 •& V. Guidance Under Development and Planned Through Fit'2002/2003

Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (FY2002)
This document will provide technical guidance for assessing and regulating the discharge of toxic
pollutants to waters of the United States. It will provide procedures for determining when an effluent
limitation for a toxic pollutant is needed and how to  calculate such limits. These procedures are
particularly important where there is no TMDL established for a receiving water.  Some updates to
the NPDES permitting procedures described in the guidance and an electronic tool that allows permit
writers to perform these procedures are planned for FY 2002.
Contact: Marcus Zobrist (202-564-8311); zobrist.marcus@epa.gov or Gregory Currey (202-564-
0633); currey.gregory@epa.gov
Copies Available: FY 2002
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes

Draft Policy on the Determination of Reasonable Potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
(FY 2002/2003)
This draft will provide EPA policy on how to determine whether a point source discharge will
"cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute" to an excursion of numeric whole
effluent toxicity criteria or a narrative "no toxics in toxic amounts" criterion in a receiving water. It
will include a step-by-step discussion of the decisions and technical issues permit writers must
consider when making this WET "reasonable potential" determination, especially when the available
valid WET test data are limited.
Contact: Laura Phillips (202-564-0741); phillips.laura@epa.gov
Copies Available: FY 2002/2003
Website: www.epa.gov/npdes

FY 2003 STA G Guidelines
Will provide information and guidelines on how the Agency will award and administer grants for

                                       Page 3-56

-------
the special and programs included in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account of the
Agency's FY 2003 Appropriations Act.
Applicability:  Regions, States, grant applicants
Contact: Larry McGee, 202-564-0619, mcgee.larry@epa.gov
Copies Available: Guidelines will be developed and issued approximately 90 days after
enactment of the Agency's FY 2003 Appropriations Act.
Web Address:  Not available

Fiscal Year 2003 National Managing and Reporting Guidance for CWA 104(g)(l) Operator
Technical Assistance Grants
The guidance provides, to every Region, instructions for disbursing their allotments of 104(g)(l)
grant funds to States and State Training Centers. The primary use of Section 104 (g)(l) funds is to
provide on-site technical assistance for operators and municipal employees involved in the operation,
maintenance, and management of publicly-owned treatment works. States may also propose using
these  funds to promote energy/water use efficiency and  technical assistance on sewer system
maintenance to control infiltration and inflow and sanitary sewer overflows. The number of facilities
to be assisted in fiscal year 2003 is to be determined, based on program priorities and Regional and
state resources.
Applicability: Regions
Contact: Curt Baranowski, 202-564-0636; baranowski.curt@epa.gov
Copies Available: Contact Curt Baranowski
Web Address: Not available

Guidance for the year 2003 National Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Excellence Awards Program
EPA annually recognizes industrial organizations and municipalities for demonstrated outstanding
and innovative technological achievements in waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The guidance, to be issued in January 2003, provides the national award eligibility requirements,
instructions for the regional/state nomination/award procedure and how to apply for the recognition
award.
Applicability:  Regions, municipalities, industrial organizations
Contact:  Maria E. Campbell, 202-564-0628, campbell.maria@epa.gov.
Copies Available: EPA  regions distribute copies  to State water pollution control facilities,  or
interested parties  may contact Maria  Campbell, epa, Office of Wastewater Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (4204), Washington, DC 20460, for regional contact information.
Web Address: Not available.

Guidance on the Use of Biosolids Awards Program
January 2003.  EPA annually recognizes municipalities and institutions which  operate  biosolids
facilities, develop technologies, conduct research, and promote public acceptance of biosolids.  This
guidance defines how to prepare and submit applications for the awards.
Applicability: States, Regions, municipalities
Contact: John Walker (202) 564-0654

                                       Page 3-57

-------
Copies Available: John Walker (202) 564-0654
Web Address: http://www. epa.gov/o~wm

* These strategies and guidances are considered core, and the Regional Administrator must consult
with the Assistant Administrator for Water before agreeing to a work plan with a State that differs
significantly from these guidances and strategies.
                                        Page 3-58

-------
 Management Agreement
Instructions and Template
         Section 4

-------
  Instructions to Regions,  Great Water Body Offices, andHQ
Program Offices for Completing the Management Agreements
The Management Agreements (MA) serve as a key piece  in the National Water Program's
accountability process. By September 1,2001, all Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water
Body Offices will complete their portions of the FY 2002 MA Matrix (Lotus 1-2-3 file). The Matrix
includes Presidential, Congressional, Core, Key, Internal and Tribal Performance Goals / Measures.

During October and November, HQ Division Directors are expected to work with Regions on
commitments for the FY 2002 Draft MAs.  The Regions are  also encouraged to provide a short
narrative to the Management Agreement submission addressing any issues or challenges unique to
their program.
                2002 Management Agreement Matrix

- Complete Rows 1 and 2, indicating your Region/Office and name.

- Review the APM Reporter column, to determine which measures you are responsible for making
commitments against.  Measures are listed in the column entitled "Annual Performance Measure
(APM)". For the Tribal Strategy, you will need to look at the Annual Performance Goal column.

- For each relevant measure, provide your commitment for FY 2002 in the column entitled "RT,
GWB, or HQ Commitment for FY01." For some measures, special instructions (e.g., definitions)
have been provided further in the attachment under the title "Additional Instructions for Making
Commitments Against the FY02 Annual Performance Measures." If you have questions regarding
any measure, please contact the office listed in the APG/APM Originator column. Names and phone
numbers for the key contacts for these offices are listed  in Section 8 of the National Program
Guidance, a.k.a. "White Book", Key Contacts section.

- Complete the column entitled Narrative with any additional information that you believe is important
to understanding your numeric commitment for a given measure.

- Save Lotus 1-2-3 submission with a new name and a ".wk4" extension. If your Region or program
would like to feature any other key activities that are not captured by your numerative commitments,
your office or program is welcome to submit narrative descriptions of these key activities. Obtain
your Senior Management's approval for this submission, indicate that approval in a cover email
to Mike Weckesser (weckesser.mike@epa.gov) and send your completed chart and any narrative piece
as electronic attachments by September 3rd, 2001.

- HQ Water Immediate aggregates information into a national summary sheet and HQ Program

                                    Page 4-3

-------
Offices and Regions use that as a basis for negotiation to reach final consensus. The Deputy AA will
be involved in resolving any outstanding issues.

- HQ Water Immediate sends out final national summary table to Regions, HQ, and Great Water
Body Offices.

- Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices Senior Managers will review and sign
off on national summary table by November 30th, 2001.
NOTE: In order to facilitate aggregation of information, OW Immediate requests that the Lotus
1-2-3 file be kept in tact.
                                        Page 4-4

-------
                      OFFICE OF WATER FY2002 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

        We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2002.

Agreement Between:
Diane Regas                             Date
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water

and
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Date
Thomas C. Voltaggio                      Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Date
Rebecca Hanmer
Water Management Division, Region 3
Date
Robert H. Wayland, Director        Date
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
                Stanley L. Laskowsi, Director                Date
                Environmental Services Division, Region 3
Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Date
Diana Esher, Acting Director         Date
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3
Kathy Gorospe, Director
American Indian Environmental Office
Date
A. Stanley Meiburg                        Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4
Ira Leighton                              Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1
                Beverly Banister, Director
                Water Management Division, Region 4
                                        Date
Linda M. Murphy, Director                  Date
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1
                James D. Giattina, Director                 Date
                Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Region 4
William J. Muszynski, P.E.                  Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2
                Gary V. Gulezian,                         Date
                Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director               Date
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
Region 2
                Jo Lynn Traub, Director
                Water Division, Region 5
                                        Date
                                                        Gary V. Gulezian, Director                   Date
                                                        Great Lakes National Program Office, Region 5
                                                Page 4-5

-------
                     OFFICE OF WATER FY2002 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

        We, the undersigned, agree to meet the commitments outlined in this agreement for our
respective Offices and Regional Water Program Offices for FY2002.
Gregg A. Cooke
Regional Administrator, Region 6
                                        Date
Chuck Findley                           Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10
Sam Becker, Director                      Date
Acting Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
                                                       Elbert Moore, Director                     Date
                                                       Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Region 10
William Rice                              Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7
                                                       Randy Smith, Director
                                                       Office of Water, Region 10
                                       Date
U. Gale Mutton, Director                    Date
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
Region 7
Jack W. McGraw                          Date
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8
                                        Date
Max H. Dodson
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
Region 8
Kerrigan Clough                          Date
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Region 8
Laura Yoshii
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9
                                        Date
Alexis Strauss, Director
Water Division, Region 9
                                        Date
                                               Page 4-6

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:11:59PM
                                                      FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
OW National Program Matrix

                   Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                                                                                   Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
                                                                     Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                                                                     ' APG/APM ' ,nn, T,P__»
                                                                                                     I Originator | 2002 Target
  Unit
Comments
              ..        .        .,   ,                                   .
             :: .Clean and Safe .Water: All'Americans .wilLhave drinking water that is .clean and safe to drink.- Effective protection^LAmerJca'sjiyerji, jake81.wetland8,.aquifers> andil
        Objective 1: By 2005, protect human health so that 95% of the population served by community water systems will receive water that meets health-based drinking water
        standards, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish will be reduced, and exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be
        reduced.
        Subobjective 1.1: By 2005, the population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health-based standards (issued und
        SDWA as amended in 1986) will increase to 95% from a baseline 83% in 1994.  For standards issued in 1998 and beyond (under the SDWA as amended in 1996), I
                                                                                                                                          I under the
                                                                                                                                             ..the
population served by community water systems providing drinking water that meets such new health-based standards will reach 95% within five years after the effective
date of each rule.
  roo
  104  ;


  105


  106

  107

  108
istandaicls. up from 83% in 1994 (Prez. CM and CPM|.
i
1 Percent of the population served by community water systems
| that will receive drinking water meeting health-based
i standards promulgated in 1998. (CM)
i Percent of the population served by non-community, non-
i 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
,.(CPM)
' Protect public health by implementing rules promulgated in FY
, 1999, FY 2000 & FY 2001 and provision of information to
i consumers through public notification (PN).
!
i
i
i
i
i - - •
i
i
~T
| Population served by community water systems that will
i receive dnnking water for which no violations of Federally
1 enforceable health standards have occurred during the .
I year, up from 83% in 1994 iPrez. CM and. CPM)
i
i ...
1 Population served by community water systems that will
| receive drinking water meeting health-based standards
.promulgated in 1998. (CM)
! Population served by non-community, non-transient
i 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. (CPM)
! States with updated primacy for lESWTR/Stage 1 DBP.
1
! States that have adopted the lESWTR/Stage 1 DBP.
i States with updated primacy for CCR.
i
-t _.._ _ . _._...-.
States that have adopted the CCR.
1
| States with updated primacy for PN.
1 • .....
1 States that have adopted the PN.
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
_ ._ . _ _ .
OGWDW
OGWDW
OGWDW
r
91%
85%
93%
24 ,
38
28
38
10
28
Population
Population
Population
States
States
States
States
States
States
1 ~ ~ ~ ~


- - -.- - • •
Rod=Presldentlal; Blue=Congressional; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                              Page 1
                                                                                                                              f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
 Printed: 04/09/01  02:11:59PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
OW National Program Matrix Completed by: Mike Weckesser
r - - - , - : •- • j- . - - .
QQril ' Annual Performance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (APM)
10q i Number of States with updated primacy for Lead &
| | Copper Rule Revisions.
i - - - - 1
I,Q ' i Number of States that have adopted the Lead & Copper
| 1 Rule Revisions.
1 .. _ - | ......
111 ^K,!^0(^^^R^C(^^^nn^ >^!S^^8S^'S^^lS^
consumer conTtQenc6 reports.
- 1 7 I Population served by CWSs that will comply with the
i i regulation to publish consumer confidence reports.
i " / "
. . , „. i Enhance protection of tribal health by increasing the < D«r~,r,« „» »r-Koi ™~,m -,-t , , A „«., i,,.,,.;,,,,! „«„
"'{^percentage of tribal community and non-community water ;SS^^^
t systems ln«3t 3rs run oy cGrtitiGu opsrstors. (
| Protect human health and ensure compliance with health- | DWeRF assis,ance anreements to communitv and non-
114 , based drinking water standards through use of the Drinking -zSnil drin^
• Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). > community armKing water systems (cumulative).
t i
. , - ' ' DWSRF projects that have initiated operations
113 | I (cumulative).
- - - ( - -
I By 2005, the population served by tribal community water \ ^SS^
-------
 Printed: 04/09/01   02:11:59PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of:  March 16, 2001
OW National Program Mstrix Com
Co^ Annual Performance Goal (APG) ! Annual Performance Measure (APM) Originator
I
pleted by: Mike Weckesser
2002 Target Unit Comments
i Health risk assessments under development for Tamo* »« ho
in ' contaminants identified through the CCL process by OQT jftorminoH Acc^manto
1Ai I August 2001. (Target: To be determined in August 2001 . UbT Aug'01 " sments
Subobjective 1.3: By 2005, demonstrate the effectiveness of both voluntary and regulatory activities to protect sources of drinking water by (1) ensuring that 50% of the
population served by community water systems will receive their water from systems with source water protection programs in place; and, 2) managing identified, high-risk
Class V wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g., wellhead, source water, sole source aquifer, etc.) and all Class I, II, and III injection wells.
130
131
132
133

134
135
136
Tribal
Strategy
#13
r r
Advance States' efforts to protect their surface and ground ' Number of community water systems (CWSs) that have
water resources that are sources of drinking water supplies. | completed their source water assessments.
' Percent of population served by community water
' systems (CWSs) that have completed their source water
i assessments.
i Number of community water systems (CWSs) that are
| implementing source water protection programs.
I Percent of population served by community water
i systems (CWSs) that are implementing source water
| protection programs.
' Percent of underground injection wells containing: 1 )
| waste or fluid from hazardous and non-hazardous
Target implementation of UIC regulations to ensure low risk of | ™!^!?,|:^C,r?f ' T'll'iic^ ^ ^Tn^fh^^Jm 9aS
contamination to source water resources production, (Class II wells), and 3) super-hot steam,
contamination 10 source water resources. , wa[er or otner flujds (Class III) out of compliance with a
permit and/or rule authorized that are returned to
i compliance in an appropriate and timely manner.
1
i Number of large capacity cesspools closed. (Class V)
t
I
i Number of motor vehicle disposal wells closed and/or
| permitted. (Class V)
1 Definitions: source water assessment: same process as
By 2005 40% of the population served by tribal community '< for states under the SDWA and SWAP Guidance source
•"*/ «-w**i ^« 'v wi \**\* fsss|^uiuiivi i t*N«i •%*« **j u itsMi \*w 	 ii*i IILJ water assessment Droorarrv contaminant source
water systems will receive their water from systems with »«a«*i a^oca^n id u ^i^^i am. wi uai MM ioiu- ^wui *^c
wavwi tjjtj^v^iinj »wni 
-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:11:59PM
                                                               FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
                                                                             Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix

                    Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                                                                                      Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
                                                                     Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                    APG/APM
                                                    Originator
           2002 Target
              Unit
               Comments
       i By 2005, increase protection of groundwater resources by
       | managing all Class I, II, and III injection wells in Indian country
 <;?atea 'ancl ky managing identified, high-risk Tribal class V wells in
   #14  1100% of high priority protection areas (e.g., Tribal priority
       1 areas, well head protection, sole source aquifer or source
       | water protection areas.)
                                                             : Injection well means all Class I, II, III, IV and V wells as
                                                             | defined in the regulations. "Managed" Class I, II, III, or V
                                                             , well is a well which is in compliance with its permit or is
                                                             1 authorized by rule. "Managed" Class IV wells, which are
                                                             | banned, means eliminated through immediate action.
                                                             i "Identified" means known to UIC implementing agency.
                                                             ' High priority protection areas: For the short term will be
                                                             'defined on a Region-specific basis and may include
                                                             [ SSAs, WHPs, etc.  For the long-term, this will be defined
                                                    OGWDW
               No
           Commitment
           Managed
             Wells
        Subobjective 1.4:  By 2005,5% of the waters with fish advisories will demonstrate a decline in fish tissue contamination, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish
        will be reduced, and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting the consumption of fish and shellfish will increase.
140
141
  142
  143
       i Reduce ccnsumption of contaminated fish by increasing the
       'information available to the public and decision-makers.
       i

       18% of the nation's river miles and 17% of nation's lake acres
       'will have been assessed to determine if they contain fish and
       | shellfish that should not be eaten or should be eaten in only
       i limited quantities.
| Fish tissue jamples collected foi 1) National Fish Tissue
', Survey (Cumulative) and 2) by states and Regions for
i fish advisciv decisions
        Recjuce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the
        information available to tribes and tribal decision-makers.
| Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and
i compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory
'methodologies (cumulative). (Also a CPM)
i
1 States/Tribes monitoring and conducting assessments
| based on the national guidance to establish nationally
, consistent fish advisories.

': River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption
i advisories & compilation of state-issued fish consumption
; advisory methodologies (cumulative). (Also a CPM)
                                                             Number of tribes that have received training on risk-
                                                             | based fish consumption methodologies.
OST/RT
  OST
                                                                                                                   OST
                                                                                                                   OST
                                                      OST
500 /
17%
               40
              8%
               No
           Commitment
 Samples
Lake Acres
             States
           River Miles
             Tribes
        Subobjective 1.5: By 2005, exposure to microbial and other forms of contamination in waters used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the
        designated recreational uses will increase.
150
i 	 --_- _-.. _
' Reduce exposure to contaminated recreation waters by
'increasing the information available to the public and decision-
makers. (CG)
' Beaches for which monitoring and closure data is
| available at http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/
i (cumulative). (CM)
r ~
OST
r~ ~~ p _ _ _ _ ~-
i
2,300 | Beaches
i
L

        Objective 2:  By 2005, increase by 175 the number of watersheds where 80 percent or more of assessed waters meet water quality standards, including standards that
        support healthy aquatic communities. (The 1998 baseline is 501 watersheds out of a national total of 2,262.)
Red=Presidential; Blue=Con3ressional; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                Page 4
                                                                                                                                            f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:11:59PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of:  March 16, 2001
OW National Program Matrix Completed by: Mike Weckesser
Ooijg Annual Performance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (APM) OrioJnator ' 2002 Tar9et Unit Comments
Subobjective 2.1 : By 2005, 5,000 additional miles of water will attain water quality standards and specific interim milestones will be achieved in 50,000 impaired miles.
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
r i
Provide tools foi risk characterization and decision making [
regaiding surface water contaminants, including PBTs and > Criteria developed/available for risk characterization of
nutrients, that allow States and Tribes to set and meet then 'surface w:uer contaminants (RM;
own watei quality standards \
Assure that States and Tribes have effective, up-to-date water |
quality standards programs adopted in accordance with the , Tribes with water quality standards adopted and
Water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality i approved (cumulative). (CM)
Standards program priorities. (CG) |
1 ' States with new or revised water quality standards that
EPA has reviewed and approved or disapproved and
I i promulgated federal replacement standards. (CM)
} i States and tribes with approved E. coli or enterococci
1 criteria.
!_,....«.„ h«ki»^. :„ »h« /*h-~_.«,-i,- a.,,. Stream miles of migratory fish habitat reopened through
Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. ; provision of fish palsageys. (cumulative)
\ Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in
i the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
i
', Miles of streambank and shoreline restored with riparian
i forest buffers, (cumulative)
Percent of wastewater flow to the Chesapeake Bay
.treated by Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
< (cumulative)
• Millions of pounds reduction, from 1985 levels, of
| nitrogen and phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake
i Bay. (cumulative)
1
Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration ' ,m_aired Gu,f coastai river and estuarv seoments
action strategies (WRAS) or their equivalent in 14 priority Sotemenfina WRAS o lauivalln SegmentS
impaired coastal river and estuary segments. , imP'ementin9 WKA5> °r equivalent.
'TMDLs (1) scheduled to be completed; (2) submitted by
| Gulf States for segments in the coastal watershed; and
i (3) established by EPA and Gulf State established
' TMDLs approved.
• 	
OST
OST
OST
CBPO
CBPO
CBPO
CBPO
CBPO
Gulf
Gulf
T
27
20
40
1,243
78,000
756
53%
74 M for
Nitrogen / 8.4
Million for
Phos
14
No Target
r
Criteria
Documents
Tribes
.
States
States
Miles
Acres
Miles
Flow
Pounds
Segments
TMDLs










Red=Presidential; Blue=Congressional; Fuchsia=Coro Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                           Page5
                                                                                  f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
 Printed: 04/09/01   0:>: 12:00 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
OWNa
APM
Code

211

212

213


214



215


216

217

218


219


220

221
222
iional Program Matrix
Annual Performance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (APM)
i
i
| Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
, miles that a) are covered under WRAS and b) were
i restored to their designated uses during the reporting
period.
I
Initiate 3 projects in priority coasta! areas to prevent or reduce > Gulf coastal priority areas with impairments caused by
the impact of invasive species \ invasive aquatic species
_ i .....
Support projects with the goal of restoring or protecting over 1 , ] Increase seagrass acreage and restore or protect coastal
000 acres of seagrasses and coastal wetlands per year. , wetlands by 20,000 acres by 2009
i
Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of [Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as
Coinpreherisive Conservation and Management Plans i part of the National Estuary Program (incremental). (CM
(CCMPs). (CG) |)
I . . I
j | Priority actions or commitments initiated nationwide as
, part of the National Estuary Program since approval of
, i the first CCMP in 1 991 (cumulative).
i
Encourage comprehensive planning for the management of < Facilitate establishment of Local Planning Groups to
dredged m aterial, and assure env.ronmentally sound disposal [ develop comprehensive plans for dredged material
of dredged material. , management, (incremental)
! Participate in the development of local comprehensive
i plans tor dredged material management (cumulative).
i
, . ,., , . , . , , , „ . , Fvaluatioii <;( data from the National Marine Debris
Identify so. irces of marine debris .along U.S coasts iMomtorinci Proqiam (RIVO
By FY 2003 Water quality will improve on a watershed basis |
such that tiOO of the Nation's 2.262 watersheds will have ' Wateisher- that Irive a renter thin 80% of nssessed
greater tlu n 80 percent of assessed wateis meeting all water >',,,„ , 'Jllr,,, -n' '.r, J|,-|,,.. ct-anH Jvic * to,*-, K m/n
quality sta idards up from 500 watersheds in 1998 (Prez & | waterb> "1e"tin9 a" wa'e' °.ua"ianadius. (i rez & CM)
CG)
Assess, restore and protect watersheds. iSWp^
1
1 TMDLs established by EPA (incremental). [Base of 630
|in FY01] (AlsoaCPM)
i TMDLs submitted by the state (cumulative). [Base of 2,
;925 in FY 01] (Also a CPM and RM)
Corr
APG/APM
Originator

Gulf
. . _ . _
Gulf

Gulf


OWOW



OWOW


OWOW

OWOW

OWOW


OWOW


OWOW

OWOW
OWOW
ipleted by: Mi
2002 Target

No Target

3

1,000


50,000



85%


3

6

1


600(FY03)


3,100

300
No Target
ke Weckesser
Unit

Miles, etc

Projects

acres


Acres



Actions


Groups

Plans

Evaluation


8-digit HUCS


TMDLs

TMDLs
TMDLs
Comments





























Red=Presidential; Blue=Ccngressional; Fucrtsia=Core Performance Measure: Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                             Page 6
                                                                                    f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
 Printed:  04/09/01  02:12:00 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
                                                                                                                                                    Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix
                                                          Completed by: Mike Weckesser
APM
Code

223



224



225



226


227



228




9*7O
t^y

230

231 /TS
#2

Annual Performance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (APM)
! TMDLs scheduled to be completed by the end of 2001
; (cumulative). [Base of 4,100 in FY 01) (Also a CPM and
|RM)
i
' Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
| miles that have water quality supporting designated
.beneficial uses, where applicable, for fish and shellfish
'consumption. (Also a CPM)
i
i Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
'miles that have water quality supporting designated
I beneficial uses, where applicable, for recreation. (Also a
,CPM)
i . . .
| Assessed river miles/lake acres/estuary square miles
I that have water quality supporting designated beneficial
i uses, where applicable, for drinking water supply. (Also a
; CPM)
! Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
i miles that have water quality supporting designated
1 beneficial uses, where applicable, for aquatic life support.
I (Also a CPM)
i
i Impaired, assessed river miles, lake acres, & estuary
1 square miles that a) are covered under WRAS and b)
| were restored to their designated uses during the
.reporting period. (Also a CPM and RM)
i
1
• Fvm
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the watei quality 'hasef "PS • ici t-^cVts to s rnort i t a -k ° ™e^jsures'
slandards-lhrough-source control process . implemenl.;ilon ofjlhe motion Project '(RM)
- I ...
i Mississippi Rivei Sub-basin Committees 1) to whom EPA
Support nutrient reduction in the Gulf of Mexico i siqnifcanuech^ ^n^^Twhic^hav^
i developed strategies for nutrient reduction (RM)
1 9 % percent of Tribes will have water quality monitoring and
assessment programs appropriate for their circumstances and | Tribes with monitoring and assessment programs
will be entering water quality data into EPA's national data > (cumulative) [19% = 105/556 Tribes].
systems. '
APG/APM
Originator

OWOW



owow



owow



owow


owow



owow



owow.
OST.
OGWDW.
OWM

owow

owow

2002 Target

No Target



No Target



No Target

. . _

No Target


No Target



No Target




-i
i

No
Commitment

105

Unit

TMDLs



OWOW



OWOW



Miles, etc


Miles, etc



Miles, etc




Measurement
System

Committees

Tribes

Comments


















•













Red=Presidential; Blue=Congmssional; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                      Page?
                                                                              f/u/s/rm t/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:12:00 PM
  FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
                                                                                                                                            Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix

                    Annual Performance Goal (APG)
II	^	
       i Percent of Tribes will have a "water program environmental
232 /TS' presence" (i.e., one or more persons, as appropriate, with
   #1   ' environmental capability to advise Tribal governments on
       | developing and implementing programs).


  ™?al ! By 2005,15% of Tribes will be reporting information to 305(b)
btr^|9y; reports.

       l
       1 By 2005,15% of Tribes will have in place TEAs (or another
       | type of agreement) developed by EPA and the Tribe that
stratp  ' include the following basic information: assessments of water
   #4  ' quality and drinking water; Tribal environmental priorities for
       'water resources; and commitments by EPA and the Tribe to
       , their respective water program environmental responsibilities.
         Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                          Completed by:  Mike Weckesser

                                                    APG/APM
                                                                                                                  Originator
          2002 Target
                                                                                                                                             Unit
                                                                                                                                                           Comments
                                                                Tribes with a water program presence (cumulative).
                                                                Number of Tribes with TEAs (or another type of
                                                                agreement) in place.  (Cumulative)
                                                       10
                                                                                                                    OWOW
                                                       10
             60%
                                                                   No
                                                               Commitment
              No
          Commitment
                                                                                                                                            Tribes
                          Tribes
                                                                                                                                            Tribes
       | By 2005, 23% of  tribes that have EPA-approved water quality
       , standards and that have demonstrated an interest in
  Tribal , establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
   #6  I under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act will wither have
        such a program in place or, in coordination with EPA, will be in
       i the process of developing such a program.
                                                     OWOW
              No
          Commitment
                                                                                                                                            Tribes
        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 not increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands.
     | Support wotlands and stream corridor restoration and
250  i management and assessment/monitoring of overall wetland
     ' health.
  251
  Tribal i By 2005, 20% of Tribes will have developed Tribal
 Strategy' conservation plans or alternate approaches for protecting
   #15  'wetlands and watersheds.
                                                               < Watershed-based wetland restoration projects to which  •
                                                               FPA hac nrnuirioH finanrial Qiinnnrf fntherthan R «5lar
                                                               , %£™ gr^jESr^                       OWOW
                                                               , assistance (cumulative).
i States/tribes developing formal programs and wetlands
i assessment capacities, aimed toward measuring wetland
| gain, loss and/or deterioration, (incremental)
OWOW
                                                     OWOW
                                                                  165
              No
          Commitment
                         Projects
                                                                                                                                         States/Tribes
                                                                                                                                            Tribes
        Objective 3:  By 2005, reduce pollutant loadings from key point and nonpoint sources by at least 11% from 1992 levels. Air deposition of key pollutants will be reduced to
        1990 levels.
Red=Presidential; Bluo=Cor gressional; Fuchsia-Core Performance Measure: Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                  Page 8
                                                                             f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:12:00 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
OW National Program Matrix Completed by: Mike Weckesser
APM
Code
Annual Performance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (APM) ! nriainator ' 2002 Target Unit Comments
Subobiective 3.1 : By 2005, using both pollution control and prevention approaches, reduce at least 3 billion pounds of annual point source loadings from key sources,
including a combined 11% reduction from industrial sources, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
Take final action on 2 and propose 3 effluent guidelines
limitations for industrial categories that contribute significantly Effluent guidelines proposed or promulgated
to pollution of surface waters. <
Take final action on 1 and propose 1 rule to reduce the
damage to the aquatic environment caused by cooling water > 316(b) regulations proposed or promulgated
intakes. '
l
Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into '
the nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges from j Major point sources are covered by current permits.
municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from i (CM)
urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs. (CG) <
' Minor point sources are covered by current permits.
,(CM)
1
i Permittees (among the approximately 900 CSO
'communities nationwide) that are covered by NPDES
! permits or other enforceable mechanisms consistent with
, the 1994 CSO policy. (Also a CPM)
i States with current storm water general permits for all
| industrial activities operating in the state.
' States with current storm water general permits for
\ construction sites over 5 acres.
'CSO acres that must have a long term CSO control plan
| and numbei of CSO acres for which a long term control
i plan is reciuired by permit or other enforceable
'mechanism (RM)
i Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) acres
'that must have a stormwater permit and number of MS4
| acres coveied for which permits have been issued. (RM)
! Current pc-rnnts on 303 (d) listed waterbodies. (RM)
| Permits requiring modification/ieissuance to implement
,the applicable WLA in approved TMDLs (RM)
r
OST
OST
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
OWM
r
3/2
_ .
1/1
90%
73%
100%
90%
100%
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
No
Commitment
Rules
Rules
Point Sources
Point Sources
Permittees
States
States
Acres
Acres
Permits
Permits





- • -



Red=Presidential; Blue=Congressional; Fuchsla=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                            Page 9
                                                                                   f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:12:00 PM
                                                          FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
                                                                             Information as of: March 16, 2001
OW National Program Matrix

                   Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                                                                                        Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
                                                                        Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                                                                           APG/APM
                                                                                                           Originator
                                                               2002 Target
                          Unit
                          Comments
   3 1 1
    "
  «..,
  314
  o 1 c
  ~16
  318
  - 1 9
  319
                                                        ' Permits tli •>.' have been modified/reissued to implement
                                                        i WLAs in approved TMDLs
        Prevent pass through of pollutants to sludge and the nation's
i Protect human health and avoid increased point source
' loadings by helping small U.S. wastewater treatment systems
, to maintain permitted performance levels.
                                                        | States with current general NPDES permits for CAFOs or
                                                        i with individual NPDES permits for all CAFOs.
                                                        I

                                                        i Comprehensive methodology tested for documenting
                                                        ' pollutants removed through increased SSO, CSO and
                                                         storm water treatment, and increased wastewater
                                                        i treatment to secondary or better standards.
I Industrial discharges of pollutants to the nation's waters will be
                    thr°U9h impiementation °f effiuent
                                                                                 Sr NPOFS
                                                          (cumu|atie) (CM)
                                                        1

                                                        i Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants as
                                                        ' predicted by model projections for NPDES permitted
                                                        | facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
                                                        i between 1992 & 2000. (cumulative) (CM)
                                                        i
                                                        \ Reduction in loadings for non-conventional pollutants as
                                                        i predicted by model projections for NPDES permitted
                                                        'facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
                                                        | between 1992 and 2000 .  (cumulative)  (CM)
                                                                Ap     d pretreatment programs audited in the reporting
' Wastewater treatment facilities maintaining permitted
 performance levels through assistance under Section
, 104(g) of the CWA.
; Reduce human health risks and nonpoint source loadings from |
, septic systems that pollute drinking water supplies,           ,
' playgrounds and beaches, back up into homes and damage   '  «     n
| shellfish and other aquatic life.                             | ' reatment systems.
                                                                                             Manaaement
                                                      OVVM
                                                                                                                     OWM
                                                                                                                     OWM
                                                      OWM
                                                                                                                     OWM
                                                      OWM
                                                                                                                     OWM
              No
         Commitment
                                                                  100%
             10.5
                                                                  572.0
                                                                                                                                1,007.0
                                                                                                                         100%
OWM
                                                      OWM
775
            Permits


            States



          Methodology
            Pounds/
             Million
                        Pounds/
                         Million
                        Pounds /
                         Millions
                                                                             Programs /
                                                                            Over 5 years
                                                                                                                                            Facilities
                         States
Red=Presidential; Blue=C< ngressional: Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; GreerpReporting Measure
                                                                                 Page 10
                                                                                                                                    f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
 Printed:  04/09/01  02:12:01 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix
                                                           Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
APM ' '
COde < Annual Performance Goal (APG) . < Annual Performance Measure (APM)
1 700 projects funded by the Clean Watei SRF will initiate '
| operations, including -100 projects providing secondary |
-*9Q i treatment advanced treatment. CSO correction (treatment). >CW SRF |.iojects thai have initiated opeiations
'and/or storm water treatment. Cumulatively. 7,900 projects '(cumulative* (Prez & CM)
| will have initiated operations since program inception. (Prez |
,andCG) ,
i i
; Reduce point source loadings by expediting completion of | ronstmction Qranf, DrQiects awarded before FY92
321 projects funded under Clean Water Act Title II (construction | «™?S?" £ -TfJ^r awaraea DeTore h YS^
• grants) and special project STAG grants. . remaimn9 to be closed out-
o22 ' ' Construction grants projects awarded after FY91 closed
| | out within 7 years of grant award.
323 | ! Special project STAG grants closed out within 7 years of
i i grant award.
324 '^.±£re!ff^
1 2000 y weather water uuanty Act ot , inc|uding priority project criteria pub|isnec|
i i ....
i Reduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the ' States that are using integrated planning and priority
325 ' $30 billion in CWSRF assets to encourage use of state funds ' systems to make CW SRF funding decisions (cumulative
! for state high-priority projects. \ ).
' | National CWSRF Federal Return on Investment, as
326 | \ measured by cumulative assistance disbursed divided by
i i cumulative federal outlays. (Base of $1.73 in 1999)
! ' ! National CWSRF loans as a percentage of funds
~27 ' ' available, as measured by the ratio of cumulative loan
' ' agreement dollars to the cumulative funds available for
! I loans (Base of 87.5% in 1999)
t i
1 ' POTWs beneficially reusing all or a part of their biosolids
oog ! Increase the beneficial use of the approximately 7 million dry \ and, where data exists, the percent of biosolids
i weight tons of biosolids produced each year .generated that are beneficially reused. (Also a CPM and
•RM)
I 1
| Increase protection of human health in Indian Country by | Homes in Indian Country whose residents are provided
28 / TS i providing adequate wastewater sanitation to more of the 71 , i with adequate wastewater sanitation systems though
#9 1 028 homes in Indian Country with inadequate wastewater ' funding from the CW SRF Tribal Set Aside Program
| sanitation systems. | (cumulative).
' By 2005, 1 00% of all major NPDES permits within Indian >
Tribal j country will be permitted using effluent guidelines limitations or
trategy , secondary treatment requirements where they apply. In ,
#8 , addition, 50% of all facilities (majors and minors) will be >
' permitted according to Clean Water Act requirements. '
APG/APM
Originator


OWM



OWM

OWM
OWM
OWM
_
OWM


OWM


OWM



OWM


OWM



OWM


2002 Target


7.900



13

90%
90%
1
. _ ..
18


$1.90


90%



55%


13%


No
MU
f*rtmmitmont
IsUHIllllUllClll

Unit


SRF Projects



Projects

Grants
Grants
Guidance
.
States


Ratio


Ratio

_ . ,.

Biosoldis


Homes



Tribes


Comments
































Red=Presidential; Blue=Congresslonal; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                       Page 11
                                                                               f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
 Printed: 04/09/01  C2:12:01 PM
                                                       FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
                        Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix
                          "
                    Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                              Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                                                                             Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
                                                                                                                  .-..-•.--
                                                                                                               Orignator
          2002 Tar9et     Unit
                             Comments
        Subobjecti ve 3.2:   By 2005, through the work of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and the private sector, nonpoint source loadings (especially sediment and nutrient
        loads) will be reduced or prevented, including a 20% reduction from 1992 levels of erosion from cropland (i.e., reduction of 235 million tons of soil eroded)
  350
  351
  352
  353
  Tribal
 Strategy
   #7
                                                             i Number of coastal States and Territories with fully
        Reduce nonpoint source sediment and nutrient loads to rivers ' approved coastal nonpoint pollution control programs
        and streams.
                                                     \ under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
                                                      Amendments of 1990. (cumulative)

                                                      Number of States and Territories reporting data on their
                                                     \ ongoing progress in implementing their nonpoint source
                                                     i programs, including geo-location of projects and load
                                                     ' reduction estimates.
                                                     \ AFOs for which Comprehensive Nutrient Management
                                                     > Plans (CNMPs) are developed (cumulative).
                                                     1 Clean Water SRF loaned for projects to prevent polluted
                                                      runoff (annual)
By 2005, 53% of Indian country w.ll have approved nonpoint
source assessment and management plans.
                                                                                                         owow
owow
owow
 OWM
owow
              18
    56
   10%
  $200M
    No
Commitment
               States /
                Tribes
States /
Tribes
 AFOs
Dollars
loaned
Tribes
        Subobjective 3.4:  By 2005, improve water quality by reducing releases of targeted persistent toxic pollutants that contribute to air deposition by 50 percent compared to
        1990 level:;, as measured by the National Toxics Inventory. Also by 2005, reduce ambient nitrates and total nitrogen deposition to 1990 levels, as measured by the National
        Atmospheric Deposition Network and the Clean Air Status and Trends Network.
        Goal 4: Pr a venting Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, Ecosystems


        Objective 6:  By 2005, EPA will assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building the tribes' capacity to implement
        environmontal management programs, and ensure that EPA is implementing programs in Indian Country where needed to address environmental issues.
  ../v,
  400
  .n.
  401
        Baseline environmental information will be collected for 50% of i Environmental assessments for Tribes, (cumulative).
        Tribes.  (GG)
                                                     ;(CM)
Environmental programs will be implemented in Indian Countiy , EPA actions authorizing program implementation in
                                                     < Indian coui.iry by Tribes (RM>
ts for Tribes, (cumulative).
ogram implementation in
RM)
lers with EPA on managing
;ountry (RM)
AIEO
AIEO
AIEO
	 	 _ ~ _
286
7
?

Ac
Tr
Red=Presidential; Blue=Congressional: Fuchsia=Core Perfotnance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                               Page 12
                                                                                                                                f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed: 04/09/01  02:12:01 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix

  APM
  Code
                                                       Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
  403
Annual Performance Goal (APG)

Annual Performance Measure (APM)
EPA piogiHins with specific Indian country commitments
(RM)
APG/APM
Originator
AIEO
2002 Target
?
•
Unit
Commitments
r
Comments

        Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks


        Objective 1:  By 2005, reduce transboundary threats to human health and shared ecosystems in North America, including marine and Arctic environments, consistent with
        our bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations in these areas, as well as our trust responsibility to tribes.
Subobjective 1.2: By 2005, the population in the U.SJMexico 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
- P - - ~- - "~ i ~ _- j-
; Increase the number of residents of the Mexico border area ; Peop|e in the Mex|CO border area protected from health
600 i damaged ecosystems from nonexistent and failing water and ' eg nftatbrfsvs terns ftmded throuahlhe^Border3 OWM
'wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved ' c-,,:,««~««i-.i !„<„.-!,..,,.,,„, c..«j ^..~..i-,n,,«\ /^M\
i . . /i-»*->\ ' tnvironmeniai inirasiruciure runo. \cumuiauve) iv^ivti
water ano wastewater service, too) t
i i
Subobjective 1.4: Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
substances, protecting human health, restoring vital habitats, and restoring and maintaining stable, diverse, and self-sustain
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including , Concentration trends of toxics ,pCBsl in Great Lakes too
progress on fish contaminants, beach toxics, air toxics, and ' ^°"5ft 'fkh TriSn
tropliic status.- (CG) ! Predator fisn (CWI>
i Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air. (CM)
i Trophic status and phosphorus concentrations in the
'Great Lakes. (CM)
1 Trend in number of monitored Great Lakes beaches
| closed one or more days as a result of pollution
! The dissolved oxygen depletion trend in Lake Erie.
n j „ r- — . i „!,«„ • •„ „ n .».,„».. ! Amount of high-ievel PCBs used in electrical equipment
Reduce Great Lakes toxic pollutants. | nationally
i Amount of mercury deliberately used nationally and
1 released nationally from sources resulting from human
\ activity.
Amount of dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
i equivalents) released from sources resulting from human
1 activity.
GLNPO
-
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
GLNPO
van Population
'3U (Thousands)
particularly by reducing the level of toxic
ng populations.
Declining
_ . .
Declining
Improving
Declining
Limited or no
Depletion
Reasonable
Progress
Reasonable
Progress
Progress
Trend
Trend
Concentration
Trend
Trend
Progress
Progress
Progress







Red=Presidential; Blue=Congress!onal; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure; Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                Page 13
                                                                         f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Printed:  04/09/01  C2:12:01 PM
FY2002 National Water Program Consolidated
Information as of: March 16, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix
                                                           Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
APM
Code
609
--•--—-• i • .... -
Annual Performance Goal (APG) ' Annual Performance Measure (APM)
1 Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated in the
Great Lakes.
APG/APM ' -nn, T,mn,
Originator;2002 Tar9et
GLNPO ! 75,000
Unit
Cubic yards
Comments

Red=Presidenlial: BIUB=Conjressional; Fuchsia=Core Performance Measure: Green=Reporting Measure
                                                                                      Page 14
                                                                               f/u/s/rmt/2002/Matrix/02consol. 123

-------
Core Performance Measures
          Section 5

-------
                         Contents


Addendum to 1997 Joint Statement on Measuring    page 5-5
Progress under NEPPS: Clarifying the Use and
Applicability of Core Performance Measures

FY2000-01 Core Performance Measures for Water     page 5-11


Comparison Between Core Performance Measures      page 5-14
and FY 2002 Annual Performance Measures


Information Sources and Reporting for Water       page 5-18
Core Performance Measures

-------
 ADDENDUM TO 1997 JOINT STATEMENT ON MEASURING PROGRESS UNDER NEPPS:
  CLARIFYING THE USE AND APPLICABILITY OF CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

When EPA and States initiated the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS),
our goals were to achieve greater environmental protection, better measurement of environmental
progress, and the  most efficient use of public resources in achieving these goals. While States vary in the
extent to which they actively participate hi specific aspects of NEPPS, the basic concept of performance
partnerships guides State-EPA relationships throughout the country. The development of Core
Performance Measures (CPMs) that has taken place under NEPPS auspices has been successful in
focusing both EPA and State attention on improving how we measure the effectiveness of our
environmental protection efforts.

In August 1997, leaders of ECOS and EPA signed a Joint Statement on Measuring Progress under
NEPPS. The Joint Statement has served as a guidance document for use of CPMs. It also established a
hierarchy of CPMs which was attached to the Joint Statement and is hereby reaffirmed. The purpose of
this addendum is  to clarify and update certain principles, guidance and time frames as originally
referenced in the  August 1997 Joint Statement. This Addendum accompanies a revised and updated set
of Core Performance Measures. It is in effect during the life of the 1995 NEPPS Agreement unless
otherwise amended.

This addendum addresses and clarifies four key issues. These issues generally relate to the
implementation and use of Core Performance Measures, Associated Reporting Requirements, and
Accountability Measures (hereafter referred to as CPMs).  The clarifications presented below constitute
official amendments to the Joint Statement.

Core Performance Measures: What Are They?

CPMs are a limited set of national measures, designed to help gauge progress towards protection of the
environment and  public health. They include a mix of three types of measures (as arrayed in the CPM
hierarchy) needed to understand environmental programs and their effectiveness: (.1) environmental
indicators (high level trends describing  environmental and public health conditions), (2) program
outcomes (measures of program influence or effect), and (3) program outputs (measures of program
activities).  CPMs, based on data collected and reported primarily by States, serve the NEPPS objective
of 'managing for environmental results' by:

•  driving a system of measurement based on performance (with an emphasis on shifting "up the
   hierarchy" described above, to more meaningful reporting of environmental results);
•  providing States and the Nation as a whole with the information and tools to increase accountability
   and make policy, resource or other changes to support improvements in environmental conditions;
   and
•  providing a benchmark upon which States and EPA can focus efforts to reduce high cost/low value
   reporting for public and private entities.

In addition to using CPMs to help paint a national picture  of environmental progress, States may wish to
use additional indicators and measures to reflect progress toward State-specific goals and objectives. The
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) negotiated between EPA and States under NEPPS reflect

                                          Page 5-5

-------
both State and Federal priorities, and, in addition to CPMs, may include State-specific environmental
goals, objectives, indicators, and performance measures.

Together, EPA and ECOS have led, with  participation by a number of other state organizations, the
development of enhanced FY2000 CPMs for water, ah-, 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
piugiain iiiciiiagcis wii.li information uii  environmental conditions turn trends, important program
outcomes, and key program activities.  EPA and States will strive to reduce the number of core program

                                           Page 5-6

-------
output measures in favor of outcome measures and environmental indicators. CPMs do not attempt to
capture the full range of information needed to manage environmental programs at the national, regional
or state level; environmental managers at all levels will, in most cases, need additional information to
guide program management decisions. As stated in the Joint Statement, "...information about activities
(e.g., permitting) is routinely reported each year and maintained 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 5-7

-------
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/'vai uc 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 5-8

-------
States need to work together to ensure that the reporting of CPM data is efficient and improvements in
data collection and reporting are made where possible.

CPMs serve to frame discussions of what reporting meets the value/cost test, by spelling out what
information EPA and States jointly believe to be highest priority. Information not necessary to support
CPMs then becomes subject to review according to value/cost criteria, and is a candidate for burden
reduction. Together, EPA and States (as well as other suppliers and users of environmental information)
will work to ensure that they collect and share information that has "specific and demonstrable uses," as
outlined in the State/EPA Vision and Operating Principles for Environmental Information Management.
The Joint Work Group should, in coordination with EPA and ECOS CPM Work Groups, expeditiously
design a process for accomplishing this review and identifying opportunities for burden reduction.

A State/Regional dialogue provides the best entry point for investigating what information ~ especially
information beyond that required to report on CPMs ~ is needed for States and EPA to do their
respective jobs.  EPA and States need to create an atmosphere that promotes working  together to
explore possibilities for reducing high cost/low value reporting, and that encourages  States and EPA
Regions to test and apply specific initiatives to reduce high cost/low value reporting through their PPAs
at the earliest  possible time.  EPA  Regions should consult EPA national program  offices prior to
implementing any initiatives that change national reporting requirements. EPA and ECOS support the
establishment of a clearinghouse of successful initiatives and pilot projects in specific States and Regions
to improve the value and reduce the cost of information.
                                        Page 5-9

-------
Extension of Joint Statement

The'Joint Statement on Measuring Progress Under NEPPS, signed in August 1997, applied to FY98 and
FY99.  It is hereby extended to apply for FY 2000 and beyond, during the life of the 1995 NEPPS
Agreement, subject to the amendments and clarifications contained in this Joint Statement Addendum.
Specific references in the original Joint Statement to CPMs for FY 98 or FY 99 are also amended to apply
for FY 2000, and beyond, as applicable.
This Addendum is effective as of the date of signature.
Robert Varney,              Date              Carol Browner,             Date
New Hampshire DBS,                          EPA Administrator
ECOS President
Lewis Shaw,                                  Linda Rimer,
South Carolina DHEC,                         EPA Deputy Associate Administrator
ECOS Vice-President
Langdon Marsh,                               J. Charles Fox,
Oregon DEQ,                                 EPA Assistant Administrator
Chair, ECOS Strategic Planning Committee
                                         Page 5-10

-------
                                                     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 and 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 are 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 5-11

-------
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 are covered by
NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanisms
consistent with the 1994 CSO policy.

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.

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 FY1997 and
Future Years jointly transmitted by EPA and
ASWIPCA). (This CPM is discontinued  in  2001.)
                                                              Page 5-12

-------
     Comparison Between Core Performance Measures as Agreed to with ECOS April 1999
        and Core Performance Measure Language included in FY 02 President's Budget
                                 as Annual Performance Measures
Core Performance Measures
   as Agreed to with ECOS
         (April 1999)
    Parallel EPA Annual
   Performance Measure
  (APM) included in FY 02
      OMB Submission
        Comments
1.  Number of: a) community
   drinking water systems and
   percent of population served by
   community water systems, and
   b) non-transient, non-
   community drinking water
   systems, and percent of
   population served by such
   systems, with no violations
   during the year of any federally
   enforceable health-based
   standard.
% of population served by
community drinking water systems
with no violations during the year
of any federally enforceable
health-based standards that were in
place by 1994.

% of population served by
non-community, non-transient
drinking water systems with no
violations during the year of any
federally enforceable health-based
standards that were in place by
1994.
Split into two measures to allow
2 different targets to be entered
into EPA's 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.
                                 Work overtaken by Source Water
                                 Contamination Prevention
                                 Strategy in 2000-01.
   Percent of river miles and lake
   acres that have been assessed for
   the need for fish consumption
   advisories; and compilation of
   State-issued fish consumption
   advisory methodologies, as
   reported through the National
   Listing of Fish and Wildlife
   Advisories.
Percent of river miles assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.

Percent of lake acres assessed for
the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of
state-issued fish consumption
advisory methodologies.
Two APMs allows for separate
targets for river miles and lake
acres.

Neither APM contains last clause
in CPM due to space constraints
in BAS.
                                              Page 5-13

-------
Core Performance Measures
   as Agreed to with ECOS
          (April 1999)
    Parallel EPA Annual
   Performance Measure
  (APM) included in FY 02
      OMB Submission
         Comments
4.   Number and percent of assessed
    river miles, lake acres, and
    estuary square miles that have
    water quality supporting
    designated beneficial uses,
    including, where applicable, for:
    a) fish and shellfish
    consumption; b) recreation; c)
    aquatic life support; d) drinking
    water supply.  (The reporting
    period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for fish and shellfish consumption.

Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for recreation.

Assessed river miles, lake acres,
and estuary square miles that have
water quality supporting designated
beneficial uses, where applicable,
for aquatic life support.

Assessed river miles/lake
acres/estuary square miles that
have water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses, where
applicable, for drinking water
supply.
Split CPM into 4 separate APMs
in order to array the APMs under
the most applicable
subobjectives.
5.  Number and percent of
   impaired, assessed river miles,
   lake acres, and estuary square
   miles that a) are covered under
   Watershed Restoration Action
   Strategies, and b) were restored
   to their designated uses during
   the reporting period.  (The
   reporting period is two years.)
Assessed river miles, lake acres, &
estuary square miles that a) are
covered under WRAS and b) were
restored to their designated uses
during the reporting period.
APM doesn't contain the word
"impaired".
6.   The TMDL status for each state;
    including:
    a. The number of TMDLs
    identified on the 1998 303(d)
    list that the State and EPA have
    committed to produce during the
    current two-year cycle.
    b. The number of these TMDLs
    submitted by the State to EPA.
    c. The number of
    states-established TMDLs
    approved by EPA.
    d. The number of
    tKA-established i iviDLs.
    (This cumulative measure can
    be reported jointly by EPA and
    the States.)
Number of TMDLs established by
EPA (cumulative).

Number of TMDLs scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2001
(cumulative).

Number of TMDLs submitted by
the state (cumulative).

Number of state-established
TMDLs approved (cumulative).
                                                Page 5-14

-------
Core Performance Measures
   as Agreed to with ECOS
         (April 1999)
    Parallel EPA Annual
   Performance Measure
  (APM) included in FY 02
      OMB Submission
         Comments
7.   Percent of POTWs that are
    beneficially reusing all or a part
    of their biosolids and, where
    data exists, the percent of
    biosolids generated that are
    beneficially reused.
POTWs that are beneficially
reusing all or a part of their
biosolids and, where data exists,
the percent of biosolids generated
that are beneficially reused.
8.  Number and percent of facilities
   that have a discharge requiring
   an individual permit: a) that are
   covered by a current individual
   NPDES permit; b) that have
   expired individual permits; c)
   that have applied for but not
   been issued an individual
   permit, and d) that have
   individual permits under
   administrative or judicial
   appeal.
% of major point sources covered
by current permits.

% of minor point sources covered
by current permits.
APM significantly shorter than
CPM. APMs focus only on
sources with current permits.
9.   Number of storm water sources
    associated with industrial
    activity, number of construction
    sites over five acres, and number
    of designated storm water
    sources (including Municipal
    Phase I) that are covered by a
    current individual or general
    NPDES permit.
% of states with current storm
water general permits for all
industrial activities operating in the
state.

% of states with current storm
water general permits for
construction sites over 5 acres.
APMs in terms of states rather
than sources.

No parallel APM to the
municipal storm water portion of
the CPM.

Clarification by adding "storm
water general" to measures
10.  Number of permittees (among
     the approximately 900 CSO
     communities nationwide) that
     are covered by NPDES permits
     or other enforceable
     mechanisms consistent with the
     1994 CSO policy.
% of permittees (among the
approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that are
covered by NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms consistent
with the 1994 CSO policy.
APM is in terms of percent while
CPM is in terms of number.
11.   Number and percent of
     approved pretreatment
     programs audited in the
     reporting year. Of those, the
     number of audits finding
     significant shortcomings and
     the number of local programs
     upgraded to achieve
     compliance.
% of approved pretreatment
programs audited in the reporting
year. Of those, the number of
audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of
local programs upgraded to achieve
compliance.
APM in terms of percent only
while CPM is in terms of number
and percent.
                                                Page 5-15

-------
Core Performance Measures
  as Agreed to with ECOS
         (April 1999)
    Parallel EPA Annual
   Performance Measure
  (APM) included in FY 02
     OMB Submission
        Comments
12.  EPA will report to Congress on
    the pace of the Clean Water
    State Revolving Fund (CW
    SRF) Program. (EPA and
    States are working to develop
    an outcome measure for the
    CW SRF.)
EPA will report to Congress on the
pace of the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program.
No differences.
13. Number of EPA approvals of
   State submitted upgraded
   Nonpoint Source Programs
   (incorporating the nine key
   elements outlined in the national
   Nonpoint Source Program and
   Grants Guidance for FY 1997
   and Future Fears jointly
   transmitted by EPA and
   ASWIPCA). 	
                               This measure is not being
                               continued in 2001.
                                            Page 5-16

-------
                                  Information Sources and Reporting
                                                    for
                           FY 2001-02 Water Core Performance Measures
           Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
                   for Measure
1.   Number of: a) community drinking water systems
    and percent of population served by community
    water systems, and b) non-transient, non-
    community drinking water systems, and percent of
    population served by such systems, with no
    violations during the year of any federally
    enforceable health-based standard.
Source: SDWIS. Every drinking water system —
community as 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.
Work overtaken by Source Water Contamination
Prevention Strategy in 2000-01.
3.   Percent of river miles and lake acres that have
    been assessed for the need for fish consumption
    advisories; and compilation of State-issued fish
    consumption advisory methodologies, as reported
    through the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
    Advisories.
Source: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories. In calendar year (CY)
1998, States submitted information to EPA on paper
and EPA entered the data into the database; starting in
CY 1999, States may enter data directly into the
database.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
4.  Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake
    acres, and estuary square miles that have water
    quality supporting designated beneficial uses,
    including, where applicable, for: a) fish and
    shellfish consumption; b) recreation; c) aquatic
    life support; d) drinking water supply.  (The
    reporting period is two years.)
Source: State Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
5.  Number and percent of impaired, assessed river
    miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles that a)
    are covered under Watershed Restoration Action
    Strategies, and b) were restored to their designated
    uses during the reporting period.  (The reporting
    period is two years.)
Source: For part (a), as part of Watershed Restoration
Action Strategies submission, report which watersheds
(8-digit HUC or finer detail) are covered by strategies
(EPA will deduce stream miles, etc.). For part (b),
States are encouraged to use Clean Water Act Section
305(b) reports.
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
                                                 Page 5-17

-------
           Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
                  for Measure
6.   The TMDL status for each state; including:
    a. The number of TMDLs identified on the 1998
    303(d) list that the State and EPA have committed
    to produce during the current two-year cycle.
    b. The number of these TMDLs submitted by the
    State to EPA.
    c. The number of states-established TMDLs
    approved by EPA.
    d. The number of EPA-established TMDLs.
    (This cumulative measure can be reported jointly
    by EPA and the States.)
Source: (1) Biennially-required Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) Lists which include TMDL schedule
and (2) TMDL Submittals
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
7.   Percent of POTWs that are beneficially reusing all
    or a part of their biosolids and, where data exists,
    the percent of biosolids generated 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. We do not
have this information for most storm water sources.
Wliat to Report: No separate reporting required. The
reason our measure is "States" instead of "Sources" is
because most sources are covered by general permits
and we have no access to information on the sources
that submit notices of intent to be covered by state
general permits.
10.  Number of permittees (among the approximately
     900 CSO communities nationwide) that are
     covered by NPDES permits or other enforceable
     mechanisms consistent with the 1994 CSO
     policy.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS).
Informal dialogue between EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regions and States.
What to Report: status of NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms for CSOs
11.  Number and percent of approved pretreatment
     programs audited in the reporting year. Of
     those, the number of audits finding significant
     shortcomings and the number of local programs
     upgraded to achieve compliance.
Source: Permits Compliance System (PCS). Key
information for this measure are audit dates. State
reporting.
What to Report: States would need to report to EPA
the number of audits finding significant
shortcomings and the number of lucal programs
upgraded to achieve compliance as this
information is not tracked in PCS.
                                                 Page 5-18

-------
           Core Performance Measure
Source of Information / What Needs to be Reported
                  for Measure
12.   EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF)
    Program. (EPA and States are working to
    develop an outcome measure for the CW SRF.)
Source: State Revolving Fund Information System
What to Report: No separate reporting required.
13. Number of EPA approvals of State submitted
   upgraded Nonpoint Source Programs
   (incorporating the nine key elements outlined in
   the national Nonpoint Source Program and
   Grants Guidance for FY1997 and Future Years
   jointly transmitted by EPA and ASWIPCA).
Source: Upgraded state nonpoint source programs
submitted by states to EPA
What to Report: No separate reporting required.

This measure is discontinued in FY01.
                                               Page 5-19

-------
Timeline
  Section 6

-------
                    Contents





Calendar by Date                          page 6-5





 Calendar by Topic                         page 6-9

-------
       Water Accountability Key Dates for FY 2001/2002
FY2001
April
27
May
08

11


11

During


End


June
Beginning


Beginning


Mid



End
 OPAA issued Mid-Year Guidance for FY 2002 Congressional Measures (CMs) for
 which data is available

(Original plan was to issue final FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance early in
     Feb with final National Program Guidance issued at the end of April)
 FY 01 Mid-Year Reports due to OW Immediate Office

 Draft FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance to Regions

 FY 01 Mid-Year Reporting due to OPAA

 Feedback to OW on draft FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance to Regions

 Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FY01 Mid-Year Results



 Begin FY03 APG/APM Development

 Investment Proposals for FY 03 submitted

 Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
 disinvestments, and other budget issues

 Final FY 2002 / 03 National Program Guidance issued
July
Beginning

18
End
 OMB issues Circular A-l 1 to all Federal Agencies

 OW issues Guidance for the FY 02 Management Agreements

 FY 03 Planning and Budget Guidance
                                     Page 6-5

-------
August
03          FY 03 draft APGs/APMs to OW Immediate Office

17          FY 03 OW Annual Plan & Budget Submitted to OCFO

20          OPAA Guidance on FY 01 Annual Performance Report

End          FY 03 OMB Annual Plan and Budget Submission to OCFO

September
Beginning      Draft FY02 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will use
            as basis for negotiation)

Mid month      FY 03 Annual Plan & Budget Submission to OMB

During        Negotiations begin on FY 02 Management Agreements

End          FY 01 End-of-Year Performance Data Reporting Guidance on all APMs


FY2002

October
Mid month      First draft of FY 01 Annual Performance Report due to OCFO

During        Negotiations on FY 02 Management Agreements

November
02          End of Year Data for FY 01 due to OW Immediate

09          End of Year Data for FY 01 due to OPAA; entered in BAS

30          Signed FY 02 Management Agreements between HQ and Regions

End          OMB informs EPA about their decisions on FY 03 budget request-'Tassback"


December
Beginning      Option of appeal to OMB and the President / for reversal or modifications on
            certain decisions-OMB and Administrator work to resole issues


                                    Page 6-6

-------
End
January
Mid-month
Revisions to FY 02 Annual Performance Goals and Measures to reflect any budget
changes.

Finale negotiations with OMB, if any, on FY 03 APGs/APMs
Review First Draft of FY 01 Annual Performance Report

FY 03 Presidential Budget due-EPA prepares and OMB reviews Congressional
Budget justification materials

Revising FY 02/03 National Program Guidance
February
04           FY03 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to Congress
Beginning


March
01

29
April
05

19

19

26

May


June
Draft Update FY 2002/03 Program Guidance to Regions (post issuance of
President's Budget to Congress)
EPA FY2000 Performance Report to Congress

OPAA Guidance on Mid-Year Reporting for FY2003- Congressional

House and Senate Appropriations Committees indicate their preferences regarding
budget matters for which they are responsible



FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting Guidance to Regions

FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting due to Water Immediate

Final Update FY2002/03 National Program Guidance to Regions

FY 02 Mid-Year Reporting Data due to OPAA; enter data into BAS



Goal 2 Briefing for Deputy Administrator on FY 02 Mid-Year Results
                                     Page 6-7

-------
July
Beginning

Beginning

Beginning


Mid

End
17


20





31
             Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
             disinvestments, and other budget issues
Investment Proposals for 2004 submitted

OMB issues Circular A-l 1 to all Federal Agencies

OW issues Guidance for the FY 2003 Management Agreements


Final Passback from OMB on FY 04

FY 03 Planning and Budget Guidance
August
03           FY 04 draft APGs/APMs to OW Immediate Office
FY 04 OW Annual Plan & Budget Submitted to OCFO

OPAA Guidance on FY 02 Annual Performance Report

FY 04 OMB Plan and Budget Submission to OCFO

Negotiated and Consolidated FY 03 MA commitments to OW Immediate Office
September
Beginning       Draft FY 03 Management Agreements from Regions (HQ Program Offices will
             use as basis for negotiation)

Mid month       F Y04 Annual Plan and Budget submitted to OMB

During         Negotiations begin on FY 03 Management Agreements

End          • FY 02 End-of-Year Performance Data Reporting Guidance on all APMs
                                      Page 6-8

-------
              Key Accountability and Budget Dates by Topic Area
                       (All dates are 2001 unless otherwise stated.)
National Program Guidance
- 04/27       OPAA issue guidance on FY02/03 program guidance
- 05/08       issue draft to FY02/03 program guidance
- 06/09       issue final to FY02/03 program guidance
- 02/08/02    issue draft update FY02/03 program guidance
- 04/19/02    issue final update FY02/03 program guidance
FY2002 Management Agreement
- 07/06       OW guidance
- 09/04       draft MAs due to HQ
-11/30       all MAs signed
FY2003 Management Agreement
- early June     OW guidance
- early Sept     draft MAs due to HQ
- end Nov      all MAs signed
FY01 Mid-Year Report
04/27        issue mid-year reporting guidance
05/08        responses from Regions and HQ program offices due to Mike Weckesser
05/11        mid-year data due in Agency system
End May        Goal 2 Team Meeting with Deputy Administrator to report mid-year results
FY01 End-of-Year Report for the National Water Program
- End Sept     issue guidance to Regions
-11/02       data due to HQ
-11/09       data due to OPAA
FY01 Annual Performance Report
- 08/20       OPAA guidance
-mid/end Nov   first draft to OPAA
- Jan. '01     review final draft
- 03/0/02     submit report to Congress
                                      Page 6-9

-------
FY2003 Budget and Annual Plan
- Spring/
Summer
-June

-July
-July:
- early July
- mid/end-July
- 08/03
- early/mid Sept
-Dec.
- 2/4/02
APGs/APMs development

Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
disinvestments, and other budget issues
Investment Proposals submitted
Budget Forum
OMB issues budget guidance
OCFO issues budget guidance
draft APGs / APMs to OW
submit to OMB
finalize APGs/APMs
submit to Congress
FY2004 Budget and Annual Plan (Dates for FY 04 are in 2002)
- spring/       APGs/APMs development
Summer
- June        Senior Leadership Council meets to discuss cross-media and cross-goal priorities,
             disinvestments, and other budget issues
- July        Investment Proposals submitted
- July        Budget Forum
- early July     OMB issues budget guidance
- mid/end July   OCFO issues budget guidance
- early Aug     draft APGs / APMs to OW
- early/mid Sept  Submit to OMB
                                      Page 6-10

-------
Mid-Year and End-of-Year
        Reporting
          Section 7

-------
                    Contents

Mid- Year and End-of- Year Reporting         page 7-05
FY2001 Management Matrix                page 7-07

-------
       Mid-Year and End of Year Reporting

As indicated in the calendar of key dates in this national program guidance, mid-year and end of year
reporting will be required by Regions, HQ Program Offices, and Great Water Body Offices for the
annual performance measures for which they made commitments against in the F Y2001 Management
Agreement. The Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability is requiring mid-year information
for all Congressional performance measures for which such information is available. End of April
/ beginning of May, 2000 is the projected due date for mid-year reporting. Early November, 2001,
is the projected due date for end of year reporting for ALL performance measures.

Templates and guidance for reporting mid-year and end of year results will be provided several weeks
before each due date. Ultimately, the information provided by HQ Program Offices, Regions, and
Great Water Body Offices will be very important to the preparation of the FY 2001 Annual
Performance Report to Congress.

In addition, in recognition of the highlighted Agency-wide priorities of  Children's Health,
Reinvention, and the Persistent, Bioaccumulative Pollutant Initiative, Regions, HQ Program Offices,
and Great Water Body Offices should include with their End of Year Report a brief narrative that
describes with specificity how these four cross-agency priorities were reflected in their work.

The  Goal 2 Chapter for the Agency's FYOO  Annual Performance Report and  the  final
accomplishments for all FYOO annual performance measures for the National  Water Program are
provided on the following pages.
                                      Page7-5

-------
 Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:28 AM
                                                                                                 FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Information as of:  April 9, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final

Completed by:_J«ike_vyeckesser

  APM
 1 M    '            Annual Performance Goal (APG)
1 By 2005, 15% of Tribes will have In jjlace TEAs (or another i i i i
i type of agreement) developed by EPA and the Tribe that i i i
y'£ 49 , quality and drinking water; Tribal environmental priorities for agreement) in place. (Cumulative) i i i
water resources; and commitments by EPA and the Tribe to
their respective water program environmental responsibilities.
Objective 1: By 2005, protect human health to that 95% of the population served by community water systems will receive water that meets drinking water standards, consumption of contaminated fish and sN
contamination In waters used for recreation will be reduced. • ' • ' '
1 1 II
1 1 II
n i No i Tribes ' ' ^eQ'on Reporting
i Commitment , ( , at end of FY
ii ii
i i ii
	 1 . . - J...- . ..'-r-.. ,,-,-U. ... - .- ....
- * - '"' •' • ' £"'.* * tt' »"- ' ''tji" •.(
Ufish will b« retfuced, and exposure to mlcrbblal and other forms of
-::"•.;•.; -^ ; *;>••:•> ^/••r,-" "--"^
' . "; ' v; " •-"'.'• :'r".,-- -";-' - ""; ' ' > '.'•'
'•.•••''••'• 	 	 	 	 i 	 	 .'..'. ''•'.,.;•». v .' :<•.•••(-' !,•',-> •-'.'•• '••'..' '-- W, •'*'••' '-i •' ••'•:• •',-.(-'•'
Suboblectlve 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. • .-'.••_• •<•• "' V.V.7 " , '• ' ' ': •'/«'•.'
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 i that will receive drinking water meeting all health-based 'year of any federally enforceable health-based '90%
i standards that were In effect as of 1894. (CG) i standards that were in place by 1994. (Also a Core I
i | i Performance Measure (CPU)). i
19n i ' systems with no violations during the year of any ' -,„
1 I ; I federally enforceable health-based standards that were I
1 inplacaby 1994 (AlsoaCPMandaCM) i
Protect human health and ensure compliance with health- rnuu«Dc «»:»,*« thai k...a iniiia*.H nn*«.i-nn. r
lag ' based drinking water standards through use of the Drinking i DWRF projects that have in.bated operations , 6Q
'Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). , (cumulative). ,
104 r rOWSRF assistance agreements to community and Son-' 150
' 'community drinking water systems (cumulative). >
,0, Kr^Knffi !st,,esr uc.at.dprimacyfonESWTR/Stag. 1 DBP. I „
' through public notification (PN). > (Reporting APM) ,
1 i I
102 ' , States that have adopted the lESWTR/Stage 1 DBP. 1
	 L 	 _ _ '
121 i ' States with updated primacy for CCR. (Reporting APM)1 2
122 i ' States with updated primacy for PN. (Reporting APM) > 0
_ , - _ J. l
123 , i States that have adopted the CCR. i 3
124 ! i States (hat have adopted the PN. , 0
tezttsstex--* \™
™ : .
y «" 'in 1996. 95% compliance will be achieved for any new i^SDWIS „ I da,. deTemine ^KfieoEns the
| standard, within 5 year, after the effect date of each rule. l±£^±£i^ J^"*""" "" |
i i r i rrrri — r
96% i 96% ' 96% l 93% 96% ' 96% 94% l 96% ' 96% > • I OGWDW
ill l l I I l I
I i • l l i ' l i l i
89% j 91% [ 93% I 92% 91% ] 91% | 91% j 91% ] 85% j • | OGWDW
1 1 1 l 1 1 1 l 1 1
195 ! 28 ' 110 '125 3 ' 43 ' 45 ' 32 35 ' • ' OGWDW
III III I !
313 , 140 , 242 , 350 43 , 150 , 100 ,62 170 , • , OGWDW
t I 2 ; 5 ; 6 ; 3 ; 1 ; 3 ; 3 ; 3 • ; OGWDW
i i i i i i i i i
1I4'5'0I4I23I5'31'1 OGWDW
LI L t L L 1 J i
1'2i7l4l3i3'3l4i4l'l OGWDW
OiOi1iOi1iO>3iOiti'i OGWDW
1 ,4,8,1 ,4,3I315|4|-| OGWDW
r . . ,. _ ^ . . ,. _ . r - - r - - 4- - - ^ - - r -- T -.- T -^^
i rrrr^TTTT
83% | N/A [ 90% j 94% | 60% j 60% | 60% j 60% | 55% | • ] OGWDW
l l 1 j I ' I l 1 I
r i r r i t i i T T
i i i i i i i i ii
.'.I.1.1.1.1.1.!.1.! „„,.»,,.,
ill ill II OGVVTJW
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
. Subobjectlv* 1.2: By 2005, standard* that establish protective levels for an additional 10 high-risk contaminant* (e.g., disinfection byproducts, arsenic, radon) will be Issued.
P_ _____ _ _ _ -j-— |_)_PPPJ_P^.^_^.-J.^^.___
i Expand public health protection through: 1) promulgation of i i i i i i i i i i i
<««&^ ,R.gu,aton, promulgated/proposed. .... . . . , ^^
backwash, and 2) making determinations whether or not to reg i i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 	 T 	 1 1 	
1 l 11
95% l 96% l Population l 99% l
l l 
l_ l_ J J_
33 l 25 1 States ' 132% I
6 i 10 i States ' 60% i
36 , 35 , States I 103% ,
11 | 25 1 States i 44% |~
i ~\ ' ~ r
«* i 60% ! si,,?.™ i "°* 1
1 1 ' 1
i i i r
i i i i
n ' No i Dn™.i,4i— ' ' Region Reporting
0 l Commitment i "PUlrton , , |,endofFY"
l i i l
i l > i
:' •• '•-.:>'.-• ^•••'^"-'.•'^:-l'::'^-^p''--
	 ,--'_•__-.. .->-_ . . — -• iv _• _ -•_- 1. - -.
i i li
SiSi Regulations > 100% i
i i ii
CG ° Congressional Goal / CM " Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                      Page 7 - 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        OWFinal01.123

-------
 Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:29AM
                                                                                                      FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement • Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Information as of:  April 9. 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final
APM
Code
106
108
Annual '•rformance Goal (APG) Annual Performance Measure (ARM)
Risk analyses completed in support or new regulations.
Regulatory determinations for potentially harmful
contaminants.
R1
R2
r~ r • -i - -i- --i — 	 --r 	 —
' R3 R4 i R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 $*^
I I i i 1
1 1 I I 1
1 1 t ' 1
t * i * i * i " i * * " * 5
i i i i i
i l l l l
Subobjectlve 1.3: B\ 2005, 50 percent of the population eerved by community water eyeteme will receive their water from eysteme with eource water protection programa In place.
105
127
Tribal
Stratog
ylU
1 States and community water systems increase efforts and Population served by community water systems that
1 programs to protect lh< sir source water resources, including ' are implementing efforts to protect their source water
i ground water. i resources.
r TCWSs implementing efforts to protect their source
i i water resources.
, | Definitions: source water assessment: same process as
( protection programs ir place. , whether a protection plan is needed; the releasing of
, , the results to the public will also help.
0.2
350
•
' 7.3
l 25
I •
I
I
0.6 i 1.0 1.0 0.0 i 0.1 i 0.9 ' 0,0 l 1.9 ' '
i i i i i 1
40 , 150 200 20 , 50 , 97 , 0 , 195 , *
i i t i i i
l l i 1 l l
i l i l i i
l l i 1 l l
Subobjeetivo 1.4: By 2005, Increase protection of ground water resources by managing all Class I, Class II, and Clan III Injection wells and by managing Identified high-risk Class V wells In 100% of
etc.). 1 1
111
112
113
114
115
1d5
Tribal
Stnteg
y»H
.Through.the UIC prog am, EPA will contribute to the protection
1 of ground water sourl es of drinking water from potential ' States that have formally adopted the Class V rule. i
1 endangqrment. ' '
i ! Class IVA/ wells (by well type) brought under specific i
i i controls through permits or closures. ,
i J_ i
i i i
' ' issue proposed Phase 2 UIC Class V regulatory action.
1 ' Number of wetts tested for mechanical integrity. '
1 '(Reporting APM) '
L 1 l
i l Injection wells losing mechanical integrity that were i
, , adequately addressed. (Reporting APM) ,
i i UtC wells plugged as a direct action by the UIC '
i i program or indirectly by another program working in i
i , partnership with UIC to protect ground water sources of ,
t drinking water, ,
i i Injection welt means at) Class 1, II. Ill, IV and V wells as i
i | defined in the regulations. "Managed" Class 1, II, III, or ,
By 2005, increase pro (action of groundwater resources by V well is a well which is in compliance with its permit or |
managing all Class 1, fl. and III injection wells in Indian country is authorized by rule. "Managed" Class IV wells, which
1 and by managing iden lified. high-risk Tribal class V wells in ' are banned, means eliminated through immediate '
1 100% of high priority protection areas {e.gh. Tribal priority i action. "Identified" means known to UIC implementing i
l areas, well head prote ction, sole source aquifer or source i agency. High priority protection areas: For (he short i
l water protection area: .) I term will be defined on a Region-specific basis and may t
. include SSAs, WHPs, etc. For the long-term, this will ,
' ' be defined '
i i i
0
50


N/A
N/A
N/A
|
; so
i

i
i 150
l. _ .
' 100%
! 35
1
1
1
1
1
1114111411131112'*
i i < i i i l i i
APG/APM Natlona? .
Originator Total
OST 1
OGWDW 5

1 OGWDW l 13.0
I i
, OGWDW , 1,127
i i
l l
1 OGWDW ' 0
l l
1 i


l
I

001 Target Unit
4 Analyses
5 s'

__ ( _ .- — _
36.0 Million
6.500 CWSs
I
i No Systems /
, Commitment People
i
i i
•1 -' ~ ------ - -•--=
%TB?i?*t Comments
100%
Rules may not be
developed for the
n 100% al least 5
contaminants
determined

1
l

i
1
1
1
1

36%
17%


T ••. — •. — —

Region Reporting
at end of FY
high priority protection areas (e.g., wellhead, source water, sole eource aquifer,
r
l OGWDW 1 18
I l
1 80 ' 5 '60 ' 300 ' 50 ' 60 ' 55 ' 175 ' * ' OGWDW ' 885
i I i I I I I I I I i
L _ , I _. .. I .. _ L _ I 1 1,1 _ 1 ' L


r ' i ' T r " r t~ ~ i r ~ i "
i 150 i 655 i 1.500 20,000,3,000 i 106 1 3,91 3 , 156 i *
L 1- 1 J J 1 L . L I
1 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' 100% ' '
I I I i I I I I I
i i . • i ~ ' r i i ~ i"
1 100 ; 40 ' 150 ' 1300 ' 150 ' 75 ; 21 ' 0 ' *
I ! • • I ' ! ! !
i i • i ' i , i
i • i * : • ' * , • ' • , • , • ,
i i ' • i i i i t
1 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ! t
i i ' ' i ' i i i
i _ ' ' 1 1 1 - i '
1 OGWOW ' 1
1 i
l ~i
1 OGWDW i 29,630
1 . l
1 OGWDW 90%
1 OGWDW , 1,871
l
, OGWDW 1 0
1 ]
' 1
Subobjectlve 1.5: B]i 2005, consumption of contaminated fleh end ehellfleh will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated uses protecting the consumption of fish and shellfish will Increase.
119
120
! Reduce consumption ,t contaminated fish by increasing the ! S" ^.S^u^ sS'rvt tolSiSaBvel end Fi.h * ''
information available t ) the public and decision-makers. , samp|M aaKM ^ s,Sand „ io^5 for fisn ,
^bupponscwAH) i advisory decisions. (Reporting APM) i
1 wfuhav^been^assess ed todetefrnine'ff tha^conUiin fish^n? ' Lake acr" "?sessed 'T1"" "eed for fish advisories i

•
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i3 lakes i i 1)40 i JJJJi .
, state; , , (LA, , 8S gnd , N/A , 256 /
1 III ! |
1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' , 17%
T r
OST/RT 0
OST 17%
i
t
i
i
l
i
i
•
34
500
1
30.150
1 100%
1.500
i
1 No
1 Commitment
i

1

States
Wells
Action
Tests
Wells
Wells
Managed
Wells

I 	
250 / Samples
17% Lake Acres
I1
1
1

l
i
r
1
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
l

1
t
i
l
l
i
53%
177%
100%
98%
90%
125%

102%'
100%
1 	
i
i
l more than one rey,
i may be developed
rcKaribeln reporting
target from % to *s
i
i
f
1 Region Reporting
1 al end of FY
l
i
i
i

1
l
t
l - - -
1 Region Reporting
i at end of FY
i
CG ° Congressional Goal / Cl A = Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                             Page 7 - 8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     OWFinalOt.123

-------
Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:29 AM
                                                                                                 FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Information as of:  April 9,2001
 OW National Program Matrix • Final
 Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
APM
Code
129
1.1
1e2
TSbol
Straug
y»10
Annual Performance Goal (APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM) i
r ^ Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square
' miles that have water quality supporting designated
1 beneficial uses, where applicable, for fish and shellfish '
(consumption. (Also a CPM) i
^States/Tribes monitoring and conducting assessments '
1 based on the national guidance to establish nationally '
'consistent fish advisories. i
River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption
advisories & compilation of state-issued fish
'consumption advisory methodologies (cumulative). '
i (Also a CPM)
Fish consumption goal being developed. ' '
i t
R1 R2
R3
l
i
i
i
* t
i

i
R4
•




RS
•
•



R6
"




R7 l R8 R9 i R10
i i
i l
t i
i i
i i
" i '
l '

i i
H07 APG/APM ! National
GWB Originator 1 Total
i
OST , 0
40 OST 1 40
8% OST i 8%

i
Subobjective 1 .8: By 2003, exposure to mlcroblal end other forms of contamination In waters used for recreation will be reduced and the percentage of waters attaining the designated recreational uses will Increase.
"Reduce exposure to contaminated recreation waters bf ^Beaches for which monitoring and dosure data is '
128 'Increasing the information available to the public and decision- ' available at http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/ '
i makers. (CG) i (cumulative). (CM) >
. _ .
130
'Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square '
i miles that have water quality supporting designated i
i beneficial uses, where applicable, for recreation. (Also i
,aCPM) ,
i i
r
i •
i
i
• i • i - i • - i • 1 2.200 OST ' 2,200
r r r
i
l 11 i
i ii l
1 lit 1
Subobjective 1.8: By 2003, protect drinking water sources by Increasing by 60% the waters that meet the drinking water use that States designate under the Clean Water Act
i A * '!*• ib A •! an,**, an, 'i thai i Assessed river miles/lake acres/estuary square mites i
1 1 n i hJJSSJiA?nIS ^'«M™r?r?n rt.I^nMin... tih.™ , that have water quality supporting designated beneficial .
ISp^'catirfordrKking^tersuppPy \ ">«. where applicable, fordrink"n8 witer supply. (Also
i
• i •
i
i
rrrrrrTTTi r
i i i i i i i i i
• i • i • i • i • i • • i • i i OGWDW i 0
i i i i i ii i
i i i i i i i i ' i i
2001 Target
No
Commitment
40
12%
Unit * IJy1 1 Comments
1 Region Reporting
i at end of FY
i
States 100% '
i
River Miles 67%
i
Commitment ' ' ' at end of FY
i_ _i i_ ]_

2.200 i Beaches ' 100% '
i t i
i l t
NO Target | | \
I I I
I I I
'' ''•'.-'* ': ' C- • '
r ~ — i r r
i i i
No | ajj|es _,c , | Region Reporting
Commitment * at end of FY
i i i
Objective 2: By 2003, conserve and enhance the ecological health of the nation's (state, Interstate, end tribal) waters end aquatic ecosystems - rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground waters T.«o that 73% of waters support healthy •
aquatic communities. ' ' . -'.-.' <••• ^f.\ . ' - " '
• _ - _' L-l ' • '-l^i-' ' • '- •'••.'•- ' "
SubobJectNe 2.1: By 2003, restore and protect watersheds so that 78% of watare support healthy watersheds as shown by comprehensive assessment of the nation'e watersheds. -
	 | 	 	 T ~l-
i Provide tools for risk characterization and dedsion making i Models.methods.criteria developed/available for risk
1 own water quality standards. | (ReP°rtin9 APM>
2BC / ' Assure that States and Tribes have effective, up-to-date water >
Tribal i quality standards programs adopted In accordance with the i Tribes with water quality standards adopted and
strateg , water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality t approved (cumulative). (CM)
1K , Standards program priorities. (CG) ,
200
"20,
, Slates with new or revised water quality standards that
EPA has reviewed and approved or disapproved and
'promulgated federal replacement standards. (CM)
Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of , Priority actions or commitments initiated nationwide as
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans ,part of the National Estuary Program since approval of
(CCMPs). (CG) 'the first CCMP in 1991 (cumulative).
, , Acres of habitat preserved, restored and/or created
202 nationwide as part of the National Estuary Program
1 '(cumulative). (CM)
1 Encourage comprehensive planning for the management of ' Facilitate establishment of Local Planning Groups to
203 ' dredged material, and assure environmentally sound disposal ' develop comprehensive plans for dredged material
1 of dredged material. i management.
i i
i
i •
0 ' 0
2 | 2
I

I
I

N/A
2




3
3
•
•
•
r
2
2
•
•

9
4


l i
• i • i •
0 ' 2 | 3 7
. -f- _1_ U - _
3 ; 2 ; i 2
• - t - a "
1 '
t '
1
1 '
l i
1 ' OST » 1
i l
i i
• ' OST ' 26
i i
i i
• 1 OST , 23
82% \ OWOW | 82%
50.000 1 OWOW | 50,000
i i
3 ' OWOW ' 3
l i
1 I
" '•"•••' '"'" ''l^W^-'^''^
1
27
30
82%
50,000
3
List ' 100% '
i i
t i
i i
Tribes ' 96% '
i i
i i
States i 77%
Actions > 100% '
i
Acres ' 100% |
|
Groups i 100% '
l '
l '
CG " Congressional Goal / CM ° Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                       Page 7 - 9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         OWFinal01.123

-------
 Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:30 AM
                                                                                                 FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Information « ol: April 8, 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Flnil
 Completed by:  Mike WeckejiMf
AfJl i Annual 'trfomunce Goal |APG) i Annual Performance Measure (APM) i R1 i R2 i RJ i R4 i R5 R6 i R7 i Rt
w i i i i i i i i i
l T I l l l l l
,04 ' ' Participate in the development ol local comprehensive : .'.'. l .'.'.'. i .
' I plans for dredged matenal management (cumulative). > I I i I 1 ,
' ' 11,1111,
205!,d.n%,ourc.,o,maiin.d.brisa,on0U.S.coas«,. l^Sngp-Cm^SA^r"00^ ' ' ' ' ' ' < ' ' ' < ' ' ' ! '
1 1 1 : 1 i I I
Pounds reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen and i
208 'Improve habitat in the :hesapeake Bay. ' phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay • ' • ' • ' • • ' • i •
1 '(cumulative). l l i i i i l {
.L __- - 	 -...-1 	 . _ _ - . L -L... L 1 -1. . 1 ^ L _ . ,.
9ea i , Wastewater (low to the Chesapeake Bay treated by ,...,.. .,...,.'.
"* L ^ Biological Nutrient Removal (cumulative). L L L L 1 l L '
.R i | Acres' of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present ,.,. i.,., .,.,.'.
, in the Chesapeake Bay (cumulative). '
3 i | Stream miles ol migratory fish habitat reopened through , ., .,.,.'. . , . ' .
provision of fish passages (cumulative). > '
. ' ' Miles of streambank and shoreline restored with .' .'.'.,. . ' . i .
l (riparian forest buffers (cumulative). i i i ,
. _ . i — 	 	 _ . - - j _ . . . _ . - . . . i i i '_.:.. i ...
i Assist the Gulf States n implementing watershed restoration i,_-.. 	 .,* i«...,«..ni.; .rnn.j.Bi,, __.,.„.„.„.. i i
» ^x^^«'«'m"^ jBsas^swafir"1^ ; • ; • ; • : • ; • ; • ; • ; •
i iTMDLs(t) scheduled to be completed: (2) submitted by, , i i" ,
-.- i i Gulf States for segments in the coastal watershed; and . . .i...i.
/IU i ,(3) established by EPA and Gulf State established ' ' ' i ' ' i
l , TMOLs approved. ' ' ' i ' ' i '
1 'Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square i , ' , , ' i
... i i miles that a) are covered under WRAS and b) were . , . . i . . . i . .
i i restored to their designated uses during the reporting i ' ,
l |P«nod ' ' ' i ' i '
1 ' _ 	 ! l_ l t ^ ' i
«« ;r»SxS^^,^rwraduM te«^ai^spsr ; .;.;.:.;. . j . ; .
i | Assessed coastal river miles and estuary square mites ' ' r i ^~ r i r
213 impaired by invasive aquatic species in the 5 Gulf i • > • i • • i • i • • i •
coastal states. (Reporting APM) i i i i i I
»« \a^^^^[c^&^emnM°"°' 'TMDLs established by EPA (cumulative). (Also. CPM) | 0 ', 1 ', 314 I 100 | 0 [ 108 ^ 38 | 0
2.5 ^ '^tJSX*cnn^^^^M^mt '< 165 > 4S ' ™ ! 55° i 15° "372 L29a i"1046
i i Impaired, assessed river miles, lake acres, & estuary i r r i r
?1g , | square miles that a) are covered under WRAS and b) ... j .'.' ..,.'.
.were restored to their designated uses during the ' ' ' i i i
reporting period. (Also a CPM) i i i i i i
i (Assessed river miles, lake acres, and estuary square i ' ' i r
. 1 7 l t miles (hat have water quality supporting designated . . . i • ' * ' • i • ' •
i ' ' . , beneficial uses, where applicable, for aquatic life ' ' ' , i i , i
| | support. (Also a CPM) ' ' ' i ' ' i '
218 ' iTMDLssubm,ttedbythestate{cumulat)ve).(Alsoa ( 161 | ^ \^ , 45Q | 15(J ^252 , 2g(J [ 481
1 jt-rMJ tit1 '
219 | iSta^staWi«hedTMDUai^wd(™mijlatJw).(Aliot ,„ ( 44 , 3g5 , 45Q |" 1M 252 , 298 | 481
220 / ' '6% of Tribes will nav* water quality monitoring and ' i i i ' i ' T
Tnb*l i assessment programs appropriate for their circumstances and i Tribes with monitoring and assessment programs , . M/. i n i 97 i n ' in
string ,will be entering water quality data into EPA's national data , (cumulative). ' * ' 1 ' N/A , ° i l ll , ° < 20
V« , systems. , ! 1 L ' ' ' '
221 / ' 16% of Tribes will hav» water quality monitoring and < i i i ' i '
•%:3K?a.W^-.3^.*^ , o , o , N/A ; o , o ; o ; o ; 1
y« .systems. , ' ' ' , ' . i
as ! Bin 1 HQ/ i APG/APM ! National ! ,nn, ,._.,
R9 i R10 | GWB | originator | Total »««'««•«
i l I ~ i ' ~ t
ill i i
' , ' | 3 , OWOW | 3 | J
III 1 1
III 1 1
• I • I 1 | OWOW I 1 i 1
III I I
r ~r714~7r -r i
' ' ' 'US' CBPO ' 7iff ' ^^^
\ i pound | | |
i 1 8 L L. L
• 1 ' 1 48% l CBPO 1 48% l 49%
- - - L - 1_ . - L 	 	 L L
• 1 ' 78,0001 CBPO l 78.000 1 78.000
1 1 • l 1.172 1 CBPO . 1.172 1 1.172
• [ ' \ 6t6 J CBPO i 616 \ 618
• , ' | 14 ' Gulf i 14 ' 14
.-i- L..; ;_ L
1 • ! r -;---•-
• • i Gulf i 0 i No Target
' ' 1 + l
1 " •• r ------- 1-
• | , i Gul' i 0 , No Target
! ! ' ' '
i | - -J j- - - r -
• ' ' ' 3 i Gulf i 3 | 3
--[ 1 ' ' ' -1
, -, , 	
• . ' . i Gulf i 0 l NoTarget
L _ _ L _ _ L . _ I. 	 r - - - r -
12 l 60 1 • . OWOW , 631 . 631
L L L
74 1 691 1 ' , OWOW I" 4.100 !" 4,100
L L 1 ^
i , [ r - - r -
• ; • ; ! owow ; o ; cj*^
...L_-i._.^_ ' '
1 ' r T r
• ; ' ] ' OWOW ! ° ! CommLent
1 ' 1 ' 1
62 ' 631 ' ' i OWOW | 2.925 , 2.925
62 ' 631 ' ' i OWOW | 2,900 , 2.900
l i 1
2 ' 24 ' • i OWOW | 78 i 53
t |
1 | |
" • • - - p - - >- - - -1 - - • -I 	 •
. . l i l
1 0 ' i OWOW | 2 i 9
1 g |
Unll i%lj!?"i Commtntt
i ™" i
--
Plans J 100% ,
1 '
. 1
Evaluation | 100% i
i '
Million ! ,nm, i
Pounds | 100% ,
WWflow , 98% i
Acres , 100% '
Miles . 100% >
----- i • '
Miles ' 100% jchange of Measure
-| 	 -' •
Segments ' 100% ,
l
TMOLs i ERR '
I '
• i- — r
Miles, etc , ERR [
i i
— r i 	
Projects | 100% | Change of Measure
i i
-_l 	 ! 	
Miles, etc l ERR '
i i
TMDLs , 100% ,
TMDLs J" 100% [
— _^___^__
Mil».«"= ! I "•KM*
i i
«"».•"= ! ! K'!^l^
i i
TMOLs | 100% ,
TMDLs i 100% i
Tribes , 148% ,
Projects i 22% i
i i
CG • Congressional Goal / Cl 4 ° Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                      Page 7-10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        OWFinalOI.123

-------
Printed:  05/08/01   10:16:30 AM
                                                                                                    FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Information as of: April 9. 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final
 Completed by: Mike Weckesser
££JJ i Annual Performance Goal (APG)
i
i Water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 550
... . of the Nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80
percent of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards
1 . up from 500 watersheds in 1998.  1 5% of Tribes *"' ^ rcportng information to 305(b)
y« i reports.
, By 2005, 20% of tribes that have EPA-approved water quality
standards and that have demonstrated an interest in
Tribal (establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
y n 9 1 under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act will wither have
i such a program in place or, in coordination with EPA, will be in
i the process of developing such a program.
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
Watersheds that hava greater than 60% of assessed
waters meeting all water quality standards. (CM)
P _ _ -
Tribes with a water program presence (cumulative).


Subobjectiw 2.2: By 2009, and In each year thereafter, the work of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; the
r
i Support wetlands and stream corridor restoration and
207 i management and assessment/monitoring of overall wetland
, health.
2W '
l
l
Tribal ' By 2005, 20% ol Tribes will hava developed Tribal
StratM i conservation plans or alternate approaches tor protecting
y "5 i wetlands and watersheds
".- -••O6J«tJw'J:~By 2005, polTutinf dTichaTgisTromlwy point'
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).
States/tribes develop, wetlands assess /monitoring
tools & making significant progress towards est. formal
programs to assess « monitor overall wetland cond.,
improve., deterior., & restor. (inc.).

iourcM and nonpolnt source ruriofTwffl be rrtuced 1
R1
L
9
L

1 	
R2
L
1
1 	

R3

N/A
L

R4
•
r
c
•

R5

29


R6
•
30
•
•
R7 ' R8
I
• 1 *
i
I
1 , 0
i

i
i
R9
•
71
•

R10
•
142
•

HO/
GWB
550
_


r- -
APG/APM ! National ! ,-., T . ! ....
OHglnator| Total | 2<"" Target i Unit
-r |
1 '
OWOW ' 550 550 iWigitHUCS
i ' i
L....^...L... ' __-.,
IO l 288 ' 227 , Tribes
i ; i
• ' . i 	
OWOW ! ° icommLentl Tribe9
L ,_ L_ ____
I ' t
OWOW 1 ° IcornmSment! Tribes
i | i
% Target
Met
100%
127%
L


rivals sector; hunting and fishing organizations; and citizen groups will result In a net Increase of 100.000 acres of wetlands. t
22 i 3 i 11 i 10 11 i 24 3 i 26 19
1
0
0
0
I I l
l i i _
iyflSait 20% from 1992 levih
i
0 ' 0
• i •
l
7 AlrtepoWor
0 ' 0
1
1
0
7
0
Comments

Need Regional
Commitment
Region Reporting
at end of FY
L
Region Reporting
at end of FY

11 1 II
OWOW i 136 , 99 , Projects i 137%
ii i i
1 	 -L- _l - U - 1 - i 	 . .1 .._...

. 1 . . . ,
' 1
"of keyjpollulant«"lmpictrng~wat8r S»3
i i i
OWOW i 1 t 4 ' States/Tribes
i i i
i t i
owow j ° |commi°tment; ™*»
leswHTbemlucea "-.-'- ~ •' ~
SubobJectiM S.1: By 2005, annual point source loadings from Comblr»dS«w«rOv«rf1ow»(CSOt),PublicryOwnedTreatrmntWorU(POTW«), and lndu»W«lsourc(l» will b« reduced by 30% from 1992 tevela. ' '.. .''.."
' ^Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into
... 'the nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges
' i from municipal end industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from
i urban storm water. CSOs, and CAFOs. (CG)
Permittees (among the approximately 900 CSO
communities nationwide) that are covered by NPDES
permits or other enforceable mechanisms consistent
with the 1994 CSO policy. (Also a CPU)
... r ^Malor point sources are covered by current permits.
303 i i (CM)
304 ,
305 |
I
States with current storm water permits for construction
sites over 5 acres.
rCSO acres that must have a long term CSO control
plan and number of CSO acres for which a long term
control plan is required by permit or other enforceable
mechanism. (Reporting APM)
r ! Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) acres
.» ' that must have a stormwater permit and number of MS4
Jw I ' acres covered for which permits have been issued.
l i (Reporting APM)
.... h ^Permits necessan/on 303 (d) listed waterbodies.
307 i (Reporting APM)
,„. K ''Current permits on 303 (d) listed waterbodies.
308 l (Reporting APM)
..... *~ ^Permits necessan/on 303 (d) listed waterbodies where
309 ' 'there is a completed TMDL. (Reporting APM)
".""."' ^Pe"rr™tsThS impTement completed fMDLs. (Reporting"
310 l 'APM)
h~ 	 	 " 4Btates with generarNPDES"penfBts"for CAFOs >T. 000
... ' 'animal units or with individual NPDES permits for all
31 ' i i CAFOs > 1.000 animal units consistent with the AFO
l i Strategy.
100%
100%
91% , 85%
100%

75%
100%
100%
1 no 1 *
85% , cgOs , 100% , 100%
I i I
100%
89% ^89% ^75% [86% [s9% ^89% [^90%
100%
I
t 1
1 |
1


90%

I
I
i
73%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100% , 100%
100%
100%
25%
'

Region Reporting
at end of FY

• • "
• | OWM | 98% | 100% | Permittees ] 98%
ill i ii
82% , •
OWM , 87% , 89% , Point Sources
97% ;
100% , * , OWM , 98% , 100% , States , 98% ,
I I 1 1 I 1 I



1 1
1
1
1


1 1 t 1 1
1 1 1 1 1



1 1 1 1 1 1
90%
	 \ 	 | 	 | 	

33%

67%

50%

63%
70%



l l M. i i
OWM l ° 'Cornrrttment' te»« i
II I 1
Region Reporting
at end of FY
nuuu ' n ' No ' ,_.. ' ' Region Reporting
OWM , 0 l commitment 1 **•* l ' atendoIFY
II l i i
• i OWM , ° l Commitment' P>™« '
65% i 90% , 90% , 90% i 90% i • , OWM i 86% , 90% i Permits , 95%
' i ' " i "
i 	 i 	 * 	 i 	

50%

100%
1
100% ' 100%
L
h — -

89%
i "
I 	 H 	

100%

f
'
OW" ' ° 'cJnttment' Pwmiu i
i 	 1 	 i 	 _ 	 1 	 , 	
OWM ' ° 'Comrritment' Polmiu i
OWM | 75% | 100% ) States j 75%
II I |
at end of FY
'" Need Regional
Commitment
Region Reporting
It end of FY
Region Reporting
at end of FY

CG ° Congressional Goal / CM ° Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                         Page 7-11
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               OWFinalOl 123

-------
 Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:31 AIV
                                                                                                     FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Information as of: April 9,2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final
££5J i Annual 'erformance Goal (APO) • Annual Performance Measure (APM)
i i
1 ' Comprehensive methodology developed for
...» i i documenting pollutants removed through increased
•"' i iSSO. CSO and storm water treatment, and increased
l , wastewater treatment to secondary or better standards.
'Reduce point source loadings by expediting completion of '_ . rt. . . M «* ^ « irvoi in .H
313 'projects funded under Clean Water Act Title II (construction i SJJSSS , P.*?" JKSSa tSX
.grants) and special project STAG grants. , * ° ™'
' Protect human health iind avoid increased! point source 'w i it i ir -IT • • 4 • • 'H A
... 'loadings by helping trm approximately 17.000 small U.S. 'Mrfomnance levSTthrauah assSnce undeTSSon
l wastewater treatment systems to maintain permitted ' ?nli/«\«i tho ru5a stance unao
i performance levels. ^04(0)01 me UWA.
r ~ ~ ~ " ~ T
{Reduce human health risks and nonpoint source loadings from , SWM ^j^ adopt the Voluntary Management
'into homes and damage shellfish and other aquatic life. ' sy!l'ms
i l
' 700 projects funded by the Clean Water SRF will initiate }"
operations, including 400 projects providing secondary
,.H 'treatment, advanced treatment. CSO correction (treatment), 'CW SRF projects that have initiated operations
•"" land/or storm water treatment. Cumulatively, 7,200 SRF I (cumulative). (CM)
l funded projects will h»ve initiated operations since program i
, inception. (CG) ,
319 SSSSS^Sas«3S^ fesz&s&stf °-<~™
_ r ^Special project STAG grants closed out within 7 years
3as i lofgrant award.
Deduce point and nonpoint source loadings by managing the ^States that are using integrated planning and priority
31i ' $30 billion in CWSRF assets to encourage use of state funds ' systems to make CW SRF funding decisions
< for state high-priority | irojects. < (cumulative).
... r • ^States and Puerto Rico that conduct separate annual
311 < 'audits of their CWSRFs
'" 'States that meet or exceed "pace of the program"
31k ' ' measures for loan issuance and construction
i i (cumulative).
. h 'EPA will report to Congress on the pace of the Clean
3ar ' ' Water State Revolving Fund Program. (Also a CPM)
321 / fincraase protection of human health in Indian Country by Homes in Indian Countrywhose residents are provided
Tribii providing adequate wastewater sanitation to more of the 7 1 , with adequate wastewater sanitation systems though
St™t»g ' 026 homes in Indian Country with inadequate wastewatsr ' funding from the CW SRF Tribal Set Aside Program
y w i sanitation systems. ' (cumufative).
i i
t i
i i
i i
i i
t i
i i
1 Industrial discharges af pollutants to the nation's water? will be ' Reduction in loadings for toxic pollutants for facilities
322 ' sionificantry reduced hrough implementation of effluent ' subject to effluent guidelines promulgated between
i guidelines. (CG) 1 1992 4 1999, as predicted by model projections. (CM)
i l
i l
R1 ' R2 ' R3 ' R4
i t i
i i i
i i i
I i i
i i i
i i I
66 | 27 | 45 | 80
i r * • r " ~
i i i
0 l 0 i 0 > 0
1 1 1
t 1 !
r r r
i i i
370 | 1.234 | 1,000 | 676
i i i
l l i
9 ' 12 ' 12 ! 8
i i l
90% | 0 , 100% , 2
1 l 2 ! 2 ' 1
1 ! 1
5,3,5,7
4 '2 ' N/A ' ' 4
i i l
i * i * i
i . i
i l i
i i i
i , Offsho ,
re oil &
gas-Q
1 '(SUtici '
' 'mTo-'P°7:
, | coastal 1*19.
20 pu , . oil & n^i' e
, , pharoi , f*o/5 0
1 'landfill '
i is-14; i
i i combu i
, iStors-0,
l l l
R5 ' R6 i R7 • R8 i R9 i R10 ' rTv% ' Originator ' NTotal°' ' 2001 T>r'*1 ' Unlt '"lie?"' Comments
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 t 1 1
•

135
1
1,245
16
90%
'
6
5



2 pest;
14 pa
phamv
land 4
comb
32
l ' I I I i ' l l ' i
• | • j • | • ] • | 1 | OWM | 1 | 1 | Methodology ] 100% |
i ' i i , i i i i ' i
i T ' ' ' ' ' i i r r HO Reporting"
i ' i i i i i i i i , report data
- - i r , , i i r i 	 -\- t 	 r - — - •
76 | 36 | 71 | 21 | 130 | ' [ OWM ] 687 J 744 [ Fidlities | 92% \
l 1 l 1 l 1 1 l l II
T f r r ~ r r <~ r , i i 	 •
111111 ' ' ' ' Suipenduntil
O'O'OiOiOi'i OWM '1,2 i States > 50% ' guidelines are
l ' l l 1 l l i i II Issued
l l 1 l 1 t 1 l 1 II
l I l l l , 1 , 1 II
512 | 403 i 410 | 155 | 225 | ' | OWM , 6,230 | 7,200 J SRF Projects j 67% ,
1 l l l I l 1 l l II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 II
0'1 'O'S'O'-I OWM ' 65 ' 45 ' Projects > 144% '
l l 1 l 1 • I 1 , l 1 1
100% [tOO% i N/A [~100% | 2 [" ' [" OWM | 96% [~ 90% "] Grants | 109% ,
1I1'3'2I21'' OWM i 17 i 17 ' States ' 100% '
l ' I I I I II I I '
4[3|5T2|~2T'T OWM ] 42 [~ 45 |" States [" 93% ,
2 ' 1 '"fl'S1" 2 ' I • , OWM i 20 i 35 ' Stales ' 57% i
i ' a i i i ' i i i i i
• i • l ' i • i • i 1 i OWM | 1 | 1 i Report , 100% |
i i i , i i i , i i i
i ' i i i i i , i > ,
' 	 i , ' ii
,'<,,, i | , ||
i ' i i i i i , i t ,
	 ii i ii
i > i i i i i , i ,|
14 I 1 I I i I | , I | ,
oarfl' ''''I i , i i ,
rSarVn-' ' „ 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' '„..,' '
2 pest 1 0.0 'P"!™:, 0.0 '8 pip ' • ' OWM 1 6.7 I 9.8 ' Pfl^ 1 68% 1
"«'»' III,, 1, 1 | ]
*» 1 1 l l 1 1 , , 1 , ,
1 ' 1 1 1 1 I, l ||
I'll', II 1 i ,
l 1 l 1 l 1 | , 1 , ,
1 ' 1 1 1 1 | , 1 I,
l ' l 1 1 1 i , , ' i ,
CG - Congressional Goal /CM- Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                           Page 7 -12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 OWFinalOt.123

-------
Printgd:  05/08/01  10:16:31 AM
                                                                                                     FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Information as of: April 9.2001
OW National Program Matrix - Final
Completed by: Mike Wockesser
Codi ' Annual Performance Goal (AP6)
' ( "~ - - .,. _
!
I
323 '
l
l
r — — — — __ —
324 i
l
i
I
1 Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into
355 i the nation's waters of f 1) inadequately treated discharges
l from municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from
l urban storm water. CSOs, and CAFOs.
'Current NPDES permits reduce or eliminate discharges into
.-o i the nation's waters of (1 ) inadequately treated discharges
[from municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from
i urban storm water, CSOs, and CAFOs.
l 	 ~ 	
, Prevent pass through of pollutants to sludge and the nation's
... waters and protect POTW operations by auditing all approved
•"° pretreatment programs over a 5-year period to ensure that
' 1500 effective pretreatment programs control over 30,000 si
i
'Take final action on 2 and propose 2 effluent guidelines
3a7 l limitations for industrial categories that contribute significantly
l to pollution of surface waters.
. h l Increase the beneficial use of the approximately 7 million dry
M0 \ weight tons of biosolids produced each year.
- i 	
l By 2005, 100% of all major NPDES permits within Indian
Tribal i country will be permitted using effluent guidelines limitations or
strat»g secondary treatment requirements where they apply. In
y « addition, 50% of all facilities (majors and minors) will be
1 permitted according to Clean Water Act requirements.
i
Annual Performance Measure (APM)
r " ~ * " ~ " ~ "
Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants for
facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
between 1992 & 1999. as predicted by model
projections. (CM)
Reduction in loadings for non-conventional pollutants
for facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated
between 1992 and 1999. as predicted by model
projections. (CM)
Minor point sources are covered by current permits.
(CM)
States with current storm water permits for all industrial
activities operating in the state.
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
CPM)
r
Effluent guidelines proposed or promulgated
rPOTWs beneficially reusing all or a part of their
biosolids and, where data exists, the percent of
biosolids generated that are beneficially reused. (Also a
CPM)

R1
pharm;
2 land
20 pu
5pa;1
pharm
land
40%
83%
8% (7)
in 01;
51%
overS
yrs

42%


R2 l R3
l
r
i Offsho
i re oil &
i gas-0
. coastal
oil&
3 ' gas-0;
pharm; ' pharm
3 land i aceutic
ial-2;
.landfill
s-14;
'combu
1 stors-0
i
r r
' Offsho
re oil &
' gas-0
ipestici
ides
i mfg-0;
, coastal
3land'5aper"
pharm
aceutic
1 al-2;
i landfill
i combu
stors-0
i
i
78% ' 75%
l
l
75% | 100%
' 52
40% ' 
-------
Printed: 05/08/01 10:16 31 AM
                                                                                                    FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Information as of: April 9. 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final
 Completed by: MikeWecke:.ser
  Code
                   Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                                   Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                                                                             R1
                                                                                                                    R2  '   R3  '   R4  i  R5  I  R6   I  R7  I   R8  I   R9  I  R10  '
                                                            'implementation plans associated with TMOLs involving
       1 Reduce nonpoint sourt e sediment and nutrient loads to rivers  ' sediment and/or nutrients from nonpoint sources that   '
       i and streams.                                          t provide reasonable assurance that needed NPS actions i
       i                                                     i will occur. (Reporting APM)                       i
                                                                                                                                                                               HO/  , APG/APM
                                                                                                                                                                              GWB  Originator
                                                                                                                                                                                      OWOW
                                                                                                                                                                                                         i 2001  Target I
                                                                                    No Target
                                                                                     Plans
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Plans
    Comments
i

.Suspended-Based
1  onthenewTMDL
1   rule which has
i  been delayed by
i   Congressional
i      action.
                                                            TAFOs for which Comprehensive Nutrient Management  '   .
                                                            i Plans (CNMPs) are developed (cumulative).          '

                                                            'Clean Water SRF loaned for projects to prevent "     r ~.
                                                            i polluted runoff.                                  '
302  ,
                                                                                                                                                                                      OWM
       i By 2005,50% of Indiai country will have approved nonpoirt
    #7  i source assessment an 1 management plans.
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,     No    i
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Commitment i
                                                                                                                   I  Region Reporting
                                                                                                                   i    at end of FY
        SubobjectJve 34: By 2008, Improv* water quillty fay reducing releaeee of targeted pereletent toxic pollutant* that contribute to air depotltlon by 50-75% •< me««ured by the National Toxlct Inventory, reducing deposition of nitrogen by 10-1S% fi
        wet end dry deposition monitoring network*, end Improving our underetandlng of, end cross-media re»pon»a to, the sources, p«Uiwiy», end effects of tlr pollutant* deposited on water bodlee and watersheds.      .             ...
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             [rom 19M level* a* meieured by
   ,-a  Develop a pilot Total W aximum Daily Load  .      . .' '  '   ...  .'  '. .'"_•''         ,-~.      • ' '
   gji  i Reduce Great Lakes tc xic pollutants.
                                                          Catalogued and publicized actions (partnerships or
                                                          virtual elimination demonstration projects) initiated
                                                         'toward reduction challenges under BNS. (Reporting
                                                         ' APM)
                                                            Level I substances for which 1-2 toxic reduction
                                                            activities are being implemented. (Reporting APM)
                                                                                                                                                                                        GLNPO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Actions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     100%
                                                                                                                                                                                      l
  60S
                                                         , Follow-up assessments and characterizations to
                                                          support State/community clean-up of contaminated
                                                         'sediments at Great Lakes AOCs. (Reporting APM)

                                                         . Completed Great Lakes^edimenl cleanup
                                                          demonstrations. (Reporting APM)
                                                         S   >   GLNPO


                                                         4   '   GLNPO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Substances i  100%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Assessments   100%
                                                                                                                                                                                      i  GLNPO  i    0    i      1      , Demonstritio,   '0%
CG *> Congressional Goal /
                           «• Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                          Page 7-14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                OWFinalOt.123

-------
 Printed: 05/08/01  10:16:32 AM
                                                                                                     FY2001 National Water Program Management Agreement - Final
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Information as of: April 9. 2001
 OW National Program Matrix - Final
 Completed by:  Mike Weckesser
  APM ,
  Code
             Annual Performance Goal (APG)
                                                             Annual Performance Measure (APM)
                                                                                                             R2
                                                     . Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated in
                                                      the Great Lakes.
                                                                                                                                                      R8  I   R9  I  RIO
                                                                                                                                                                                                  < J001 Target I     Unit
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Comment.

                                                                                                                    50.000 l  GLNPO
                                                                                                                    u__t___-_

                                                                                                                            GLNPO
 50,000  I    50,000
	U	

 6.000  !    6.000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Cubic yards i   100%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	i	

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Acres   '   100%
   607
                                                     , Acreage of total aquatic, wetland, riverine, and
                                                      terrestrial Great Lakes habitat positively impacted.
                                                     ' (Reporting APM)
                                                                                                                •   16.000

                                                                                                              	I	
                                                                                                                   l Reaso
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I
   613
   614
                                                     !Amount of high-level PCBsusedin electrical equipment,
                                                      nationally.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                 ss.
                                                                                                                                                            Reasonable
                                                                                                                                                             Progress
                                                     ' Amount of mercury deliberately used nationally and
                                                     i released nationally from sources resulting from human
                                                     i activity.
                                                                                                                                                                               i Reaso i
                                                                                                                                                                                        GLNPO
                                                                                                                                                            Reasonable ,
                                                                                                                                                             Progress
                                                                                                                                                                             .  J	L .
                                                                                                                                                                               l Reaso i
                                                            ' Amount of dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
                                                            1 equivalents) released from sources resulting from
                                                            i human activity.
                                                                                                                                                                                                               i Reasonable ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Progress
        Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including
  601  ' progress on fish contaminants, beach toxics, air toxics, and
       itrapnlc status.  (CG)
                                                          . i
 Great Lakes Ecosystem Indicator Indices with reports,
 addressing select fish contaminants, atmospheric
 deposition, limnology, biology, and sediments.
 (Reporting APM)
                                                                                                                                                                        I  11
                                                                                                                                                                                 GLNPO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Indices   '   100%  '
  609  ,

   	i	•

  610  '
                                                     'Concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes
                                                     I top predator fish.  (CM)
                                                     j	
                                                     i Trend in number of monitored Great Lakes beaches
                                                     , closed one or more days as a result of pollution.
                                                                                                                   i Declini i
                                                                                                                   ,   ng  |
                                                                                                                    Tn>nd
GLNPO


GLNPO


GLNPO
                        Declining
                         Trend

                      "Declining"
                         Trend
                                                            1 Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
                                                            '(CM)
                                                                                                                                                                        ,   ng
                                                                                                                                                                        . Trend
                                                                                                                                        0    l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Declining
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Trend
  612
                                                     i Trophic status and phosphorus concentrations in the
                                                     i Great Lakes.  (CM)
                                                                                                                                                                               i Improv l
                                                                                                                                                          l  Improving  i
                                                                                                                                                          Concentration,
    .'.   Goal 7: Expinilon 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
        dlsproportlonally Impacted and oisadvantaged communities*.




        Subobjectlw 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
        llv», 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 rtskt by making current, accurate substance-specific Information widely and easily acceulble.   .','   . '       ..    . ;       .




        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.
lwi™tt!ecSnsumer0ConfldenceR^eTc?R)e™isasruinglannua?
I Consumer Confidence reports.
                                                                                                           ' 2,400 l 3.585 l 4,310 I 9.000  l 7.000  ' 6.800 l 4,141 I 3,079 I 4,891  I 8,000  I
                                                                                                                                                                                      I OGWDW l 53.206
                                                                                                                                                                                                            55.000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CWSs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     97%
                                                                                                                 r - - l	
                                                                                                                   29.0  i  22.5
                                                                                                                                                                                                             -i	1	r
                                                                                                                                                                                                               . Population/ .  ,,,«.  ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Million     112%
  rk6
i Population served by CWSs that will comply with the   . 1 - 0
 regulation to publish consumer confidence reports.
                                                                                                                                47.0  i 39.0  l 28.0 I  9.9  I  9.4  I  40.0  I 43.0  I
                                                                                                                                                                                      I OGWDW l  279.8   I    249.0
CG • Congressional Goal / CM « Congressional Measure
                                                                                                                          Page 7-15
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                OWFinal01.123

-------
FY2000 Annual Performance
 Report and Final FY 2000
    Management Matrix
          Section 8

-------
                    Contents
FY 2000 Annual Performance Report          page 8-05
  Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water

Final FY 2000 Management Matrix           page 8-22

-------
   Goal 2 FY 2000 Obligations
           GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
    Note: EPA FY 2000 Obligations
        were $8,974 million
   All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to
   drink. Effective protection of America's rivers, lakes, wetlands,
 aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters will sustain fish, plants, and
wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities.
    Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and
 protected to improve human health, enhance water quality, reduce
              flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
OVERVIEW

    Safe drinking water is the first line of defense in
protecting human health. The American public enjoys
one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world,
but illnesses due to contaminants continue to occur. In
FY 2000 there were no  reported major disease
outbreaks  caused  by  microbial  or  chemical
contaminants in drinking water, but during the past
decade drinking water contamination caused illness and
even death in  places such  as Milwaukee,  Wisconsin;
Alpine, Wyoming; and rural upstate New York.  As
drinking  water  infrastructure   ages  and new
contaminants are identified, maintaining the nation's
safe drinking water supply remains a  critical challenge.
EPA's human health protection concerns also  extend
to threats posed by swimming at contaminated beaches
or eating contaminated fish.

    Clean water and healthy aquatic ecosystems support
all life, are vital to many sectors of the U.S. economy,
and play an important role in Native American culture.
Fish, shellfish, and many bird species depend on healthy
aquatic ecosystems for food and shelter. Aquatic plants,
which provide food and cover to many aquatic species,
need clean water to thrive. U.S. manufacturers and  the
agricultural industry use vast quantities of clean water
even- year to produce products, irrigate crops, and raise
animals. The nation's waters are the number one
vacation choice for Americans. For example, in Long
Island Sound, New York, beachgoers contribute more
than S800 million annually to the local economy. Many
Native American tribes value clean  water and some
tribes invoke the spirit of water in cultural ceremonies
for medicinal and purification purposes.
                        FY 2000 PERFORMANCE

                        Protecting People From Contamination in Drinking
                        Water, Fish, and Recreational Waters
                        Improving Drinking Water Quality
                           For the second consecutive year at least 91 percent
                        of the American public served  by community water
                        systems received water meeting all health-based drinking
                        water standards in effect since 1994, even as EPA, states
                        and  tribes worked collaboratively to develop new
                        national standards  and  regulations. In addition the
                        •population served by non-transient, non-community
                        (NTNC) drinking water systems with no violations in
                        FY 2000 was 93 percent, just below the target of 96
                        percent. EPA missed the target because the Agency
                        estimated  FY 2000 performance  based on the data
                        reported by non-transient water systems several years

                           Population Served by Community Water
                          Systems Meeting Drinking Water Standards
                                                               -|96
                                                          1994  1995 1996 1997 1999 2000  2005
                                                                          I
                                                                          ^
                                                                                FY 2000 GPKA Performance
                                                                                                   11-13

-------
    ago. The actual information reported for FY 2000
    includes data from many more of these systems, which
    are now  subject to  more rigorous reporting
    requirements. The FY 2000 data reflects a more
    complete  and accurate picture of human health
    protection for persons who drink water supplied by
    these NTNC drinking water systems. The Agency has
    worked diligently with states and water systems  over
    the past few years to implement its drinking water data
    reliability plan.

       In FY 2000 EPA headquarters and regions, tribes
    and states took significant actions in  four key areas:
    focusing regulations on  high-risk contaminants,
    improving consumer right-to-know about drinking
    water quality, protecting source waters, and financing
    improvements to drinking  water systems. To address
    microbial contaminants such as Cryptosporidium, E. coli,
    and Giardia, which are the  most widespread threat to
    drinking water, in the spring of 2000  EPA proposed
    the Ground Water Rule and the Long-Term Enhanced
    Surface Water Treatment Rule. These two rules will
    protect consumers served  by groundwater and small
    surface water systems by preventing up to 198,000 cases
    of waterborne disease per year. They build on the
    Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
    promulgated  in 1998, which required surface water
    systems serving over 10,000 persons to protect against
    microbial  contamination.  Together these rules  will
    complete the first series of measures for microbial
    protection, and cover all consumers of water provided
    by public water systems, whether from surface water
    or groundwater, in small towns and large cities.
       In addition EPA and a Federal Advisory Committee
    composed  of  states, water  systems, medical
    professionals, and other  public officials,  reached
    agreement on the second phase of standards mandated
    by the  1996  Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
    Amendments involving  microbial contaminants,
    disinfectants used to treat such contaminants,  and
    disinfection byproducts resulting from treatment. These
    standards will increase controls for source waters at high
    risk of contamination by Cryptosporidium, et.al. Also they
    are examples of the Agency's first endeavor to address
    acute health effects that may be caused by disinfection
    byproducts and thereby will assure equal protection
    from exposure to these byproducts throughout the
a
^•a
•=3
    Radon and arsenic were the high-risk chemical
contaminants addressed by the drinking water program
in FY 2000. In November 1999 the Agency proposed
a multimedia mitigation approach for radon that will
have a significant effect on reducing the human health
risk from radon in drinking water as well as in indoor
air.  EPA also proposed new protective standards  to
address arsenic in drinking water in June 2000. Arsenic
is a known  carcinogen and is also linked to many
noncancer health effects. EPA, states, tribes, and water
systems agree that the current, 50-year old arsenic
standard of 50 parts per billion (ppb) does not provide
adequate human health protection. In March 1999 the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that the
current 50 ppb standard does not protect human health
and recommended that it be revised downward  as
quickly as possible. Consequently the revised rule not
only proposed a lower level but also requested comment
from both  the drinking water community  and the
general public on alternative regulatory levels that would
be reviewed thoroughly and carefully during the final
rulemaking process.
    The human health protection afforded by these new
standards can be realized  only  if there is effective
implementation at the  state, tribal and local levels.  In
this regard EPA conducted more than 20 training and
technical assistance sessions with regional, state, and
drinking water utility staff during FY 2000 on rules
addressing microbial contaminants and disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts, lead and copper, consumer
confidence, and unregulated contaminant monitoring,
as well as on guidelines for operator certification. Ten
workshops on small systems' concerns were also held
nationwide. States, associations, and environmental
groups have undertaken an unprecedented effort at
training and technical assistance for water systems,
particularly small systems, local governments, and the
general public. In addition EPA has worked with
partners to lead many nationwide endeavors to increase
public drinking water  protection and awareness. All
states are overseeing capacity development and operator
certification programs to ensure that owners and
operators   of public water  systems  are  fully
implementing existing  and new SDWA requirements.

    The Agency is approaching and promoting
prevention  of drinking water contamination through
Hni-Vi  voluntary and mandatory activities. Fifty states
and territories have an EPA-approved Source Water
Assessment and Prevention Program and  conduct
II-14
         EPA's FY 2000 .Annual Report

-------
      CONSUMERS GET BETTER AND FASTER
          INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
               DRINKING WATER
 As a result of the new Consumer Confidence Report
 Rule, for the first time ever approximately 253 million
 Americans  have access to  annual consumer
 confidence reports on the quality and safety of their
 drinking water. These reports give customers of
 drinking water systems the information they need to
 make their own health decisions. More  than  100
 million Americans are able to read their water quality
 reports on-line. Water systems, states,  and EPA
 worked hard to assure compliance with this rule in its
 first year, providing reports for 99  percent of  the
 population  covered by the rule. In May 2000  the
 Agency also revised the Public Notification Rule to
 require public water systems to alert consumers within
 24 hours if there  is a  serious  problem with their
 drinking water that might pose a health risk.
assessments of their public water supplies. Data from
these assessments will help determine the susceptibility
to contamination of each state's sources  of public
drinking water and set the stage for community water
systems to target their efforts to actual or potential high-
risk contaminants. Forty-nine states are voluntarily
going beyond the requirement of  the SDWA, which is
only to complete the assessments, by beginning to act
to prevent source water contamination,  based on
information gathered during the assessments. These
next steps are critical to the future of the drinking water
program, and are the primary responsibilities of states,
tribes, and water systems to implement. In December
1999 EPA issued new final regulations on two  types of
shallow disposal wells into which a variety of hazardous
and nonhazardous fluids (e.g.,  chemicals, mining, oil,
and gas) is injected below the land's surface. There are
an estimated one million underground injection wells
nationwide, of which about 700,000 are shallow disposal
wells.  The new regulations, targeted to motor vehicle
disposal and cesspools, are a vital  tool in ensuring that
fluid wastes are contained in these disposal wells safely,
and do not pose a health risk to  the majority of U.S.
public water systems that get their drinking water from
groundwater.

    Over the  past  four years of  the Drinking Water
State  Revolving Fund  (DWSRF), EPA has made
available approximately $3.6 billion in assistance to all
50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and
the territories to establish their revolving loan programs,
and states have moved quickly to make these funds
available to water systems. Since 1997 more than
1,400 loans totaling over $2.8 billion support projects
to modernize or replace outdated plants and pipes as
well as to construct new systems. Small water systems
have been a focus of these loans, with over three-fourths
awarded to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
These loans enable water systems to address critical
human health needs, even as the cost of providing safe
drinking water—finding a water  supply, treating the
water, delivering  the  water, and maintaining  the
system—continues to be a challenge. EPA's 1997
Drinking Water Needs Survey Report to Congress identified
more than $138 billion in industry needs, the vast
majority of  which  are targeted for delivery of water,
radier than for meeting SDWA requirements.
Reducing Exposure to Contaminated Fish

    States and tribes have primary responsibility for
informing  the  public about the  risks  of eating
contaminated fish, and EPA plays a leadership and
support role. In 1999 approximately seven  percent of
river miles and 16 percent of lake acres  were assessed
to determine if they contain fish or shellfish that should
not be eaten or should be eaten only in limited quantities,
particularly by sensitive populations such as pregnant
women and  young  children. The target of ten percent
of river miles assessed was not met. This was primarily
because states focused their resources on lakes, where
most recreational fishing occurs. The total number of
fish advisories in die United States rose by 145 or six
percent (see page 11-41 in Goal 4). Advisories increased
for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs), dioxin,
and  dichlorodiphenytrichloroethane (DDT),  but
decreased for chlordane again in FY 2000. The increase
in advisories generally reflects more assessments being
performed and improved monitoring and  data
collection methods. Currendy, 40 states follow EPA's
guidance for developing fish consumption advisories
based on risk assessments, up from 25 states in 1998.

    To support  the fish  advisory program, EPA in
FY 2000 updated its technical guidance  documents to
include new toxicity information for several persistent
bioaccumulative toxics, new fish consumption limits
for  recreational  and  subsistence  fishers,  and
recommendations for simplified advisory approaches.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Action Plan  (CWAP), EPA
I
3
§
                                                                                  FY 2000 GPRA Performance
                                                                                                      II-15

-------
    and the American Fisheries Society published a joint
    report on the national consistency of fish consumption
    advisor}' programs.
    Improving Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
        In FY 2000 EPA  and state officials worked to
    strengthen the voluntary beach protection program to
    help states and local communities protect their residents
    from exposure to contaminated waters at their beaches.
      NEW JERSEY LEADS THE WAY IN BEACH WATCH
      The State of New Jersey is working with 94 of its
      coastal municipalities to eliminate beach pollution.
      The municipalities are mapping their storm water and
      sewage lines and monitoring storm water discharges
      to coastal waters. Beach closings are usually associated
      with specific storm events or sewage collection system
      disruptions. Over the past several years, contamination
      incidents and subsequent beach closings have been
      more localized and short-lived. The State expects that
      continuing to improve storm water  management
      will  further  decrease  the  need  for beach
      closings.
    EPA's internet site posted information provided by state
    and local officials on 1,981 beaches—35 percent more
    beaches than last year, and approximately 50 percent
    more beaches than when the program began in 1997.
    This information included 150 digitized maps available
    to the public,  meeting EPA's goal for  FY 2000.
    Approximately 459 beaches (24 percent of the reported
    beaches) had at least one advisory or closing during the
year. Although the number of beaches reported has
increased significandy during the past three years, the
percentage of beaches with a closing or advisory has
remained consistent at approximately 25 percent.
Leading causes of impairment included rain leading to
storm water runoff  which caused elevated bacterial
levels.
    EPA also provided technical assistance materials to
help state and local officials improve their monitoring and
advisory programs. EPA published proceedings of two
major conferences which addressed needs and procedures
designed to improve beach monitoring and public
notification across the country. The Agency also produced
and distributed a training video and manual on using EPA
recommended recreational water  quality indicators
(enterococci and E. coli) to assess beach water quality. EPA
will continue to work wirn  state and local officials, and
health professionals to improve the quality and consistency
of monitoring and reporting beach water conditions and
to improve and increase communications with the public.

Conserving and Enhancing the Nation's Waters
    In  the  latest national  inventory of water quality
summarized below,  states, tribes, territories, and
interstate commissions report that about 40 percent
of the U.S. streams, lakes, and estuaries assessed (about
32 percent of all U.S. waters) were not clean enough to
support uses like fishing and swimming. The leading
pollutants in impaired waters are sediment, bacteria,
nutrients, and metals. Runoff from agricultural  lands
and urban  areas is  the  primary source of these
pollutants.
SUMMARY PROFILE: 1998 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY REPORT TO CONGRESS
Waterbody Type
River (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (sq. miles)
Total Size
3,662,225
41,593,748
90,465
Amount Assessed
(% of Total)
842,426 (23%)
17,390,370 (42%)
28,687 (32%)
Good*
(% of Assessed)
463,441 (55%)
7,927,486 (46%)
13,439 (47%)
Good but
Threatened*
(% of Assessed) 1
85,544 (10%)
1,565,175 (9%)
2,766 (10%)
Polluted*
% of Assessed)
291,264 (35%)
7,897,110(45%)
12,482 (44%)
* Includes waterbodies assessed as not attainable for one or more uses. Note: percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
a
^•i
"=3
11-16
         EP.Vs FY 2000 Annual Report

-------
   The CWAP calls for states to identify, from among
the 2,262 watersheds nationwide, those high priority
watersheds for which restoration  plans will be
developed and actions taken to restore water quality.
For FY 2000 EPA established  an ambitious goal of
having improvement projects underway in 350, or about
40 percent, of  the  889 high-priority watersheds
identified by states through last year's unified watershed
assessments. Funded largely through increased grants
to states for implementation of nonpoint  source
controls, projects are underway in 324 high priority
watersheds. This is slightly short of  EPA's goal, but
indicates a significant promise of real water quality
improvements in impaired watersheds.

   State and tribal water quality standards represent
water quality goals for each water body and establish
the regulatory groundwork for the water quality-based
controls (such as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits)  necessary to
protect human and ecological health. In FY 2000 the
Agency issued guidance to assist states and tribes in
assessing the biological health  of their waters and
recommended new criteria that could be incorporated
into existing standards to control nutrients and disease-
causing microorganisms. During  FY 2000  EPA
completed new methods for sediment toxicity testing
and compiled information on the food chain effects
of contaminated sediments. EPA also issued a revised
methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria
to protect human health. The methodology provides
guidance to states and  tribes to develop criteria and
describes the Agency's process for developing national
criteria. In FY 2000 EPA acted on new water quality
standard submissions for 35 states and 16 tribes. This
total did not meet the FY 2000 goal of 22 tribes because
tribes have not  yet been approved as expected for
"treatment as a state" which is a pre-condition of being
approved to run a tribal water quality standards
program. In addition some extended consultations
delayed the submission of tribal water quality standards.

   During FY 2000 states and EPA made significant
progress toward commitments on core  performance
measures for determining the sources of pollution and
designing clean-up plans, known as Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs). This program is the framework
for working in partnership cooperatively with the states
to clean up America's polluted waterways  under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Under existing authorities of
the 2,674 water segments previously identified by states
as being polluted and needing TMDLs in FY 2000,
states submitted TMDLs for 2,167. EPA approved
1,276 TMDLs submitted by states, and EPA established
166 TMDLs. The number of TMDLs submitted is
greater than the number of TMDLs approved, primarily
due to the large number of TMDLs submitted for non-
impaired waters under CWA Section 303(d)(3), which
does not require either approval or disapproval by EPA.
In July 2000 EPA issued a  final rule addressing the
national TMDL program.

    EPA continued work to support focused coastal
watershed protection activities through efforts in the
28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. In
addition the Agency completed two ocean dumping site
designation actions, including a proposed rule to
designate an ocean disposal site off Coos Bay, Oregon,
and the final designation of the Atchafalaya River,
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black disposal sites off the
Louisiana coast.

    Understanding the scope and quality of our nation's
wetlands continues to be a  top program priority  for
EPA. Wetlands play a pivotal role in ensuring watershed
health by filtering contaminants, controlling flooding,
and serving as a critical habitat for many species of
plantsand  animals. In FY 2000  EPA met its goal of
four more states that made significant progress toward
establishing a wetlands monitoring program. EPA also
continued  working  with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to make the wetlands permitting program
more environmentally protective, including funding the
National Academy of Sciences to study the effectiveness
of compensatory mitigation in the wetlands permitting
program.

    The Chesapeake Bay Program Partners have been
working to restore water quality and key habitats for
the Bay's living resources. Underwater grass beds are a
vital habitat for fish, crabs, and other bay creatures. The
grasses  also serve as  a nursery habitat for many fish
species. The table displays the trend in Bay grass acreage.
From 1985 to 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Partners restored over 31,000 acres of Bay grass beds,
contributing significantly to the current total  level of
68, 125 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Although the Agency's FY 2000 target of 71,500 was
not achieved, increases are expected to continue as
overall water quality' improves.
B
I
3=
                                                                                 FY 2000 GPRA Performance
                                                                                                     11-17

-------
       600
            Chesapeake Bay Grass Restoration
                    Potential Habitat (600,000 acres)
                      Interim Goal (114,000 acres)
I
           78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
        The effects of population increases and settlement
    shifts to  coastal areas represent a particular challenge
    in the Gulf of Mexico region. In FY 2000 EPA's Gulf
    of Mexico Program, through the leadership of the five
    gulf states, teamed with numerous coastal communities,
    environmental organizations, and business and industry
    leaders to assist in the restoration of 31 impaired coastal
    water bodies.

        In addition, in FY 2000  the  Gulf Program's
    innovative public and private partnerships resulted in a
    threefold increase in assistance to the states and coastal
    communities for projects to  restore their coastal
    watersheds. New projects included protection and
    restoration of more than 800 acres of important
    seagrass  and coastal wetland habitats, and significant
    results have been achieved through Gulf Five Star
    Restoration Partnership projects.

    Reducing Pollutant Loadings

    Reducing Point Source Pollution

        A key element of the Agency's  efforts to achieve
    its overarching goal of clean and  safe  water is  the
    reduction of pollutant discharges from point sources
    and nonpoint sources. Under the NPDES program,
    specific limits are set for pollutants discharged from
    point sources into waters of the United States. These
    limits are designed to ensure that national technology-
    based standards (effluent limitations and guidelines) and
    water quality-based requirements are adequate to meet
                   .  --
                  3i.aiiuai.u:>
support of this effort, a number of activities took place
in FY 2000, including the following:

•   Rulemakings  to address wet weather pollution
    include:  (1) promulgation of a final regulation
    addressing storm water discharges (the Storm Water
    Phase II Final Rule) which are a leading cause of
    impairment for  the nation's rivers, lakes, and
    estuaries; and  (2) development of draft proposed
    rules for sanitary sewer overflows, after an extensive
    stakeholder process.

•   Implementation of an aggressive strategy to reduce
    the backlog of NPDES permits in regions and
    states (see below). Nationwide, at the end of
    FY 2000  approximately 70  percent of NPDES
    permits were current. This represents a 16 percent
    increase over  the 54 percent that were current as
    of November 1998. Eleven states are already below
    the ten percent backlog target, and a total of 18
    states are on track to meet the target by December
    31,2001. At the end of FY 2000,44.3 percent (285)
    of the 644 total EPA issued permits for major point
    sources were expired; 78.2 percent (1,603) of the
    2,140 EPA issued permits for minor point sources
    were  expired. Of 6,115 state-issued permits for
    major point sources, 26.2 percent (1,603) were
    expired,  and of 49,672 state-issued permits for
    minor point sources, 15,563 or 31.3 percent were
    expired.  The Agency will  continue  to work  with
    regions and states to ensure that they take more
    aggressive steps to meet the 2005 corrective action
    date.

•   Continued work on new guidance and standards
    for Concentrated Animal  Feeding Operations
    (CAFOs) to mitigate actual and potential water
    quality impacts from thousands  of  CAFOs. The
    largest may have as many as a million animals at
    one facility. Manure from stockpiles, lagoons, or
    excessive land application  can  reach waterways
    through runoff, erosion, spills, or via ground water.
    These discharges can result  in excessive nutrients
    (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), oxygen-
    depleting substances, and other  pollutants in the
    water. This pollution can kiH fish and shellfish, cause
    excess algae growth, harm marine mammals, and
    contaminate drinking water.

    Providing vital financial support  for each of these
activities is  the Clean Water State  Revolving Fund
11-18
         EP.Vs FY 2000 Annual Report

-------
program (CWSRF). For FY 2000 the CWSRF made
nearly $4.1 billion available for nationwide construction
of wastewater treatment facilities. The repayments of
these project loans keeps the funds "revolving" and
continually  working for American taxpayers. For
FY 2000 the CWSRF program continued to encourage
use of state Integrated Priority Planning Systems to
target new projects  at each state's most pressing
pollution control needs. Since CWSRF financing began
in 1988, more than $30 billion in pollution control
financing has been provided to help achieve water
quality standards.

    In FY 2000 EPA promulgated four new effluent
limitation guidelines for  the landfill, commercial
hazardous waste combustor, transportation equipment
cleaning, and centralized waste treatment industries,
which should result in combined pollution reduction
benefits of more than 65 million pounds of pollutants
per year. The Agency also proposed a rule to prevent
large fish kills at cooling water intakes at new facilities
and issued the 2000 Effluent Guidelines Plan, which
outlined a new strategy for future regulation. EPA
published a  final test procedure for cyanide that  will
help NPDES permit writers  set limits and help regulated
facilities demonstrate compliance with those limits.
Strengthening State Nonpoint Source Programs
    For the last several years, EPA has been working
with states to upgrade and  strengthen their nonpoint
source control programs. In FY 2000 EPA completed
draft guidelines for management of on-site wastewater
treatment ("septic") systems and began a major outreach
effort to help states support these guidelines. By the
end of FY 2000, 49 states had upgraded statewide
nonpoint source management programs approved by
EPA, exceeding the goal  of 45 states.  The states'
upgraded 319 nonpoint source grant programs have
each established specific goals and objectives that are
related in large part to long-term goals to restore the
quality of impaired waters over a given  time period
(usually about 15 years). They emphasize partnerships,
operating in both watershed and statewide contexts, as
appropriate, to accomplish  their program goals. States
focused one-half of their nonpoint source grants ($100
million) for implementation of watershed restoration
strategies that are designed to address their  most critical
water quality problems. In  FY 2000 EPA encouraged
states to use the CWSRF for nonpoint source pollution
control, including watershed restoration projects. As
of June 30,2000,28 states had provided a total of $1.2
billion for some  2,100  nonpoint source pollution
control projects since the beginning of the program.

SUMMARY OF FY 2000 PERFORMANCE

    During FY 2000, EPA, states, and tribes  made
significant strides in addressing core challenges  in the
water program. Public participation increased in many
parts of the water program. These engaged citizens
are vital to achieving our  shared watershed goals. EPA
will continue to support states and tribes as they
encourage more community engagement in decisions
about environmental resources and other actions  which
affect human health and the  environment.  EPA  will
continue to develop and improve the program tools
such as standards, permits, public information,  and
resources which help communities to achieve their goals.

STRENGTHENING PROGRAM  INTEGRITY
THROUGH IMPROVED MANAGEMENT
    EPA is continuing to  implement an aggressive
strategy to reduce the backlog of NPDES permits. The
success of this strategy is critical to the Agency's  ability
to maintain the integrity of the NPDES program and,
ultimately, to make progress toward achieving the overall
loadings reduction goal.  As of October 2000  about
70 percent of  NPDES permits are current. This
represents an improvement of 16 percent from the
backlog measured in November 1998 (54 percent). Over
the past year, the Agency  has taken steps to ensure that
regions and states take more aggressive steps to meet
the 2005 corrective action date.
    The Agency completed a comprehensive evaluation
of the water quality standards program and took several
actions to help eliminate the backlog in EPA approvals/
disapprovals of state water quality standards
submissions. As of October 2000 EPA was overdue in
approving or disapproving 45 new or revised standards
from 21 states and six tribes, and had yet to promulgate
19 sets of federal  replacement standards for 15 states
that have not corrected the portions of their standards
previously disapproved. Backlogs in EPA water quality
standards actions delay  timely decisions to control
environmental  problems,  increase uncertainty,  and
reduce credibility.  EPA placed the highest priority on
resolving the outstanding disapprovals and unreviewed
Q
£
                                                                                 FY 2000 GPRA Performance
                                                                                                     11-19

-------
    standards and made considerable progress in FY 2000.
    The Agency is also working to identify and eliminate
    the problems that generated the backlogs and other
    problems.  These  efforts include conducting an
    evaluation of the water quality standards program;
    working with states to develop a joint strategy to
    improve the water quality  standards development,
    review, and approval process; and continuing work
    toward finalizing a Memorandum of Agreement on
    coordinating implementation of the  CWA and the
    Endangered Species Act.

       EPA is in the process of implementing a multi-
    step action plan to enhance and improve the
    completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data in the
    Agency's  Safe Drinking Water Information System
    (SDWIS). Human health protection is at risk when the
    Agency does not have reliable and comprehensive data
    to ensure that safe drinking water is being provided by
    all public drinking water systems. During  FY 2000 the
    Agency developed and implemented state-specific
    training for data entry into SDWIS, conducted data
    verification audits in 12 states, and developed a new
    transaction processing and tracking report. In addition,
    the Agency initiated efforts to develop  a long-term
    Information Strategy Plan that addresses drinking water
    data collection and data management issues over the
    next 5 to 10 years.

       Please see Section III - Management Accomplishments and
    Challenges for a further discussion of the above issues.

    RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

       Goal 2-related research conducted  in FY 2000
    continued to strengthen the scientific basis for drinking
    water standards  by providing improved methods and
    new data to better evaluate and  control the risks
    associated with  exposure to chemical and microbial
    contaminants in drinking water. To support the SDWA
    and its 1996 amendments, EPA's drinking water research
    program focused on the development of health effects
    data, analytical tools, and risk assessment methods for
    disinfectant by-products (DBPs),  waterborne
    pathogens, and arsenic. The Agency also  continued to
    develop  and evaluate cost-effective treatment
    technologies for removing pathogens  from water
    supplies while  minimizing DBP formation, and for
    .__:_^_;_:	^|.   	_ 1 : .	  _ f  .	.	1 	,	:_ ^1	
    distribution system. Increased emphasis was placed on
filling key data gaps and developing methods for
chemicals and microbial pathogens on the Contaminant
Candidate List.

    Research in FY 2000 evaluated exposures to
stressors and their effects on aquatic systems and will
improve the Agency's understanding of the structure,
function, and characteristics of those systems. This
research  will be used to improve  risk assessment
methods  to develop aquatic life, habitat, and wildlife
criteria. The Agency is also developing assessment
methods and cost-effective management technologies
for contaminated sediments, with  an emphasis on
identifying innovative in situ solutions. In FY 2000 EPA
continued to develop diagnostic tools to evaluate the
exposures to toxic constituents of wet weather flows.
The Agency also continued to develop and validate
effective watershed management strategies for
controlling wet weather flows, especially high-volume,
toxic flows. Research was also conducted to develop
the effective beach evaluation tools necessary to make
timely and informed decisions on beach advisories and
closures.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

    The General Accounting Office conducted a study
on the states' ability to implement increasing drinking
water program requirements. The final report of the
study was released at a congressional hearing held on
September 19, 2000, by the Subcommittee on Health
and the Environment  of the House Committee on
Commerce (www.gao.gov, Report T-RCED-00-298).
Prior to the release of GAO's report, EPA and the
Association of  State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA) agreed on actions to  take in FY 2001 to
address this issue. EPA will work with ASDWA and
states to determine each state's program status,
particularly to identify barriers and common problems.
EPA's regions will then work with individual states to
address barriers that are hindering each state's ability to
fnJlv rncct SD^^A foals. EPA headquarters is workip°p
with regions to share lessons learned about how to
simplify and improve implementation of drinking water
regulations. EPA plans to continue its effort to reduce
monitoring and data collection burdens while still
collecting adequate high quality data to meet essential
program  needs.
11-20
         EPAs FY 2000 Annual Report

-------
    In addition to external studies, in FY 2000 EPA
conducted several internal reviews which expanded its
ability to use evaluation to strengthen program
management to achieve the goals of clean and safe
water.  EPA assessed the process of developing,
reviewing and approving state water quality standards.
These state-adopted standards describe how water
bodies will be used and contain the water quality criteria
that must be  met to protect those designated uses.
Developing standards is primarily a state function. EPA's
role is to review, in appropriate consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (the Services), and affirm that the state
standards meet the  requirements of the CWA. The
standards review and approval process  has been
criticized  for being too slow and inefficient. EPA
conducted a thorough nationwide evaluation of  the
program to identify  the  causes and recommend
solutions that will improve EPA's approval process and
assure that standards are based on sound science and
that states have determined appropriate designated uses
and criteria for monitoring. The evaluation found that
statutory and programmatic  differences, lack of
sufficient resources and technical expertise, inefficient
coordination and communication, and lack of clear and
consistent national  guidance all contributed to  the
problem. EPA is  implementing several of the
recommendations. In early FY 2001 the Agency will
enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with  the
Services to streamline the now complex  and time-
consuming review procedures  related  to the
Endangered Species Act. The Agency also  expects to
complete a strategy for implementing other  study
recommendations during the latter part of FY 2001.
    EPA completed an internal evaluation of  the
National Marine  Debris Monitoring Program, to
determine whether this voluntary program is statistically
effective and whether the program design remains valid.
Preliminary results suggest that the program will meet
its original goals of measuring the amount of marine
debris on U.S. coasts and identifying the sources of the
debris. EPA is partnering with the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC) on this project. Summarized data
sets are available  on CMC's web site at http://
www.cmc-ocean.org/nmdmp and are user friendly
for local, state, regional, and nationwide stakeholders.

    EPA conducted an internal evaluation of regional
oversight of state NPDES programs in Regions 3 and
4. These internal reports recommended that the regions
build consistency in resolving issues by using tools such
as central tenets listing conditions  for permit
disapproval, time lines for comment and response, staff
training and support, and tracking/management
systems.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2000
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2001 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN

    FY 2001 performance goals and measures will
continue to evolve, reflecting EPA's increasing ability
to measure and/or represent water quality and its
contributions to human health  and healthy aquatic
ecosystems, as well as its value as a natural resource.
For example, in FY 2001 EPA will report for the first
time on the increased number of whole watersheds
whose assessed waters largely meet designated uses.
FY 2001 measures will display the continuing progress
being made in maintaining the population served by
water systems receiving safe drinking water (even as
systems incorporate new health-based standards). The
Agency  has met its  FY 2000 performance goal of
another  two million people receiving the benefits of
secondary treatment  (see Annual Performance Goal
(APG) # 16), so that nearly all of the population served
by publicly owned treatment works receive the benefits
of secondary treatment or better. Beginning in 2001,
EPA will report the number of CWSRF projects funded
as a performance measure. In addition EPA expects in
2001  to increase the number of waters for which
TMDLs have  been developed and to increase the
number of updated water quality standards.
    EPA's 2001 goals also reflect the fact that a complete
baseline of information for many programs is not yet
available, and that a number  of our most important
programs  depend on significant voluntary efforts on
the parts of states and other partners. Targets for 2001
include increasing the percentage of waters assessed
for meeting water quality standards for designated uses,
waters assessed for the need  for fish advisories, and
beaches where monitoring and notification of the public
takes place. Resource constraints as well as overlapping
or  conflicting program requirements mean that
meaningful monitoring and reporting remain challenges.
States and tribes increased their efforts in these areas
in FY 2000, and EPA expects them to continue to
I
 ~
                                                                                FV 2000 GPRA Performance
                                                                                                    11-21

-------
•a
if
I
    improve in 2001. EPA will continue to work with
    partners  to  support better standards and testing,
    monitoring and reporting, and provision of the resulting
    information to the public quickly, clearly, and accurately.

    TABLES OF RESULTS

       The  following  tables  of  results  includes
    performance results for the FY 2000 APGs that appear
    in Goal 2. In cases where the FY 2000 APG is associated
    with an FY 1999 APG, the table includes the FY 1999
    APG below the FY 2000 APG for ease in comparing
    performance. Where applicable, the tables note cases
    where FY 2000  APGs are supported by National
    Environmental Performance Partnership System Core
    Performance Measures (CPMs). As described in more
    detail in Section  I of the report  (the Overview and
    Analysis), states use CPMs to evaluate their progress
    toward mutual program goals.  Additionally, EPA is
    providing information on FY 1999 APGs for which
    data was not available when the FY 1999 report was
    published as well as those FY 1999 APGs that are not
    associated with any APGs in FY 2000.
11-22     EPA's Ft' 20(10 Annuai Report

-------
                 FY 2000 Annual Report
Annual Performance Goals and Measures - Table of Results
p|HfQ|i||||Q|H GOAL 2 - CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 1
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
FY2000
Planned
Actual
FY1999
Actual
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.
FY 2000 APG 9: 91% of the population served by community drinking water systems
will receive drinking water meeting all health-based standards that were
in effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994. *» Corresponds with FY 2000
NEPPS Core Performance Measure.
(FY 1999) 89% (increase of 1% over 1998) of the population served by community
water systems will receive drinking water meeting all health-based standards
in effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994.
Explanation: Goal met.
Data Source: The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) serves as the central
repository for data on both the states' implementation of and compliance with
existing and new drinking water regulations. States and EPA regions (for
"direct implementation'1 jurisdictions) enter data representing public water
systems characteristics and drinking water monitoring into the SDWIS
database.
Data Quality: SDWIS has a full suite of software-based edit checks and quality assurance
procedures to aid accurate data entry. However, there are recurrent reports
of discrepancies between national and state data bases, as well as specific
mis-identifications reported by individual utilities. Given the particular need
for confidence in the completeness and accuracy of data about drinking water
quality, EPA designated SDWIS content as an Agency material weakness in
1999, under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
FY 2000 APG 10: Reduce exposure to contaminated recreational waters by increasing
the information available to the public and decision-makers.
Performance Measures
- Cumulative number of beaches for which monitoring and closure data is available at
"beaches" web-page.
- Number of digitized maps on the web-page.
Explanation: Goal met. The additional electronic information enables the public to
precisely locate beach closings, reducing exposure to contaminated
recreational waters.
Data Source: The National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Information Management
System database.
Data Quality: Self-reported data for public use; participation is voluntary and presently
incomplete. Therefore no rigorous quality assurance requirements are in
place. Inconsistencies between different reporting jurisdictions are possible.
91%
1,800
150
91%
1,981
150
91%
No
FY1999
APG
                                                         FY 2000 CPRA Perfomancc
                                                                           11-23

-------
f\i nnnn AHIMBIAI DCDCODRJI A Mf*c f*r\n i o A km me A 01 IDCO
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
FY 2000 APG 1 1 : Reduce uncertainties and improve methods associated with the
evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to disinfection
by-products (DBPs) in drinking water.
(FY 1999) EPA will develop critical dose-response data for disinfection by-products
(DBPs). water-borne pathogens, and arsenic tor addressing key uncertainties
in the risk assessment of municipal water supplies.
Performance Measures
- Report regarding feasibility of refined DBP exposure data for previous epidemiological studies.
- Report on new DBPs from alternative disinfectants.
- Final peer-reviewed report on selected DBP mixtures' lexicological endpoints.
Explanation: Goal met. EPA completed methods for improving the interpretation of data
from published DBP epidemiology studies, and reports that provide important
information about new DBPs in drinking water, and the risks that may be
posed by exposures to mixtures of these contaminants.
Data Source: Agency generated material.
Data Quality: As required by the Agency-wide formal peer review policy issued in 1 993,
and reaffirmed in 1994 and 1998, all major scientific and technical work
products used in Agency decision making are independently peer reviewed
before their use. EPA has implemented a rigorous process of peer review for
both its in-house and extramural research programs. Peer review panels
include scientists and engineers from academia, industry, and other federal
agencies.
FY 2000 APG 12: Reduce uncertainties and Improve methods associated with the
evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to microbial
contaminants in drinking water.
(FY 1999) EPA will develop critical dose-response data tor disinfection by-products
(DBPs), water-borne pathogens, and arsenic for addressing key uncertainties
in the risk assessment of municipal water supplies.
Performance Measures
- Describe different technologies of cost/effective control of Cryptosporidium and DBPs.
- Report on U. S. waterborne disease outbreaks.
- Evaluation of Method 1622 for Cryptosporidium.
Explanation: Goal met. EPA completed reports on the nature and magnitude of waterborne
disease outbreaks in the United States during 1997-1998 and on an
evaluation of a key method for the identification of Cryptosporidium in
drinking water, directly helping to reduce uncertainties and improve methods
associated with the evaluation and control of risks posed by exposure to
microbial contaminants in drinking water. A project to evaluate cost-effective
treatment methods for Cryptosporidium and DBPs was not completed due to
insufficient time being allotted for the completion of this research. However,
EPA completed complementary projects, such as a research progress report
on biofilm (microbial communities growing on the confining surfaces of a
distribution system) formation and control which will provide useful
information on protecting distribution systems. In this way EPA appreciably
met the performance goal.
Data Source: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
Data Quality: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
FY2000
Planned







1
1
1



















9/30/00
1
1















Actual







1
1
1




















1
1















FY1999
Actual



9/30/99





















9/30/99





















11-24
             EPA's FV2000 Annual Report

-------
     FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
     FY2000

Planned    Actual
                                                                                                        FY1999
                                                                                                         Actual
              CONSERVE AND ENHANCE THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OFTHE NATION'S (STATE, INTERSTATE,
AND TRIBAL) WATERS AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS-RIVERS AND STREAMS, LAKES, WETLANDS, ESTUARIES,
    COASTAL AREAS, OCEANS, AND GROUNDWATER-SOTHAT 75% OF WATERS WILL SUPPORT HEALTHY
                                      AQUATIC COMMUNITIES BY 2005.
FY 2000 APG 13:  Environmental improvement projects will be underway in 350 high
                priority watersheds as a result of implementing activities under Clean
                Water Action Plan (CWAP).

(FY 1999)        As part of the CWAP, all states will be conducting or have completed unified
                watershed assessments, with support from EPA, to identify aquatic resources
                in greatest need of restoration or prevention activities.

Explanation:     Goal not met. Environmental improvement projects underway in 324 high
                priority watersheds, which is slightly short of EPA's ambitious goal. The goal
                is for FY 2000 only, to be superseded in FY 2001 by a direct measure of the
                number of large-scale watersheds showing improvements in water quality.

Data Source:     Internal Agency count.

Data Quality:     There are no data quality issues.
  350
             324
                       56
FY 2000 APG 14:  Assure that states and tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality
                standards programs adopted in accordance with the Water Quality
                Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards (WQSs) program
                priorities.

Performance Measures
 -  Number of states with new or revised WQSs that EPA either approved, or disapproved ,and
   promulgated replacements.
 -  Cumulative number of tribes with approved WQSs in place.

Explanation:     Goal not met. State WQS reviews are under a 3-year cycle, as mandated by
                the Clean Water Act, under which all states maintain updated water quality
                programs; therefore, the Agency will review approximately one-third of all
                state/tribal programs each year. Fewer tribes than expected have achieved
                "treatment as a state" status, which is a pre-condition for being approved to
                run a WQS program. EPA is committed to improving the Agency's review and
                approval process for "treatment as a state" to address this barrier. In FY 2001
                EPA expects to implement a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish
                and Wildlife Service  and the National Marine Fisheries Service to greatly
                improve the timeliness and effectiveness of cross-agency coordination in the
                WQS review and approval process. EPA will also provide additional technical
                assistance to tribes to help them develop better WQSs.

Data Source:     Same as FY 2000 APG  13.

Data Quality:     Same as FY 2000 APG  13.
                       No
                     FY1999
                      APG
   15

   22
35

16
FY 2000 APG 15:   Identify the primary life support functions of surface waters that
                 contribute to the management of sustainability of watersheds.

(FY 1999)         EPA will provide data and information for use by states and Regions in
                 assessing and managing aquatic stressors in the watershed, to reduce toxic
                 loadings and improve ecological risk assessment.

Performance Measure
 -  Research strategy document to determine the impact of landscape changes on wetland
   structure and function.

Explanation:      Goal met. The completed work evaluated specific habitats such as wetlands,
                 riparian areas, headwaters, and estuaries to determine their basic function
                 and role in the landscape. This information will allow EPA to determine what
                 makes these habitats critical and will provide a basis for prioritizing protection
                 and restoration decisions.
                     9/30/99
                                                                                                 GPRA Performance
                                                                                                                  11-25

-------
             FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
                                                                                                   FY2000
                                                                                              Planned    Actual
                                                                                                                   FY1999
                                                                                                                   Actual
        Data Source:

        Data Quality:
                 Same as FY 2000 APG 11.

                 Same as FY 2000 APG 11.
        BY 2005, POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM KEY POINT SOURCES AND NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF WILL BE
        REDUCED BY AT LEAST 20% FROM 1992 LEVELS. AIR DEPOSITION OF KEY POLLUTANTS IMPACTING WATER
                                                  BODIES WILL BE REDUCED.
        FY 2000 APG 16:  Another two million people will receive the benefits of secondary
                         treatment of wastewater, for a total of 181 million people.

        (FY 1999)         Another 3.4 million people will receive the benefits of secondary treatment of
                         wastewater, for a total of 179 million.

        Explanation:      Goal met. Currently nearly all of the nation's population is served by publicly
                         owned treatment works with secondary treatment or better.

        Data Source:      Manual system. Extracted from EPA databases including the Clean Water
                         Needs Survey  Database and the Permits Compliance System.

        Data Quality:      Data are manually verified.
                                                                                                2M
                                                                                                          2M
                                                                                                            3.4 M
        FY 2000 APQ 17:  Industrial discharges of pollutants to the nation's waters will be
                         significantly reduced through Implementation of effluent guidelines.

        Performance Measures
        -  Cumulative reduction in toxic-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
           promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
        -  Cumulative reduction in conventional-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
           guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
        -  Cumulative reduction in non-conventional-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
           guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).

        Explanation:      Goal met. EPA substantially met the goal of reducing industrial discharges of
                         the three classes of pollutants. Targets were based on model projections of
                         effluent guidelines, having to estimate both the facility universe and the
                         number of permits developed. The actual number of issued permits in
                         different industry sectors resulted in greater than expected reductions in
                         conventional pollutants, and less than expected reductions in
                         non-conventional pollutants.

        Data Source:      The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is the principle compliance tracking
                         system governing EPA's supervision of the National Pollutant Discharge
                         Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. It contains data from EPA and
                         states on Wastewater facility NPDES permits.

        Data Quality:      Ongoing quality action/quality control safeguards include EPA review of state
                         databases that serve as key data sources. However, there are known
                         inconsistencies between state/federal records, particularly for minor facilities,
                         and previous EPA Office of Inspector General audits have discussed the
                         need for fresher data. EPA is engaged in a major modernization of the  PCS
                         system and databases.
                                                                                                              No
                                                                                                           FY1999
                                                                                                             APG
                                                                                      4Mlbs


                                                                                      385 M Ibs

                                                                                      260 M Ibs
 4Mlbs


473 M Ibs

136 M Ibs
I
FY 2000 APG 18:  Develop modeling, monitoring, and risk management methods that
                 enable planners and regulatory officials to more accurately characterize
                 receiving and recreational water quality and to select appropriate
                 control technologies.

(FY 1999)        By 2003: Deliver support tools, such as watershed models, enabling resource
                 planners to select consistent, appropriate watershed management solutions
                 and alternative, less costly wet-weather flow control technologies.

Performance Measure
 -  Link urban storm water management models to a Geographic Information System (GIS).
           Target
           year is
           FY2003
11-26
          EPA's FY2000 Annual Report

-------
FY 2000 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Explanation: Goal met. EPA met this goal by completing research linking urban storm
water management models to a geographic information system, which will
assist in the development of improved safety guidelines and pollution
indicators that states, local municipalities, and tribes can use to monitor
recreational waters in a cost-effective way. Improving the characterization of
recreational water quality will provide important input to the development of
guidance in state, tribal, and local implementation of beach monitoring and
notification programs designed to reduce human exposure to waterborne
microbials and protect the public health.
Data Source: Same as FY 2000 APQ 1 1 .
Data Quality: Same as FY 2000 APG 1 1 .
FY2000
Planned

Actual

FY1999
Actual

                           FY 1999 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
                             (NO LONGER REPORTED FOR FY 2000)
EPA will issue and begin implementing two protective drinking water standards for high-risk contaminants, including
disease-causing micro-organisms (Stage I Disinfection/Disinfection By-products and Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rules).

4,400 community water systems will be implementing programs to protect their source water (an increase of 1,650
systems over 1998).

EPA will provide funding to restore wetlands and river corridors in 30 watersheds that meet specific "Five Star Project"
criteria relating to diverse community partnerships (for a cumulative total of 44 watersheds).

More than 220 communities will have local watersheds improved by controls on combined sewer overflows (CSO) and
storm water.

In support of the Clean Water Action Plan, ten additional states will upgrade their nonpoint source programs, to ensure
that they are implementing dynamic and effective nonpoint source programs that are designed to achieve and maintain
beneficial uses of water.
                                                                                             CPRA Performance
                                                                                                                11-27

-------
 Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:16 AM
                                                                                      FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5,2001
 Completed by:  Mike Weckessar
                                                                                                                                                                                 Blue = Exceeded;  Yellow = Met;  Red = Not Achieved
Tribal
Strategy
#1
Tribal
Strategy
#A
i
i By 2005, 95% of Tribes will have a "water program
Environmental presence" (i.e., one or more persons, as
10 / RT , appropriate, with environmental capability to advise Tribal
, governments on developing and implementing water
programs).
i
i
i
i
1 By 2005, 1 5% of Tribes will have in place TEAs (or another
1 type of agreement) developed by EPA and the Tribe that
in / RT 'n^lude the following basic information: assessments of water
i quality and drinking water; Tribal environmental priorities for
i water resources; and commitments by EPA and the Tribe to
i their respective water program environmental responsibilities.
i
i
i
i
i
i
9
6
1
1
N/A
N/A
6
0
26
32
43
2
7
0
25
3
90
27
34
4 more
tribes
have
approved
NPS
Programs
and now
receive
grants
under
Section
319
(cumulati
ve6). 34
tribes
have
CWA
water
pollution
control
programs
under
Section
___*/«___


241
71
no target
no target
Cumulativ
el* of
Tribes
Cumulativ
e Number
of Tribes


• ©c§Mg//fcOTffi^^ . ..:.•- '.'•;,
At least 200 eligible drinking water systems will have initiated operations that will protect human health and ensure compliance with health-based drinking water standards through use of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
r r T r
i< ii
' nr*\A/n ' Community and nonprofit, noncommunity water systems that ' '
lag | ^,p" | have initiated operations as a result of receiving DWSRF '34 153
i i ' ii
ii ii
Increase the percent of the population served by non-community, non-transient drinking water systems t
i juMjS ' Number of non-transient, non-community drinking water i i
1ab-1 i .QnuJJi i systems with no violations during the year of any federally i * i •
i (bu.wl& i enforceable health-based standard. (CPM) i i
i ' i ii
ii ii
i Jj ~ ••? i Percent of population served by non-transient, non- i i
1ab-2 i ,cnwtc i community drinking water systems, with no violations during , • i
i (bu.wls, the year of any federally enforceable health-based standard. , ,
LL_ ________ J L
91% of the population served by community drinking water systems will receive drinking water meeting
1ad-1
1ad-2
OGWD ,
W / HQ Number of CWSs with no violations during the year of any . .
(SDWIS federally-enforceable health-based standard. (CPM/CM) '
) '
' i i
Sm^n ' * °' population served by CWSs with no violations during the '
icnuific ' VBar of an/ federally-enforceable health-based standard. * i
(SDWIS |(CpM/CM) ,
28
hat will reci

•
j
73
jive drinkin


84
j water for
*
•
all health-based standards that w

.
i i
i i
0 ' 35 ' 47
t i
which no violations of any federa
* i * i *
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
J L
are in effect as of 1994, up from 8
i i
i * i
i i
i i
i i
• 1 • ! *
1 1
T r r r
i I I
i Ii
52 | 22 | 628 J 200
i I I
i > I
ly-enforceable health-based standards have occurred d
i * 108,487 i 108,487
i i
i i
i i
i i
! * 0.93 | 93%
i i
J L L
3% in 1994.
i * 49,843 49,843
i
i
i
i • 0.91 91%
r
no target
96%
L

no target
91%
Water
systems
jring the ye
DW
Systems
%
populatio
n
j
FY 00 was first full year of issuing
loans. Higher than predicted
systems.
ar.

Now have better data, and
realize from that data that 93
percent is more likely/accurate
target

CWSs
Populatio
n
2 regulations - radon & arsenic - will be promulgated/proposed respectively, & 5 rules (Stage 1 Disinfection Byproduct, Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment, Variances & Exemptions, Consumer Confidence Rprt & primacy revisions) will be implemented
CM • Congressional Measure /CPM - Core Performance Measure
                                                                                                                 Page 8 - 23
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              02uc8.00matrbc.123

-------
Printed:  07/06/2001 11:16:17 AM
                                                                                      FY 2000 National Water Program  - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5,2001
Completed by: Mike Weckest er Blue = Exceeded; Yellow = Met; Red = Not Achieved
^S^'^S^S""^' "* CPM: Co™ Parfomanc* Manure CM:,
l^^sJ^^K^P^it ASS8??*l^i?l^&"'%'i ?^irffe
RH Rt2 *
iRw^te^^uLwjh^
&)
' ,v:;:^,$||f
to ensure protection from high-risk contaminants.
rOGWD rStates, includ ng DC and PR, that have recei/ed training andn r
1ae ' W/RT 'technical assistance on 4 of the rules that aro being ' 6 3
' and HQ ' implemented. ' '
I 	 L . _ . 	 	 I L
1af-1 | w^pfr | States submil ting primacy revisions. | 8 | 1
~ - - r(vNwn r ~* ~* r
1af-2 i J^RJ i States with sijned extension agreements for primacy. i 4 i 1
1b7 \ ffiw | Regulations promulgated/proposed. ! ' ! "
States and community water systems increase efforts and programs to protect their source water resour
• r - • - i- 	 - - — - • — - n |- -
,, ' OGWD 'States that ar ) implementing their EPA-appmved source ! e ' 3
j | W/RT | water protection assessment programs. ' ,
ii ii
ii ii
1 nrwn iCWSs implementing efforts to protect their source water i ,
1c4 i JV/RT i resources, su* as wellhead protection, sole source aquifBr. ,1257 , 334
, i and watershed protection. , ,
ii ii
1 nrwn ' Population served by CWSs implementing ef'orts to protect '
106 ' w/wn ' their source vater resources, such as wellhe id protection, 3.7 > 9.9
i vv ' nu i sole source a ;uifer, and watershed protection. i
Increase protection of ground wa er resources by managing underground injection wells.
	 r r - - - i r

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:17 AM
                                                                                       FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5. 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Red = Not Achieved
! I-.OT, 'High-use coastal beaches'for which data is entered into the" 7 ' ' |^ ' ' ~ n ' ' 7 ' ~ ~| ' ' ^Much higher response7afelhaV
1*1

H4







Increase
192

.
Tribal
Strategy
#10


Tribal
Strategy
#11




Tribal
Strategy
fli3
If 1 £



Tribal
Strategy
#13



- — — —
Tribal
Strategy
#14


Hf-i PUDlic right-to-know database on beach monitoring and
MU 'closures. (CM)
OST 7 i Number of digitized maps entered into the public right-to-
HQ i know database on beach monitoring and closures. (CM)
i
i
i
OST / , Fish tissue samples collected by states/Regions for fish
RT , advisory decisions.
i
i
'
by 10% (over the 1996 baseline of 36 states) the number of states repori
OGWD ' States reporting assessment of river and stream miles and
W / RT ' lake acres for drinking water use in their 305(b) submittals.
i
L .. L. - - - _ - _
r _ _ - _____ _ _ _ _
RT ' Fish consumption goal being developed.
'
t
r r i
' By 2005, the population served by tribal community water
systems providing drinking water that meets all existing
OGWD health-based standards will increase to 95% from a baseline
W / RT ' of 86% in 1996. 95% compliance will be achieved for any
'new standards within 5 years after the effective date of each
'rule

L L J
,
j
1
OGWD i By 2005, 80% of tribal community and non-transient con-
W / RT | community water systems will have a certified operator.
i
|
|
i
1 By 2005, 40% of the population served by tribal community
OGWD 'water systems will receive their water from systems with
W / RT i source water assessments and, where needed, source water
i protection programs in place.
i

i
~ — — — f- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ~ — — — — — — — — — — —
i By 2005. increase protection of groundwater resources by
i managing all Class 1, II, and III injection wells in Indian
OGWD i country and by managing identified, high-risk Tribal class V
W/ RT i wells in 100% of high priority protection areas (e.g.. Tribal
i priority areas, well head protection, sole source aquifer or
i source water protection areas.)
* •
_ _ _ -. L








ing in their Clean Wat
6

L _ —

*


	
95%


_

1




0



_ _ _ _
n/a


i —
2



•


r
88%




4




1 CWS
400
persons




all 12


•

•
624 for
fish
advisory
decisions:
17 for
national
lake
assessm
ent
ar Act Sect
4


-
•

j
	 •
N/A

j


N/A




N/A




N/A


*
L

	






on 305(b) £
0



•


	
100%

L


14




2 @ 4593
populatio
n




53


•

~ _ _ _ _



N/A



ubmittals,
3



•


r —
-

L


111




2
systems
and
populatio
n of 2400




_


* •
j








he river and stream m
5



•



35
systems,
54,000
pop




25




systems,
23,000
Pop




2655


r
2

t_

•



37%




75%




N/A



_ _ _ _
100%


*
l_
*







les and the
r



•


r
0.8

L


+56%




0




,


* *
J




38



acres of lakes that ar
0



•


.





15




25PWS
and 23,
222 pop.



_____
732


	
4



•



82% Of
populatio
n and 88
%of
systems



Met
target 50
%now
have
certified
operators


PWS23;
Pop.
4380



— - —
651


1,891
L _
150







9 designate


L _




r


i 	











- — — — —



1,891 1,800 'Beaches anticipated on the first national
' survey.
t 	 L I J_
160 150 ' Maps
I
i
I
I
I
38 no target ' Samples
i
i
'
d for drinking water use.
26

i_ 	 	 _

0


r
4

L -


170.76




0



_____
4,093


i 	
4 i States
t
i
i_ i

• , •


r - icumcnaiw
i e number
1 Of
i systems
no target i and
i associate
, populatio
L , n served
i Cumulativ
i e Number
I Of
no target |»s
, Certified
, Operators
i
i Cumulativ
, e number
! systems
no target and
associate
1 d
populatio
1 n.
i
-____i_-__-j
i
i Cumulativ
,managed.
i


i_




r ~ " ---- -


L















Ceto?.!%//WM^^nx^ l^^r ^ (oiwfaaataa : ••••... :> . , , •-•.v-.vv-.^.d
CM • Congrtitlonil Msisure / CPM • Cora Ptrfomunc* Meisure
                                                                                                                  Page 8 - 25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                02»ec600matru.123

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:17 AM
                                                                                      FY 2000 National Water Program  - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       As of:  February 5. 2001
Completed by: Mike Weckes: er Blue = Exceeded; Yellow = Met: Red = Not Achieved
•f ' <™ . ;


Assist th


Assure th
27 a
2acl
Tribal
Strategy
#5
Improve i
• - • - r
29a-1
Gulf/ Assessed rive r miles, lakes acres, & estuary square miles
Gulf and that 1 ) are co /ered under Watershed Restoration Action
RT 4 Strategies an J b) were restored to their designated uses
and 6 during the re[ orting period.
rntf/ 'TMDLsschet. to be completed; TMDLs submitted by Gulf i i
r . „ ' States for set ments in the coastal watershed; Gulf State-est. i i
t>u" i TMDLs approved; TMDLs est. by EPA. i ;
CiiH/ Impaired Gull coastal river and estuary segrrents ,
r . i/ .implementing watershed restoration action strategies or
tun ] equivalent. | |
Gulf States in characterizing the impairments caused by invasive aquatic species in 30 priori!)
r ... rAssessed constal river miles and estuary square miles 1 r
r.K impaired by invasive aquatic species in the 30 priority coastal ' '
L>u ' watersheds. ' '
L _ 	 _ _ J L
Gulf/ i Gulf coastal watersheds with characterizations of i
Gulf (impairments laused by invasive aquatic spedes. i i
at States and Tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in at
i
OST / ' States with n >w or revised water quality standards that EPA
RT ' has reviewed and approved or disapproved. (CM)
i
i
OST / ' Tribes with w ater quality standards adopted and approved.
RT '(CM)
i
i
i
ssessments of progres s toward attainment of designa'ed uses.
i
i
1 Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake acres, and
nuv/nw ' estuary square miles that have water quality supporting
/HO ' designated beneficial uses, including, where applicable, for
'fish and shel fish consumption. (The reporting period is two
i years.) (CPU)
i
i
i
i
t
_ - t_ -


• *
i
N/A i N/A
i
i i
i i
N/A i i N/A
I i
N/A | 14 | N/A
I 1
coastal watersheds.
N/A
N/A
.cordance v
N/A
j
N/A
30 ' N/A
L
15 N/A




I |
J L

vith the Water Quality Standards regulation and the Wat
L
•

* * *
i r
* * •

* • *
	 ^ 	 r __ 	 ! 	 _,_._._._
1 l 1 l
N/A i i i 0 i no target
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
N/A i i i 0 i no target
i i i i
N/A | | | 14 | 14
III!

N/A ' | | JO 'no target
J L L L
N/A ' ' ' 15 ' 15
i l i i
er Quality Standards program priorities.
_, 	 r 	 , 	 ! 	
1 1
i 35 i 35 31
i i
i |
i I
] 16 | 16 22
i I
I I
I . 1
' l"~. J

i r i 	 1
i i i
i ™,«™. 07 irivere:87
rivers. 87 ... -.-.
1 a/. QQOi. 1 ^*» JJfcR
] *Je3s2k; """>»
' lakes: 54 i'«k":"
i • %; 4.3M ' *•_ ™" no target
1 acres i "cre*
! estuaries: l8?^?'
l 63%; 10ki inif.l
i sq miles , «j|J
t I
States i
t
i
i
States i
i
Coastal t
waters i
i

'i •••'--.-
Estuaries |
Watershe ,
ds ,

, 	 .., 	 .. 	 	 _.
States
Tribes have not been approved
as anticipated for Treatment as a
State, which is a pre-condition of
Tribes approval for a tribal water quality
standards program. In some
cases ESA consultations have
created longer than expected
delays.

r r " ~ - - -
i
Miles /
Acres
.. _-..--.

-------
 Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:17 AM
                                                                                      FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5.2001
 Completed
                 Mike Weckesser
                                                                                                                                                                                Blue = Exceeded;  Yellow = Mel;   Red = Not Achieved




29a-2





29a-3






29a-4



2at
All Tier 1-


2a4



jSfUHliisiAii&^^^^ ^ JlRt1 1 Rtz i ro* 1 *" 1""";
i
i
i Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake acres, and
OWOW i estuary square miles that have water quality supporting
/HO i designated beneficial uses, including, where applicable, for
i recreation (The reporting period is two years.) (CPM)
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
, Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake acres, and
nwnw i estuary square miles that have water quality supporting
iHO T Designated beneficial uses, including, where applicable, for
aquatic life support. (The reporting period is two years.)
|(CPM)
I
t
i
_L_ 	 	 	 J

i Number and percent of assessed river miles, lake acres, and
nwnw ' estuary square miles that have water quality supporting
/HO ' designated beneficial uses, including, where applicable, for
u idrinking water supply. (The reporting period is two years.)
,(CPM)
t
i
OWOW rStates, tribes, and" Territories electronically submit updated
/RT '305(0).


*





'






'



5
V National Estuary Programs have completed Comprehensive Conservation end Me
r - - - - ~~ _-— ^
i
i
rn/unw ' Completed CCMPs. [NOTE: The number of completed
IRT ' CCMPs in each Region should equal the number of NEPs in
'the Region. For example, Region 4 would report 6 out of 6.]
(
'
100% of marine coastal states. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and territories are mor
r ~ i i
nwnw 'Marine coastal states. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, end
2az Tun ' territories monitoring their coastlines for sources and types
'"u i of marine debris.
i

«


itoring the

*



*





•



L


•



2
nagement


3


coastlines

•



*





•



j


•



4


*





•






•



8


*





•



I 	


•



6
Plans (CCMPs) - blueprints for pr
"T ~ r

3


for source
~\
*


«


3 and types

•


N/A


of marine

••

•" -1 « j*--"i , f •««' ^^wfaife^*^**
mi i t»7 K Rts.J ^wsiJ^gio^Sl^


•





•






•



*
otecting an


3


Jebris.
n
•



•





•






•



2
d enhancin


N/A




•



«





•



L






5
} the estua
r

N/A




•



•





•



J


•



6
ies.


2



n
•



•





•




_

'



rivers: 69
%; 3301k
miles

%; 9.9M
acres
estuaries:


rivers: 69
%; 3301k
miles
lakes: 69
%; 9.9M
acres
estuaries
88%; 19k1 ;°°?1
sq miles

rivers: 58
%; 410k
miles
• •"I'
miles

rivers: 58
%; 410k
miles
i.kM. to ' lakes: 68
% 71M ' %!7-1M
estuaries:
54%; 12k
sq miles


estuaries
12k sq
miles


rivers: 87 1 rivers: 87
%; 123k
miles
lakes: 82
%; 6.9M
acres

.
' 1



3



r
92%

Appropriate action taken with regard to dredged material ocean disposal site designation in one additional case.
%; 123k
miles
lakes: 82
%; 6.9M
acres



no target





no target






no target



43 40

	 1
I
i,
I
22 j 28
' - >~ I
°*r j

"V^r "I
safe
• v!5 ;
100%



Miles /
Acres





Miles /
Acres



L


Miles /
Acres



States,
etc.

r

CCMPs



r
% States,
etc.













L








Of the remaining 6 programs, in
FY 01 , 3 will submit final CCMPs
in Q1 . 2 in Q2. and the final in
03. Final completion of a CCMP
is dependent on State and local
stakeholder consensus and
estimated time lines for resolving
outstanding issues can change.

Temporary shortage of trained
volunteers available to monitor.
In addition, sites in Texes did not
meet the requirement of no-
extensive beach cleaning or
maintenance.

CM * Congressional Measure I CPU* Core Performance Measure
                                                                                                                Page 8 - 27
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            02uc9.OOnKtibi.123

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:18AM
                                                                            FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5, 2001
                                                                                                                                                             Blue = Exceeded:  Yellow = Met;  Red = Not Achieved
                          HCPM: Core PorformanctMaaWe CM!*1*lJ4H'*"fc»
                          acoflflrwJolwl M«a«ur» WttilHASMfc^l^ki..
1 nu/nuu 'Additional apDropriate actions taken (e.g.. si'a designation.
2ar ' , un ' designations or Site Management and Moni!oring Plan
i /HQ i development).
Restore and protect watersheds through implementation of CWAP strategies.
2ad
2ai-1
2ai-2
2ai-3
2ai-4
2am-1
2am-2
2am -3
2am-4
2ay
r — r _-_.-
i
OWOW ! States that s ifamit 303(d) lists with schedule s for establishing
/HQ ,TMDLs.
r - _ _ _ -
nwnw 'The number of TMDLs identified on the 199 i 303(d) list that
uvvuvv i(he g,ate an(| EPA haye commie,] to produce in the two-
/KI | year cycle. (CPM)
i
OWOW i The number of TMDLs submitted by the State to EPA. (CPM
/RT i)
OWOW i The number of State-established TMDLs approved by EPA.
/RT i(CPM)
OW°W 'The number of EPA-established TMDLs. (CPM)
inii
i
nwnw ' Numbor 0( Assessed river miles, lake acres & estuary square
iun i miles lnat a -e covered under Watershed Restoration Action
/MU i Strategies. (CPM)
i
i
nwnw '* °' assessed river miles, lake acres, & estuary square miles
iun ' that are on ered under Watershed Restoration Action
/MQ i Strategies. (CPM)
i
nwnw i Number of ( issessed river miles, lake acres & estuary square
run i mi'8s lhat v'ere restored to their designated uses during the
' , reporting pe riod (reporting period is 2 years). (CPM)
nwnw ' * °' assess ed river miles, lake acres, & os'uary square miles
mn ' that were >1>slorBd to their designated uses during the
' reporting pe riod (reporting period is 2 yean). (CPM)
i- — -i
(Submission, with National Watershed Forum, of a Watershed
i Restoration Progress Report to the Presldont, the nation's
nwnw i governors, ribal leaders, and the public, evaluating progress
/ MO iand recomr lending any actions needed to 'mprove progress
.toward meeting clean water goals. (CWAP commitment; EPA
, and USDA in consultation with NOAA, DOI, and other
federal agencies.)
i
Improve habitat in the Chesapf ake Bay.
' rppn 1 1 Acres of aquatic reef habitat designated, With construction
2av i r?anr! i and restoration of oyster reef habitat to occur within those
, CBPO .areas.
•

•
132
125
64
0
' •
*
•




1


r
26
16
1
•
•
•
•
•


•

•
299
133
71
39
•
•
•



11,000
1

*
182
162
149
33
•
•
•




•

*
140
9
7
0
•
•
•
•
•


•

•
385
87
86
0
*
•
-




•


N/A
194
167
0
•
•
•




•


1046
1046
331
0
•
•
•
•
•


•

•
56
36
36
6
*
•
•


*


434
349
349
87
• •
•




I
I
1
t
2 2 ' 1
i i
i

r 	 r 	 ( 	
i i
i i
N/A ' 0 ' 50
i i
i ' i
i i
i i
| 2,674 | no target
i i
i t
| 2.167 | no target
' 1,276 'no target
| 166 | no target
i i
N/A i 0 i no target
i i
i i
i i
i i
N/A t 0 i no target
i i
i i
i
N/A 1 0 | no terget
i i
i i
N/A ' 0 ' no target
i
i
o p • | 1
* }
}
-I. J

! 11,000 [ 11,000
I I
' Oregon (Coos Bay). & Louisiana
Action ' (Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chen
' , Boeuf, and Black)

States
TMDLs
-TMDLs
Submitte
State-.
Establish
ed
TMDI £
'cm-*
establish
ed
TMDLs
Miles /
Acres
Miles /
Acres
Miles /
Acres
Miles/
Acres
Report
This measure/goal was obviated
by a March 2000 regulation
deferring until 2002 the
requirement that stales submit
303(d) lists. (Not counted within
Totals)







Draft report out for content review
, with comments due 12/8/00.
Final document planned for
December 2000, printing/
distribution planned for January
2001. We'd hoped to finish in
FY2000. but will still substantially
meet CWAP commitment of
CY2000.

i
Acres ,
i

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:18AM
                                                                                        FY 2000 Nalional Water Program  - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            As of: February 5, 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Yellow = Met;  Red = Not Achieved

SPilf


2aw
2ax
25a
26a
i
rnpn / 1 Agricultural, recreational and public lands that have voluntary
raon i Integrated pest management (IPM) practice established in
UD u i the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
CBPO / 1 Stream miles of migratory fish habitat reopened through
CBPO i provision of fish passages.
t
CBPO / 1 Wastewater flow to the Chesapeake Bay treated by Biological
CBPO i Nutrient Removal.
t
i
CBPO / 'Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the
CBPO | Chesapeake Bay.
i
i
i
Provide tools for risk characterization and decision making regarding surface wale
ncr i i Models, methods.criteria developed/available for risk
2aa i?n .characterization of surface water contaminants. (Reporting
HQ [Measure)
i




r contamin





ants, includ
•
EPA will provide financialAechnical support to States & Tribes to develop/implement statewide/tribal-nationw
2b4
2b5
Environm
30a
r ~ r ^
i States/tribes developing wetlands assessment/monitoring
nwnw llools * making significant progress towards establishing
/ RT l(onTial programs to assess and monitor overall wetland
i conditions, improvements, deterioration, & restoration.
i (increment)
i
'Within the development or implementation of watershed-
nuunuu ' based restoration/improvement plans, the number of wetland
IPT ' restoration projects to which EPA has provided financial
' support (other than Five-Star Projects)/oontributed significant
i technical assistance.
ental improvement projects will be underway in 350 high priority watersh
i
nwnw i H'9h Priority watersheds in which environmental improvement
uvyuw projgctj are underway as a result of implementing activities
/KI .under the CWAP. (CM)
i
i
2
6
eds as a re
32
0
2
L
suit of impl
10
79%
1,032
41%
68.125
ng PBTs a

de program
1
6
Bmenting a
35

•Stf
I
^^•^;t*^f^K*^
i&feM^m"$s*
SigBgipaBtffilltaplisS^^
9|»nHiiH3QK3






nd nutrient
•

s to assess
1

6
ctivities unc
54





>, that allow
•
and monito
0
6
er the CW/
33




States ant
•
r overall we

18
Mem»MB»»»tH^iaiaMtaaH»«»aM«ii^^
rraiifile^ffniKmVMti^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^fSSU^mSSS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^M\




Tribes to

(land health
0

\P.
30 10




et and me
•
& for projec
0
8

35








5t their own water qua

t
| 79% 70%
r i 	 r
| 1,032 877
I
i
| 41% 40%

§.12*ji 71,500
rfS>3B
m
ty standards.
1
As that restore wetlands within the
0
12

52



33
r

1 1
Development or implem
4 4
74 65

'I"
% lands
i
Miles
%WW
flow
Acres

List

r

r
Progress continues toward the
overall cumulative goal of 1 14,
000 acres by FY 2006. However.
we fell short of our targets in
Fr99and'00. We need to
increase our efforts to reduce
nutrient and sediment pollution if
we expect to achieve the goal on
lime. The Chesapeake 2000
Agreement commitment to
develop new water quality
standards by 2003 is a critical
step to achieving water clarity
levels necessary for SAV
recovery.


eolation of watershed-based restoration/improve
States/
tribes
Projects

Watershe
ds
r
CO, Rl. VA, and Cherokee
L


Environmental improvement
projects underway which is
slightly short of goal, but
indicates a significant promise of
real water quality improvements
in impaired watersheds.
CM • Congressional Measure / CPM • Core Performance Measure
                                                                                                                    Page 8 - 29
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    OJl»c800m.tra 123

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:18AN
                                                                                    FY 2000 National Water Program  - Final End-ot-Year Performance Report
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   As of:  February 5,2001
Completed by: Mike Weckesser ^
^sSaHliB^^^Sal^B^I^^II^^^^^^^^MiHBMHB^HlHfflHhHHll^H^^^^fl^li^BI^^^Q^B^w
Tribal
Strategy
#15
Tribal
Strategy
#2
Tribal
Strategy
#3
Tribal
Strategy
#6
OWOW ' By 2005' 20°h of Trib9s wi" have deve'op811 Tribal
/ IDT ' conservation plans or alternate approaches tor protecting
' K ' ' wetlands and watersheds.
' By 2005, 40% of Tribes will have water quality monitoring and
OWOW ' assessment programs appropriate for their circumstances
/ RT ' and will be er tering water quality data into EPA's national
1 data systems
OWOW ] By 2005, 1 5* , of Tribes will be reporting infoi mation to 305(b)
/ RT , reports.
j By 2005. 20%. of tribes that have EPA-approved water
, quality stand: rds and that have demonstrated an interest in
OWOW | establishing i Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
/ RT , under Sectior 303(d) of the Clean Water Act will wither have
, such a progrt m in place or, in coordination v. ith EPA, will be
, in the process of developing such a program
i
4
0
1
0

**W3P*i:
iPBaBSiy^
1
1
0



N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

i^Pligiil
0
0
0
0

45 colonias projects will have beim completed or under construction.
3a5 ' OWM/ i colonias proji icts completed/under construct on i * * *
i Kl i i
54% of biosolids are beneficially reused.
o«u •» i OWM / iPOTWs benefcially reusing all or a part of truir biosolids. i A^n, 000f A*o, R.0,
OaD*l DT ff*Dkl\ t^/0 £y n *i 1 70 O 1 n
I n 1 i lOrlVM I I
11 -I J L J
, h , OWM/ i The percent cf biosolids generated that are beneficially ' ~7,, ' „,, c,aa, ' K,0,
•ialw ' RT ,reused. (CPM) ' J * ' ° * ' oa% ' 01A
Another two million people will re :eive the benefits. of secondary treatment of wastewater, for a total of 181 million people.
i ' i i i i
, . OWM/ i Additional pel iple who will receive the benefits of secondary i ,n i . i . i
Jap RT i or better treat -nent of wastewaler. (CM) i ^ i i i
i . i i i i
i i i i i

itJiHslillPI
6
-
-
-



11

0
0
Blue = Exceeded: Yellow = Met; Red - Not Achieved

0

0
0
2
0
1
0
5
26
12
1


13 tribes
2 tribes
•
•
•
•
29
35
14
t~
1
< i'UU< <«tea'uH»Kl •

Cumulativ
no target e number
1 of Tribes'
i i
i Cumulativ i
no target IB Number i
i of Tribes i
i i
'Cumulativ'
no target 'e Number'
1 of Tribes'
• i i
i i
i i
'Cumulativ'
no target 'e Number1
1 of Tribes'
i i
i i
^H^tFZ tST'lE!^^

i r~ i ~i r i ~ii~ ^™ ""'j
43 i • i • I 0 i |v» :« 0 45
1111 fef*&± '

T r i T r T"
54% 34% 80% ' 69% ' 48% ' 54%
i < i i
L J L 1 J L
33% 34% 80% i 18% , 68% , 54% • ,
i i i i
61% 'no target

54%

i i i
|*!*1 °-07 * 1 2-07 2 million
iii i
iti i
Projects

POTWs
	 T 	
biosolids i

	 " V ' ' 	 	 "
People |
i
Effectively implement the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF) program to ensure annual assistance of approximately $2 billion.
               Measure/CPM
                                                                                                              Pages,

-------
 Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:18AM
                                                                                     FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                                    As of:  February 5, 2001
 Completed by:   Mike Wockosser
Blue - Exceeded;  Yellow = Met:  Red = Not Achieved
ID ruSSrtf * M»«»ur»«->CPM:Cor»P«rfornwne«M«««ur» CM: 1 n(1
' ! I *J7'| ~ -v - Coner»**lon*I M«»ur» "'•
_'_ 	 \ •___ p_ ^ 	 i 	 :_-!_^i_-^-_^_-L 	 - 	 . 	 J 	








31k








311


3ar

Effective
31c



31d



31i

Industria
• - - ~

3a9





3ao











OWM/
RT








OWM/
RT










States that meet or exceed "pace of the program" measures
for loan issuance and pace of construction.







i
r i -
States and Puerto Rico that conduct separate annual audits
of their CW SRFs
I

OWM / EpA will report to Congress on the pace of the Clean Water
HQ i State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program. (CPM)
i
y implement the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW SRF) to improv
OWM / i States funding nonpoint source and estuary projects with
RT ,their CWSRFs.


1
OWM / ,cw SRF projects that have initiated operations.

i

OWM / i States that are using integrated planning and priority systems
RT i to make CW SRF funding decisions.








4








5




a water qu£
- — — — _
4



681



1
i
discharges of pollutants to the nation's waters will be significantly reduced through
I
1
1
i Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants for facilities
OWM / i subject to effluent guidelines promulgated between 1992 and
RT i 1998, as compared to 1992 levels as predicted by model
i projections of effluent guidelines. (CM)
t
'
["
i
i Reduction in loadings for toxic pollutants for facilities subject
OWM / to effluent guidelines promulgated between 1 992 and 1 998,
RT i as compared to 1 992 levels as predicted by model
i projections of effluent guidelines . (CM)
i

,


9 Paper
Mills





9 Paper
Mills



Rt2 Rt3 Rt4








1








i 	
3


•
L
lily. (Supp
~ ~ ~ - n
2



1,207



2

mplementa
^

1 Pharm.





1 Pharm,
4 pulp &
paper











-








e


•
j
)rts CWAP)
	
5



1,143



2








N/A








	
7





2



652



0

lion of effluent guidelir
~ r
i
,122004
9Dh0rm iG, 17CO
£. rnarm ir* n no n
i/G, 9 P&P
i , 1 Pharm
\
'
i
- •
P«|E
pape t
i
i
il J - I I \ \ \ i I ' J I iimi '
Rt« Rt7 j Rt8 j. RIC Rt10 HQ *oW, Tarwrt U"-"- ' C4mm*1^








5








r
6


•


	 1
3
L


1,251



1

es.
^

5 pharm





pesticide
2 pulp &
paper 9
p arm.










N/A








4


•








1








	


•
J

— _ _ _
2



418



1

~

1 Pharm.,
3000
offshore
oil & gas
discharge
s.


1 Pharm.,
3000
offshore
oil & gas
discharge
8.


i 	
2



363






r

0





1 pulp &
paper











3








i 	
5


•
L

I
2



384



2




0





1 pulp &
paper











2








2


•








4








	
2



J

r
3 3
j


155 265



2 1




0





0





2 pulp &
paper





2 pulp &
paper



i i







20 30







|
r *~r r *~
1 1
1 1
,42 i 42

I i
1 ; i ; 1
L 1 J

28 30
L L - i
1 1
1 1
| 6,519 \ 5.700
, i
, t
L l_ 	 I
i 1
13 i 14
1
L- i _-_ _ ~i

1 t
1 I
1 1
1 472.7 ' 385
I t
1
i i
1 I
I I
1 I
1 i
; j.7 4
1 ' .1
1 1
1 1
1 1








States








States


Report
L

	 1
States



SRF
projects



.
Slates


~ ~ 1

Million
Pounds





Million
Pounds



EPA/HQ has developed new
measures which show that the
program is meeting pace targets.
Using new data lor FYOO, HQ
finds that the national CWSRF
program has completed loan
agreements for 90% of the funds
available, and has disbursed 83%
of the funds promised in those
agreements. These new
measures replace "states that
meet or exceed..." and are
Headquarters-report items which
no longer require Regional
reporting. They are based on
state reports into the National
Information Management System
database.
i 	 	 	





r
2 States will soon begin funding
nopoint source projects.

Most of the exceedance is due to
effective EPA partnership with
states to encourage funds
utilization, and use of advanced
analytical tools provided by EPA.
such as financial models.




Cumulative Targets. Actual
number of issued permits in
different industry sectors resulted
in greater than expected
reductions in conventional
pooutatns, and less than
expected reductions in non-
conventional pollutants.
Cumulative Targets. Actual
number of issued permits in
different industry sectors resulted
in greater than expected
reductions in conventional
pooutatns, and less than
expected reductions in non-
conventional pollutants.

CM " Congressional Measure / CPM = Core Pirfomunct Measure
                                                                                                               Page 8 - 31
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          02i«c8 OOmatra 123

-------
Printed:  07/06/2001 11:16:18 AM
                                                                                     FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                    A3 of:  February 5, 2001
     pleted I
                MikeWeckesser
                                                                                                                                                                                Blue = Exo
Yellow = Met:	Red = Not Achieved
|g,i(R^^fe}u"« i cpM;cS» ^rasss^i^te^;
i
' Reduction in 1 ladings for non-conventional pollutants for
, OWM / facilities subje ct to effluent guidelines promulgated between
Jap ' RT 1992 and 19!I8. as compared to 1992 levels as predicted by
' model project ons of effluent guidelines. (CM)
..,.„.,
; ,mi
9 Paper
Mills
Prevent pass through of pollutant 5 to sludge and the nation's wa ers and protect POTW oper
31h-1
31h-2
31h-3
r - r i
OWM / i Number of approved pretreatment programs audited in the , 8
RT i reporting yeai . (CPM) ,
i i
OWM / , Percent of ap sroved pretreatment programs audited in the i qi»
RT , rebortirtg yea. (CPM) i
L . J j
D\A/M / ' Of thoso above, the number of audits finding significant ,
U;)T 'shortcomings and the number of local programs upgraded to , *
'achieve compliance. (CPM) ,
Reduce the number of homes in ndian Country with inadequate wastewater sanitation syste
- - r - r ~ ~ " T~
T^" i i ™/UM / i Reduction in he number of homes in Indian Country with ,
inpai uy™' inadequate wastewater sanitation systems that were funded , *
#9 i i from the cw 3RF Tribal Sel Aside Pr°8ram i
i i i
Current NPDES permits reduce c r eliminate discharges into tha nation's waters including (1 )i
heavy metals, and acid drainage from new hardrock mines; and (5) pollutants associated wit
3aq-1
3aq-2
3ay-1
3ay-2
]
r r ^
OWM ' 'Major point sources covered by current permits
i
i
t
i
I L 	
- r
OWM' ' Minor point sources covered by current permits
n \ |
OWM / ' States with current permits for construction s tes over 5 acres
RT '. (modified CI'M)
— — — c _ — _ ..
' States with a irrenl permits for all industrial i ctivities
. . ' operating in !itate. (Include fractions of States based on
UVVM / i(ractjons Of industrial categories covered by the MSGP or
'general or individual permits tailored to existing categories in
'a State.) (modified CPM)
i
72%
33%
85%
85%
Rt2 plUS..
2 Pharm;
1 Pharm. 1
4 pulp & Pesticide;
paper 3 pulp &
paper
•»<,,,
^ »
12200&
G, 17 CO
IG. 9 P&P
, 1 Pharm
ations by auditing all approved pr
26
32%
L
•
ns by 6% t
4
57 ' 80
i
i
35%
j
•
20%
2
trough funding from th
r
i
* •
- -„,,,,_,, , ^ ,,- -, j^.. 3 r
MS* \" Rt«,J urn?,.
^H I -^^ki j ^* ^K^
2 1 Pharm.
^ibt °!f!hore 1pulp&
naner 9 0|1 8 8»S paper
PphParrn *S*arg*
3 treatment programs over a 5-yea
33
13%
L
•
a Clean W
•
i
28 ' 55
i
21% | 23%
j
' *
i
i
alar State Revolving F
i
• *
i

1 pulp &
paper
r period to
28
42%
L

jnd Tribal E
•
0 2pu\p&
paper
m

135.6 i 260
ensure that 1500 effective pretreatment programs contr
17
15%
J
J
et Aside P
*
i
8 '
i
i
i
17% [
L
l
o ;
i
L
ogram.
i
• ! 6%
i
i
i
332 ' no target
i
i
h [• loo*
23% over five
L 	 L -ye-ar! -
I
2 | no target
i

6% 6%
i
i
isgw uM*~i»^u^w44 b^xt "Utomft^fsme'it uiu
, Cumulative Targets. Actual
, number of issued permits in
, different industry sectors resulted
Million in greater than expected
Pounds reductions in conventional
pooutatns, and less than
' expected reductions in non-
conventional pollutants.
ol over 30,000 significant industrial discharger
i
programs '
i
i
% I
programs t
	 j 	 	
i
audits |
i
L 1 _

1
% Homes i
i
i
^adequately treated discharges from major municipal and industrial facilities, (2) pollutants from urban storm water, (3) raw sewage from over 10,000 CSO points, (4) sediment,
h animal wastes from 20,000 CAFOs by implementation of comprehensive nutrient management plans.
81%
63%
75%
75%
i
i
73% 87%
i
J
77%
100%
100%
1
89%
88%
100%
75%
L
77%
67%
78%
61%
48%
100%
20%
72%
76%
100%
75%
72%
L
87%
100%
95%
68%
_ .. J
70%
76%
100%
54%
58%
100%
100%
v ~i
I
i
i
72% j 84%
1
j
1
L . 1 	 >_
70% ! 60%


I
89% I 100%
, .» ]
I
• 83% ' 100%
'*~ X j.* (
i
% majors '
_ .. . i 	 ....
% minors i
i
% states '
% states i
i
	 ' 	 	 	
                      /CPMi
                                   i rfbrrniuMMMiuro
                                                                                                                Page

-------
Printed: 07/06/2001  11:16:19AM
                                                                                      FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
As of:  February 5, 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Red = Not Achieved
i I I I I I i I I I Btt|UH i I
i ' Percentage of States with general NPDES permits for CAFOs i i ' i i i i i i iiHi^9 ' '
,.K | OWM/ ' >1, 000 animal units or with individual NPDES permits for all -,„„, , Tcu i .„„ c,,, , .•„, , -„., „„, , CTU , cco, , -,,-0, , BRRH TIU i u 0.1.. i
31b | RT ' CAFOs > 1,000 animal units consistent with the AFO Strategy 20% ] 75% i 40% 63% \ 17% | 20% 50% | 67% | 55% | 75% | B^H ]% Slates]
i 'and guidance in FY 2000. i i ' i i i • i i i i IHH ' '
| i permittees (among the approximately 900 CSO \ ' ! ! ! ! I ! ! I ! % ! s^edule^lAreKtiss'L'e
31j , OWM /] communities nationwide) that are covered by NPDES permits, 10Q% i 10Q% , gg% 10Q% , 83% , NA 2Q% , 1rjo% , 100% , 93% , 100% , pg^g , ^,,5 u^ ^ontrols [resulting in
' /*o/-\ nnr«. ff*D*»\ f ' i i i i flliyli£^*3 ' s i 1 objection and 4 objections in
i i CSO policy. (CPM) , , , : ( i i , i pUl, 1 ' ' development stage.
Take final action on 4 and propose 1 effluent guideline(s) limitations for industrial categories that contribute significantly to pollution of surface waters
r T ~
i i
3a7-1 HQ ' Effluent guidelines proposed. ' •
i i ,
3a7-2 ' SI ' Effluent guidelines proposed or promulgated ' *
Through assistance under Clean Water Act Section 104(g), 791 wastewater treatment facilitic
i i
i fiu/Mi i Wastewater treatment facilities prevented from going into
3aw i u v™ i CWA non-compliance or assisted in moving toward 81
i i compliance through assistance under CWA Section 104(g).
I L J
Closeout all the Clean Water Act Title II pre-92 grants by the end of FY2002. The post-91 gr
,,,„, OWM / Remaining pre-92 (awarded before FY92) construction grants . .
(J1fl) RT projects to be closed out. "
rr i i i rii rii r ...__
i ii i i i i i i i i
' .1.1. . i . i . i . i 1 i 1 , 1 , Ru|BS ,
, ii i i i i i i i i
i ii i i i i i i i i
i. .i.i. . i . i . i . i 4 i 4 i 4 i Ru!es i
i ii i i i i i i i i
s are prevented from going into CWA non-compliance or assisted in moving toward compliance.
7 r ~i T r i ~~i~~~r~~i T ~~r i T ---
i i i i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i i ..... i Program was able to provide
32 i 115 i 99 i 128 i 118 65 i 102 i 43 i 89 i i 872 i 791 i ,*,,„„ i significantly more assistance than
,ii, ,111111 I8alllies i planned.
i i i i i i i i i i i i
illllLl'LI'L'
ants are to be administratively completed within 5 years and closed out within 7 years of grant award.
ii ii ii ii '
i i i i i ii ii
52 30 18 i 46 i 0 i 6 i 0 i 8 4 i 1 178 123 i Projects i
. i i i i i ii ii
i i i i i ii ii
ii ii i I . i i
Expedite the closeout of special project State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG).
i i i
/•>=c\ ' OWM ' ' Special project STAG grants closed out within 7 years of i ....
(Jas) i RT i grant award. This APM cannot be evaluated before FY2002. i N'A
In support of the Clean Water Action Plan, 45 states upgrade their nonpoint source programs
' ' Number of EPA approvals of State submitted upgraded
1 nwnw ' NonP°inl Source Programs (incorporating the nine key
3b1 ' ,ar ' elements outline in the national Nonpoint Source Program 6
i " i and Grants Guidance for FY 1997 and Future Years jointly
transmitted by EPA and ASWIPCA). (CPM)
i t
Integrate and expand coastal air and water monitoring sites; e.g., expand the geographic are
i i i
,„. ' OWOW ' Coastal National Atmospheric Deposition Program/Clean Air '
JM ' /HQ 'Status and Trends Network sites. ]
i i i
L L _ - - -L
J'aS. ' OWOW ' By 2005. 50* of Indian country will have approved nonpoint ' ,
strategy i /RT 1 80urce assessment and management plans. '
N/A ] N/A N/A
, i
. to ensure that they are impleme
~T r
458
as for which measurements of tot
, N/A i
i i
J L
0 i N/A i mj||jon
1 !
N/A | N/A N/A
i
nting dynamic and effective nonpt
T p
1
6 ' 5 1
al nitrogen deposition are availab
N/A ,
j L
'1.735,479 0
1 acres
N/A | N/A N/A
i
lint source programs that are des
~i r
563
e. (Supports CWAP)
i N/A i
i i
4.3 ' 219M ! million
million ' ^ bM ' acres
1 '.(estimate)
N/A | 0 | -N/A
i i
gned to achieve and maintain be
i
i
49 ' 45
i


* i 3 i no target
N/A [
i
leficial uses of water.
<
i
i
States '
i
i
i

, NEPs which indicated initial
i interest withdrew their request
Sites i because they obtained relevant
, monitoring data from other
, sources.
Cumulativ,
e Number ,
of Acres ,
CM • Congro j«lonil Moiluro / CPM > Com Porformince Mouurg
                                                                                                                 Page 8 - 33
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               02i«8 00m«lra 123

-------
 Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:19AM
                                                                                       FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        As of:  February 5. 2001
                                                                                                                                                                                   Blue = Exceeded:  Yellow-Mel:   Red - Not Achieved
                                                                                                                                                                                               12
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Tribes
   8-2
   8-3
 Aim  i Tr'bal environmental media/multi-media programs delegated/
        Approved
                                                                                              N/A
    6
Programs
                                                                                                                                                        N/A
                                                                                                                                                                            22
                                                                                                                                                                                     22
                                                                                                                                                                                               21
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Programs
           AlEO  | Tribal environmental baseline information collected. (CM)
                                                                                              N/A
                                                                                                        16%
                                                                                                                                    30%
                                                                                                                                                        N/A
                                                                                                                                                                           16%
                                                                                                                                                                                     16%
                                                                                                                                                                                              16%
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Baseline
                                                                                                                                                                                                         During FY 2000 the Agency
                                                                                                                                                                                                        clarified its definition of TEAs
                                                                                                                                                                                                         which provided consistency
                                                                                                                                                                                                        across the program. While the
                                                                                                                                                                                                        target for TEAs was not met  in
                                                                                                                                                                                                       FY 2000, the work done to clarify
                                                                                                                                                                                                        the elements of a TEA and to
                                                                                                                                                                                                        assure consistency across the
                                                                                                                                                                                                          nation and will lead more
                                                                                                                                                                                                       accurate  and consistent reporting
   8-4
 Aim  i Tribes with Tribal/EPA environmental agreements or
        (identified environmental priorities.  (CM)
                                                                                              N/A
   mx2
   glc
 OWM / 'Additional wiiter/wastewater projects along the Mexican
  HQ   ' border certifiad for design/construction.  (CM)
                                                                                                                                                                            10
          GLNPO
                                                                                                                                                                                     10
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Projects
                                                                                           Baseline environmental
                                                                                        information was collected on an
                                                                                        additional 4 tribes (cumulative
                                                                                                 total of 49).
                                                                                       The relationship between Mexico
                                                                                          and US environmental and
                                                                                        financial agencies is maturing
                                                                                          and have produced greater
                                                                                       progress than expected. Actual
                                                                                            cumulative total is 36.
        Model predictions for Lake Michigan for toxins reduction
        scenarios. (CM)
                                                                                                                                                                                              ' 5
                                                                             Prediction
                                                                                 s
          r*i NPO i
             /    .Acreage of total aquatic, wetland, riverine, and terrestrial
          GLNPO i Great Lakes habitat positively impacted.
                                                                                                       6,000
                                                                                                                                                                           6,000
                                                                                                                                                                                    6,000
                                                                                                                                                                                              Acres
                  Begjn pj|ot p| Oject to imp|ement \ ballast water management
          GLNPO ' recommendi(t'on addressing Great Lakes invasive species.
                                                                                                                                                                                               Pilot
GLNPO i Great Lakes Ecosystem Indicator Indices with reports,
   /    i addressing select fish contamriants, atmospheric deposition,
GLNPO i limnology, biology, and sediments.
                                                                                                                  10
                                                                                                                                                                                     10
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Indices

   gl9
GLNPO,

GLNPO!
       i Great Lakes sediment cleanup demonstrations completed
GLNPO Catalogue ai id publicize actions (partnerships or virtual
   /   ' elimination demonstration projects) toward reduction
GLNPO 'challenges uider the BNS.
                                                                             Oemonstr
                                                                               ation
States and private partners are
taking more time to allow for a
 more extensive cooperation
          cleanup.
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Actions
CML° Congressional Measure /

-------
 Printed: 07/06/2001 11:16:19AM
                                                                                     FY 2000 National Water Program - Final End-of-Year Performance Report
                                                                                            As of:  February 5. 2001
                                                                                                                                                                              Blue = Exceeded:  Yellow = Mel:  Red = Not Achieved
         1 GLNPO' Follow-up assessments and characterizations to support
         1    /    ' State/community clean-up contaminated sediments at Great
         i GLNPO i Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs).
                                                                          Assessm
                                                                            ents
(Internal error in setting target -
   originally planned as 4)
         1 GLNPO > New assessments and characterizations to support State/
         <    /    i community clean-up of contaminated sediments at Great
         i GLNPO i Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs)
                                                                          Assessm
                                                                            ents
         i GLNPO i Nu,,,ber of Levej | substances for which 1 -2 toxic reduction
         ' GLNPO' acliv'lies are beN) implemented.
                                                                           Projects
         i        i
         i r i MDI-, i % completion and documentation of the first 3 steps of the
         i    ,    i BNS analytical process for each of the Level 1 chemicals.
         i CLNPO i Process includes information gathering, analysis of regulatory
         , w-l*r<">! gaps, recommendations, and options for reductions.
          OGWD i Community water systems that will comply with the regulation
          W/RT i to publish consumer confidence reports.  (CM)
6,600  '  3,940   '  2,983
          OGWD ' Population served by CWSs that will comply with the
          W / RT ' regulation to publish consumer confidence reports.  (CM)
CM • Congressional M»sur> / CPM • Core Pertormlnce Measure
                                                                                                               Page 8 - 35
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          02iec»00m»tr« 123

-------
Key Contacts
    Section 9

-------
Management and Accountability Workgroup (MAWG)
                Regional Contacts
Region I:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 7:
Region 8:
Region 9:
Region 10:
Paul Wintrob
Paul Molinari
Virginia Thompson
Wayne Aronson
Jennifer Conner
Dina Grinado
Reggie Kidwell
Cynthia Gonzales
Andrea Stone
Mike Schulz
Bevin Reid
(617)918-1514
(212) 637-3886
(215)814-5755
(404) 562-9444
(312) 886-0201
(214) 665-6522
(913) 551-7332
(303) 312-6569
(303) 312-6254
(415) 744-1817
(206) 553-1566
            Great Water Body Contacts
CBPO:
GLNPO:
GMPO:
Nita Sylvester
Mike Russ
Gloria Car
(410) 267-5711
(312) 886-4013
(228) 688-2421
                      Page9-3

-------
                                 HQ Contacts
10.
OGWDW:
OST:
OWM:
OWOW:
Tribal:
Marjorie Jones
Mike Weckesser
Clare Donaher
Will Bowman
Ted Johnson
Tim Gonzales
James Home
Elaine Brenner
Ben Lesser
Bob Brown
Dianne Briggs
Judy Hecht
(202) 260-4152
(202) 260-7949
(202) 260-5542
(202) 260-2798
(202) 260-8142
(202) 260-4586
(202) 564-0571
(202) 546-0649
(202) 564-0528
(202)260-9173
(202) 260-8852
(202) 260-5682
Note: Where two names are listed, lead contact is the first listed. All phone numbers are listed
in the Agency's LAN or Email directories.
                                      Page 9-4

-------